Return to Transcripts main page
The Lead with Jake Tapper
Gabbard Says, Iranian Regime Appears to be Intact; Senate Judiciary Committee Set to Vote on Sen. Markwayne Mullin (R-OK) Nomination Tomorrow; Democrats Speak After DOJ Meeting on Epstein Probe. Pritzker Pick Wins Illinois Democratic Senate Primary; LA Times: Dems Face Possible Upset In California Governor's Race. Aired 6-7p ET
Aired March 18, 2026 - 18:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
JAKE TAPPER, CNN ANCHOR: Welcome to The Lead. I'm Jake Tapper.
This hour, was there or was there not an imminent threat from Iran when the U.S. carried out military strikes? The director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, dodged on this question today, claiming it's the president's job, not hers, to make that call.
[18:00:03]
But shouldn't the nation's top intelligence chief be able to answer that?
Plus, right now, top officials at the Justice Department are briefing Congress about their investigation into dead pedophile Jeffrey Epstein and his sex trafficking network. But how much are they revealing to lawmakers? A Democrat inside that hearing will step out to our cameras to give us an update ahead.
Also, veterans advocates are sounding the alarm about a new federal agreement and what it could mean for veterans' abilities to make their own healthcare decisions. But the Trump administration says, this actually is a way to ensure more veterans receive timely care. So, what does this new agreement truly mean for those who have served our country?
And now that the votes are counted, what did the results from Tuesday's primaries tell us about the upcoming midterms and did a big victory in Illinois boost a potential 2028 White House contender? Our panel is here to weigh in.
The Lead tonight, the director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, says the Iranian regime, quote, appears to be intact, but largely degraded.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TULSI GABBARD, DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE: The I.C. assesses that if a hostile regime survives, it will likely seek to begin a year's long effort to rebuild its military missiles and UAV forces.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
TAPPER: Earlier today, Gabbard, along with other top Trump officials, testified publicly on Capitol Hill for the first time since the Iran war began on February 28th, and the hearing largely contradicted or at least failed to back up some of the claims we heard justifying the war, including the president's claim that Iran posed an imminent threat, one of if not the biggest reason that warranted the U.S. going to war,
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. JON OSSOFF (D-GA): Was it the assessment of the intelligence community that as the White House claimed on March 1st, there was a, quote, imminent nuclear threat posed by the Iranian regime, yes or no?
GABBARD: Once again, Senator, the intelligence community has provided the inputs that make up this annual threat assessment.
OSSOFF: You won't answer the question?
GABBARD: The nature of the imminent threat that the president has to make that determination based on a collection and volume timely --
OSSOFF: You're here to --
GABBARD: -- and information intelligence that he is provided with.
OSSOFF: You're here to be timely, objective, and independent of political considerations.
GABBARD: Exactly what I'm doing.
OSSOFF: No, you're evading a question because to provide a candid response to the committee would contradict a statement from the White House.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
TAPPER: Surely, the intelligence community is responsible for determining all the worldwide threats posed against the United States, right?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GABBARD: The only person who can determine and what is and is not an imminent threat is the president. It is not the intelligence community's responsibility to determine what is and is not an imminent threat.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
TAPPER: I mean, imminent is a word that actually has a meaning, right? It means it's about to happen. But now only the president can declare an imminent threat?
You see, it's weird because back in 2020, when the first Trump administration carried out a strike on Iran, and then Secretary of State Mike Pompeo declined to present evidence that it constituted an imminent threat, Gabbard, who was in Congress at the time said, quote, Pompeo, the attack was imminent, but we didn't know when and we didn't know where. Well, if you don't know when and if you don't know where, that is not imminent. Hashtag, stand with Tulsi, hashtag, no war with Iran.
In today's hearing, Gabbard also dodged questions on whether she briefed Trump that Iran would respond to being attacked by going after U.S. Gulf allies in the Strait of Hormuz, moves President Trump said earlier this week, quote, nobody expected that, we were shocked.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GABBARD: I'm not aware of those remarks, and I think those of us here at the table can point to the fact that, historically, the Iranians have always threatened to leverage their control over the Strait of Hormuz.
SEN. MARK WARNER (D-VA): Why would the president say he was amazed or --
GABBARD: I'm not aware of those remarks.
WARNER: What about the comments the president made that thought that he was surprised, again, reports that Iran struck the adjacent Gulf states?
GABBARD: Again, I'm not aware of those remarks.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
TAPPER: Okay. CNN's Nic Robertson's on the ground in Saudi Arabia with the latest of what's happening in the region. But, first, let's start with CNN's Kylie Atwood, and more on today's Senate hearing.
Kylie, tell us more about Gabbard.
KYLIE ATWOOD, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: There was a really interesting moment, which actually included Senator Warner and Tulsi Gabbard as well, where he pointed out that in her prepared testimony that she had provided to the committee, she planned to say something that she didn't actually include when she delivered the remarks before the committee.
And I want to read to you that element that she had planned to say that she omitted from what she actually delivered.
[18:05:00]
And it said, quote, as a result of Operation Midnight Hammer, Iran's nuclear enrichment program was obliterated. There has been no effort since then to try and rebuild their enrichment capability. The entrances to the underground facilities that were bombed have been buried and shuttered with cement. We continue to monitor for any early indicators on what position the current or any new leadership in Iran will make with regard to authorizing a nuclear weapons program. Now, Senator Warner asked why she had left this out. She said that her testimony was running long.
