Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

WH: Putin Agreed to Meet Zelensky, "Accommodations" Underway; White House: Putin has Promised to Hold a Meeting with Zelensky; Rep. Adam Smith (D-WA) Discusses About Trump's Support for Ukraine; House Panel to Vows Make Epstein Files Public After Redactions to Protect Victim Identities; House Oversight Chair: DOJ to Begin Providing Epstein Records Friday. Aired 3-3:30p ET

Aired August 19, 2025 - 15:00   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:01:35]

BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN HOST: A meeting to end the war. Is it happening? Is it not happening? When might it happen? The White House now says that Russian President Vladimir Putin has agreed to meet with the leader of Ukraine, but the Kremlin is not publicly committed to a meeting, so we're following all the fast-moving developments.

And today in Atlanta, the future of air travel begins. New biometric gates at airports could let some air travelers breeze through security in seconds using your face as a boarding pass.

And unsportsmanlike conduct. Some Minnesota Vikings fans are furious over the team's new male cheerleaders. We're going to speak to one of the first male cheerleaders in NFL history about the controversy as we follow these major developing stories and many more all coming in right here to CNN NEWS CENTRAL.

We start with breaking news this hour. The White House says plans are now underway for direct talks between Russian President Vladimir Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. Beyond that, the White House declining to share any more details about a potential bilateral meeting and notably, nor the Kremlin nor Russian officials have publicly said that they've actually agreed to meet with Zelenskyy. Let's get right to the White House and CNN's Kristen Holmes.

And Kristen, you directly asked Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt during the press briefing today about this. What did she say?

KRISTEN HOLMES, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Yes. Boris, I mean, there's still a lot of questions. Remember when we went into the meeting yesterday when we were covering from every angle, we were told by European leaders and by President Trump that the goal was this trilateral meeting. That was what they wanted at the end of these negotiations. And instead, they came out saying there was going to be this bilateral meeting.

And I asked Karoline a specific question or specific questions about where this idea came from and whether or not Putin had agreed. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HOLMES: ... when you said earlier about Putin agreeing to the meeting, the Kremlin seemed to indicate that Putin did not firmly agree to a bilateral. Did he agree to have a sit down with just Zelenskyy on the phone?

KAROLINE LEAVITT, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: I can assure you that the United States government and the Trump administration is working with both Russia and Ukraine to make that bilateral happen as we speak.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HOLMES: Now, Boris, you might notice that that was not a direct answer on her part. But shortly afterwards, another reporter followed up on my question and asked specifically, we understand that you're working with both governments, but has Putin agreed. And Karoline Leavitt said he has, which is certainly news because, as you said, the Kremlin was being very iffy on whether or not he would actually do this.

SANCHEZ: And Kristen, the President on social media just escalated his attacks against the Smithsonian. Of course, he's ordered a review of everything inside these museums in Washington, D.C. What is Trump saying?

HOLMES: Yes. And just a reminder to our viewers, he ordered this review. The White House said that this was in order to make sure that our historical museums, the U.S. historical museums were aligned essentially with the Trump agenda. But then he put out this post. And it's not surprising because he uses the word woke. But there are certainly elements of it that I think many people will take issue with.

[15:05:01]

He says specifically, the Smithsonian is out of control where everything discussed is how horrible our country is, how bad slavery was and how unaccomplished the downtrodden have been. Nothing about success, nothing about brightness, nothing about the future. I think it's probably clear from here the part that many people might take issue with the idea that the Smithsonian is somehow saying how bad slavery is when slavery was a very dark part of the United States history.

It also appears from this that he wants to take out reference to slavery or to - he uses the word unaccomplished the downtrodden have been, which is not entirely clear what that means. But these museums do exist in order to tell the story of the United States and of America and of our history and culture. The tragedy of slavery is certainly a part of that. This is really exactly what people were concerned about when they first heard about this review, that it would somehow remove critical parts of American history.

Of course, if he is talking about removing reference to slavery, that would fall right into that category.

