Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Interview With Rep. Kevin Kiley (R-CA); Explosion at L.A. County Training Facility; Will Trump Administration Do Limited Release of Epstein Files?. Aired 1-1:30p ET

Aired July 18, 2025 - 13:00   ET

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

[13:00:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:00:33]

OMAR JIMENEZ, CNN HOST: Caving to pressure ? After days of demands for more information about accused sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein and efforts by the White House to shut down the discussion, could we see testimony from the investigation unsealed?

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: And signing off soon. Stephen Colbert says his "Late Show" will be ending next year. It's a shocking step that CBS calls a financial decision, but critics wonder if there's more behind the move.

And a few seconds on a JumboTron at a Coldplay concert lands two people in hot water and launches an Internet obsession.

We're following these major developing stories and many more all coming in right here to CNN NEWS CENTRAL.

JIMENEZ: And, as we mentioned, we're following the developing story.

Attorney General Pam Bondi says the Justice Department today will ask a Manhattan judge to unseal portions of the grand jury material related to accused sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein's case. Now, overnight, Trump says he asked Bondi to -- quote -- "produce any and all pertinent grand jury testimony."

At the same time, "The Wall Street Journal" drops a bombshell report. Now, the newspaper says that, in 2003, Trump sent a birthday letter to Epstein. It reportedly shows a hand-drawn naked woman and a reference to a -- quote -- "wonderful secret."

Now, the president strongly denies it and, just a short time ago, firing off a new lawsuit threat at "The Journal"'s owner, Rupert Murdoch, Rupert Murdoch.

Let's get right to Kristen Holmes of the White House.

So, Kristen, what is the latest on this saga here?

KRISTEN HOLMES, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, Omar, we're really hearing a different tune from the White House and from President Trump than we have heard for the last week-and-a-half.

Since that memo came out and since we have been reporting on the inner strife within the White House within the administration over the release and the handling of the Epstein case, they have really been on the defensive. But now after this article came out, President Trump is really uniting his MAGA loyalists behind him in this effort to essentially say that this is a false story.

We have seen him on the offensive for the first time again since really that memo came out. Today, he's saying he can't wait until Rupert Murdoch testifies. He also says this. He's pushing back on anything that was in the files, saying if there was a -- quote -- "smoking gun on Epstein, why didn't the Democrats who controlled the 'files' for four years and had Garland and Comey in charge use it? Because they had nothing."

He also goes on, and just to read his defense of this, this is what he said, that this is not an image he put up. This is what he said. He said: "These are not my words, not the way I talk. Also, I don't draw pictures. I told Rupert Murdoch it was a scam that he shouldn't print this fake story, but he did. And now I'm going to sue his ass off."

The reason why this is so critical here, this is not the posture of the White House for the last two weeks. They have really been fielding what has been one story after another about Trump supporters being angry with him, calls from supporters who were angry, some of these high-profile right-wing people on social media out there attacking President Trump.

You have heard Karoline Leavitt in the Briefing Room pushing back on Epstein. Now you are seeing a different side of the White House. They are trying to use this story, as Trump often does, to unite his base around what he calls the mainstream media and say that it is a fake story. And to some extent, it does feel like it is working.

Now, of course, part of all of this as it was unfolding last night was President Trump saying that he was ordering the Department of Justice and Pam Bondi to unseal the grand jury testimony. There are still a lot of questions as to what we will actually get. And I assume Paula Reid is going to break that down in terms of documents.

But right now he has now issued this step that is making a lot of his MAGA base a lot more comfortable and feeling more supportive of President Trump as he pushes back against this.

JIMENEZ: Kristen Holmes, you read my mind because we are going to bring in Paula Reid coming up here.

CNN chief legal affairs correspondent Paula Reid now with more on the status of the files in this request we're expecting from the Justice Department.

So what exactly are they going to be asking for or expected to ask the judge for? And what could be the timing here?

PAULA REID, CNN CHIEF LEGAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Look, Omar, this is a long shot because we're talking about grand jury materials, a grand jury proceeding.

[13:05:00]

That's where a prosecutor goes in seeking an indictment against someone. They present just enough evidence. It's a much lower bar than getting a conviction to get that indictment. And that material is, by default, confidential.

