Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Trump Diagnosed with Chronic Venous Insufficiency; White House: Trump Would Not Recommend Special Prosecutor on Epstein; Interview with Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI): Democrats Walk Out in Protest as Ex-Trump Lawyer's Nomination Advances. Aired 2:30-3p ET

Aired July 17, 2025 - 14:30   ET

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

[14:30:00]

DR. JEREMY FAUST, EMERGENCY PHYSICIAN: ... is always on this balance between how thick and thin it should be. And we have an amazing -- we have amazing bodies that keep our blood in a really narrow range of how thin or thick it should be for our own safety. Too thin, you bleed too much. Too thick, you make clots, which blocks off blood supply to vital organs.

And so when you have, if your blood is a little too thick, or a little too slow, in terms of getting back to the heart, which is this condition that the president does have, these blood clots can start to accumulate in places where they're not supposed to or get too large to be safe. And the concern there would be when that blood clot occurs, that it can actually then break off of the vessel where it's forming, usually in the legs, and travel up back to the heart.

And then when it gets pumped back out, it can cut off blood supply chiefly to the lungs, but it can also go other places depending on individuals' anatomy and abnormalities. But these dangerous blood clots, they can be very dangerous.

Some people can get these conditions diagnosed. They're called pulmonary embolisms in the lungs, blood clots of the lungs. And they can be benign, and they can be treated. But some of them can be life- threatening.

So it's an amazing spectrum of illness that we diagnose in ERs, where people have these blood clots, and the treatment can really vary from blood thinners by mouth or IV. But in serious life-threatening cases, some of these blood clots need to be removed actually in medical procedures, or we need to give medications that break those clots apart.

So it's a spectrum of disease that can go from mild to life- threatening. And that is why the president was evaluated, to see if he had that condition, a blood clot. And fortunately, he did not.

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: Yes, really good context there. And Dr. Ashby, as you're listening to what we're hearing from the White House here, they're describing this as benign, right? It's something that isn't harmful to the president at this point in time. But let's take a look at his lifestyle, because he obviously has a very demanding travel schedule at times.

We know that that can certainly cause risk factors to circulation. There is his age. There is his history of certainly he does play quite a lot of golf, but he doesn't have a history of really intensive cardiovascular activity.

How do all of these things work together, and what kind of treatment or management might a doctor be looking at overtime for someone of this age, who is traveling a lot and sitting a lot?

DR. BERNARD ASHBY, CARDIOLOGIST: Yes, so it appears that the White House physicians were also concerned about more than meets the eye. Meaning that they did a number of tests that I overheard you say, or the edits say earlier. He had an echocardiogram, a BNP, which is a brain natriuretic peptide, and lower extremity ultrasounds. So essentially, they were covering all their bases, meaning that they were screening him for heart failure, which is a common cause of lower extremity swelling.

In addition to that, they were concerned with increased pressure in his heart. So they did an echocardiogram and a BNP. And if those were abnormal, then you would be concerned with heart failure.

So looking at the president's lower extremities or his legs, he had bilateral swelling. So it's less likely that's related to a clot in the vein and more likely related to things like heart failure, kidney failure, which are things that he alluded to and said that that was not the case.

Now, taking a step back, looking at the entire case, the president is obese. He is older. And I don't know if he has hypertension, but that's very likely or very common in his age group, particularly with his body habitus. So when you do have a condition like lower extremity swelling, bilateral, and a diagnosis of venous insufficiency, the question is, is it intrinsic to the veins, meaning does the venous insufficiency that he has, is it related to bad valves or is it related to increased pressure coming from the heart?

And those can be related to things like weight, also things like sleep apnea, which he fits the kind of the prerequisite for, meaning that he's a big guy, he's obese, and more likely to have sleep apnea, which is a condition where you stop breathing at night. And that can also increase the pressure in the lungs, which can then cause a backflow to the body and you can be seen as lower extremity swelling or what you saw in the picture.

