Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Judge Denies DOJ Request to Release Epstein Grand Jury Docs; House Oversight Committee Subpoenas Ghislaine Maxwell for Deposition; WSJ: U.S. Attorney General Told Trump His Name is Among Many in Epstein Files. Aired 3:30-4p ET

Aired July 23, 2025 - 15:30   ET

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

[15:30:00]

JIM SCIUTTO, CNN HOST: The breaking news just into CNN. A Florida judge has now denied a request from the Justice Department to release grand jury documents from the criminal case some 20 years ago of Jeffrey Epstein.

KEILAR: Let's bring in CNN's Evan Perez. So what does this ruling mean for all of the folks who are calling for transparency on this case?

EVAN PEREZ, SENIOR JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Well, it means that the documents that are related to this Florida grand jury, these are Florida grand juries in West Palm Beach in 2005 and 2007 that were investigating Epstein's alleged crimes in Florida. And if you remember, this ended up being part of a plea deal with state prosecutors that the U.S. Attorney Alex Costa in Miami signed off on, which allowed him essentially to get a very, very sweetheart deal and then allowed him to essentially get away with this until 2019 when he was actually prosecuted by the federal government in the Southern District of New York.

So this only pertains to the grand jury in 2005-2007 in West Palm Beach. And the judge said he cannot release it because under the law that governs this part of the country, the 11th Circuit, there is no allowance for the release of these documents. The Justice Department had requested that they be released as part of the public interest essentially. So the judge says, look, I can't my hands are tied and I can't do that.

However, this continues on because the Justice Department has a pending request for the courts in New York to release the grand jury information there. Now, a lot of this is going to be duplicating documents, right? So presumably, if the judge in New York allows the release of this information, it will likely cover a lot of the things that were covered by this grand jury in Florida in 2005 and 2007.

Perhaps not everything, but, you know, at least what it means is that we still are waiting for the judge in New York that oversaw the Epstein case to decide whether the grand jury transcripts in that case can be released.

SCIUTTO: So would the legal standard be different? Because the judge in Florida is saying, because the DOJ asked the evidence to be released due to an extensive public interest, that's not sufficient, it was not as part of a judicial proceeding, etc.

PEREZ: Correct.

SCIUTTO: Would the judge in New York not be likely to come to that same conclusion?

PEREZ: No, because it's a different circuit, it's a different set of laws --

SCIUTTO: And they have a different --

PEREZ: -- a different precedent, a different standard that applies in that circuit. So it is possible still for these documents to be released under this public interest exception that the Justice Department is requesting. So again, that's for two requests that are pending.

One in the Ghislaine Maxwell case and in the Epstein case.

KEILAR: We should note in this just coming in from our Annie Grayer, that the House Oversight Committee has subpoenaed Ghislaine Maxwell for deposition.

PEREZ: Right, on August 11th.

KEILAR: Yes, so that's going to be August 11th. Seems like she may be doing more than one interview, perhaps.

PEREZ: Yes, and look, I think that sort of provides some of the context of what else we're seeing at play. The Justice Department that you saw Todd Blanche, the Deputy Attorney General, go out and say publicly that now they want to talk to her, which could be happening in the coming days. And the reason for that, you know, obviously, is they had to get ahead of what the House is about to do.

House Republicans have shown that they don't want to let this drop and they want to talk to Ghislaine Maxwell. They want to talk to -- they want to get as much information out there as possible. And so the Justice Department has an interest to make sure they stay on top of this to see what else she has to say.

SCIUTTO: Could she refuse that subpoena? I mean, there are sitting members of the House who've refused subpoenas to testify themselves, right?

PEREZ: She can because she has a pending appeal. She maintains her innocence.

[15:35:00]

Keep in mind --

SCIUTTO: Right.

PEREZ: -- she's appealing her conviction. And so she has her constitutional rights. So she doesn't have to say anything that could endanger that appeal that is still pending.

KEILAR: All right let's bring back Andy McCabe, our CNN senior law enforcement analyst and former FBI deputy director. What do you make of all of this?

ANDREW MCCABE, CNN SENIOR LAW ENFORCEMENT ANALYST: So the refusal to unseal the grand jury testimony is actually not surprising to me at all. There are very narrow circumstances in the rules of federal criminal procedure under which judges can unseal records like these. And public interest is not one of them.