But this remark that she did not include in what she delivered does undercut what we had heard from Trump administration officials about there being that imminent threat posed by Iran, but also specific things that they had said. So, Steve Witkoff, President Trump's special envoy, had, at one point before the strikes, said that Iran was a week away from having enough nuclear weapons bomb grade material. Well, how could they have been a week away if it is Tulsi Gabbard's remarks that the intelligence community had assessed that they hadn't actually sought out further enrichment of their nuclear thistle material. They would've needed that further enrichment in order to get to bomb level material.
We also heard from President Trump just the same day that the U.S. carried out these strikes, saying that Iran had rejected the opportunity to engage, to get rid of its nuclear program, and instead that they had attempted to rebuild their nuclear program. But the director of National Intelligence here was telling lawmakers that there was no indication that they had made efforts to actually rebuild their enrichment program, which is a critical piece of that nuclear program. Jake?
TAPPER: Yes. That's a lot of contradictions there. Nic, meanwhile, the war in Iran continues to escalate throughout the Middle East, including where you are in Saudi Arabia.
NIC ROBERTSON, CNN INTERNATIONAL DIPLOMATIC EDITOR: Yes. Right now, Jake, you have in this building the foreign ministers of the GCC countries, plus some others, Turkey, Jordan, the Azerbaijan foreign minister, Egyptian foreign Minister, all here. First time these foreign ministers have been able to meet face-to-face since the war began, and they've come together to figure out how they can have a unified joined up approach to dealing with Iran's war, which is absolutely wrapping them up with its missiles and ballistic missiles and drones.
At the same time, those foreign ministers were gathering here in Riyadh. Again, I cannot stress enough, it's the first time these leaders have gotten together face-to-face, have had video calls, but at the same time, they were coming into Riyadh and coming into this building, ballistic missiles were being intercepted over the skies of Riyadh.
Now, I think our viewers have become really used to seeing missiles intercepted in Dubai and Qatar and Bahrain and Kuwait, but this hasn't happened in Riyadh before. There were two rounds of four ballistic missiles. Four civilians have been injured. Some parts of the ballistic missiles were impacting an oil facility in the south of Riyadh. It appears to be a significant uptick in Iran's targeting of the capital, just as these foreign ministers are gathering to decide how their countries should respond to Iran. Iran seems to be turning up the heat on them.
It's not clear the conclusions that these foreign ministers will come to tonight. We're waiting and they're sort of into their third hour of meeting. It's after one 1:00 in the morning. We're waiting for a press conference. We're expecting from the Saudi foreign minister, which will be, let us say, the most significant diplomatic output from this group that we've seen so far, collectively. Jake?
TAPPER: All right. Nick Robertson in Saudi Arabia, Kylie Atwood, thank you so much.
Let's discuss further with CNN Global Affairs Analyst Brett McGurk, who served in any number of administrations of both parties in this space.
What do you make of Tulsi Gabbard's testimony today, her refusal to say that the threat was imminent, even though she is felt free to define the word imminence in the not so recent past, not reading the part that -- about how imminent the threat was, whether or not they could reconstitute nuclear weapons, et cetera?
BRETT MCGURK, CNN GLOBAL AFFAIRS ANALYST: I come at this a couple ways. I think, first, it's very -- it is troubling if an intel official is not simply stating exactly what she knows as the facts from the intel community. You should not --
TAPPER: Doesn't the Intel community, can't they say if something is imminent or none?
MCGURK: Well, that's actually a very interesting question coming at this as a former consumer of intelligence. If you're a senior White House official or senior official, you never get an assessment, there will be an attack tomorrow at 3:00, or there's a ticking bomb and you have three hours. You'll get more probabilistic assessments.
So, Osama bin Laden declared war in the U.S. in 1998. Was that an imminent threat? Iran's missiles, they continue to increase in capability.
[18:10:01]
The probabilistic say you wait two years, Mr. President, you might not actually not be able to degrade them because they'll have so many missiles, they can overwhelm any air defense system. You get those kind of assessments.
So, there's something too at the end of the day, it is for policymakers to determine what crosses the line for something in which we have to act upon, and you can act in many ways, sanctions, military action, whatever.
Now, if it's not a ticking bomb scenario or tomorrow, or do you have a probabilistic -- if you don't act now, a year from now, 18 months from now, Mr. President, you might actually have a serious situation, you then have a long runway. And that gets into where the work that was not done heading into this. You can build a coalition. You can do the preconditioning for what you might be deciding to do.
So, that's a long answer, Jake, but you know, it's -- intel assessments are very complicated.
TAPPER: That's why we have you.
MCGURK: And even on, is the regime still intact, I think what you usually got from an intel briefer. We have low confidence, or we have moderate confidence, or we have high confidence, and you have different assessments. And then policymakers have to kind of weigh the intelligence to other things. It's an art, it's not a science.
TAPPER: So, she said, as you noted that the regime, Iranian regime, appears to be intact, but largely degraded. As of right now, the U.S. is still saying no boots on the ground, although it's unclear what might happen on that one island where there's a lot of fuel. But can the regime be toppled and replaced with a more pro-democratic, pro- human rights organization without boots on the ground? And please understand, I am not calling for boots on the ground when I ask that, but is it possible for that even to happen?
