Return to Transcripts main page

The Lead with Jake Tapper

Attorney: Man Shot By ICE Agent Is Out Of Hospital, Returned To Detention Center With Bullet Still Lodged In His Back; CNN Poll: Support For Trump's Foreign Policy Falls To New Low; ProPublica: The FBI Was Circling Sen. Susan Collins' Team, Until Trump Got In The Way; New Book From Dana Bash Profiles 15 Pivotal Elections In History; Trump Touts 65-Billion-Barrel Oil Deal With Venezuela At UNGA. Aired 5-6p ET

Aired September 22, 2026 - 17:00   ET

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

KASIE HUNT, CNN HOST: Below. You can also catch up by listening to The Arenas podcast. You can follow us on X and Instagram. We are at thearenacnn. But of course don't go anywhere because Jake Tapper is standing by for "The Lead."

Jake, I feel like we need a QR code that just goes straight to Philadelphia Eagles victories.

JAKE TAPPER, CNN HOST: Oh, wait till you see the Philadelphia sports special I have for next week. I'll tell you about it later. It's a very --

HUNT: I'm jealous.

TAPPER: It's very exciting. I can't tell you about it.

HUNT: I love it. I can't wait.

TAPPER: All right, Kasie, we'll look for more manana in "La Arena."

HUNT: Have a good show.

[17:00:31]

TAPPER: Today marks exactly six weeks out from Election Day. The Lead starts right now.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KAMALA HARRIS, FORMER VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I think we're at the -- at the point of our new relationship room and now call you Abdul.

ABDUL EL-SAYED (D), MICHIGAN SENATE CANDIDATE: Perfect. Yes.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: A new phase in the fight for 2026. Former vice president and presidential candidate Kamala Harris on the campaign trail back in battleground Michigan, a state she lost to Trump in 2024. Can she help Abdul El-Sayed, the Democrat in Michigan's heated race for U.S. Senate?

Plus, President Trump today at the United Nations voicing out loud a personal dilemma. Make a deal with Iran or, quote, "annihilate the country." One of Trump's former foreign policy advisors will be here with his take on the issue.

But first, brand new details about the DoorDash driver from Venezuela shot in Austin, Texas, shot in the back. That man possibly paralyzed from a bullet still lodged in his back. His attorney will be here on The Lead as new details emerge about the ICE agent who shot him.

Welcome to The Lead. I'm Jake Tapper. And we start with breaking news in our national lead. Authorities releasing brand new information about that ICE shooting in Austin, Texas and the treatment of the man who was shot, a 28-year-old Venezuelan man, Wilber Garces Perez. He was shot in the back by an Immigrations and Custom Enforcement agent or ICE agent on Sunday while the gentleman was driving DoorDash.

Today we're learning he is now back in an ICE processing center today after being released from the hospital for a second time. His medical situation sounds dire. His attorney says he still has a bullet lodged in his back. Doctors leaving it there because it is too close to his spine. He does not have any movement in his left arm according to his attorney who we'll talk to in just a sec.

So what exactly led to the shooting? Well, we're hearing very different accounts from the government and from Garces Perez. And crucially, the only known videos of the confrontation are either from a significant distance or from the aftermath. So they don't shed much light.

First, the Trump administration side source says ICE officers conducted targeted immigration enforcement operations Sunday based on license plate checks. And they came across a vehicle registered to Garces Perez, who they say is in the country illegally and had been ordered deported. That source claims that officers stopped the vehicle and questioned Garces Perez, who fled the scene after a brief exchange with the officers. An ICE agent shot Garces Perez.

And now here's the account from Garces Perez. According to his attorney, Garces Perez legally sought asylum in the United States through a Biden era program that Trump has since ended. But he was issued a work permit and was driving for DoorDash.

Garces Perez said he was deliveries when an unmarked SUV tried to hit him. When he realized it was ICE agents inside, Garces Perez said he asked to pull over to be detained, but the ICE agent denied his request. So when he tried to make a U turn to park, he says the SUV ran into his car and then he was shot.