SANCHEZ: Yes, I'm curious to see how the President would want these museums to describe slavery as anything less than the horror that it was. Kristen Holmes live for us at the White House, thank you so much.

As President Trump met with Ukrainian President Zelenskyy and European leaders at the White House on Monday, Russia launched its largest aerial attack on Ukraine since the end of July. The Ukrainian Air Force said Moscow launched 270 drones and 10 missiles overnight. Eight people were killed, 54 were wounded across the country.

Meantime, Ukraine says it struck two Russian ammunition depots in the occupied Luhansk region. Ukrainian Security Service says it used long- range drones to hit the ammunition warehouses on an important railway line used to supply ammunition from Russia to the front line.

With us now to talk about these latest developments is Democratic Congressman Adam Smith of Washington State. He's the ranking member on the Armed Services Committee.

Congressman, thank you so much for being with us. You spoke before yesterday's meeting at the White House with Zelenskyy and all these European leaders about how you wanted the President to show strong support for Ukraine. We heard European leaders applauding Trump's offer to back security guarantees against any future Russian aggression. What else do you think President Trump needs to do in your eyes to show support for Ukraine?

REP. ADAM SMITH (D-WA): Certainly. Well, the meeting yesterday could have been worse. It was kind of neutral. It wasn't the disaster that the meeting with Putin was. But look, President Trump can just clearly state, Ukraine is a sovereign democratic nation, and we are going to work with our partners and allies to preserve that. We will arm and equip them so that they can push back against Russia. He can make that 100 percent clear that Russia's war on Ukraine was wrong and was caused by Putin and Russia, period, full stop.

And then second, he can actually carry through on some of the threats around sanctions to put - sanctions, sorry, to put the pressure on Russia and Putin. And that's the whole problem with the way Trump has approached this. He's put all the pressure on Zelenskyy in Ukraine and taken the pressure off of Putin. And it was, I think, about a month ago that Trump expressed the surprise, oh, gosh, you know, it looks like Putin might not really want peace. No, he doesn't want peace. He wants Ukraine.

He will only choose peace if we can make it clear that he won't get Ukraine. And President Trump and his administration have been far from clear that they understand that central point. Now, yesterday was better. They had the conversation, talked about, you know, security guarantees for Ukraine. But the Trump administration has a long way to go in terms of being strong and clear about resisting Putin's effort to take over Ukraine.

SANCHEZ: I want to zero in on something you said, Congressman, because I hear just skepticism, outright skepticism that Putin actually wants peace. So, do you think that this is all just a ruse to gain more time?

SMITH: Absolutely. I mean, look, Putin is - was happy that Trump came into the White House and he saw it as an opportunity based on a number of things that Trump has said before. And look, the reasons behind why Trump takes the positions that he's taken are really complicated. It goes back to the 2017 - 2016 efforts, sorry, of Russia to interfere in the election and all of that.

But what Putin saw was someone who wasn't going to stand up to it and give him that opening and also undermining the coalition. Ukraine's bravery and courage and tenacity has been a huge part of why they've survived. But also, the 53-nation coalition that was put together to help them defend themselves has been a huge part of it. And the degree to which Putin could undermine that coalition and Trump's criticisms of our European allies, you know, his - you know, ambivalence about NATO, that's all music to Putin's ears because it undermines the ability of Ukraine to defend itself. So, I think that's where Putin's going.

[15:10:06]

Look, the formulation has been simple from the start. Force Putin to the table by making it clear that he's not going to be able to take Ukraine. That's what gets him to choose peace. And that's where we got to go and why I don't think the Trump administration has done a good enough job of.

SANCHEZ: So you think that any sort of peace deal that's formulated with security guarantees, the U.S., not with troops on the ground, but in other methods backing perhaps a U.K., French and other European allies, a force on the ground there, a so-called reassurance force, and also some kind of Article 5-like agreement that there would be a response with force if Russia were to restart aggression after some kind of peace deal, you think that's all just bunk?

SMITH: I don't fully understand what you mean by that. But no, I don't - well, I don't think that as necessary.