MCGURK: Well, you could have a sudden unraveling of the system, but then I think you just have a vacuum. I have always been extremely skeptical based on my 20 years of experience, spending a year in Iraq early on of any regime change-type objective, using the military instrument of power for that objective. I think the unintended consequences are always apparent and the ability to do that from the air is almost impossible. And even to do it from the ground, we've seen what that looks like.
So, that's one thing that's troubling here. I think the Israelis are pursuing a regime change-type operation, whereas we, if you listen to Admiral Cooper, the commander of CENTCOM, or you listen to General Caine, our military objectives are focused on the military industrial base of Iran, the missiles, the drones, the nuclear, the command and control, the navy. And we're kind of going after that now systematically, and we've now added in the Strait of Hormuz.
So, just to answer your question, I do not think using a military power to try to achieve that type of political outcome, that really opens up a Pandora's Box, in my experience.
TAPPER: Let's talk about Iran more holistically and taking a step back. In September 2015, President Obama got this Iran deal and Senate Democrats blocked a Republican resolution that expressed formal disapproval of the Iran deal. So, it was never brought to a vote. Now, Secretary of State, then-Senator Marco Rubio went to the Senate floor. He criticized the deal and he made a number of predictions, this is 11 years ago though, about what Iran would do next. Let me play some of that.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MARCO RUBIO, SECRETARY OF STATE: They're going to build anti-access capabilities, rockets capable of destroying our aircraft carriers and ships, continue to build these swift boats that are able to come on us, these fast boats that are able to swarm our naval assets. And they'll make it harder and harder for U.S. troops to be in the region. They'll also work with other terrorist groups in the region to target American servicemen and women.
They'll also continue to build long-range missiles, missiles capable of reaching the United States.
And then at some point in the near future, when the time is right, they will build a nuclear weapon and they will do so, because at that point they will know that they have become immune, that we will no longer be able to strike their nuclear program because the price of doing so will be too high.
So, I want to be recorded for history's purposes, if nothing else, to say that those of us who oppose this deal understood where it would lead, and we are making a terrible mistake.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
TAPPER: So, obviously, they never actually got to build the nuclear weapon, although they certainly were trying. But how much of what Senator Rubio predicted would happen did happen?
MCGURK: I mean, I have to say the JCPOA did get at the nuclear problem --
TAPPER: That's the Iran nuclear deal.
MCGURK: -- which was the priority, the nuclear deal. The missiles -- I mean, in 2015, when he's speaking, the missile program was a conventional missile. They were like SCUDs. You could launch them. You don't really know where they're going to land. The missile program in the ten years hence became what you call an anti-access aerial denial system. They've got way more accurate from hundreds of meters to a kilometer to within tens of meters. Their payloads doubled. They were able to go greater distances, and their arsenal expanded with Russian and Chinese support, and then they started this drone program.
And you could look at that a few years ago and say, well, you know, a lot of countries have missile programs, we can contain it, but I lived through the Houthis and Yemen firing these Iranian missiles, anti-ship missiles at U.S. Navy ships going mach 4.
TAPPER: Yes.
MCGURK: Incredible technology.
And so the Iranian missile program advanced to such a degree, it's a major, major problem, Jake.
[18:15:03]
It's under U.N. Chapter 7 sanctions. We tried sanctions. We tried interdictions. We tried almost every tool and it really couldn't get at it, and it became a strategic kind of needle mover because they proliferated the technology to Russia, which Russia's using in Ukraine, and we saw the attacks against us with the missiles and, of course, the attacks against Israel in 2024. TAPPER: Right. They also work with other terrorist groups in the region to target American service men and women, that happened. Build long range missiles, missiles capable of reaching the United States, that happened. The swift boats you're talking about --
MCGURK: I think right now, Jake, in this debate, I mean, everybody can kind of say they're right. Those who said any military operation in Iraq is going to open all sorts of unintended consequences and you might get yourself into something you don't fully anticipate. I think there's a strong case for that.
Those who say Iran was a very serious threat, in particular the missile program, which was getting to a point, had it just gone on for another year or two, on the trajectory they make about 50 to 100 a month or so by open accounts, it would be able to overwhelm any air defense system. And then they would have that umbrella beneath, which they can do terrorism and reconstitute nuclear program.
Well, I say that's imminent, I might not say it's imminent, but it is a serious threat. And if you wait too long to take it on, you don't have that option to take it on.
TAPPER: Right.
MCGURK: Because it becomes (INAUDIBLE).
So, what he said there is very accurate. At the same time, the nuclear deal did get at the nuclear issue, which was the main priority. Because in Iran with a nuclear weapon, I think we can all agree, is the one thing we must avoid.
TAPPER: Yes. Brett McGurk, thank you so much, complicated stuff.
Director Gabbard was not the only one facing tough questions on Capitol Hill today. Senator Markwayne Mullin, Republican of Oklahoma, Trump's pick to take over the Department of Homeland Security, he got into a heated exchange with a different Republican lawmaker. Could his nomination be in jeopardy?
Stick with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[18:20:00]
TAPPER: Our Politics Lead now, the Senate Homeland Security Committee is set to vote tomorrow morning on whether Senator Markwayne Mullin, Republican of Oklahoma, should become Secretary Mullin leading the Department of Homeland Security.
