Return to Transcripts main page

The Lead with Jake Tapper

Oversight Panel Subpoenas Billionaire Investor Over Epstein Ties; Texas School Board Votes To Require Bible Stories In K-12 Curriculum; John Bolton Pleads Guilty In Classified Information Case; Vance Says Watergate Scandal Would Be "12-Hour News Story" Today. Aired 6-7p ET

Aired June 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.

This hour, a billionaire investor tied to Jeffrey Epstein testifying behind closed doors on Capitol Hill today about his interactions with the dead pedophile. But lawmakers say Leon Black refused to answer questions about non-disclosure agreements between him and other women and whether Epstein was involved. A member of Congress who was in the room for today's interview joins us live on set in moments.

Plus, former Trump National Security Adviser turned Trump critic John Bolton pleading guilty today in his classified information case. He now faces millions of dollars in fines and potentially years in prison. We're going to break down the deal he made with prosecutors and why his case did not fall apart like the other investigations into other Trump enemies.

Also, any concept of a firm and strong separation of church and state was ignored today in Texas, where the Board of Education voted to require millions of students to study Christian Bible stories in classrooms. We're live in the Lone Star State with reaction to these major changes to Texas school curricula.

The Lead tonight, a billionaire investor with ties to Jeffrey Epstein is being deposed amid the ongoing House Oversight Committee investigation into the dead pedophile and his evil web. Leon Black, the former head of private equity firm Apollo Global Management, sat today for a closed-door interview on Capitol Hill about his relationship with Epstein.

Lawmakers say Black declined to answer questions about non-disclosure agreements, or NDAs, and that's when the chairman of the committee, James Comer, made this move.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. JAMES COMER (R-KY): I have just issued two subpoenas to Mr. Black.

The NDAs are between him and other women. We want to know was Jeffrey Epstein involved in the NDAs. Was he involved in writing? Was he involved in awarding funds to the women for the NDAs? What was the reason for the NDAs? We want to know everything about the NDAs.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: It's hard to overstate just how significant it is that a Republican chairman of this committee made that announcement to issue two subpoenas. That is a big deal. Leon Black apparently expressed regret about his dealings with the late sex offender in a letter to investors in 2020 after a New York Times report alleged, quote, the two men often socialized and dined together, and Mr. Black was a lucrative client for Mr. Epstein over the final decade of his life, unquote.

Black then stepped away from Apollo in 2021. An internal investigation by the company found no wrongdoing. That probe ultimately concluded Black's payments to Epstein totaled $158 million between 2012 and 2017.

Black is one of the rare witnesses that the House panel has talked to who have faced allegations of abusing women in connection with Epstein. One woman told the FBI that Black became sexual in a massage Epstein had directed her to give him. A separate woman alleged that Black had raped her in 2014, and described going to Epstein's Florida house with Black, where she says she was told she would have sex with Epstein.

An attorney for Leon Black tells CNN he has never, quote, abused, assaulted, or raped, unquote, any girl or woman, and calls the allegations, quote, completely false. Black has categorically denied any wrongdoing and knowledge of Epstein's crimes.

In his opening statement to the Oversight Committee, he said, quote, I have never abused a woman. I have never been with an underage woman. I have never engaged in sex trafficking. I have never paid Epstein for access to women. I was never blackmailed by Epstein. I was not involved with and had no knowledge of any of Epstein's heinous conduct, unquote.

Let's bring in Virginia Democratic Congressman James Walkinshaw. He sits on the House Oversight Committee. And, Congressman, obviously you were there. What do you make of Chairman Comer's announcement that the committee's going to issue two subpoenas for Leon Black, and did he earn those subpoenas by not really testifying and cooperating?

REP. JAMES WALKINSHAW (D-VA): I agree 100 percent with Chairman Comer. You know, we were in the first hour of what we expected to be a multi- hour interview with Mr. Black as soon as questions came up about the NDAs. And it's important to note, the NDAs are a result, in at least one case, of women making allegations of sexual abuse against Mr. Black. He then paid them to sign NDAs.

We want to understand more about that, whether Jeffrey Epstein was involved, what were the circumstances, was there any coercion in the signing of those NDAs. Black refused to answer any questions related to the NDAs.

[18:05:00] The subpoena will require him not only to answer questions, but to turn over details of the NDAs.

TAPPER: And were you able to learn anything new from his testimony at all?