So, for instance, one reason might be if that evidence was needed by a defendant in another criminal proceeding in an effort to, you know, make their case for exoneration or what have you. So that's why there's this requirement of there being another judicial proceeding in which that evidence is necessary. That's clearly not the case here. That's what the judge referred to in his ruling.

Now, there is this idea, it's been acknowledged by some courts that a compelling public interest might, under the right circumstances, justify a release. But that's the kind of interpretation that, as Evan mentioned, is going to differ from district to district.

So it's possible that the judges in New York could see it differently. Although, to be honest, I don't think they will. There are a lot of factors in this case that still continue to point towards secrecy.

It's likely that many of the witnesses and victims who were interviewed maybe don't want themselves and their testimony to be exposed to the world. And they'll be given an opportunity to speak up and let the judge know how they feel about it. So it's still a very complicated mixture.

And generally, you know, grand jury material stays sealed. So I'm not surprised at this result.

SCIUTTO: Now, there has been some speculation, Andy McCabe, that throwing this to judges who are likely to say no about grand jury transcripts was a deliberate move by the White House that could have unsealed other materials, right, or released other of the Epstein files, which I know is something of a misnomer. There's not some great big file of Epstein stuff. But there is other evidence that they could have released on their own.

Is that right?

MCCABE: Absolutely. So a couple things. One, I think this was the only strategically adroit move that they've made in handling this public relations disaster.

It was actually -- it was a good request, if you look at it from the administration's perspective, because it gives them the appearance of trying to pursue transparency, which is probably helpful for their managing their base. But it also casts the whole thing into this judicial determination, which I'm sure they're hoping would have taken a lot longer than a few days. And also, if the outcome is that the judges don't let any of this stuff out, they can say, well, that's not our fault. We asked and the judges wouldn't let it happen.

Now, the fact is, this material, grand jury testimony, not all records that were obtained with the help of a grand jury, just the witness testimony. That is a micro slice of what is in a very large file.

There is at the bureau a very large file of evidence of investigative reports, the records of investigators and where they went, who they talked to, what people told them, maybe surveillance records, all kinds of things would be in that investigative file. And most of that stuff, if it wasn't obtained with the help of a grand jury subpoena or the actual grand jury testimony, is not under court ceiling and could be turned over by the FBI and the Department of Justice if the administration actually asked for that.

KEILAR: And so, Evan, I wonder, because we're also learning that Ghislaine Maxwell's attorney has told our Kaitlan Collins that her meeting with DOJ will determine how she responds to the congressional subpoena. We should note, President Trump does not want to talk about this. That's why he's thrown out a shiny thing, and he's made this clear, because he was asked about Epstein, and then he throws out the shiny thing of Russia, Obama, Hillary Clinton.

And DOJ has gotten a lot of criticism from MAGA Trump supporters who want Epstein files for how they have handled this thus far. If Ghislaine Maxwell meets with DOJ and then she decides that she's not going to be talking to the House committee, is there just going to be more criticism for how DOJ is handling this?

PEREZ: Look, I think the people who want this information released are not going to be satisfied until that information is released. So I think, yes, there is going to be more criticism to come.

[15:40:00]

The other thing that I think is happening here is that now Todd Blanche, the deputy attorney general, he is now putting himself in place where he will be negotiating with the House whether they can have access. But keep in mind, DOJ does take precedence, right, when it comes to like a House -- what the House wants to do. So DOJ has a chance to go first, and we'll see what he has to offer.

I mean, keep in mind, Ghislaine Maxwell has a pending appeal. She wants to get out of prison. That is her sole option. And Todd Blanche is an emissary from the President who has the pardon power. So the question --

SCIUTTO: Are you suggesting the possibility of an exchange?

PEREZ: I mean, look, I mean, if you're Ghislaine Maxwell, if you're David Marcus, who is a very, very good lawyer who represents her, that has to be on the table for you, right?

SCIUTTO: Yes.

PEREZ: You have to figure out what is it that she can get that helps the President solve this very, very big problem. SCIUTTO: And the President has not been shy about using his pardoning power.