The chairman of the committee, Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky, he made it clear he is not going to vote for Mullin. The two sparred over what Mullin said after Paul had been violently attacked by a neighbor in 2017.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SEN. RAND PAUL (R-KY): Tell the world why you believe I deserve to be assaulted from behind, have six ribs broken and a damaged lung? Tell me to my face why you think I deserved it. And while you're at it, explain to the American public why they should trust a man with anger issues to set the proper example for Ice and Border Patrol agents.
SEN. MARKWAYNE MULLIN (R-OK): Mr. Chairman, first of all, I didn't know that exceeded your damage.
PAUL: I haven't heard, I misspoke and it was heated and I made a mistake.
MULLIN: Actually, it wasn't heated, and I'm not apologizing for pointing out your character.
PAUL: Good, good.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
TAPPER: CNN's Priscilla Alvarez closely followed today's hearing. Priscilla?
PRISCILLA ALVAREZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, the -- coming into this hearing, what the senator was had to do was distinguish himself, differentiate himself from Secretary Noem, because the reason that we are here today is because the president ultimately fired the secretary from her position because of the controversy in the scrutiny.
And so we were seeing in real time how the senator was trying to distinguish himself on a variety of issues. One of those, for example, was on Alex Pretti after he -- the U.S. citizen -- one of the U.S. citizens killed the Minneapolis by a federal agent, Mullin called him a, quote, deranged individual. And Senator Peters asked him whether he would retract that statement, and this is what he had to say.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MULLIN: Those words probably should have been retracted. I shouldn't have said that, and as secretary, I wouldn't. The investigation is ongoing. And there is -- like I said, there's sometimes I'm going to make mistake and I'll own it. That one, I went out there too fast. I was responding immediately without the facts. That's my fault. That won't happen as secretary.
SEN. GARY PETERS (D-MI): So, you regret that statement?
MULLIN: I already said that. Yes, sir.
PETERS: Would you want to apologize to the family of Alex Pretti?
MULLIN: Well, sir, I just said I regret those statements.
PETERS: Is that the same as an apology?
MULLIN: I haven't seen the investigation. We'll let the investigation go through. And if I'm proven wrong, then I will, absolutely. (END VIDEO CLIP)
ALVAREZ: So, that stood in stark contrast from even just a few weeks ago when Secretary Noem was before senators and was similarly asked whether she would put retract her statement, calling Pretti a domestic terrorist.
Now, there were other issues that came up, of course, administrative warrants being one of them, whether they allowed people to go on private property. He said no, that he would reserve that to judicial warrants. He was asked about contracts. The secretary, Secretary Noem, has a policy in place where she has to approve anything over $100,000, he said that would no longer be the case if he were to be confirmed.
He was also asked about quotas, immigration quotas of 3,000 daily immigration arrests that were imposed by the White House, and he said on that front that he was going to follow the president's policy.
So, I think the substance here is that the aggressive immigration crackdown stands. Of course, Mullin is a staunch Trump supporter, however, his approach to how he does is what he was trying to convey to senators is going to look different and the communication with lawmakers will look different.
And we got a preview of that even with White House Border Czar Tom Homan later in the afternoon after this hearing where he said on Fox that he talks regularly with Mullin, including several times a day. Why does that matter? Because Homan does not talk to Noem and hasn't talked to Noem in months.
So, so we still have a process that needs to play out here to have him confirmed. Secretary Noem is out the door on March 31st, where she will take on another task for the White House. That has to do with the Western Hemisphere. But, ultimately, Jake, we're talking here about a department of 260,000 employees. Much of it focused on immigration under this Trump administration, but certainly a lot that would fall on his lap if he were to be confirmed.
TAPPER: Priscilla Alvarez, thank you so much.
In our National Lead, the six U.S. service members killed in that refueling aircraft crash in Iraq last week have been brought home. Technical Sergeant Ashley Pruitt, 34, Captain Ariana Savino, 31, Major John Klinner, 33, Technical Sergeant Tyler Simmons, 28, Captain Curtis Angst, 30, and Captain Seth Koval, 38. They were watched over by loved ones and Trump administration officials upon their return to Dover Air Force Base this afternoon in Delaware.
[18:25:03]
The ceremony was not recorded at the request of the families.
The Pentagon has not yet provided an explanation for the crash, but has stated that it was not due to hostile fire or friendly fire. To the friends and families of these fallen heroes, we are sending you our love and our prayers. May their memories be a blessing. I do want to note that earlier in this broadcast, when speaking about the legacies of other service members killed, we made a mistake. We misidentified Major Jeffrey O'Brien, who you see here in the middle of your screen. Major O'Brien was one of the service members with ties to Iowa who have died in service to their country. We regret the error and we honor his service.
Coming up next, the urgent search for an American college student who disappeared during a spring break trip, what family members are saying about his last known locations.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
TAPPER: In our National Lead, veterans advocates are raising concerns that a new federal agreement could take away veterans' autonomy over their own healthcare decisions and could even stop them from getting care.
[18:30:08]
This could particularly affect veterans facing homelessness.
CNN's Brian Todd is here with more. Brian, tell us about this agreement and what it would mean.