A source says the ICE officer who shot Garces Perez is on administrative leave, which is standard procedure. At least 20 people have been shot by on duty ICE and U.S. Customs and Border Protection agencies, according to a CNN analysis. In some of those cases, witness accounts and video have proven that the government's account was false. With me now, CNN's Priscilla Alvarez. And CNN's Ed Lavandera is in Austin.

And Ed, you were just listening to a news conference with the Austin mayor and the Austin police chief. What are they saying?

ED LAVANDERA, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, they have provided some new videos into what happened in the moments leading up to it. So we are at the scene of where the shooting took place just across the street here. Jake, you can still see the tire marks from the squealing that you might have heard in that initial video and the confrontation between the vehicles here. And this is where the shooting ended up.

In this new video that has been released by the Austin Police Department, if you go down this street this way, about 200 yards or so, there was an off duty Austin police detective who happened to be driving by and with his personal dash cam car in his -- dash cam camera in his car, he captured a stop where you see the vehicle that was driven by Wilber Garces Perez surrounded by several ICE officer vehicles unmarked to black SUVs.

And that was about 200 yards this way. About 10 or 15 minutes later, that off duty police officer comes back out from this area and then captures another video where you can hear the shooting which took place right over here. So those are some of the new details that we have learned that have emerged in all of this.

[17:05:19]

The Department of Homeland Security has said that they were -- that this was a targeted enforcement, that they were following trying to track down this 28-year-old Venezuelan immigrant because he had an order for deportation. And that is the new details that we're learning here just moments ago from the Austin Police Department. Jake.

TAPPER: All right, Ed, thanks so much.

Priscilla, you're learning new information about the ICE officer here.

PRISCILLA ALVAREZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yes, Jake, I've been talking to my sources all day and here's what we know about the officer who discharged his weapon. He joined ICE last year. He completed his training in August of 2025. Now, he had joined from another federal law enforcement agency, which one source said he had years of experience in that capacity.

Now, what we also know is that now he's on administrative leave, which is standard procedure after an incident like this. But what we're also learning, Jake, is that what's not protocol is that he wasn't wearing his body camera. When you have a body camera, you are supposed to wear your body camera. He was not wearing it in this case.

Now, that's going to be part of the ongoing investigation, not only why he discharged his weapon, but also why he did not have that on his person when there has been a big push, a bipartisan push for that to be the case with these agents. Now, the Department of Homeland Security was starting to weigh in more this afternoon and they are standing by ICE.

They're standing by their officers. They say that they are enforcing immigration law and that they will not slow down and they will not slow down in Austin. And this, of course, coming amid the protests.

They also released a fact sheet only moments ago disputing some of what Garces Perez's attorney has said, including, for example, that he wasn't getting pain medication in ICE detention and they say that he is getting pain medication. This says often happen, Jake, when we are talking about detainees and the Department of Homeland Security and what the conditions are within these centers.

But ultimately, Jake, the question that they have not answered yet is why the officer discharged his weapon. As you mentioned there at the top, we have covered multiple shootings involving DHS agents. This is yet another where we don't yet have a response on what led to him, the officer making the decision to discharge his weapon at that moment.

TAPPER: And apparently into his back.

ALVAREZ: Correct.

TAPPER: Priscilla Alvarez and Ed Lavandera. Thanks to both of you.

Joining me now is Kate Lincoln-Goldfinch. She is the attorney for Wilber Garces Perez.

And Kate, you told CNN that your client slept on the floor at the detention center, was not given pain medications, lost movement on the left side of his body, and that's why he was sent back to the hospital last night. Have you met with him today? How is he doing now?

KATE LINCOLN-GOLDFINCH, CEO, LINCOLN-GOLDFINCH LAW: I did have a video call with him this morning at around 8:00 a.m. which was very relieving because his family spent the night without any communication from him. Yesterday, when he appeared at the press conference. He happened to call his wife when we were having the press conference, and he wanted to speak to the press and he spoke out.

After that happened, he reported to me that guards came into the infirmary where he was being held, took his tablet away and told him his communication privileges were revoked. And all we heard after that was that he was losing mobility in his arm from Joaquin Castro's office.