WALKINSHAW: I don't know that we learned anything new in the hour. He described his friendship with Jeffrey Epstein. He expressed some admiration for Epstein's intellect and lifestyle. He seemed to enjoy their friendship and relationship, and professed to have no knowledge of Epstein's crimes. That's why we want to understand the NDAs and any relationship to Epstein.

TAPPER: Under subpoena, will you be able to ask him questions about the two women that have alleged sexual misconduct or rape by Leon Black, both of whom have ties to Epstein? Again, I should remind people that an attorney for Mr. Black tells CNN he has never assaulted, abused, or raped any girl or woman. But will you be able to ask about it under a subpoena?

WALKINSHAW: Yes, we will. The NDAs don't bar Congress from asking questions, and don't prevent him from being responsive to the subpoena.

TAPPER: But he'll be able to plead the Fifth, right? Is that the only way he doesn't --

WALKINSHAW: He could plead the Fifth.

TAPPER: Or he could say, I don't remember.

WALKINSHAW: He could. That would be at odds with his multiple professions of innocence, but he could.

TAPPER: Black's payments to Epstein totaled $158 million between 2012 and 2017. We know that from an internal investigation about Black's ties to Epstein by Apollo, that probe found no wrongdoing after reviewing more than 60,000 documents and interviewing 20 people.

Is Apollo cooperative at all?

WALKINSHAW: Well, we have questions about that investigation, and there was a line of questions in the first hour pointing out the fact that some at that law firm involved with the investigation had relationships with Jeffrey Epstein. And I think if we had more time with Mr. Black today, we would've asked more detailed questions about that. I think that's a topic that'll come up in the deposition on July 16th.

But at the end of the day, Congress is not going to rely on an investigation hired by a law firm that Apollo Group hired. We're conducting our own investigation.

TAPPER: You know, we reported that a group of survivors met with Comer and pushed him to look at some leads. We reported that a few weeks ago. It really does seem like that meeting had an impact on Chairman Comer.

WALKINSHAW: I think so. Look, absolutely, and I think he's done exactly the right thing here with Leon Black. I hope he'll find the same enthusiasm for the truth with respect to Todd Blanche and the ongoing cover-up in the White House that I think has come to more light in recent days with legal opinions.

TAPPER: Stand by, Congressman. Amid the House Oversight Committee investigation, a federal judge yesterday ordered the Justice Department to unredact additional pages of the Epstein files, concluding that, quote, The attorney general has violated the Epstein Act by redacting the names of senders and recipients in at least eight email exchanges with Mr. Epstein regarding a torture video and sexual activity with young women, including minors.

Joining our conversation right now is former Federal Prosecutor Brendan Ballou, who represents Katie Phang. Katie Phang is the independent journalist who filed the suit, and good for her for doing so.

So, Brendan, the Justice Department now has until July 2nd to either turn over these documents or explain why the redactions should not be unredacted. Are you expecting to see the files or are you gearing up for a bigger battle?

BRENDAN BALLOU, ATTORNEY REPRESENTING JOURNALIST KATIE PHANG: Well, Stanley Woodward, the number three Justice Department official, just entered a notice of appearance in our case. So, we expect that they are really freaked out right now because it's more than just the redactions, you know? There are the specific emails where you're talking about, as you said, torture videos, potentially sex with minor women, where the names of the senders and recipients have been redacted, but there's also the fact that there are documents related to Donald Trump that were never produced in the first place.

There are issues with the fact that this is a case, an investigation, that spanned multiple countries internationally. The Department of Justice categorically did not review documents that weren't in the English language. They just said that they didn't do it. And then on top of that, the redactions that they did make, they didn't explain, which they were required to do by law.

So, you know, Judge Sullivan issued a preliminary injunction granting everything that we and Katie Phang requested and rejecting every single argument that the Department of Justice made here.

TAPPER: Why does your client, why does Katie Phang want to see the unredacted versions of these particular files? Not faulting her at all. Good for her. Great journalism, good for her for subpoenaing it, but there's like 3 million files still missing also. Like there's so many things. What is it about these files?

BALLOU: These are -- you know, as you said, there are millions of documents at issue here. When you're going for a preliminary injunction, it's really important to focus on the things where it is just obvious. It's indisputable that the government is violating the law here. And the important thing is, in their defense, the government didn't even try to argue that it was following the law. They just argued on standing here.

And so, you know, these are cases where it's so clear that there is potential wrongdoing here, that these are not the names of victims or minors.

[18:10:003]

These are the names of potential co-conspirators, potential perpetrators that need to get unredacted.

