Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

House Judiciary GOP Chair Jim Jordon Asks DOJ to Criminally Charge Jack Smith; U.S. Deploys B-1 Bombers as Attacks on Iran Intensify; 2028 New Hampshire COP Primary Polls. Aired 8-8:30a ET

Aired July 23, 2026 - 08:00   ET

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

[08:00:00]

KEN JEONG, ACTOR: I prefer to think of myself as a shark-bassador, Kate, in my list of resumes. MD, comedian, actor, Instagram model, and shark-basseter. And out of all that, shark-basseter is at the top of the list.

REI AMI, ACTOR: Really?

JEONG: Uh-huh.

REI AMI: What about Instagram model?

JEONG: Instagram, it used to be because real talk, the real shark hero is REI AMI. She like dived in every segment. She is swimming with the sharks, whether it be the hammerheads, whether it be in the shark cage with bull sharks.

I mean, she has done it all. I was like more the kind of the Christopher Nolan just kind of overseeing the odyssey, you know, that is REI AMI and all the bull sharks. I'm more of like an auteur.

Maybe that's it. I'm a shark-tor. And I think that to me is my new resume filler right now.

And you're welcome.

KATE BOLDUAN, CNN ANCHOR: Guys, "K-pop Shark Heroes" premieres Sunday on Discovery, which is the same parent company as CNN. We were going to bring you more of my chat with that dynamic duo later in the show. It goes only slightly off the rails from there.

A new hour of CNN NEWS CENTRAL starts now.

SARA SIDNER, CNN ANCHOR: All right, breaking overnight, a new push to prosecute the prosecutor. The Republican House Judiciary Chair now asking the Justice Department to criminally charge former special counsel Jack Smith, who famously investigated President Trump.

Plus, new reporting shedding light on what comes next in the war with Iran. The United States deploying a weapon that defies the speed of sound, signaling a significant escalation there. And with great power comes great responsibility, especially if you

happen to be sitting in traffic wearing a Spider-Man suit and someone is in danger. The story behind this marvelous rescue.

I'm Sara Sidner with Kate Bolduan and John Berman. This is CNN NEWS CENTRAL.

BOLDUAN: All right, let's get to the breaking news this hour. Pushing for prosecution, the Republican Chair of the House Judiciary Committee is now accusing former special counsel Jack Smith, who investigated President Trump, of misleading the committee. And now Jim Jordan is formally referring Smith to the Justice Department.

The DOJ says it has received the referral and will quote, investigate all evidence of criminal conduct. At issue is the testimony that Smith gave on phone records he collected from members of Congress while investigating Trump's efforts to overturn the 2020 election. In Jordan's letter, he accuses Smith of taking steps to spy on members of Congress, he writes. And says that Smith made half-truths in that December deposition.

Smith's attorneys responding, saying it quote, "... reflects a chilling eagerness to weaponize the justice system by attacking a career nonpartisan public servant who faithfully and fearlessly performed his duties by following the facts and the law." And just this morning, the president is up and weighing in, posting on social media, along with a link to an article on it, I guess, justice at last, question mark. CNN's Holmes Lybrand joins us now.

Walk us through what the accusations really are here.

HOLMES LYBRAND, CNN REPORTER: That's right, Kate. So it really, the Republicans' frustration with Smith has to do with two different subpoenas, one for the toll records of several members of Congress. That just included calls that were made, who they were calling in the duration of the calls, not the content of the calls.

Now, a separate subpoena, and you'll remember all of these subpoenas, they're around the efforts to overturn that 2020 election. That's what Smith was investigating. That second subpoena was actually for White House staffers' communication, but it did include some messages from members of Congress between those White House staffers.

Now, this also hinges on a deposition that Smith gave in December, where he was asked if he had issued a search warrant for the contents or text messages of any members, to which he says, no, I don't recall. That is a nuanced kind of answer to this kind of more complicated question. Members of Congress are very, very upset that Smith ever had access to any of their messages.

And again, this letter, while it is referring Smith to the DOJ for prosecution, it says that Smith gave the impression that neither Mr. Smith nor his team had access to the contents of members' phones. Again, this impression, misleading. They're not quite going as far as saying he directly lied, but they're accusing Smith of misleading during that deposition. Now, Smith has said that he is willing to testify openly before Congress. That is not something that Republicans have taken him up on yet.

BOLDUAN: That is true. I'm sure that offer still stands. It's good to see you.

[08:05:00]

Thank you so much, Holmes -- John.

JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: With us now, CNN senior law enforcement analyst, former deputy director of the FBI, Andrew McCabe. I just want to put up on the screen this exchange so people can see it, which is sort of at the center of this criminal referral, where in a deposition, Jack Smith was asked, did the toll records you requested from the senators, did they include the content of the phone calls? He said no.

Did the records you requested, the toll records from members of Congress, include the content of the phone messages? He said no. And what the criminal referral suggests is, well, maybe while the subpoenas didn't request the content, he didn't proactively volunteer in that exchange that he had access to the content in other ways.

Does that constitute a crime by not being proactive to volunteer that information, Andy?