So, here, the Justice Department, TikTok unclear what they're going to argue to this judge to convince a judge to release this material under seal. This is something that is not only protected because that's the rule for grand juries, but also in this particular case, we are talking about protecting the interests of victims and accusers.

So this judge, once that he receives this request, will likely want to hear from other stakeholders in this case. Nothing is going to happen quickly. But I also want to note, this grand jury material represents just a small portion of all of the evidence that the Justice Department has gathered in this investigation.

We know the FBI, the Justice Department, they have thousands, if not millions more pages of evidence in their possession. And part of the frustration that many of the people who support the president have is that they know that they have this additional evidence. The attorney general has given mixed signals. She said she was reviewing some of it. They expected that they would release it.

But they haven't released more of that evidence. So even if, again, it's a long shot, this judge agrees to release more of this secret of grand jury material, there is still this outstanding question, hey, what about all that other stuff the FBI and the Justice Department still has?

JIMENEZ: So yes, let's talk about it, because, yes, as you mentioned, this is not all the material collected during the Epstein investigation. The attorney general has some, in theory, that she could release without a judge's approval. Is that sort of the threshold here?

REID: Yes, it's not just a theory, Omar. I mean, this is a fact. She could release more of this information. Now, she has said that has also been sealed by courts to protect victims. It does not expose any third parties to allegations of illegal wrongdoing, because that's really what people are interested in, right?

Are there other people who have been accused or are there other people that committed crimes here that are somehow being protected? But she has a lot of evidence that she could potentially release. Now, it is likely that much of this would have to be redacted to protect victims. That may not really satisfy the folks who are really interested in this.

But at this point, the Justice Department has not really handled this rollout well, because, again, they have given mixed messages on whether they would release the information they have. And right now, it appears to me to buy more time. They're going to go to a judge with a longshot request about just a teeny portion of confidential information from the grand jury.

JIMENEZ: Paula Reid, appreciate the insight and reporting. Thank you so much -- Brianna.

KEILAR: And we're joined now by Jeffrey Epstein's former attorney David Schoen, who also represented President Trump during his second impeachment trial.

David, first, your reaction to this "Wall Street Journal" reporting of this bawdy letter to Epstein that bears Trump's name.

DAVID SCHOEN, FORMER ATTORNEY FOR JEFFREY EPSTEIN: Yes, I mean, I take him at his word that it's not his. It doesn't sound like his language and all that, but I don't know what the source of it would be. It may be that Maxwell put together letters. I don't know the answer to that.

On the other hand, I also don't -- I mean, I hate to undercut any damages action he has, but I don't understand why it would be such a major deal. These were these high-flying, high testosterone group of wealthy people writing a birthday message. They all engaged in sort of sex talk and that sort of thing. I don't think that that's a major consequence, quite frankly.

But fact is, he says it's not his letter. And so see how that plays out. I hate to see us get sidetracked with all of these kinds of issues, but I understand there's a certain prurient interest in all of this stuff. So...

KEILAR: Trump has said...

(CROSSTALK)

SCHOEN: I will say this. If I could just...

KEILAR: Yes. Go ahead.

SCHOEN: I was just going to just comment again on what Paula said, which was very right and interesting. The judge by statute is required to give any objecting party an opportunity under 6-3-E-F on -- to oppose the disclosure.

The dynamic is very interesting now with this because, just a year ago, the Justice Department argued in front of Judge Gardephe in the Southern District that, for law enforcement purposes, none of the Epstein records should be disclosed. And he agreed with that. Judge Gardephe ordered that just a year ago.

And it's interesting that in 2024 law enforcement still took the position that they had a particular law enforcement exemption under the Freedom of Information Act. So we will see how this plays out. But, listen, the right-wing Tucker Carlson group is never going to be satisfied no matter what's produced because if it doesn't produce a picture of Bill Clinton with some girl, then they're going to say, well, they still must be holding something back.

They're still talking about who killed JFK.

KEILAR: Yes. But, obviously this has become a giant political storm, right? So there's a different context to this now that isn't just a legal one.

Do you think that the administration should release FBI notes or interviews outside of the grand jury process, because the grand jury process is not a complete picture?

[13:10:01]

SCHOEN: That's right.

Well, let's remember Judge Preska released about 4,553 pages years ago, and she gave people a chance to object. And then hundreds of pages were released after that. The danger in that was sort of false accusations. You might remember that a document came out from there that accused Al Gore of visiting the island, and then it was retracted.