TAPPER: Right. But as you note, in their previous release of about half of the documents that they're under law supposed to have released by a long time ago, they redacted the names of possible perpetrators and did not redact the names of victims and survivors, again, contrary to the law. Are you worried at all about that happening with these files?

BALLOU: Only if the Department of Justice is actively malicious and tries to punish victims here by releasing names. You know, it is obvious here that the names that are at issue are the names of perpetrators or people in Jeffrey Epstein's orbits, not victims. And if in the incredibly unusual case that they are victims, Judge Sullivan has given them a chance to say as much and explain why they can't produce that. So, they have the chance to do that.

TAPPER: I don't know if you've seen these files, because members of Congress on the Oversight Committee have been allowed to see some of these files, although, again, not all of these files, even though the law says so. Do you have any concerns? What's your take on this side battle?

WALKINSHAW: I've been to the DOJ reading room and read, not the file specifically in this case, but I've read files embarrassing to Donald Trump that, in my view, were illegally redacted. There's a file that's been widely reported read into the Congressional record back and forth between Epstein's lawyers and Trump's lawyers describing a conversation Epstein's lawyers had with Trump where he said Epstein was never a member of Mar-a-Lago, revealing the Trump lie that he kicked Epstein out of Mar-a-Lago.

It is clear the DOJ illegally redacted files to prevent, best case, Donald Trump from being embarrassed. Enormous credit to Ms. Phang for revealing that, and I don't think this will be the last of the legal battle over these illegally redacted files.

TAPPER: Absolutely. Have her come -- bring her next time. No offense, Congressman. You're going to be here too. I appreciate it. Democratic Congressman James Walkinshaw, the great Commonwealth of Virginia, and Brendan Ballou, I appreciate it.

New details tonight about how the White House decided which companies would get to renovate the Reflecting Pool and how much they would be paid. That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:15:00]

TAPPER: In our Politics Lead, a company involved with the previous renovation of the Reflecting Pool more than 15 years ago passed on the project this time around due to the Trump administration's demands that the renovation be complete by July 4th and that the bottom of the pool be painted blue. That's according to two employees with the New Jersey-based Sika Corporation.

I want to bring in David Fahrenthold from The New York Times. And, David, I don't know if I pronounced that correctly, Sika?

DAVID FAHRENTHOLD, INVESTIGATIVE REPORTER, THE NEW YORK TIMES: I don't know.

TAPPER: Sika or Sika? Yes, we read it, we don't say it.

But, I mean, you've been doing some reporting about this mess of renovation. So, what is your response to the account by two employees of the Sika Corporation that told CNN that these demands made the project unfeasible?

FAHRENTHOLD: Well, it's good reporting. I haven't been able to match it. But it does make sense with what we've seen with this project, and the project that they chose to carry out. It was done through a no-bid contract to skip the bidding process because they wanted to go as fast as they possibly could because they were trying to squeeze this really complicated thing into a few short weeks before July 4th.

And I think what we're seeing now is the risk of choosing a no-bid contract to do something as important as that, because you don't give yourself time to figure out if the approach you're using is right, if the contractor you've hired can actually do the job, and if you're paying the right price.

TAPPER: So, President Trump, as is his want, has had a lot of conflicting statements about the cuts, the size of the cuts that he said were committed by hooligans, vandals, leftists on the Reflecting Pool. Here's just a small sampling.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: We have 100 and -- we have, I think, 2,930-foot slit right through, probably a box cutter or a knife of some kind. I think it's 350, not 250. A 350-foot slit from one end to another.

And they cut 200 -- 350-foot slit in the form of lots of little slits.

They took razor blades and knives, and they cut patches like that, 350 feet long.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: That's not what the government documents obtained by you and The New York Times showed. You wrote, quote, while a June 9th report by the U.S. Park Police described the cuts as razor blade slashes made along a 20-foot-long stretch of the foam, the administration has yet to present evidence supporting that assertion. The documents reviewed by The Times described them as two 171-foot blade cuts that did not address how they were made.

What do you make of how Trump describes this?

FAHRENTHOLD: It's really important to know that there's two different things we're talking about here, and the president is kind of mushing them together. The things that were cut, according to the police reports, are caulk or sealant at the edge of the pool, kind of a gray weather stripping at the edge of the pool. The thing that we're seeing peel up, that we've all seen, this blue stuff peel up, is a different part of the pool. It's this rubberized stuff put on the floor of the pool.

So, yes, the police report says that the caulking was cut.

TAPPER: The caulk, the stuff on the side?