SANCHEZ: Just to - Congressman, to clarify - to - well, go ahead. You don't think that those sort of details are necessary?

SMITH: Oh, they're important. But what really has been helpful to Ukraine is the fact that we are going to arm them, train them, and support them. I don't think it's necessary to have NATO troops on the ground in Ukraine. I don't think it's necessary for Ukraine to join NATO. I know that's a controversial position. But if we give them the level of support that we've given them over the course of the last, what is it now, three-plus years, and if our European partners and allies do, economic and military, if we show them that we're going to give them that level of support and we're not walking away from it, as Trump has threatened to do in the past, that's what's important.

The details, I will leave to people more knowledgeable than me. Maybe a domestic force is part of it. Whatever it is, it has to make Ukraine a hard enough target that Putin doesn't think that he can take it. There's a bunch of different ways to do that, but we have to focus on that instead of focusing, as Trump has, on, you know, various different arguments for why the war is really Ukraine's fault, and while Putin has legitimate security interests, he has no legitimate security interests. Ukraine does not threaten Russia. It is the other way around, and we have to make that clear.

So, the details can be worked out. But no, that's not bunk. That's an important part of the conversation.

SANCHEZ: The question I was getting at is if it's clear to you and to other observers that have raised similar points, that Vladimir Putin is not serious about this and that this is just kind of a distraction to further kick the can down the road, potentially to sign some agreement, but then to restart fighting at a later date, then why are European leaders not saying that directly to President Trump? Why are they sort of backing what they see as a potential path to peace right now?

SMITH: Yes. Well, I think they have said that to President Trump. I mean, part of it is just getting Trump back in the boat, if you will. Okay? I mean, there's a lot of details to be worked out, but the European leaders are like, let's at least get to a better place than where we were in February, when it seemed like Trump was just going to outright abandon Ukraine. So, walk before you run. Get him back into the concept and then work out the details.

Look, I've spoken with leaders in Eastern Europe in particular who want far more than what I just said. I mean, they want us to go in and fight and retake all of Ukrainian territory. So, there are differences of opinion within Europe, but the one thing we ought to be able to agree on, protect a sovereign democratic Ukraine, give them the means to defend themselves and continue to exist as a country.

A lot of different details there, but remember where Trump was when he came in was, you know, we're going to walk away from Ukraine, not our problem. Putin's got a legitimate claim. Zelenskyy really started the war. So just getting him off of that was a necessary step to get to have any hope of preserving Ukraine and getting to peace.

SANCHEZ: Congressman Adam Smith, very much appreciate you joining us on the conversation.

SMITH: Great. Thanks for the chance.

SANCHEZ: Of course. Still to come, the Justice Department will start handing over records related to the Epstein case to the House Oversight Committee. So, just how much information is going to be shared with members of Congress?

Plus, the American Academy of Pediatrics breaking with the CDC why they are recommending COVID-19 shots for infants and young children.

And later, one company launching new tech that could make airport security lines shorter, but you will have to let it use your biometric data. What that means and much more coming up.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) [15:19:01]

SANCHEZ: After more than a month of questions and speculation swirling around the Jeffrey Epstein files, we may finally get to see some of the documents held by the Department of Justice. The House Oversight Committee now says that it intends to release some files to the public after the DOJ begins handing them over on Friday. Last month, the DOJ declared that there was no evidence that a so-called Epstein client list existed, an announcement that sparked intense public outrage. Joining us now is Tara Palmieri, host of "The Tara Palmieri Show" podcast and author of "The Red Letter" on Substack. She has reported extensively on Jeffrey Epstein.

Tara, thanks so much for being with us.

First, what are you looking for in these documents and how far do you think they're going to go in answering some of the questions that the public has about Epstein?

TARA PALMIERI, AUTHOR, "THE RED LETTER" ON SUBSTACK: I would think that these documents are going to be very limited. I obviously would love to see all of the gigabytes that they're holding onto the evidence, the surveillance, the photos that I've been told of from senior law enforcement, sources that they are holding onto.