And so we didn't know anything about him until this morning at 8:00 when I had this meeting video call with him. And he reported to me that he had his communication privileges taken away. He had been placed in isolation, but because he was losing mobility, a nurse in the infirmary decided that he should go to the hospital. And he spent about six hours in the hospital last night where they cleaned his wound and gave him a morphine drip and sent him back to Pearsall.

When I was speaking with him, he reported to me that he was on ibuprofen and Tylenol only. And I could see that he was in a sling with bruising around his chest area. And he was clearly in a lot of pain.

TAPPER: Can you shed any light on where he was and where the ICE agent was when he was shot? And was he only shot once and was it in his back?

LINCOLN-GOLDFINCH: Well, the video shows three shots. He has one bullet wound in his back, and the sequence of events is still very unclear. And all we have are these bystander videos and what Wilber has told me, which is difficult to ascertain because I have had challenges having access to him. And he still has a bullet lodged in his body. So ultimately, I think the responsibility should be on ICE to tell us what happened and to give us a full accounting via dash cam and body cam footage.

And we, the American public, should not be trying to piece this together with bystander videos. That's unacceptable evidence. And ICE owes it to us to show us what happened from start to finish.

[17:10:00]

TAPPER: Have you collected and seen all of the bystander videos that there are? Priscilla just reported that apparently the officer did not have body camera or at least didn't have it on.

LINCOLN-GOLDFINCH: I've seen a lot of videos. I've seen videos of officers actually covering their body cam after they arrived. I've seen concerning videos and the timeline is really unclear so I probably have not seen all of them. There are many bystander videos.

TAPPER: The Travis County District Attorney's office in Austin has requested an independent investigation of the shooting, saying in a statement that the DA's office and the Austin Police Department should be coequal partners in the investigation.

But in recent similar shootings, some local agencies have said that the Trump administration, the Department of Homeland Security, prevents them from taking part in the investigation. That certainly happened in Minnesota. Are you worried about that happening or does it look like DHS is going to cooperate with local Austin authorities?

LINCOLN-GOLDFINCH: I think DHS has shown us what they're going to do. They have been tight lipped, they haven't given us information, they haven't given us footage. I am glad that the city leadership is calling for an investigation and I think that is the right thing to do and I don't trust that we can count on cooperation from DHS whatsoever.

TAPPER: Just to go back to the bullet in the back, I'm wondering, do you have any idea -- did it enter through the front or did it enter through the back?

LINCOLN-GOLDFINCH: The bullet entered through the back and we were concerned that he was facing paralysis and that it was lodged near his spine. This morning when I saw him, I could tell that, and he told me that his clavicle was broken, which makes me believe that maybe the bullet went further forward in his chest. Of course, I'm no medical expert, I don't know this, but the bullet is still somewhere in this region of his body. He has not had surgery and he has been moved around.

He was in the first hospital after the shooting for only four hours and he reported to me that he was still bleeding when he was discharged. Then he was transferred to -- while he was in a holding facility without a bed overnight. That was very cold. Then he was transferred 100 miles to Pearsall where he was in the infirmary. When they took him to the hospital, he tells me that they shackled him and had him in waist chains and they were rough with him and he was in pain.

Took him to the hospital, then back to Pearsall. And certainly all of this movement while this bullet is lodged in his body is not good for him. And you can see it on his face when you talk to him.

TAPPER: You said that he entered the U.S. legally through a Biden era program and his deportation order came only after a separate court notice was sent to the wrong address. So you're asking a federal court to block his removal while this case is pending and he pursues other legal options? A judge set a hearing date for September 30th. Do you think he will be allowed to stay until September 30th?

LINCOLN-GOLDFINCH: I believe so, since the judge has ordered that he be present at the hearing on September 30th and he now has several avenues to stay here, one of them being that we believe he is a crime victim at this point and he's important in an investigation that is ongoing.

TAPPER: Kate Lincoln-Goldfinch, thank you so much. Appreciate your time.

Congressman Joaquin Castro is one of many Texas lawmakers demanding the release of Garces Perez. He plans to visit the detention center tomorrow. I'm going to speak with Castro about this case later on The Lead.