FAHRENTHOLD: The stuff on the side. But the blue stuff wasn't, or at least the police report doesn't mention that.

So, Trump is saying, look, all these parts are peeling up, this embarrassing peeling of the pool, and is trying to say that these vandals caused it. But in reality, even if that other cut was vandalism, they're talking about two different things.

TAPPER: You report that the water purification system was installed by a company called Green Water Services, which was granted this no-bid contract you refer to. Tell us what you've learned about that process and the man behind the company, who has an interesting look.

FAHRENTHOLD: Right. So, the person -- this company, Green Water Services, is owned by an investment trust led by a guy named J.J. Cafaro. He's a rich person from Youngstown, Ohio. He has a house near Mar-a-Lago. He's known Trump for decades. He's a political donor of Trump's. They also got a no-bid contract to install this water purification technology.

Again, they didn't try to figure out whether other people could do it more cheaply or better. And in the end, when the pool was refilled and reopened, their nano-bubblers apparently couldn't keep up, their filters couldn't keep up, and the pool filled with green algae.

TAPPER: What a mess. All right, David Fahrenthold, thank you so much.

Breaking news in our World Lead, Vice President J.D. Vance just weighed in on the U.S. strikes on Iran, which were in response to Iran's attack yesterday on that ship in the Strait of Hormuz.

[18:20:06]

CNN's Kristen Holmes is at the White House for us. Kristen, what did the vice president have to say? KRISTEN HOLMES, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, Jake, look, J.D. Vance has become the face of these negotiations, the face of the deal, and now he is the face of this retaliation.

This is what he posted on Truth -- I mean, on Twitter. Excuse me, I'm so used to saying Truth Social from the White House. Iran signed a ceasefire agreement. We have honored it. If they have disagreements about how the MOU is being applied, they can pick up the phone, but violence will be met with violence.

He is likely referring to here how the agreement in the 60-day deal says that Iran will help the safe passage of these various commercial vessels to the best of their capability through the Strait of Hormuz in exchange for the US moving the naval blockade. But however, Iran has essentially now said that this is only if ships stick to the routes that Tehran approves.

This ship that was struck was outside of the bounds of one of the routes that Tehran had approved, and then Iran launched an attack on this ship. So, that's what it seems as though he means in terms of if they have disagreements over the MOU. It doesn't specifically state that the routes have to be those of Tehran.

The other thing to notice here, and I think this is the larger issue for the United States moving forward, is this idea that Iran clearly feels some sense of power over the entire situation, given their control over the Strait of Hormuz. That is very clear right now. They are exercising that power through demanding that different ships take only routes they approve, through striking a ship that goes outside of those bounds. So, that's something else the U.S. is going to have to contend with.

Now, it does appear, based on that original CENTCOM statement, that Central Command statement that came out, that the United States is still proceeding as though that ceasefire is in place. They said that the military will remain in place to make sure Iran holds up its end of the deal. But we are unclear in terms of how Iran is now going to respond to these strikes.

TAPPER: All right. Kristen Holmes at the White House with that breaking news for us, thank you so much.

The Texas Board of Education approved a proposal today that is sharply dividing communities in Texas. What we're learning about the government's plan into Texas to have kids study Christian Bible stories in their public school classrooms.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:25:00]

TAPPER: In our National Lead, from Sunday school to public school. Today, the Texas State Board of Education approved a proposal requiring more than 5 million public school students in Texas to study Christian Bible stories in their public school classrooms, amplifying a conservative effort to weave Christian teachings into U.S. public education.

The proposed curriculum requires specific Bible translations drawn from Protestant Bibles, one reason some Catholics are objecting.

CNN's Ed Lavandera is live in Dallas with the latest. Ed?

ED LAVANDERA, CNN SENIOR NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, Jake, this was a very controversial vote. After hours and hours of testimony throughout the week, the Texas State Board of Education heard from hundreds of people. They voted largely along party lines. The State Board of Education heavily controlled by conservative Republicans, and they voted mostly along those lines to approve this new curriculum, which many education experts say no other state in the country has adopted. But it essentially -- it requires to teach some biblical teachings at every grade level, from kindergarten to 12th grade for more than 5 million public school students across the state of Texas.

Supporters say that this is needed to help teach the role of U.S. history and its proper context, and the role that Christianity played in all of that. Critics say that this is simply a violation of the doctrine of separation of church and state, and that it also goes to great lengths to avoid and exclude the teachings of non-Protestant Christians as well as non-Christians, like Jews and Muslims.