But once that information is put out there, people focus on it, especially conspiracy theorists. There's also a problem for the accusers. Some of them don't want their names coming out. They're not people who sued in the past. So I just don't think we abandon the rules and willy-nilly disclose everything.

Everybody ought to be in favor of transparency, but there are other interests involved other than just satisfying the curiosity or, as I say, these prurient interests. There is no Epstein client list, that, I can tell you, that list names of people who he purportedly took to an island with young girl or anyplace else with young women.

I can assure you he would have used that to his advantage if there were. And I can assure you the accusers who were involved in those situations, if they were involved, fill in the blank some famous person, they would have sued by now. Their lawyers are very aggressive and have made millions off of those lawsuits.

KEILAR: That is certainly what we're hearing from the Trump administration, and we haven't seen a list. But how can you be sure?

SCHOEN: Well, first of all, because I talked to him specifically about the Trump thing. This was before I knew Trump. So I met with Epstein nine days before he died. He had asked me to take over the entire criminal case.

We talked about strategy for about five hours. But among the things one might imagine -- I don't want to go into the other details of what we discussed, but what my imagine in any case that a defendant has to consider what he might have to use to his advantage to cut a deal.

I specifically asked him about Donald Trump, and he was adamant in making clear that he had no bad information about Trump. Remember, Trump had thrown him out of his club years earlier. He wasn't happy about the idea of Trump being falsely accused because Trump was one of the names being thrown out there -- thrown around then. So that, I'm sure of. And I have a sense, since Jeffrey Epstein said,

I'm honored by this, quite frankly, that he had a whole battery of very fine attorneys. But he and his in-house counsel came to the conclusion that I was the only person he trusted with his life to defend this case. I take that obligation with any client very seriously.

I know that he spoke candidly with me. That's how I say it. That's how I come to that conclusion.

KEILAR: You do have doubts that you have talked about whether he actually died by suicide. The autopsy report has not been released. There are many cases in which autopsy reports are released.

That's not an issue of victims who have accused people or people who have been accused of something, but it hasn't been proven. Would you like to see that released?

SCHOEN: Yes, I'm not sure it's a sort of definitive document, but I have no problem with that personally. I hate to say this because I know it gives fuel to these right-wing conspiracy theorists and all of that, but I don't believe he committed suicide for my own reasons.

Anecdotally, I met with him nine days before he died. Our entire discussion was about a plan moving forward. During the course of that week, he discussed that plan and the decisions that we made about how to proceed with that decision. He also gave me another task that was forward looking.

But beyond all of that, Michael Baden, who I consider to be the foremost forensic pathologist in the world, helped to conduct the independent examination just after he died. He said that, in all of the tens of thousands of autopsies he's done, he has never seen injuries like this consistent with suicide.

And more than that, he said the assistant medical examiner who undertook the examination with him said it was inconclusive, but four days later said it was suicide without any additional evidence. No one can say definitively either way. And that may always be the case.

KEILAR: Baden, to be clear, that's the doctor paid by the Epstein family who challenged the conclusion, right, the former medical examiner of NYC. I just want to be really clear so people knew who witnessed the autopsy just so that people understand they're different people taking some different assessments of the situation, though at this point it is the government's conclusion that he died by suicide.

Would be interesting to see that autopsy report indeed, though.

David Schoen, thank you so much.

SCHOEN: Thank you very much.

KEILAR: So we're following breaking news out of Los Angeles. Officials say at least three people have died because of an explosion at an L.A. County Sheriff's Department training facility. JIMENEZ: Let's get right to CNN security correspondent Josh Campbell

in Los Angeles.

So, Josh, what are you learning about this?

JOSH CAMPBELL, CNN SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: Yes, just a terrible incident happening here in L.A., just east of downtown this morning.

Law enforcement sources telling me that at least three people were killed in what has believed to be an apparent explosion there at the sheriff's department training facility. This is a facility that houses special tactical teams from the sheriff's office, but also arson investigators and the department's bomb squad as well. We have seen this massive response from other agencies showing up to try to provide assistance with this investigation.

[13:15:04]

We're hearing from local officials, L.A. Mayor Karen Bass, for example, posting a statement just a short time ago saying that: "The city of L.A. is supporting the sheriff's department through this horrific incident in Monterey Park. L.A. Fire/ATF arson investigators and members of the LAPD bomb squad are assisting at the training facility."