But first, one of Trump's foreign policy -- former foreign policy advisors will be here. He's running for the U.S. Senate in Virginia. What he makes of the president's war strategy in Iran and the dilemma Trump says he's facing today.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:15:41]

TAPPER: In our World Lead today, President Trump teasing a, quote, "big decision" on Iran at the United Nations. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Will a deal be made with Iran that lets them rebuild and create a far greater country than it ever was before, maybe one of the greatest in the Middle East or even the world or do I annihilate the Islamic republic and do it quickly?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: Ninety-three million people currently live in Iran. A note on that sound bite, it comes from a camera operated by the United Nations, not the network and cable T.V. pool, which is not covering President Trump due to his ban on journalists, including CNN, from entering the White House.

Meanwhile, a brand new CNN poll shows approval of Trump's handling of the war in Iran is plummeting. Only 26 percent of those polled approve. Only 29 percent approve of his overall handling of foreign relations, a new low across CNN polling in both of his terms.

Joining us now, retired U.S. Army Major General Bert Mizusawa. He's running against Democratic Senator Mark Warner of Virginia.

Major General, thanks for joining us. So you were a foreign policy adviser to President Trump. What would you be advising Trump now on what to do in Iran?

MAJ. GEN. BERT MIZUSAWA (RET.), (R) VIRGINIA SENATE CANIDATE: Well, Jake, as you know, the decision to enter into military operations are always the momentous decisions that any president can make as a commander in chief. So I trust that this president and I would quite frankly say the same thing about a Democrat who was in the White House, who was privy to classified information that you and I are not privy to, and neither is the rest of the American public.

And so this one thing that you and I could agree on, and I believe even my opponent might agree on this, we do not want Iran to get a nuclear capability. They've already conveyed their intentions, not only over the past few years, but over decades. And so there's nobody who wants Iran to get a nuclear capability, given what their intentions are.

So it boils down to one question. How do we stop him and when do we stop him? I just think it's important that we support this president who had the backbone to go in and preempt Iran, because if he hadn't done it now, what greatly concerns me is it could be another six to eight years before we had the wherewithal and the political will to go in and prevent Iran. And so the -- my opponent does not even talk about that as part of the calculus. I do.

[17:20:11]

The other part is the gas prices. Obviously, Americans are hurting from gas prices. I feel it every day myself. But in the end, we have to kind of balance the longer term interest of our nation, which I'm confident President Trump is doing right now, having spent time with him and having written his foreign policy. And I do empathize with Americans who are paying a lot for gas. And I would just challenge my opponent, what have you done over the last 18 years to alleviate the issues we're having now?

TAPPER: So President Trump said that this war would last four to six weeks max. It's now been more than six months. It does seem as though he doesn't know exactly how to get out of this conflict. There have been many stops and starts when it comes to some sort of peace deal or memorandum of understanding. And as of right now, I don't see the off ramp.

Obviously, yes, we all hope that Iran never gets a nuclear weapon, but here is where we are. How much longer do you think this war can continue to go on? I mean, are we talking six more months? Are we talking years? Are we talking -- I mean, we have had wars last decades.

How long do you think is enough?

MIZUSAWA: Well, as I said, getting into a military conflict are the most momentum decisions a president can make. On the other hand, as hard as that is, it's even harder to figure out how you should end a conflict. I mean, I'll just use World War II as an example. We made a very, very difficult decision to use nuclear weapons. That was not an easy decision that Truman had to make at that time.

And so you never want to give our adversaries a timetable for ending a conflict because they'll take advantage of it. Just the way Iran right now is trying to take advantage of the fact that we have midterms coming up. You know what, a war and being a leader is not a popularity contest. We have to make some tough decisions. And I'm glad that the president is making the decisions that he's making, not just for his short term political benefit or even his long term political benefit.

It's because he's doing what he's doing because he realizes our longer term interests. And sometimes Americans have to understand that we do have to endure a little bit of pain and perhaps a lot of pain in the future. And I would just want to point out Virginia would be very high on the target list if Iran had that capability and the intent to use it with nuclear weapons.

TAPPER: I mean, you're right that a war is not a popularity contest, but an election is, and it's coming up in six weeks. And I wonder if you think, if you acknowledge that President Trump and the Iran war and the tariffs are difficult for Republicans such as yourself to get out from under when it comes to facing the voters.