PEREZ: Right, I mean, you're her, and all you want is to get out of prison.

KEILAR: That would be an ironic pardon, though, Evan.

PEREZ: I mean, there's so many.

SCIUTTO: We're living in the age of irony. Evan Perez, Andy McCabe, thanks so much.

Pleased to stay with us. We'll be right back after a short break.

[15:45:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KEILAR: We continue to follow our breaking news in the Jeffrey Epstein case. Here a short time ago, a federal judge in Florida declined to release additional grand jury documents in the case, which marks the first roadblock in the DOJ's efforts to subdue public backlash over the White House's handling, the administration's handling of the case.

We've also learned that the House Oversight Committee is subpoenaing former Epstein accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell for a deposition, though we should note her attorney is telling our Kaitlan Collins that her meeting with the Justice Department, which has been criticized for how it's handled this whole thing, is going to determine how she responds to that subpoena.

SCIUTTO: CNN's Evan Perez with us here. Evan, I mean, that meeting has potential import, does it not? Because she's in prison and might want to get out.

PEREZ: Right, exactly. And really, she has no incentive to talk to the Justice Department. Keep in mind, she has a pending appeal. She has maintained her innocence. And so anything she says, you know, could affect her ability to defend herself and to move forward with that.

SCIUTTO: She wouldn't want to further incriminate herself, but she might be looking for a way out.

PEREZ: Right. And so, you know, from her standpoint, there is very little incentive for her to tell them anything unless she can get something in return. And she does have a lot to ask for, right? And so that's one of the big important parts of this is that we don't know whether Todd Blanche is coming to this meeting.

You know, she's housed at a federal prison in Tallahassee. She's still got more than a decade, 15 years or so, left on that sentence. She wants to get out of prison as soon as possible. And so this opening conversation, we don't know exactly what form it will take.

Is Todd Blanche authorized to come in with some kind of offer that might loosen her lips and make her speak a lot more freely? Or does he just want her to spill everything with nothing to offer? I'm not sure that David Marcus, her very capable attorney, would want to do that.

KEILAR: Andy, how in danger is the DOJ of appearing like they're asking a judge to release documents or they're touching base with Ghislaine Maxwell only for it to come to nothing? I mean, kind of like in elementary or middle school when I didn't want to go to a sleepover, I'd say, oh, I'm going to ask my mom and I would orchestrate that she would -- I knew that I could get her to say no. I mean, you know, so that I didn't have to actually like take the rap for it not happening.

How in danger are they of kind of sort of appearing to be doing stuff that never comes to fruition?

MCCABE: I think the danger of that is very high. I think that the administration's most recent move that we talked about before the break and going and seeking the unsealing of the grand jury testimony is a bit like your excuse to avoid the sleepover. So that may not work out well for them.

These proactive steps like talking to Maxwell are kind of on a different level. So just to be clear, there's a couple of different ways DOJ can do this. The department doesn't typically offer anyone ever make promises or offers to people in advance of potential cooperation.

But what they would do is bring her -- if she's willing to come and she doesn't have to sit down and interview with them. They could bring her in for an interview if she's willing and they can offer what's referred to as a queen for a day agreement or a proffer agreement in which they agree that anything she tells them during the course of that session will never be used against her, cannot be used against her in court. So it kind of gives her almost a kind of immunity to talk very frankly about illegal activity.

So they would use that session to then review what sort of information she's willing to provide them and then make an assessment as to like, is it any good? Do you think it's actually truthful? And is there anything you can do with it? Are there other prosecutions to be brought? Things like that.

I think if they went through that process and got interesting information that they then use to prosecute someone else.

[15:50:00]

I think that actually helps them in the long run with their base who seems to be frustrated with a lack of, you know, progress on prosecuting people who were complicit with Epstein.

But that's a long way down the road. There's a lot of hurdles to get over. She has a lot of leverage here because she's never spoken before. She's never cooperated to my knowledge in this case in any way. She still maintains she was innocent. So to come forward now, she might actually have information that the government doesn't currently possess. And that would be -- that should be of interest to them.