So again, even though he's diagnosed with a benign condition, venous insufficiency by itself doesn't necessarily mean it's benign. The question is, what's causing the venous insufficiency? And so I would want to know whether or not he has any evidence of, again, increased pressures in the heart or increased pressures in the lungs, which can be contributing to that. And if so, what is the primary cause of that?

Is it sleep apnea? Is it heart failure? But again, this is all speculation.

[14:35:00]

But I wouldn't take the benign diagnosis on his face. I would want to work him up a little bit more to figure out exactly why he has venous insufficiency.

OMAR JIMENEZ, CNN HOST: And the White House said they would send through some more details from what was announced in the press conference. So we'll look for a lot of the details that you just gave us a good heads up to look for. That's why we bring in a cardiologist. Dr. Ashby and Dr. Faust, thank you both for being with us.

Stay with CNN. We got a lot of news to break down that we just heard from that press conference. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[14:40:00]

KEILAR: The White House says President Trump would not recommend a special prosecutor to investigate the Jeffrey Epstein case. With us now, we have CNN's Kevin Liptak, former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, and Opinion columnist David French with us. Kevin, what stood out the most to you from what we heard today?

KEVIN LIPTAK, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE REPORTER: I think it was that comment when she said that the president wouldn't recommend a special counsel. Because you are starting to hear even some of the president's supporters say that this should be a step that he should take to look into this Jeffrey Epstein matter. As they look for more information that they think that they were going to get when they elected Trump president, they say that this is an option, including from Laura Loomer.

She has actually recommended this. Remember, she's the conspiracist. She's actually in the Oval Office a fair amount.

This is an option she says that the president should take. I do think her phrasing there was pretty critical. She says that the president wouldn't recommend it.

Because remember, it's not the president who decides on a special counsel. It's the attorney general. And just ask Joe Biden, not every president gets a special counsel that they want. So even President Trump knows that from the first time around.

And so I don't think that Pam Bondi is going to appoint a special counsel when it has been made explicitly clear that this isn't President Trump's directive. You know, this is a Justice Department that has blown past all sort of norms of independence.

So that was pretty important when she said that this is not an option that the president is particularly interested in.

JIMENEZ: And there would be just a question of what exactly would that special counsel even uncover that either hasn't already been litigated or isn't already out. LIPTAK: Right, because in the White House's own telling, all of this information is already out there. Anything that would still come out, President Trump says, is not credible. And Karoline Leavitt in that press briefing also said, was not credible.

So even if there's more information out there, starting to put out sort of this pretext, laying the ground for the president to challenge its credibility, if it ever does materialize.

JIMENEZ: And I want to bring in opinion columnist David French into this, because David, you know, you just wrote an op-ed saying MAGA is tearing itself apart over Jeffrey Epstein. Obviously, the backdrop of all of this is the president has faced a lot of pressure from his base, from folks who wanted to put him in this position, thinking that he would be the person to sort of bring them the quote-unquote truth, whatever their idea of it may have been. I just wonder how you interpreted Karoline Leavitt's comments today and the ripples you think they may have in that sphere moving forward.

DAVID FRENCH, OPINION COLUMNIST, THE NEW YORK TIMES: I mean, look, for a lot of members of the MAGA movement, this is the ultimate test of their loyalty. I mean, Trump has lied to MAGA a lot over the course of his presidency. But when he lies to MAGA, he tends to tell them exactly what they want to hear.

An election was stolen. There's absolutely nothing, nothing to investigate about Russia. All of those are things that they want to hear. They're going to affirm their pre-existing views.

But look, the Trump administration's many members of its core team in the run-up to this term were telling them the Epstein files are real. There's a list.

Even during his presidency, his own attorney general, when asked about a list, said, it's on my desk. And then there's this unsigned memorandum that says no list, no blackmail, he did die by suicide, thereby undercutting an enormous element of the larger Epstein conspiracy theory that an awful lot of MAGA folks believe. And so this was the first time they were really confronted with Trump telling them what they did not want to hear.