She said: "The thoughts of all Angelenos are with all of those impacted by this blast."

We're also hearing from federal officials, the U.S. attorney general also posting that she just spoke with the local lead prosecutor here about what appears to be a horrific incident that killed at least three at this training facility. She said that federal agents are at the scene working to learn more. She asked for prayers for those who were killed.

Now, I am told from a law enforcement source that this is initially believed to have been some type of accident. And people might be wondering, well, why would the bomb squad be storing live explosives in a type of training facility? And that's because, in addition to going and trying to render safe individual devices, they also provide training.

For example, when I was in the FBI, I received training from the sheriff's department on how to investigate post-blast explosions. That involves taking real live explosives, detonating a vehicle, for example, and then showing investigators how to piece together how that could have happened.

Final point I will note is that it's also possible, I'm told from a source, that perhaps they were handling some type of evidence. They're working to determine what was actually occurring here, their job made much more complicated because all these bomb squad investigators now who have responded have to ensure that any other explosive material that might be in and around that area is rendered safe before they can do a full-scale investigation, guys.

JIMENEZ: All right, we will continue to monitor.

Josh Campbell, appreciate the reporting.

Still ahead: Congress sends President Trump a $9 billion package of DOGE spending cuts. We're going to tell you what those cuts could mean for people across the country.

KEILAR: Plus: the end of an era, CBS canceling "The Late Show," saying it's a business decision. But it comes after the show's host, Stephen Colbert, called out the network's parent company for its settlement with President Trump.

And ship happens. The CDC reporting another gastrointestinal outbreak on a cruise ship. It's the 18th such outbreak, 18 on a cruise ship this year. We will break down the potential reasons behind the surge.

Stay with CNN NEWS CENTRAL.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:21:49]

JIMENEZ: President Donald Trump and congressional Republicans are celebrating what they see as another big legislative win here.

Early this morning, the House narrowly passed the DOGE spending cuts package which eliminates roughly $9 billion in spending. The measure now awaits the president's signature. And the cuts include roughly $8 billion in funding that had already been congressionally approved for foreign aid programs. Another $1.1 billion is being pulled from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which helps fund PBS and NPR.

Joining us now is Republican Congressman Kevin Kiley of Florida, who voted in favor of the bill.

Really appreciate you taking the time.

Congressman, you passed this rescissions package. Why did you feel like it was such a priority?

REP. KEVIN KILEY (R-CA): Well, I think it was a start in terms of getting our spending problem under control.

By the way, I'm from California, not from Florida, although I am fairly critical of the way our state is run.

(CROSSTALK)

JIMENEZ: Yes. I was just double-checking.

KILEY: If we were run a little more like Florida, I think we might be in better shape.

JIMENEZ: No, go ahead, go ahead, go ahead. Sorry.

KILEY: No, no. In any case, I think that this is a good step. Obviously, it's a drop in the bucket compared to the overall level of debt that we have as a country. And it's -- there's a lot more that we need to do. But with this package, I think that the items that we have there made a lot of sense.

And there was a very careful process of figuring out what to include. So, first of all, you had the administration that really did its own analysis of, OK, what is really necessary and then what's not necessary?

And then it went through the legislative process as well. It went through the House. The Senate removed some items. And then the House came back and voted on it again. Last night, when we were voting on amendments, I opposed several amendments to remove critical funding for our allies like Israel, for Taiwan, for Jordan, for Lebanon.

So, at the end of the day, it's not like you just are randomly taking away funding for important programs. It's the result of a very careful process of considering what spending is really necessary. And I think that's the obligation that we owe our taxpayers.

JIMENEZ: And, obviously, a portion of this as well, there is concern about funding for PBS and NPR stations. And I know there has been broad Republican criticism on sort of how some NPR stations at the national level or PBS stations have covered certain issues.

But in many rural areas, people rely on some of those funded stations for alerts, things that could actually affect their public safety. You talked about how this was careful consideration. Was any of that considered in passing through any of these cuts? And are you concerned that trying to tackle one aspect of this issue, as you guys have put it, could inadvertently hurt another set of people?

KILEY: Well, I don't know about that.

I actually listen to NPR quite a bit. I think it's very high-quality programming, but it is unambiguously very high-quality left-wing programming. And that's just very obvious from the nature of what you hear there, from the way that they report things, from the things that they leave out. And the other thing about NPR is, they run a lot of ads. I hear ads on their app and on the radio all the time.