SCIUTTO: Manu Raju's on Capitol Hill. And Manu, imagine if the House speaker's intention was to just try to bury this for the president by punting on any votes or really any activity on the floor, even though you had Republicans who support the release of these materials, now you have a subpoena for Ghislaine Maxwell to to testify on the Hill. This isn't going away.

MANU RAJU, CNN CHIEF CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Look, there's actually other news that actually could potentially be even bigger news that is developing in a key House subcommittee right now -- House Oversight Subcommittee. Democrats try to force a vote to subpoena all of the Epstein files that was offered in a motion earlier this afternoon.

And there are signs though, Jim, that that motion could actually be approved by that committee. I just talked to the chairman, the Republican chairman of this subcommittee. You told me that, quote, I do. When I asked him, do you believe that enough Republicans would vote to approve that subpoena?

And I also just caught up with another Republican who has been calling for the release of all the Epstein files. Congresswoman Nancy Mace. She told me she plans to vote for that Democratic resolution to call for a subpoena for the Epstein files.

She wants some changes to make sure that the victims names are protected. Assuming those changes are made, she is expected to vote for it. So there's a real sign here of the challenges of the Trump administration faces as they try to handle it on their own.

They're facing a revolt within their own party, within the more MAGA aligned wing of the GOP, which wants this information. And now there are signs that there could be additional subpoenas coming, not just for Ghislaine Maxwell. Her testimony for the House Oversight Committee in a deposition in August, but also a potential subpoena could be coming for the other Epstein files from a Republican led committee.

So that's expected to play out this afternoon. They have not voted officially yet. There's still expected to be some Republican amendments to change some of the language.

But at the moment, it appears that this key subcommittee could vote to issue a subpoena for those Epstein files.

SCIUTTO: Wow. Significant. No question. Yes. I mean, to that point, it's certainly not over on the Hill, right, if that vote goes ahead.

KEILAR: No, this is like a fire hose right now of information about what's going on with the Epstein files, Manu. I mean, does this just reflect the pressure that lawmakers are feeling up there on the Hill, even as the White House is trying to change the subject? RAJU: Yes, no question about it. In fact, one Republican congressman, Eric Burlison of Missouri, he's a member of the House Freedom Caucus, the Howard Line faction of the House GOP.

He told me calls are coming in. I think he said about 500 to 1 when he talked about the type of calls that are coming in. 500 of those calls calling for release of the Epstein files or related to the Epstein issue altogether. This is something that is animating the Republican base and Republican voters and also some independent voters as well, Democrats, too, in ways that some other issues have not.

Which is why it has been so difficult for the White House to change the subject, to ignore the matter whatsoever, because it's the Republican voters, their constituents themselves. They're hearing for those constituents and they're about to go home for recess and they could hear from even more of those constituents asking for some information, which is why Democrats are sensing a major vulnerability.

This has never been an issue for Democrats. They were quiet about this during Joe Biden's time in office, but now they sense an opening here, which is why after committee after committee and every opportunity they get, they're trying to force a vote one way or the other.

And in this committee this afternoon, the House Oversight Subcommittee summarily a Democratic congressman offered this motion betting that Republicans could break ranks and vote for her -- vote with her rather than scuttling it like they do any other Democratic motion. And their bet appears to be correct at the moment just because of the Republican pressure that they're feeling from their own constituents and also many of their own beliefs that this information should be released after calling it -- for calling it for to be released for years.

SCIUTTO: And it is a good point that Manu made there that Democrats did not show urgency previously.

We do have some new reporting into CNN. And this is well, it's a story from The Wall Street Journal.

The Wall Street Journal is reporting that in May, Attorney General Pam Bondi and her deputy informed the president at a meeting in the White House that his name was in the Epstein files.

[15:55:00]

This is reporting now in The Wall Street Journal. We should know that CNN has not independently confirmed that information.

KEILAR: Yes, very important. And obviously, and in which context, right? That's really the question.

SCIUTTO: Exactly. In what context did his name come up in those files?

KEILAR: That's right. They were friends --

SCIUTTO: Yes.

KEILAR: -- and close friends for years. The president obviously has a timeline about when he stopped associating with Epstein.

But this is obviously a big story from The Wall Street Journal that they are reporting that Trump was told his name was in the Epstein files.