BRIAN TODD, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Jake, this is a very controversial move by the V.A. and the Justice Department together because it would affect some of the nation's most vulnerable veterans. The two departments recently announced an agreement between them that would authorize V.A. lawyers to initiate and take part in guardianship proceedings in state courts for veterans who cannot make their own healthcare decisions and who don't have family or legal representation. That includes hundreds of veterans who are homeless or at risk of homelessness. The V.A. has made it clear that the V.A. itself would not assume that guardianship of those veterans, but advocates are concerned anytime that people will essentially be giving up a lot of their rights, which we know is what guardianship does.
Now, in the cases where the state court approves guardianship, the V.A. says a third party guardian who is not a V.A. employee would assume the guardianship. The V.A. says this is aimed at about 700 veterans across the U.S. who are currently sitting in V.A. facilities and are unable to make their own healthcare decisions and don't have representation. The V.A. says about half of those are actually homeless veterans.
Now, trying to help those in this situation does make a lot of sense, but homeless advocates worried that this move will take away these veterans' autonomy over their own healthcare, and they have other concerns.
We spoke to Jennifer Mathis. She's the deputy director at the Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law. She told us her concern is that it, quote, may be a way to discharge veterans experiencing homelessness who are sitting in hospitals to settings that they may not choose. She also said, quote, if people are sitting in a V.A. hospital and not being discharged, it's very likely because there aren't enough services or housing, not because they don't have guardianship.
The V.A. insists again that this is not aimed at homeless veterans specifically. Here is what Dr. Thomas O'Toole, a senior V.A. official, told the House Veterans Affairs Committee earlier today.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DR. THOMAS O'TOOLE, V.A. ACTING ASSISTANT UNDERSECRETARY FOR HEALTH FOR CLINICAL SERVICES: These are patients, sir, who are profoundly demented with advanced Alzheimer's who do not have a next of kin. And because they do not have a next of kin for decision-making are forced to stay in an acute care bed for their safety.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
TODD: Also V.A. Press Secretary Peter Casper said of those who would be affected, quote, these veterans remain in V.A. hospitals, which may not be the most appropriate setting for them with no way of transitioning to more appropriate care. Some are homeless or at risk of homelessness, but the key characteristic is not homelessness. It is the lack of capacity to make their own medical decisions.
So, Jake, we're going to have to see how this plays out. When people think of guardianship, they often think of Britney Spears and everything that happened with her. This is different from that, but it still raises a lot of similar concerns.
TAPPER: A tough issue. All right, Brian Todd, thanks so much.
In our World Lead, an urgent search for a missing American 20-year- old, James or Jimmy Gracey, he's a junior at the University of Alabama. He was on a spring break trip visiting friends in Spain. His family said he went to Barcelona and to a nightclub there Monday night into Tuesday morning, but he never returned to his rental home. Gracey's mother says, police have his phone, it was stolen and somehow recovered.
CNN reached out to the U.S. State Department to learn how they're working with authorities on the search, and we'll bring more on that to you soon.
We're less than six months away from the midterm elections. What should Democrats take away from last night's primary results if they want to flip the House or the Senate or win the White House in 2028? Our panel is here, next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[18:35:00]
TAPPER: Some fired up members of the Democratic on the House Oversight Committee are speaking now after listening to Attorney General Bondi talking about the Epstein files. Let's listen in.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) REP. SUMMER LEE (D-PA): -- to our lawful subpoena in a deposition. So, instead I asked Chairman Comer if he would compel her to come to our deposition. If she did not come, would he force her to, or if he would move for contempt hearings as he did for other people who did not respond to our subpoena. Instead of answering as an adult, he said that I was bitching, which is, again, something that would not be allowed if we were operating under the rules of this committee because engaging in personalities is actually something that we are not able to do. If C-Span and the public were there, I'd imagine that he would not act that way, neither here nor there.
We expected A.G. Bondi to be adversarial. We expected her to be confrontational. And we expected her to not offer us much information. But that's why I introduced impeachment articles because she has already been obstructing justice. She has already weaponized the DOJ. She has already ended investigations into Trump and his allies. She has used this role essentially as, one, to help the president. She does not answer to the president. The DOJ does not have the right or the privilege of withholding information from an active investigation, ignoring the laws of our land, which the Epstein Transparency Act is with our subpoena from last July is, and the Oversight Dems will continue to press for accountability. We'll continue to press for justice for survivors while also keeping them centered in this.
So, at the end of the day, we are still here seeking answers for women, for girls, and for the American public who has demanded justice, who have demanded answers to this. And whether or not they will pretend that the documents that they've given us is enough, we already know that they have not complied. And we are asking other people to make sure that we do not let them off the hook right now.
So, we look forward to her on-the-record deposition with our committee in response to our lawful subpoena.
REP. ROBERT GARCIA (D-CA): I'll say a few more things and I'm going to open up for questions and if anyone wants to make answer the questions. So, just as a review, because I think it's very important, this fake hearing, we found out about it yesterday with no time to prepare, with no format given to us. We had no idea what even format was going to be until just an hour an hour or two before the actual -- this kind of fake hearing that was set up. And it was clear from the minute it started that the attorney general is trying to evade and not attend the mandated subpoena that is put in place.
We asked her that question. Multiple members asked her the question, she would not respond.