But there was one Republican who voted with Democrats against this curriculum, and this is what she had to say about the vote.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

EVELYN BROOKS (R), MEMBER, TEXAS BOARD OF EDUCATION: Teachers need to be -- have their autonomy. They've been selecting books for decades, for years. This is nothing new. This is not a new concept to teachers. We are simply giving them a mandated list, which I believe is unconstitutional.

But regardless of what I believe, let's not take their autonomy away.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LAVANDERA: And, Jake, this curriculum will not be implemented immediately. It will be phased in over time, but beginning at the early grades starting in 2030, and then higher grades in the years after that. Jake?

TAPPER: I wonder what the five U.S. justices on the Supreme Court who are Catholic will think of that.

Ed Lavandera in Dallas, thanks so much.

Former Trump official John Bolton officially pleaded guilty today in his classified information case. What we're learning about the fine and potential jail time he now faces.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:30:00] TAPPER: In our Law and Justice Lead today, former Trump National Security Adviser John Bolton, a frequent sight on CNN until recently, pleaded guilty to unlawfully retaining sensitive national security information. As part of his plea deal with prosecutors, Bolton will pay a fine of more than $2 million, and he still faces up to five years in prison potentially.

Bolton says he was just keeping a diary, but he admits it contained classified information. It's a move prosecutors say put national security at risk.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: A cyber actor believed to be associated with the Islamic Republic of Iran hacked Mr. Bolton's personal email account and gained unauthorized access to some of the classified and national defense information in that account.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: Joining me to discuss is Michael Casey, the former director of the National Counterintelligence Security Center under President Biden. Thanks so much for joining us, Michael.

So, Bolton's attorney, Abbe Lowell, said today after the hearing, quote, President Trump thumbed his nose at the classified information laws, took actual classified documents to his Florida mansion, interfered with the investigation of that conduct, and has never accepted any accountability for his conduct. Ambassador Bolton, whose offense was only keeping a diary which contained classified information, kept a record to preserve history, but Donald Trump kept secrets to serve himself, unquote.

What's your take on that? Abbe Lowell seems to be suggesting that what Trump did is far worse.

MICHAEL CASEY, FORMER DIRECTOR, NATIONAL COUNTERINTELLIGENCE AND SECURITY CENTER: Well, my take is anybody who's retaining classified information, particularly if someone like the Iranian government is able to access it, is risking national security. I'm not sure saying that the president did something, therefore it's okay that I do it too, is really the best excuse. I think it's pretty clear Ambassador Bolton put national security at risk and our sources and methods at risk by doing what he did.

TAPPER: So, we might not ever know the extent of how much information hostile actors may have gotten here based on what the prosecution said, or even how many of America's enemies might have been involved, right?

[18:35:03]

CASEY: That's correct. I mean, hopefully, Ambassador Bolton, as part of this, will agree to cooperate with the damage assessment that will follow his sentencing. And that'll help us get a better handle on what we've lost. But as a practical matter, there's been some period of time between when his account was hacked and now, and whenever we can assess that damage.

And the Iranians, or whoever they may have given the information to, if it was in fact the Iranian government, we just won't know what they've done in the meantime, and we will definitely have suffered losses.

TAPPER: Let's -- on the same subject, of national security and national intelligence, I want to turn to the acting director of National Intelligence, Bill Pulte. He has no intelligence background, he has no national security background, even though it's in the law creating this position that you have to have either of those. Earlier this week, four sources told CNN that Pulte fired six political appointees put in place by former Director Tulsi Gabbard, and he also removed dozens of career intelligence officials from their roles, including from the office you used to be in charge of. What's your take on Pulte in this role?

CASEY: I don't take -- I mean, my take is I have no idea why the president would consider Bill Pulte to be qualified for this role. He's clearly not. There's nothing in his background that suggested he can carry this role out effectively in a way that enhances our national security.

TAPPER: Is it damaging to our national security?

CASEY: Frankly, it is potentially damaging to our national security. I mean, certainly there's reporting that Bill Pulte wanted to further, you know, gut the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. That's an office that was set up in the wake of September 11th to help coordinate intelligence and make sure gaps and seams between intelligence agencies didn't emerge. And you're just not -- we're just not enhancing our intelligence when we're making sort of salami slice cuts.

I don't think anybody would argue that ODNI couldn't have used some reform. I personally saw lots of things that could have used some reform, but just walking in and firing hundreds of people is not smart reform. It doesn't make us safer doing that.