MIZUSAWA: Well, certainly they are. And like I said, I'm feeling it two ways now, right? For gas prices, we're driving all over the Commonwealth of Virginia. But also, I am a candidate in a very tough midterm election. But I still think that the president needs to look out for the long term interests of our nation and not worry quite as much about what the midterm results will be.

I realize that he has to balance the two. He would love to go into his second two years with a majority in both the House and Senate so he can carry force his agenda. I think it's the right agenda for the country, but it's an agenda that's not necessarily popular. I mean, we can kind of equate it to quarterly results of corporations. Whenever we have corporations tow the line and report in quarterly, we never get the best long term outcomes from our investments in those companies.

And so once again, I will say that we've been living with a specter of an Iran that could be nuclear armed but also being held hostages to oil prices. And so we were going to have to do something sooner or later. I'm happy that we're doing it now because I -- given what I know about military operations and about circumstances, I will remind people I was -- 1971 -- nine when they took 51 of our hostages there.

TAPPER: Yes.

MIZUSAWA: Hope people remember that and realize that Iran is not going to operate in our best interest. So when will we have a president that has the backbone to do what we did this past February?

TAPPER: So, I want to ask you a question because Blue Virginia, that's a -- that's a progressive blog, they published audio of you at a debate in June. I want to play some of this. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MIZUSAWA: I actually forwarded an idea to the White House, a little controversial, but I'm a lawyer on how he could constitutionally serve a third term.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: So you said in that debate, Republican debate, that you had an idea for how President Trump could constitutionally serve a third term. Do you still think that there's a constitutional way for a president to serve a third term? And should President Trump serve a third term?

MIZUSAWA: Yes, Jake, number one, I don't think that's very relevant now. I don't think he's going to serve a third term. And my point was a legal point. In fact, people thought that there was no way you could do it constitutionally. But we all know that there's more than one way to serve a presidential term.

[17:25:07]

We've had a number of them in the past. But my opponent keeps trying to tie me to everything that Trump does or doesn't do. I just want to remind people, the Founding Fathers in their brilliance of staggered terms to four and six years terms and the Senate is the body that has six year terms.

I think Mark Warner has failed to think longer term. If he had, we wouldn't be dealing with a lot of the oil issues we are now. He's voted against ways for us to bring in cheaper oil and be more self- sufficient with our energy.

TAPPER: Yes.

MIZUSAWA: I think the bottom line is that we need to continue to do what's good for the country. And I am going to be looking out for the longer term interest and not short term expedient solutions. Like I said, he's already had 18 years to take care of these things that now he's criticizing the president. TAPPER: But you acknowledge or you don't acknowledge that in the Constitution, the amendment to the Constitution that was passed after FDR served for four terms that you cannot serve for more than two terms, period.

MIZUSAWA: That's not correct, Jake. You can serve for more than two terms. You cannot be elected to a third term. And there's a difference there. Gerald R. Ford was never elected to his term as president.

TAPPER: Retired Major General Bert Mizusawa, thank you so much. Appreciate it, sir.

Still ahead, the office of Republican Senator Susan Collins today responding to a new report from ProPublica which lays out some serious allegations about an FBI investigation into one of her donors. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:30:54]

TAPPER: Our Law and Justice Lead now, a damning new report published by ProPublica details a sweeping pay to play investigation that the FBI was reportedly on the cusp of green lighting. The probe was originally rooted in the interactions between Republican Senator Susan Collins' top fundraiser, and the Hawaiian defense contractor Navatek.

Now that investigation quickly evolved into something potentially bigger. And by 2022, the now ex defense contractor confessed to agents that his company won millions in federal contracts by bankrolling campaigns of dozens of powerful politicians.

Cut to 2024, ProPublica reports, "Agents had enough evidence to pursue a sweeping bribery probe that could ensnare top lawmakers of both political parties." But then President Trump returned to office, purged the FBI's Anti-Corruption Unit, and the investigation reportedly died. William Turton is one of the reporters on the story from ProPublica and he joins me now.