[18:40:00]
She said she'll continue to follow the law. That is not a response. She has a subpoena in place by Chairman Comer. If there's any questions, I'll take those now,
REPORTER: (INAUDIBLE).
GARCIA: I'm going to let Congressman (INAUDIBLE). REP. STEPHEN LYNCH (D-MA): And I support everything that's been said by my colleagues. Remember, our desire to get the attorney general and Todd Blanche under oath is because we've been faced with lies from the very beginning. Go back to February 21st, 2025. Pam Bondi told us and told the public that the files, the Epstein file client list was on her desk, but then we found out that was a lie. Then she told us that on July 25th, 2025, she said there's no need for any more disclosure on any of these Epstein files. Then we found out later there's 6 million documents. They give us 3 million of those. And now we find that that we can't get access to a lot of that information because it's so heavily redacted.
And then finally with much pressure from the court --
TAPPER: We're going to take a quick break from covering the press conference to bring in Democratic Congresswoman Melanie Stansbury of New Mexico, who serves on the House Oversight Committee. So, Congresswoman, your fellow Democrats seem pretty fired up. What happened behind closed doors?
REP. MELANIE STANSBURY (D-NM): Yes. Well, I just walked out of the briefing room and what is absolutely clear is that Pam Bondi has no intention of complying with the law and the subpoena that we have issued for her to be deposed under oath in front of the committee. In fact, what appears to have happened is that she and Todd Blanche volunteered to come brief the committee, and so we walked in today ready to hear information that they would provide to us about what's going on with the Epstein Files Transparency Act. And basically they said, we've released what we're going to release and now you can ask me questions.
And there was no oath, there were no cameras. The American public, were locked out of the room and it was clear that they were not prepared to answer questions about compliance with the law. And so, ultimately, after Chairman Comer, insulted Summer Lee, who is the lead in many ways on the subpoena, both of Pam Bondi and the subpoena, the Epstein files, and basically was extraordinarily disrespectful towards her, the Democrats walked out of the room because we're not going to play their games.
TAPPER: So, just to be clear the transparency act about the Epstein files that required all of the files to be released by I think it was in December, and there's something like 6 million of them, about 3 million have been released, 3 million have not. Of the 3 million that were released, the only thing that was supposed to be redacted was the names and identifying information of survivors. But it is clear that a lot of stuff that was redacted that wasn't pertaining to the survivors was pertaining to the potential perpetrators and survivor information was actually accidentally included.
So, they are not in compliance with the law according to as I understand the law, is that right?
STANSBURY: Absolutely. And not only are they not in compliance with the Epstein Files Transparency Act, they are not in compliance with a subpoena of the Epstein files. In fact, it's important to remember that going all the way back to August 5th, we subpoenaed the full unredacted Epstein files and the administration has not even attempted to comply with that subpoena.
And part of why we launched a bipartisan effort to change the law, to force them through the Epstein File Transparency Act to comply with our subpoena is because they were not complying to begin with. Then they missed the deadline, they're over redacted. And Todd Blanche himself said today that basically they've released everything they're going to release. Well, that is not compliance with the law.
In addition to that, I think what we were all shocked by today is that Pam Bondi was asked multiple times by my colleagues if she would comply with the subpoena for her own deposition under oath, and she refused to answer yes. So, I think we can say very squarely that the cover-up continues.
TAPPER: So, Congresswoman, I believe we're here today because I think it was four or five Republicans on the Oversight Committee joined with all the Democrats to force Pam Bondi to come before the committee. Are there -- do the Republicans on the committee who joined you for that, are they with you in terms of the outrage you're obviously feeling about the fact that Bondi is not sitting for a deposition and also the fact that the administration is not complying with Epstein Transparency Act?
STANSBURY: Well, I'll note that the subpoena for Pam Bondi to appear under oath was actually issued by Nancy Mace, who is a Republican from South Carolina.
[18:45:02]
I did not see her in the room this afternoon. I don't know why, but I think it was clear that our colleagues across the aisle were running interference for Pam Bondi and Todd Blanche, asking them leading questions.
And like I said, it was set up like a sham hearing, not a briefing. They did not come in with any new information. They did not provide any sworn statements and it appeared that our colleagues were basically trying to say hey, look, they showed up.
And we are not going to accept that as compliance with the law, because the law is clear. We have subpoenaed them. We have subpoenaed the files, and we have passed a bipartisan Transparency Act, which the president signed himself, and they have not complied with the law.
JAKE TAPPER, CNN HOST: How do you reconcile that? Before you go, how do you reconcile the fact that Republicans overwhelmingly voted for the Transparency Act? The senate voted for it, I think, on a voice vote meaning everybody voted for it. Everybody agreed. And the president signed it into law.
They all made this public display of supporting this transparency. And -- but they're not doing it. How do you -- how do you reconcile that?
STANSBURY: Right. Well, I mean, my question is how do they reconcile their own beliefs, their own values, their own morals, and their own politics with what the American people are demanding, including their oaths of office, which is that they follow the law themselves.
So, I think it's very clear the American people overwhelmingly are demanding justice for the survivors. They want accountability. They want perpetrators to be held accountable and they can't run from that. And neither can the president. In fact, the questions are not going to end, whether its questions about his own accusers, which have been covered up in the files or its the handling of this case.