And they were put in this position of thinking, well, either this Epstein story is not what we thought, or the administration has lied to us, or the administration has lied to us, or the Epstein story might not be everything that we thought it was going to be. And there's just no reconciling these views. And so this is one of the reasons why you're seeing this.

And also, there's a little bit of jockeying for power within MAGA. Who's going to be the true Trump sycophant, who will push through everything and be with Trump, versus who's going to have some sort of independent mind or thought?

And one last thing, to say that, you know, there is a big Epstein conspiracy theory is not to say that there's nothing to look at here. There's an awful lot about this case that's quite mysterious. There are a lot of reasons to look at it. So I do think there's some real need for a bipartisan call to release all the material that's legal to release.

But the bigger theory is what has long animated MAGA. And to have some of the people who've propagated that theory now turn around and essentially say, move along, nothing to see here, is causing a lot of people to do -- it's causing a lot of cognitive dissonance.

KEILAR: Yes, and Andrew McCabe with us now.

[14:45:00]

The other thing that's causing a real problem is the White House and Trump selling this idea that this is some Democratic hoax, this whole thing about Epstein and this information and there being information that isn't being shared.

Just take us through some of that because of the timeline and how it spans Trump administrations.

ANDREW MCCABE, CNN LAW ENFORCEMENT ANALYST: Yes, sure. I thought it was remarkable that when given the opportunity to put some meat on that bone, they asked her the first question was, what's the hoax? Like what's hoaxy about this?

All she could say was that the president is frustrated with the coverage. He doesn't like the fact that mainstream media and cable news continues to draw attention to this and that Democrats are now saying the same thing that his own supporters are saying, which is give us more information from the files.

The entire hoax claim, as you've suggested, Brianna, it just doesn't hold up to the facts of time, right? So Epstein was investigated in the early 2000s, first by his local police agency. They didn't do a particularly good job there. Those local cops reached out for the FBI. That turned it into a federal case. Ultimately, the U.S. Attorney's Office came up with a 60-count indictment. That's a significant indictment.

And then for some mysterious reason, here's one of the mysteries that Mr. French was referring to, Alex Acosta, who was the U.S. Attorney at the time, walked away from the indictment, gave the case away, gave Epstein a sweetheart deal that involved pleading guilty to two charges and serving this ridiculous jail sentence for 18 months where he was basically not in jail for much of that time.

So that all happens in 2007, right? Long before Barack Obama or Jim Comey or anybody else was even in government, much less involved in the investigation.

Nothing then happens until 2019, during the Trump administration, when Maureen Comey and her colleagues in the Southern District revitalized the case and ultimately successfully prosecute Ghislaine Maxwell and are likely going to successfully prosecute Epstein until he, of course, kills himself in jail. So that period -- so the period of time when there's essentially no

case, that's when the hoax Democrats were in charge. So it just doesn't make any sense.

I think really what's going on here is it reflects Trump's frustration about the fact that this story, this narrative is not going in a good direction for him right now. So the go-to is always throw a few rocks at Jim Comey and Barack Obama and the Democrats.

KEILAR: Yes, and Maureen Comey, we should note, suddenly fired here just recently as well. Andrew, David, Kevin, thank you so much for really taking us through that complete picture of things. We really appreciate it.

And still to come, Senate Republicans advancing the nomination of President Trump's former personal attorney to a federal judgeship despite Democrats abruptly walking out on the vote. We'll speak with one of those lawmakers who is part of the protest next.

[14:50:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

JIMENEZ: President Trump's former personal attorney, Emile Bove, is one step closer to a lifetime appointment as a federal appeals court judge. That is despite deep opposition from Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee who actually walked out in protest, as you can see here, as Republicans advance Bove's nomination.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: With all appeals to past jurisdiction and past precedent, why are you doing this? This is outrageous.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: This is a kangaroo court. That's what we have here.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is wrong to violate your own rules.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

JIMENEZ: Now, for context, Bove is currently the number three official at the Justice Department. During his confirmation hearing last month, he repeatedly denied allegations of corruption at the DOJ. That includes claims that he deliberately plotted to violate court orders to advance the president's deportation plans.