William, let's start with the people around Senator Collins. Her deputy chief of staff put out a statement today that read in part, "The seven-year-old allegations made against Senator Collins and her staff in this piece are categorically false. There have never been any allegations of wrongdoing by the Collins first senator campaign and the campaign was never the target of the FBI investigation." So walk us through the interactions you say the FBI uncovered that her fundraiser allegedly had with the defense contractor. And what's your response to that statement?

WILLIAM TURTON, REPORTER, PROPUBLICA: Sure, the agents were at the beginning of their probe looking into the interactions between Collins and her involvement with a Hawaiian defense contractor, a man named Martin Kao. The Collins campaign says that we relied on Kao's word. That's not accurate. We conducted our own investigation. And the FBI too investigated some of Kao's claims and they took them seriously. Kao gave a lengthy confession to two FBI agents in the U.S. attorney's office in Honolulu in both 2022 and 2024, where he detailed his interactions with members of the Collins campaign as well as the Super PAC supporting her and what he alleged was a scheme in order to exchange contributions for contracts.

TAPPER: Now, in your piece, you note that Navatek CEO Martin Kao and his close associates, "Had donated nearly $900,000 to dozens of politicians, allowing Navatek to establish operations in half a dozen states with over $40 million a year in government funding." What other politicians receive donations?

TURTON: There's a lot of other politicians that we're continuing to report on. You know, the public record shows many of the politicians go on the FCC website and look it up. One other politician that we highlighted in our piece is Senator Lindsey Graham.

TAPPER: In your reporting, did you get the sense that no one at the Justice Department or the FBI is watching to see if such schemes are running rampant given the administration's dismantling of various anti-corruption units in the government?

TURTON: You know, what we learned in our reporting is that the agents and prosecutors who do these kinds of cases are extremely careful and methodical. And in fact, their job has gotten a lot harder because the Supreme Court has narrowed the definition of bribery. Even still, they took Kao's allegations extremely seriously and continued to investigate them until the agents were pushed out of the FBI as part of Trump's political purge.

TAPPER: So the Collins team also says that Kao has credibility issues. It's acknowledged in your piece, right? I mean, that isn't an unfair criticism.

TURTON: Yes. That's right. I mean, Kao is a convicted fraudster and the FBI knew that as well, right? They had to independently investigate and corroborate his claims, as did we. And the evidence they found in e-mails between Kao, the company, the lobbyists they hired, Collins campaign, the Super PAC, interviews with other Navatek executives about their meetings with top PAC employees told a different story.

[17:35:11]

TAPPER: William Turton with ProPublica, thank you so much for your time today. Appreciate it.

We're 42 days out from Election Day 2026. My next guest tracks some of the most consequential elections ever. What's making her list? That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

TAPPER: Six weeks until Election Day. So I only get six more weeks of asking to cue the CNN election jam, one of you out there is going to write lyrics for it sometimes. Six weeks from the midterms. You've likely heard this is the most important election of our lifetime same with the 2024 presidential election and the one before that and the one before that. The phrase voters around the world have literally heard for centuries.

[17:40:12]

A new book written by CNN's Dana Bash with David Fisher holds the key to which elections were actually the most pivotal in retrospect. The book is called "The Elections that Changed the World." It's out today. And Dana's here to talk about it. Dana, congratulations --

DANA BASH, CNN CHIEF POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: Thank you.

TAPPER: -- on the book. The book doesn't just explore U.S. History. It runs from the election of Julius Caesar in 63 B.C. all the way to Nelson Mandela's election in South Africa in '94. You say it's not a comprehensive list, but how did you decide which ones to profile?

BASH: Well, we decided that we wanted to have sort of a representative list of elections, from big elections where millions of people vote, to small elections, more sort of civic elections. And the criteria were that these elections were impactful far beyond the generation of people who actually did go to vote. And there are a lot of them out there. This is very subjective, for sure, but we really wanted to show, as we are six weeks until Election Day, how a person's vote and a single election, big or small, really can have lasting effects.

And the key is you don't know when you're in it, whether it's going to change things for you and your family or whether it's going to really be an earthquake for the world. And that's why we look back in history and we didn't do anything truly modern. We stopped with Nelson Mandela in 1994.

TAPPER: What's the most important American election, do you think?