But let's just go through real quick, because this is a deluge of information right now about what is happening regarding the Epstein files. A judge has declined to release grand jury documents from the criminal probe into Epstein.

You have the House Oversight Committee subpoenaing Ghislain Maxwell for a deposition. And you also have a House Oversight Subcommittee, Democrats on that committee, very possibly close to succeeding in forcing a subpoena on the Epstein files. And then --

SCIUTTO: With Republican votes.

KEILAR: That's right. That's how they would do it.

(CROSSTALK)

KEILAR: That's the only way they could do it. And then Ghislain Maxwell's attorney telling CNN her meeting with DOJ is going to determine how she responds to that congressional subpoena. The DOJ, of course, has been so criticized by Donald Trump's MAGA base for how they have handled this thus far.

SCIUTTO: We should note this, I think, regarding The Wall Street Journal story, that according to The Wall Street Journal in this new reporting, Bondi, the attorney general and her deputy, told the president the meeting, this is the meeting in which they told him that his name appeared in the Epstein files, that the files contained what officials felt was unverified hearsay about many people, including Trump, who, as has been reported, socialized with Epstein in the past.

So it's not clear to what degree or in what context his name was in those files, but still quite an important piece of information that his name was there, given the president's decision not to release them.

PEREZ: Right, and look, I mean, again, we were checking on with folks about The Wall Street Journal story. Kristen Holmes reported that there was a briefing by the attorney general for the president in advance of that memo being pushed out.

I think I believe it was the Wednesday before, which I suspect is when The Wall Street Journal is describing what this would have been about.

SCIUTTO: Yes.

KEILAR: Let's go now to the White House. We have our Kristen Holmes there. Kristen, as we are --

SCIUTTO: Kevin. Keven Liptak

KEILAR: Kevin Liptak is there. Let's go to Kevin Liptak as we are -- you are definitely not Kristen Holmes, Kevin. I apologize for that.

But as we are reporting, citing what The Wall Street Journal is saying here, this will not be welcomed, certainly by the president, as it continues these headlines about Epstein and his association with him. Are you hearing anything yet?

KEVIN LIPTAK, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE REPORTER: Yes, and we have heard from the White House and specifically the White House communications director, Steven Cheung, responding to this report in The Wall Street Journal. And I'll just tell you what he says.

He says, The fact is that the president kicked him -- referring to Jeffrey Epstein -- kicked him out of his club for being a creep. This is nothing more than a continuation of the fake news stories concocted by the Democrats and the liberal media, just like the Obama-Russiagate scandal, which President Trump was right about.

So, Steven Cheung there, pushing back on some of the details in there without a great deal of specificity.

I would also just hearken back to a moment on the South Lawn about a week ago, when a reporter asked President Trump the direct question, did Pam Bondi tell you that your name was contained in the Epstein files? And President Trump at the time kind of brushed that question off, saying no, no. And he said that Pam Bondi was doing a great job.

Of course, now we know, according to The Wall Street Journal, that the president did, in fact, know that his name was contained in these files. Now, according to The Wall Street Journal, his name was one of hundreds that was contained in that document. And the president's officials told him that it contained a number of hearsay.

And they decided in that briefing -- or they informed the president in that briefing, that they wouldn't be releasing any more information, which is ultimately what caused all of this furor and caused this break with the MAGA base. And so the president now, through his communications director, pushing back on this allegation.

But, of course, we do know, you know, that President Trump was an associate of Jeffrey Epstein. We've seen the photos that were unearthed just today by the K-file. He was, like a lot of celebrities in that era of New York City, associated with someone who actively tried to cultivate people in power.

[16:00:00]

And so it's not necessarily a surprise that his name would be contained in some of Epstein's documents.

But certainly at this very precarious moment for him politically, not a headline that I think is going to land well with the president.

SCIUTTO: Listen, quite an afternoon of news from the from the Kohberger trial to all the news coming out regarding the Epstein files. KEILAR: That's right. And now, as The Wall Street Journal is reporting that Trump was told his name is in the Epstein files by his attorney general in May.

We will -- and CNN has not independently confirmed it -- important to not. We'll continue to follow this. Kasie Hunt will continue to follow this with much more on "THE ARENA" starting now.

END