Joining me now is one of the senators seen exiting today's hearing, Democrat Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island. Senator, I really appreciate you taking the time. So we saw you in the video pointing a finger and more of your colleagues rising and leaving.

What was going through your mind at that point? What was happening at that point? SEN. SHELDON WHITEHOUSE (D-RI): What was happening at that point was that the Republican chairman of the Judiciary Committee was breaking one of the committee rules. Ordinarily, you get to a vote after everybody's done talking, and there's no objection to going to a vote. If the chairman wants to go to a vote, and somebody objects, there's a rule that says the objector can demand a vote, allowing the chairman to proceed with the substantive vote.

And that was what Senator Booker was doing. He was saying, look, you can't just roll me. I'm entitled to a vote on your decision to move to the substantive vote without all of us being heard and over our objection.

So that would have been one more vote. They could have tabled Senator Booker. They could have simply voted him down.

But instead of doing that, they just called the vote while he was talking. And so you had the clerk of the court starting to call the vote, interrupting a speaking United States senator in violation of an existing rule. And that was like, OK, we've put up with enough of this.

So we got up to get out to take away the quorum that the chairman then enjoyed. So this is going to play out more as we talk about what happened with the parliamentarian. But this was a serious, unprecedented rule breaking to jam this guy through.

And it's highly suspicious because it's happening side by side with this effort to have Trump judges bottle up the hearing in court, the contempt hearing in court that would reveal Bove's role in that incident you talked about, where they were planning to ultimately disobey court orders and tell courts, believe it or not, F you.

JIMENEZ: And we're still waiting on an appeals court ruling on that front, which is what the senator is referencing.

WHITEHOUSE: Yes, which is the three months for a type of ruling that's supposed to last --

JIMENEZ: Yes.

WHITEHOUSE: -- days.

JIMENEZ: Senator, sorry, I don't mean to cut you off, but I was just going to ask that your colleagues, Senator Chris Van Hollen and Dick Durbin, just on a separate issue, are calling on Attorney General Pam Bondi to immediately release any files on Epstein and that they don't need a bill to do so. Is that something you support? Are you among those calling for the release of more on this?

WHITEHOUSE: Yes, I think at this point it's pretty important that all the appropriate information get released. When you've got everybody from Laura Loomer to Dick Durbin saying, hey, this information should come out, that's a pretty broad spectrum of opinion. And I think the president and more particularly Attorney General Bondi, particularly after she made all these, you know, big reveal promises, she's put herself under a pretty considerable obligation to get out from under the mess she made and to provide a lot more disclosure than she has.

JIMENEZ: Yes, I can't imagine that Venn diagram between Laura Loomer and Dick Durbin is that big. So yes, a rare issue indeed.

WHITEHOUSE: This maybe is one cross point.

JIMENEZ: Yes, this might be it. But I want to ask too about a lot going on on Capitol Hill, as you know, the cuts to federal spending that we're watching. The House is going to vote to give it final approval tonight.

[14:55:00]

If passed, it'll end to -- it'll end federal funding to public broadcasting for the first time since the 60s when the law approves funding was passed. How will the bill -- how will the cuts in this bill impact your area? Do you know if TPR, the public broadcaster and your state will shut down or be affected or any operation?

WHITEHOUSE: It's hard to tell because I think to get the bill passed, there may have been some private deals cut in leader Thune's office with OMB director of vote. So it's not at all clear what the actual upshot will be. One thing that is clear, though, is that the decision by the Republicans for the first time in Senate history to blow through the appropriations process and put a partisan rescission through really does damage to bipartisan appropriations.

And so the whole appropriations process has taken a real blow from this partisan act and from the following statement by Russell Vought that they need a lot less bipartisanship in appropriations.

JIMENEZ: Yes. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, appreciate the time. Thanks for being here.

WHITEHOUSE: Thank you.

JIMENEZ: All right.

Still ahead, the White House announces that President Trump was examined for swelling in his legs and has been diagnosed with chronic venous insufficiency.

We'll have more on that next. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

END