BASH: Well, the most interesting and I think important election is the two elections in 1796 and 1800, because they were the first competitive elections in this country's history. And it wasn't really clear that this Constitution thing that actually the two men on the ballot, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, put together whether it was going to hold after George Washington left. And they were pretty bloody. 1796, of course, Adams won.

Thomas Jefferson won the popular vote in 1800, but there was a constitutional crisis because there was a little bit of a problem with that Constitution. And in the Electoral College, Thomas Jefferson and his running mate, Aaron Burr, tied. So it had to go to the House of Representatives. And Jefferson eventually won, but it wasn't clear that it was going to work out. So I think that's probably the most important because it was the first real test.

TAPPER: John Adams, garbage president. My personal opinion, by the way.

BASH: Well, the sedition act is very relevant to where we are now.

TAPPER: Well, he locked up a journalist.

BASH: That's what I mean.

TAPPER: She locked him up and he died of smallpox. Which of these elections were you able to learn the most about while writing the book? Like, which one? Just like, did you just devour and fall in love with?

BASH: Well, I'm not sure if I fell in love with it, but the one that I learned the most from was the election of Sun Yat-sen in China in 1911. And the reason is because I didn't fully realize. I mean, obviously we know about the history of the imperial centuries of imperial rule in China, and then we know, of course, about the CCP now.

And I didn't fully realize that what was in between and what ushered in Communist China was, was democracy. It was brief. But this individual Sun Yat-sen, was a revolutionary. And he went and he said, we've got to end these rule from above, deity. That's what they thought that they were. And he pushed for an election, was elected president, and the democracy didn't go very well. And then he was the one who invited the Soviet Union in.

And then Mao came in with his party and they effectively took over with a couple of sham elections in between, took over China. And that's where we are today. And I think it's very relevant to where we are this week with the Chinese leader coming to the White House.

TAPPER: How do you think history is going to look upon this era of elections that we're in right now?

BASH: I mean, who knows? I think we do know that the 2016 election was an earthquake, but the reason we stayed away from it is because we're still in it. We're still in the 2016 era because Donald Trump is still president. But there's certainly a lot of material, don't you think? Jake, who would you have picked? Who would you have picked if you were doing this book? What election?

TAPPER: What election would I have picked?

BASH: Yes, yes.

TAPPER: Oh, God, that's such a tough question. I mean, I'm personally fascinated by the 1800 election just because I hate John Adams as a president with the passion of a thousand burning songs.

[17:45:00]

BASH: Yes.

TAPPER: But, you know, I think that the FDR's fourth run, where he was on death's door. And -- but that's most interesting to me because they ousted his democratic socialist vice president and brought in Harry Truman. That, to me, is why I'm so fascinated with that. But I'm told I have to go. But Dana Bash, the book is "The Elections that Changed the World." It's out now. Everybody run and get yourself a copy. It's really fascinating stuff. You'll learn a lot. And it's really engagingly written. And Dana also talks briefly about the election that she won when she ran for student body president in, what was it? Eighth grade?

BASH: Sixth grade.

TAPPER: Sixth grade.

BASH: It's not as big as your win when you won for president. And I know there's a certain governor who did not win.

TAPPER: No, I was president of somebody at my school, and four years later, somebody ran and did not win. And he's now the governor of Pennsylvania.

BASH: He's doing OK.

TAPPER: He's doing OK. Dana Bash, thanks so much.

At the United Nations today, President Trump called his Venezuelan oil deal the largest such in history. OK, how much money? Where's it going? Where is it? The puzzling response when one lawmaker pressed the Trump administration for answers. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:50:44]

TAPPER: Back in the World Lead today, President Trump touted a new oil deal that he calls the largest in history, covering 65 billion barrels of oil with Venezuela. That's a lot of oil and potentially a lot of money. But where is the money going? Democratic Congressman Sean Casten of Illinois tried to get at exactly that a few days ago when he questioned the treasury secretary, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

SCOTT BESSENT, TREASURY SECRETARY: This is the one of the largest assets that maybe ever to go on the U.S. balance sheet.

REP. SEAN CASTEN (D-IL): And well, it's OK. Are the accounts that the treasury is managing tied only to the sale of oils or are you also taking control of other Venezuelan assets?