TAPPER: All right. Michael Casey, thanks so much for your time. I appreciate it.

Stunning comments from the vice president today that the biggest U.S. political scandal of all time would only be a half a day story today. What might that tell us about how a Trump administration is facing an onslaught of ethics and corruption allegations? I'm going to ask a Watergate prosecutor next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:40:00]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

J.D. VANCE, U.S. VICE PRESIDENT: I think that his historical legacy is enjoying a bit of a renaissance, but I think deservedly so. As I joked with Robert backstage, if Watergate happened tomorrow, it would be like a 12-hour news story. Like the idea that it would have taken down a presidency is crazy.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: Vice President J.D. Vance with a rather hot take that President Richard Nixon was somehow unfairly taken down by the Watergate scandal. Just to be clear about what a massive political scandal this was, which was once described as our long national nightmare by Nixon's vice president who became president, Gerald Ford.

Watergate involved a break-in of the Democratic National Committee headquarters by five men linked to President Nixon's reelection campaign. It was later revealed that the operation was funded and coordinated by White House staffers, a fact which Nixon repeatedly denied. And the illegal scheme was only finally confirmed because of Nixon's own secret White House taping system. His own attorney general went to jail. It's not a blithe and glib thing to just dismiss.

Here to discuss, former Watergate prosecutor Nick Akerman. Nick, you know Watergate and so many of the scandals facing the Trump administration. What did you make of this comment?

NICK AKERMAN, FORMER ASSISTANT SPECIAL WATERGATE PROSECUTOR: I think it was a total fairy tale. I can't tell you where he got this from. I mean, the only time that it may have been a 12-hour news cycle was immediately after the break-in when the White House -- the Nixon White House tried to portray it as a third-rate burglary. And that worked for a while because Nixon won an amazing reelection. I mean, he won in a landslide.

But then after his election, there was this drip, drip, drip of information over almost a two-year period where Judge Sirica, who was the judge presiding over the Watergate burglars, forced them, told them that if someone didn't cooperate, they'd be serving really long sentences. And one individual, James McCord, a former CIA operative, came forward and basically gave the White House up.

There was the Senate Judiciary Committee looking at the confirmation hearing for L. Patrick Gray, who was the acting FBI director to be named as director. It turns out we learned that he had burned in his fireplace a number of significant documents.

And this continued on and on right up until the time that Nixon was forced to resign in August of 1973, and it wasn't just related to the break-in at the Watergate complex, the Democratic National Committee.

TAPPER: So, it's possible to be charitable to the vice president that what he meant was that in today's environment, with a more obedient Republican Party and a massive echo chamber of right wing media, like Fox, maybe Nixon would survive with that support.

And in that light, I want to play some clips in that vein from several people involved in Watergate. First, you're going to hear me asking a question of Carl Bernstein, who helped break the story, then you're going to hear John Dean, and then you're going to hear Geraldo Rivera talking to Sean Hannity. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: Nixon ultimately resigned before he could be impeached.

[18:45:01]

And among those counseling him to resign were senior Republicans on Capitol Hill.

CARL BERNSTEIN, INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALIST AND AUTHOR: And first of all, the Watergate investigation by the Senate was enacted by a 77 to nothing unanimous vote of the Senate, including Republicans, to create the investigation. The key votes in the Judiciary Committee to impeach, articles of impeachment, were cast by courageous Republicans.

JOHN DEAN, FORMER WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL: There's more likelihood he might have survived if there had been a Fox News.

GERALDO RIVERA, TALK SHOW HOST: Nixon never would have been forced to resign if you existed in your current state back in 1972, '73, '74. It's too bad for Nixon, because nobody like you existed then.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: So it is possible that he's not saying the crime was lesser, just that the support system for Republican presidents who break the law is stronger.

AKERMAN: Well, keep in mind, Jake, that in the beginning, when they had the Watergate hearings over which Sam Irvine presided, the Republicans were strongly defending Richard Nixon. They were all out there basically, taking his position with witnesses, with statements, and it was really the evidence that turned them around, which in the end are with the tape recordings.

And the most important one was a smoking gun tape where Nixon is overheard ordering his chief aide to call the FBI and to have the CIA -- tell the CIA that this or actually the call the CIA to have them call the FBI to turn off the investigation because of national security. I mean, the evidence was so damning that no matter how fervent of a Nixon supporter you were, there was no way you could hide from that evidence.