The American people are not going to let this go. And I think that my colleagues understand that, and that's why they have joined us on occasion to hold them accountable but it is very clear that the Trump administration is doing everything that they can to run from this. And we are going to hold them accountable.
TAPPER: Representative Melanie Stansbury, Democrat of New Mexico, thank you so much. Appreciate it.
Are Illinois Democrats trying to send the party a message ahead of the midterm elections? Our panels here next to talk about the election results.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GOV. J.B. PRITZKER (D), ILLINOIS: Always, always, always show up for the people you love. Are you ready to send a fighter to Washington for Illinois?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[18:50:07]
TAPPER: Illinois Democratic Governor J.B. Pritzker celebrating and flexing some political muscle last night. His handpicked Senate candidate, the woman he handpicked to be his lieutenant governor, Juliana Stratton, beat out fairly respected and respectable Congress members, Raja Krishnamoorthi and Robin Kelly, in the Democratic primary to succeed current Senator Dick Durbin, who is retiring.
It's pretty much a blue state, so she's probably going to be the next senator. Senator Juliana Stratton, although we don't know, but probably. My panel here with me.
So, Stratton won by 40.1 percent. Krishnamoorthi got 33.2 percent. Kelly got 18.1 percent of the vote. That's -- I mean, in a -- in a three way primary. That's a -- that's a trouncing to, you know, win by that much, seven points over your next competitor.
President Trump likes to take credit for -- when his candidates win. Does Governor Pritzker get to do the same here?
BRYAN LANZA, FORMER SENIOR ADVISER, TRUMP 2024 CAMPAIGN: Oh, 100 percent. He put his political reputation, his machine at stake. And in Illinois, in Chicago they have machines. And we saw that as a huge win for the -- for the governor's organization. I don't know if it's enough to capitulate him or to elevate him to the Democratic primary, but he showed that the Illinois is a Pritzker state.
TAPPER: Yeah although there is some resentment, New York Congresswoman Yvette Clarke, who's the chair of the Congressional Black Caucus, which backed Congresswoman Kelly over Lieutenant Governor Stratton, she said this about Pritzker's involvement, quote, a sitting governor shouldn't be heavy handing the race, quite frankly, his behavior in the race won't soon be forgotten by any of us.
I mean, the CBC did endorse a different candidate, and we should note that Lieutenant Governor Stratton is also African American. Do you agree? Is there something wrong with Pritzker getting involved the way he did? He was very involved.
ASHLEY ETIENNE, FORMER COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR, VP HARRIS: I mean, this is how the game is played. Like why would he not get involved? To your point, he's got a lot -- he's got more at stake than anyone else does in this particular race. Not only is he trying to prove that he does have the political muscle as you described it but also he wants to elevate a Black woman as he heads into the presidential cycle. Like, why would he not?
So, I mean, I would not disagree with the chairwoman. With all due respect, she can hold her position. But this is how the game is played.
TAPPER: Yeah.
ETIENNE: And he played it masterfully. Here's the other thing that I think we should be mindful of as a party is that outside -- that we saw in this particular race the limitations of money from outside parties, the PACs, from AIPAC, to the crypto agency association, putting a lot of money into this race. It did not work.
The other thing we saw is what actually does work, building broad coalitions and having a tight ground operation. We saw that also play out in the Texas primary as well.
So, these are, to me, what are the biggest lessons coming out of it? It is that outside money doesn't have a big impact any longer, and you've got to have a tremendous ground operation if you're trying to win and build a broad coalition, even in a blue state.
TAPPER: Let's turn to your home state, California, okay? It's got a prominent Democratic governor also eyeing a White House run. The front page of "The L.A. Times" says two Republican hopefuls are ahead in the race for governor.
Just to be clear, California has a jungle primary, meaning whoever you know, 15 candidates, whoever the top two, they win that primary. It doesn't matter what party they are. And then they go on to face each other. We've seen this before when two Democrats win, I think Kamala Harris beat a Democratic congresswoman in the election.
But here you have two Republicans. Is that really going to happen?
LANZA: The odds are getting higher every day. About ten days ago is a 9 percent probability that you'd have a runoff between two Republicans.
TAPPER: In California, just to underline -- this is California.
LANZA: Yeah, but I would say, Jake, you know little known fact to the audience is I actually wrote the top two primary that this law, this law that takes place and this was the whole intent. The whole intent was to have a broad coalition of people come in and regardless of political affiliation, capture the moment that matters.
And in California, the more that matters is the fact that California has become such a failed state. That's why Democrats will struggle. You have homelessness on the rise. You have unemployment on the rise. You have -- they're going to lose three congressional districts. I'm curious --
TAPPER: Affordability is an issue.
LANZA: I'm curious to see what Governor Newsom's platform is, because it can't be. I'm going to do the country to what I did to California, because California, you know, I know this is cable, but it's in the shitter today.
ETIENNE: Yeah. And it's interesting. If I could add something to that. What you're also seeing is the Democratic candidates creating distance between them and Gavin Newsom saying that Newsom failed us. We need to take a different approach.
So I find that incredibly interesting and speaks volumes about where Democratic voters are on Democratic governance right now. It is about, for them, the failures around homelessness, the failures around the wildfires. I mean, how Democrats have been managing this state. It appears to me, based on my conversations in the state, that the status quo is no longer sufficient.