[15:20:10]

But as you have heard and see from your own reporters and reporting, they are kicking this down the - they're kicking the can down the road. They're pushing deadlines back. They're releasing limited amounts of files. And we just know that this is happening in private. These are closed door hearings. These should be public hearings where everyone is called on to speak, including the deputy FBI director, the FBI director, the attorney general, Pam Bondi, the President.

If he's calling - if they're calling the former president, Bill Clinton, they should be calling him as well, since he's also in the files. So, I just think, you know, this just seems like they're giving out small pieces to appease their base, but really they need to come clean right now.

SANCHEZ: One key question I've heard over and over, and I haven't gotten a clear answer to, is why Congress hasn't called Alex Acosta, the prosecutor who oversaw Epstein's first case, to testify. Have you gotten an answer on that?

PALMIERI: I haven't. And also, his deputy, Marie Villafana. She would be an excellent person to call. She put together over a hundred pages full of testimony, testimony from victims, evidence. She suggested 60 federal charges for Jeffrey Epstein. That went down to zero. How does that happen, right? And she felt that she was slow-rolled in that process. She was not supported. She said Acosta's response was that she was in over her skis, but we never - we've never been told why the federal government just dropped that case entirely to two state charges, 13 months in a county jail. She could answer a lot of that if Acosta doesn't want to. I mean, Acosta took private meetings with Epstein's lawyers off-

campus, at Palm Beach Hotel in a place that no one would ever go to. It was like an airport hotel. He met with Jay Lefkowitz. He met with Ken Starr. He met with the defense attorneys.

U.S. attorneys do not meet with defense attorneys 90 miles from their office in airport hotels where they won't be recognized. It'd be a hotel that you and I would likely have stayed at, both having covered the Trump administration and going to Mar-a-Lago. But yes, this is a very, very, very shady deal. And Alex Acosta knows what those conversations were, and he should be talking about those. And Marie Villafana should be coming forward with those hundreds and hundreds of pages that she has, and the American people should be able to read them.

SANCHEZ: That's such an important point. I also wanted to ask you about someone who did testify, the former Attorney General Bill Barr, who oversaw DOJ when Epstein died. He testified behind closed doors, and he reportedly told the oversight committee that the general consensus was that Epstein took his own life and that he never saw anything to implicate President Trump in any client list or in anything related to Epstein's crimes. But the ranking Democrat on the committee, Robert Garcia, put out a statement saying that Attorney General Barr could actually not clear President Trump of any wrongdoing. He called on Comer to release the full transcript. What's your reaction to these two seemingly contradictory assessments of Barr's testimony?

PALMIERI: Well, why don't we have Barr testify in public, and then we can all hear it for ourselves, right? Instead of taking the word of two politicians from two separate parties and hear it for himself? Because, I mean, what is very clear from the reporting that we've seen, and there's been really little denial from the administration, is that the Attorney General Pam Bondi told the President of the United States that he was in the files, and the files were no longer going to be released after that. After months and months and months of saying, I have the files on the desk, I have the list on my desk, that's going to come out.

We know that. Why not have Bill Barr and all the other people who have been subpoenaed speak openly? That is what the administration promised. That's why so many people voted for President Trump. It is one of the things unifying, frankly, Democrats and Republicans, is the feeling that there is this deep connection, this deep corruption in this story that has extended across parties. And if they actually treated this with the kind of sensitivity that it required, which meant - which means sunlight and speaking openly, I think that maybe there would be some trust in the institutions again. But these closed doors hearings are not helping at all.

[15:25:02]

SANCHEZ: Tara Palmieri, great to have you on. Thanks so much for the reporting.

PALMIERI: Thank you. SANCHEZ: Coming up, a leading pediatrics group is breaking with

current CDC recommendations saying all children should receive a COVID-19 vaccine. We're going to discuss with the president of the American Academy of Pediatrics when we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:29:59]

SANCHEZ: In health news, the American Academy of Pediatrics today released its updated recommendations for vaccines, including recommending COVID-19 shots for infants and young children.