[13:25:03]

And on top of that, they do fund drives very regularly, and especially in connection with this rescissions bill. They have been doing it constantly, saying our funding is under attack, and then it's the first thing that pops up when you go to the ad.

So I don't have any insight into their financials, but I wouldn't be surprised if they come out ahead with this whole thing.

JIMENEZ: Well, what they have said is, essentially, it likely won't affect some of the bigger city stations because they do get funding from other sources, including advertising, as you laid out. The concern was more in those smaller stations, but I take your point.

You talked about this sort of being a drop in the bucket. I think some -- if you want to expand the conversation wider and look at sort of the national debt, when the spending bill was passed a few weeks ago, there were some even on the Republican side that said, look, this didn't cut enough, that, by a CBO analysis, this would increase the deficit by $3.3 trillion over the next decade.

But no matter which way you calculate the impact on the debt, I don't think anyone's arguing it significantly impacted the overall $36 trillion national debt. Do you believe there will actually be enough waste identified through packages like this or the next one to actually make any significant impact or start that journey in any significant way?

KILEY: Well, I think so.

I mean, a lot of the things that have been going on when it comes to government reform, it's not about necessarily ending particular programs or the sort of spending reductions that we have had on this rescissions bill. It's just making government work better and more efficiently in really commonsense ways.

So, like, we have heard these stories about the software licenses that cost incredible amounts of money and the software was never even used. Or you have contracts that cost $10 billion that really ought to cost a billion or two. And so that I think that when you kind of right-size government and get it to work more efficiently in that way, those savings are going to be significant.

But, at the end of the day, you can't overcome a debt of this magnitude all at once. What you can do right now and what I think we are doing is getting things moving in the right direction and then continue to build on that progress. And then, over time, that actually shifts the trajectory.

But the other ingredient that is equally important is catalyzing economic growth, because when the economy grows faster, then that actually brings in more tax revenue. And that's why the CBO's projections were off before when we had the tax bill in 2017 and why I'm going to believe they're going to be off again this time, is, it doesn't take into account the economic growth that some of these tax provisions, like the permanent expensing for capital investment and R&D is truly going to catalyze.

So, I think you got to have both. We need to responsibility reduce spending. We need to have that as an objective with each and every appropriations bill, with each and every rescissions bill. But we also need to make sure that we're promoting good economic policy.

And all the signs right now, by the way, for the economy are very strong when it comes to the job market, when it comes to consumer confidence, when it comes to the stock market, when it comes to energy costs and gas prices.

So I think we're on the right path, and some of these tax measures that we just passed are only going to supercharge that.

JIMENEZ: And just before we go, I want to ask about a House Judiciary Committee-related issue, because President Trump is also now asking Attorney General Pam Bondi to seek the release of any and all pertinent grand jury testimony around the Epstein investigation.

My question to you, that still wouldn't capture everything. Would you be satisfied with that step or do you want more?

KILEY: I want as much transparency as possible. There was a resolution calling for transparency here that passed the Rules Committee yesterday.

And I'm hoping to be able to vote on that on the floor of the House as soon as possible. And I think it's important that we approach this issue with the seriousness and sensitivity that it deserves. We're talking about people who committed truly heinous crimes. We're talking about victims who have suffered immensely.

And I don't like the way that some have turned this into a political pinata. The governor of my state, for example, Gavin Newsom, you can search his X profile for the word Epstein. It didn't appear once until July, and now it's suddenly all he can talk about.

You had the House, the floor debate last night, where the representative leading with the debate literally starts chanting, "Release the files, release the files," after not saying anything about this for the last four years.

So I think that we need to have transparency, but we need to approach it in a serious way that brings accountability to the perpetrators and justice to the victims.

JIMENEZ: And on the political side, I will mention too, a lot of Republicans who expected Trump to release the files in whatever version that may be also upset about it as well.

But I got to leave it there.

Congressman Kevin Kiley of California, appreciate you being here.

KILEY: There you go. You got it.

JIMENEZ: Yes, there we go. All right, see you.

Still ahead: CBS pulls the plug, not just on "The Late Show With Stephen Colbert," but "The Late Show" altogether. What this could mean for the future of late-night television, that's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)