So, yes, there's some truth to this, the sense that things might have. gone a little bit differently at first, if you had Fox News, if you had the climate today. But that's not what J.D. Vance was referring to, not in the least. He was talking about Nixon being buried by the government, the secret state that was out there trying to bury him.

TAPPER: Right, the deep state, right.

AKERMAN: The deep state, this was not some cabal. In fact, it was just the opposite. Richard Nixon was trying to use the deep state on the FBI and the CIA to try and cover up this whole matter.

TAPPER: Nick Akerman, thanks.

AKERMAN: So it was really --

TAPPER: Go ahead, make your last point, I'm so sorry. Nick Akerman, make your last point, I'm sorry.

AKERMAN: No, that, I'm just saying it was a completely different situation where the evidence was on tape and it was overwhelming.

TAPPER: All right, Nick, thanks so much. Good to see you.

Let's discuss it with our panel.

Ashley, how did you interpret the vice president's comments? Was he saying there would be a more supportive Republican Party and Republican media establishment if it happened today? Or was he saying it wasn't that big a deal, the crime that Nixon committed?

ASHLEY DAVIS, FORMER HOMELAND SECURITY OFFICIAL, GEORGE W. BUSH ADMINISTRATION: Well, I took it a little bit differently. However, I do have to say I'm sure he's not, like, loving what he said, and he was being flip, and I think it's going to come back and bite him a little bit. I actually took it more of this is like our time of what we live in right now more than anything.

I mean, we have Bill Clinton that was impeached. We have President Trump that had 34 convictions on a felony case. I mean, I took it as do people have more of an ability just to deal with some of this stuff more than that he thought Nixon was right.

TAPPER: Ashley, a Reuters/Ipsos poll last month found 61 percent of the American people disapprove of Trump's handling of corruption issues, that's certainly 61 percent of Americans. But that's -- I mean, if we broke it down to Republicans, it would be much smaller. And if we broke it down to Republican office holders, it would be much smaller.

ASHLEY ETIENNE, FORMER PELOSI ADVISER: No, and I think that's really the point that I took away from J.D. Vance's comments, which is it's really emblematic of how far the Republican Party has fallen into the swamp. You know, at that time, the difference then and now is that then Republicans put the Constitution ahead of their party. They put the Constitution ahead of their president.

Now, it's the very opposite. They're sitting back silently watching as Trump violates the Constitution. He's made more than a billion dollars between him and his family in violations of the Emoluments Act, utilizing the Department of Justice for his own political purposes.

I mean, I can go on and on and on about the degree of Donald Trump's corruption, it's reflected right there in that poll. And Republicans, meanwhile, are silent. Even J.D. Vance, instead of talking about how they, you know, made a promise to the American people to clean up the swamp, to drain the swamp, I should say, instead of focusing on that, what he does is double down and really elevates this issue that Trump is by far the most corrupt president in American history, and it's primarily because the Republican Party is sitting back silently watching.

DAVIS: I'm part of the swamp, so I hope he doesn't clean it up.

TAPPER: How are you part of the swamp?

DAVIS: Well, I'm a lobbyist.

TAPPER: He doesn't mean you.

Ashley, you have a new op-ed in the Houston Chronicle titled "Five Ways Texas Democrats Can Shore Up the Black Vote". You write: The Democrats are facing a crisis of black disillusionment and disengagement, one that could jeopardize success for Democrats in Texas and far Beyond, you argue Texas is the ideal place to start turning it around.

Why?

ETIENNE: Primarily because Texas is the largest number of black voters that are registered. And in the last race, Allred lost that seat by --

TAPPER: Colin Allred running against Ted Cruz? Yeah.

ETIENNE: Absolutely. Lost that seat by a little less than a million votes. There are a million black voters that did not vote in that particular race.

So if you do the math, there is a possibility if Talarico can invest early, break with Democratic convention, invest early in black voters, and do some of the things I suggested in my op-ed, which is move beyond this sort of monolithic myth that people seem to ascribe to black voters to go outside of the four walls of the church and start to reach voters where they actually are, building new modern information narrative ecosystem that's driven by trusted messengers. This is an opportunity for Talarico, for the Democratic Party to do this thing differently and to demonstrate again the lessons that we learned in Georgia.

What are the lessons we learned in Georgia? Why is Georgia now a swing state? Because investments were made early. They were made across in between elections and they were made in a way that met voters where they actually.