BESSENT: It is many Venezuelan assets, yes.

CASTEN: You can't testify as we sit here whether or not those are flowing to U.S. persons?

BESSENT: No.

CASTEN: Can you identify where or what US bank those funds are being held?

BESSENT: No.

CASTEN: Secretary Rubio had indicated that they were being held by Citibank. Do you dispute what Secretary Rubio said or do you not know?

BESSENT: I agree with him.

CASTEN: Is Citibank earning any fees or other charges on those deposits?

BESSENT: I'm -- I believe that they are likely earning their traditional fees.

CASTEN: OK, so that would be a U.S. person who money is flowing to.

BESSENT: What is that?

CASTEN: That would be a U.S. entity. Citibank is a U.S. entity. That would be a U.S. entity that Venezuelan funds are falling to.

BESSENT: Yes.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

TAPPER: Yes. Not a lot of information forthcoming there. Let's bring in Beth Sanner, who served as Deputy Director of National Intelligence. Beth, it's not entirely clear how much money has been made from the Venezuelan oil sale sells, but about two months ago, Trump said it was north of $13 billion. I mean, he tends to take liberties with numbers.

BETH SANNER, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: Right. Right.

TAPPER: But the account has changed hands from Qatar to Citibank. It's not clear how that helps it reach Venezuela. CNN reached out to the Treasury and the State Department for clarity about this. Neither responded to our request for comment. What do you make of how confusing all these transactions are? Is that intentional or is it incompetence?

SANNER: It's intentional. I mean, why would you not tell somebody about what's happening from, you know, as Bessent said, one of the biggest assets on our balance sheet, which in Citibank, I think he's kind of confusing two things. There's the oil deal, which is a separate deal for a lot of Venezuelan oil, where we will control majority stakes in this particular part of the Venezuelan oil fields.

And then this is we're taking all, almost all of their export revenue, and we're taking it out of Venezuela, and we're putting in an account, and Marco Rubio decides where it goes and when and how. And there's a $10 billion discrepancy from that 13 billion that he cited. And how much we know has been dispersed, but they haven't told us for months and months.

I think that it's a little bit crazy. And I think it's also why the Venezuelan people, you know, 70 percent of the Venezuelan people polled said they think that the only reason Trump got rid of Maduro was because of the oil. And 89 percent of them think that this deal is bad for them. And, you know, Trump's support has dropped like a rock. I mean, everybody was excited when he took out Maduro, 92 percent of them love Trump at the beginning, now 21 percent do.

So, you know, they get what's going on. And it's kind of surprising to me that the American people don't.

TAPPER: But, I mean, so the United States is taking this oil and, what, we're selling it and then just pocketing the money or it's. And how is it even legal to not be transparent about this?

SANNER: Well, I mean, it's probably not legal, it's not. There are two different things, right? The account that has their money from their oil sales, OK? Now, that's supposed to go back to Venezuela, but they don't know.

TAPPER: Right.

SANNER: And maybe, maybe we don't want to say, because we don't want to be clear that we're not giving them all the money that they're earning after an earthquake that no one's talking about.

TAPPER: Right?

[17:54:57]

SANNER: And we're giving them not, you know, $10 billion. We're just holding back, and they're not using it. So you can understand, on one hand, you don't want to just give all this money to a corrupt regime that's completely illegitimate. That's why they did it in the first place. But how they're doling it out should be more of a public record for both U.S. and Venezuela.

TAPPER: Well, I mean, I wouldn't be too worried about it. When you have the Qataris bankers and the Trump administration, what could go wrong, right?

SANNER: Nothing. Jake.

TAPPER: Beth Sanner, thank you so much.

Breaking news from Texas, brand new video and the story of an ICE agent shooting a Venezuelan DoorDasher in the back. What this new video reveals, that's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

TAPPER: Welcome to The Lead. I'm Jake Tapper. This hour, President Trump making headlines at the United Nations today as he's caught up in the middle of a First Amendment fight. The President threatened to annihilate Iran today. He claims Cuba's government will collapse. And he said he thinks Russia and Ukraine will make a peace deal. We've got all of today's U.N. headlines in just moments.

[18:00:02]