TAPPER: Speaking of Democrat on Democrat violence, yesterday talking about the primary race for -- Democratic race in Maine to take on incumbent Republican Susan Collins, we played an attack ad by Governor Janet Mills going after opponent's controversial statements about gender related issues.
[18:55:15]
It's an ad that features an actor reading quotes that he had written on, like Reddit and other websites or whatever.
Today, Graham Platner, that Democrat who was attacked by the Governor Mills in those -- in that ad is responding with this ad. Take a listen
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GRAHAM PLATNER (D), MAINE SENATE CANDIDATE: If I saw these ads, I'd have questions. These are words and statements I abhor from a time in my life when I was struggling deeply after returning from war. These words are not who I am. So, men, I'm asking you not to judge me for the worst thing I said on the Internet on my worst day 14 years ago.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
TAPPER: What do you think?
LANZA: I think we should judge him what he said on the Internet 14 years ago. I think candidates are always judged on their past behavior and his behavior is actually worse than most. I mean, his him glorifying Nazi symbols is not what we want here.
I heard the left say it for, you know, the past 10 years that, you know, glorifying these things is bad. How can we have a Democratic candidate who's going to win the primary, be one that glorifies it on his body?
TAPPER: All right. Bryan Lanza and Ashley Etienne, thank you so much.
In our pop culture lead today maybe you've got a kid at home or more than one who's a little fearful of new places, new foods, new experiences, or maybe that even sounds a little bit like you, mom and dad. But never fear, I've got a book right here that can help. And the author is joining me now.
Phil Rosenthal is here. You might know him as the creator of "Everybody Loves Raymond", or the creator and host of "Somebody Feed Phil".
He and his daughter Lily are now out with their new book, "Just Try It! Someplace New!".
Phil, this is your second Phil and Lil book. And in this story, Lil is a bit reluctant to go with her dad, Phil, to spend the night at her grandma's house for the first time. Theres going to be new foods and unfamiliar room. Is this based on a real experience?
PHIL ROSENTHAL, AUTHOR, "JUST TRY IT! SOMEPLACE NEW!": We wanted to, you know, with the first book, it was all about trying new foods. And then when that was somewhat successful, we got a deal to make more books and we thought, let's keep the -- just try it theme going because we all have this fear of the unknown especially children. So, what's the first place that they would travel to? It might be grandma's house.
So even though Lily was a little better than the girl in the book, this is something that's a big fear for kids. And maybe grownups, too. They don't like going. I mean, a lot of grown-ups don't you -- who don't want to go anywhere.
TAPPER: Yeah. Might even be related to a few of them. What do you hope that parents and kids reading this book take away from it?
ROSENTHAL: That they should keep an open mind in life? You know, we all fear what we don't know. And most of the time, it works out better than we could have imagined. I think the hallmark of a good kids book is that it transcends just being for the kids and the parents. In reading the book to their children, get a little bit of a message, too. Did you ever see Mary Poppins? Of course you did.
When you're a kid and you watch Mary Poppins, you think it's about the kids who get a magical nanny.
TAPPER: Yeah.
ROSENTHAL: And then when you're older, I'm sure you had this experience when you showed Mary Poppins to your children, you realized, oh, my God, the movies about the dad. Mary comes to fix the dad. So, I love that.
TAPPER: You know what? This reminds me a little bit of is Shonda Rhimes, the executive producer of all these fantastic shows, "Bridgerton", "Scandal", et cetera, "Gray's Anatomy". She had a book about 10 years ago I think called "My Year of Yes," I think it's called. And she had -- she did a new version of it, because it's about how she didn't want to try new things and like she demanded of herself to say yes.
You and Lily worked together before on that first book. What was it like working together on this one? She's in college, right? She's a college aged person, so --
ROSENTHAL: She's 28, Jake. She just got married.
TAPPER: Wait a second. How long have I known you?
ROSENTHAL: A long time.
TAPPER: She's 28?
ROSENTHAL: Now you're feeling old. Yes.
TAPPER: Oh my God.
ROSENTHAL: Yes, yes.
TAPPER: All right. But now you're dealing with a 28-year-old.
ROSENTHAL: Yeah.
TAPPER: As opposed -- when did you -- the first one was a few years ago.
ROSENTHAL: That's right.
TAPPER: Was there a big change? Probably not, 25 to 28 or whatever.
ROSENTHAL: No. She just more in charge now. I do what she says.
TAPPER: And then last question for you. You announced yesterday your culinary travel show "Somebody Feed Phil" is moving from Netflix to YouTube. Congratulations. Tell me about that.
ROSENTHAL: Thank you. What I love is that, you know, when doing Raymond, for instance, I realized that one of the beautiful things about doing network TV is that it's free for everyone.
And so, YouTube is like old school. It has the biggest audience in the world and my little message that I think the world would be better if we all could experience a little bit of other people's experiences, will hit more people than ever. So it's very, very nice for me.
TAPPER: All right. Phil and Lily Rosenthal, "Just Try It! Someplace New!" is out now.
Phil, thank you so much. Congratulations again. Always good to see you.
ROSENTHAL: Love seeing you, my friend.
TAPPER: "ERIN BURNETT OUTFRONT" starts now. See you tomorrow.