TAPPER: I'll tell you who's not supporting your plan as of right now. Earlier this week, Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett, Talarico's former opponent in the Democratic primary, she's a Democrat from Texas, is African-American. She told "The Dallas Morning News" she has no idea whether she's going to actively campaign for Talarico. She also posted this to Instagram last week.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. JASMINE CROCKETT (D-TX): I am not currently running for U.S. Senate. And therefore, you will not see me on the trail as if I am running for US. Y'all are still so focused on me. So, like, focus on the people that are in the race. Because last time I checked, there is one person that is guaranteed not to become the next senator in the state of Texas, and that's Jasmine Felicia Crockett.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: Ashley?

ETIENNE: Yeah.

DAVIS: Oh, sorry, we're both Ashley.

TAPPER: I let the other Ashley --

DAVIS: No, I just -- I mean, you'll have good response on this as well, but I would actually think if Talarico needs, at the end of the day, to go after moderate Republicans, and I don't think she would help. So I would think it's actually better if she stayed.

ETIENNE: Well, the reality is there's not enough moderate Republicans for him to win. If you just do the simple math, he's got to build a broad coalition. I don't disagree with that, but it's not enough voters there.

You cannot -- you cannot go after moderate. white voters at the expense of your base. And that's the pattern that's been developing in the Democratic Party. And that's why someone like Jasmine Crockett is withholding her endorsement. That's why black women voters are saying in the Houston Congress.

TAPPER: She's withholding her endorsement because he hasn't laid out a plan to engage with the black community.

ETIENNE: He said four months ago that he cannot win this race without black voters. He said it as soon as he sealed the deal on the primary during the primary. Now we're four months later, there's not any real demonstration of putting action behind those particular words. And that's really why the frustration that you see among Jasmine Crockett, but also Black leaders across the country -- I mean, across the state.

They're meeting on Monday, or next week, I should say, to talk about the way forward, given all of this frustration and the lack of sort of effort on the part of the campaign.

DAVIS: Do you think she'd be helpful?

ETIENNE: I definitely think she'd be helpful with Black voters.

TAPPER: I have to say, covering the 2026 election, it's like watching which party is going to blow this worse for themselves. Like, it's not a competition to win. It seems like they're in a competition to lose. Do you know what I mean?

DAVIS: Yeah, and I think Talarico's a really good candidate.

ETIENNE: Absolutely.

DAVIS: Yeah, he really is.

TAPPER: Anyway, thanks to both of you. Appreciate it.

A big weekend coming up on CNN. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:58:06]

TAPPER: In our pop culture lead, Craig Ferguson's out with another episode of "AMERICAN ON PURPOSE". This week, as we approach the country's 250th anniversary, Craig is looking at what patriotism really means in what seems like a very divided country right now.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: When it comes to patriotism, you explored a lot of different people's views of what that means, what patriotism means. Tell us about that episode.

CRAIG FERGUSON, HOST, "AMERICAN ON PURPOSE": Most people that I talked to thought that dissent And having the right to express dissent was one of the most patriotic things they could do, which I kind of loved that, because I think sometimes when you're expressing dissent and when you're expressing when the heat is in your argument, you might forget, or it sometimes gets left behind, that you're arguing 'cause you care. You're arguing because you want it to be better. The point of this country is to argue. I think that that's what creates the freedom, is the arguments.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: In your naturalization oath, right?

FERGUSON: Right.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You said, I'm going to support and protect the Constitution of the United States and the laws therein.

FERGUSON: Yeah, and defend it against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Because patriotism at a surface level, which like, this is awesome. But patriotism could be -- I really don't like the government. I really don't like what they're saying. I really don't like the way things are going. But I love this country, and so I'm going to speak up.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Right, which sounds like, on face, the most un- American thing you could say, but it's the most pro-American.

FERGUSON: Right, pro-America, because you're saying, I participate in the giant (EXPLETIVE DELETED) off experiment that is the United States of America.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: The CNN Original Series "CRAIG FERGUSON: AMERICAN ON PURPOSE" airs Saturday 9:00 p.m. Eastern and next day on the CNN app.

Big show coming up Sunday on "STATE OF THE UNION". My guests include Homeland Security Secretary Mark Wayne Mullen, Ohio's Republican Governor Mike DeWine, Democratic Senator Raphael Warnock of Georgia, and Republican Senator Thom Tillis of North Carolina. Maryland's Governor -- Democratic Governor Wes Moore, Republican Congressman Don Bacon of Nebraska, and author Rye Barcott will also join us. It's Sunday at 9:00 a.m. and noon Eastern, only on CNN.

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

"ERIN BURNETT OUFRONT" starts now. See you Sunday morning.