ANDREW MCCABE, CNN SENIOR LAW ENFORCEMENT ANALYST: Not even close, John. Not even close. This is the sort of referral that in any other Department of Justice would be politely ignored, because on its face, it's legally insufficient.

You know, perjury charges, false statement charges have to be explicit. There could be no question whatsoever about what the question required and exactly what information the person testifying provided. Seeming misrepresentation, kind of maybe suggested, doesn't cut it.

We asked him this, but he didn't say enough, doesn't cut it. It has to be a direct answer to a direct question. That is clearly not the case here.

Jack Smith, first of all, was not under any obligation to provide information beyond the scope of what was asked in the question. He was actually prohibited from doing so, because he was under very strict rules from the Department of Justice that he could not go beyond a certain point and volunteer information that is currently underseal in his report in the court in Florida, where one of the investigations took place. So he had to be laser careful about the answers that he gave.

He gave an answer that was responsive to the question asked, no foul.

BERMAN: What happens normally with a criminal referral? What then or what next would justice normally do with it? MCCABE: So the Justice Department typically takes these referrals and looks at them very closely to see if there is, first of all, a solid legal basis upon which to predicate an investigation. They also are careful not to get involved in things that are obviously political battles, right? We don't -- well I should say, we used to not want the Department of Justice to get involved in political battles.

And all that consideration would lead just to the decision about whether or not to investigate. If they decide it's to be investigated, they then ask the FBI to do that. Many, many criminal referrals are turned away.

Some of the January 6th characters were, like Mark Meadows was, may have been referred for the subject of a criminal referral involving his testimony to Congress and their investigation. And he was not prosecuted or investigated as far as I'm aware. So lots of these things get turned down.

This one should get turned down, but you and I both know it will not get turned down because of the X factor here, which is of course what the president wants. And that is revenge. That is to investigate and harass people like Jack Smith and many others.

BERMAN: Very quickly, Todd Blanche, acting attorney general, was working as Donald Trump's defense attorney at the time of these investigations. Would that normally lead to a recusal from him?

MCCABE: Normally, John, absolutely. It would lead to a recusal from him. In this Department of Justice, I doubt it.

If he recuses here or if he presides over the determination to not investigate Jack Smith, I would say his time in that office would be limited. And he knows that better than anyone. He is on a permanent job application process essentially right now, and he knows that he's one bad decision away from being cast out of his current role.

I should say one thing though before we go, John. This case is a perfect example why any person who finds themselves in the crosshairs of this Department of Justice in one of these retaliatory investigations, and I consider myself among them. I am currently, I have received a subpoena in an investigation.

The message you should take away from this is do not cooperate with the government. Do not provide answers under oath. Do not provide answers to Congress.

Do not provide answers to questions to agents or to a grand jury because this Department of Justice will take what you say and apparently what you don't say and try to use that against you all in pursuit of the president's revenge mission.

BERMAN: Andrew McCabe, you have a unique insight to this to say the least. Appreciate you being with us this morning and sharing your opinions -- Sara.

[08:10:00] SIDNER: Wow. All right, thank you, John.

This morning, a possible escalation in the war against Iran. A new report on the weapon the U.S. military is now deploying.

Plus, they're extremely popular among influencers on social media, even some doctors. And today, health officials could decide whether to ease restrictions on peptides.

Plus, a daring ride thousands of feet above the ground, a biker riding across a flying hot air balloon. What the? OK, you do you.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SIDNER: All right, new reporting for Barak Ravid of Axios this morning that the U.S. is deploying the B-1 bomber in the war with Iran. That reporting that the U.S. is using the bomber to strike Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps targets in a major escalation of the conflict there.

CNN political and global affairs analyst Barak Ravid joining us now behind all of this reporting.

[08:15:00]

Give us some sense of what kind of escalation this is and where we are right now in this war that just seems to be escalating without the other end of it, which is trying to negotiate their way out of it.

BARAK RAVID, CNN POLITICAL AND GLOBAL AFFAIRS ANALYST: Well, first, I think when it comes to the B-1 bomber mission, I think what we see here is that the U.S. military is deploying more and more assets to the region in an effort to increase the strikes on Iran, to get it to concede to the U.S. demands, both in the Strait of Hormuz, which is right now the number one priority, but also going forward towards a nuclear deal. I think the main question that should be asked is, on the one hand, the B-1 bomber can drop tons and tons of munitions on Iranian targets, more than maybe any other aircraft in the U.S. arsenal. But at least at the moment, it is still unclear how effective it is on the final goal of reopening the strait.

Some U.S. officials I talk to, defense officials, say that the Iranian ability to strike ships in the strait has been dramatically diminished, but other defense officials say that the Iranians can still do it. And therefore, I think we're still far off from the reopening of the strait, which is what President Trump wants at the moment.

SIDNER: You have some reporting as well on the new Mossad director meeting with the CIA chief on Iran. What comes out of that? What's the significance of this particular meeting?

RAVID: I think the significance is that CIA Director John Ratcliffe was one of the more, let's say, skeptical members of Trump's inner circle. And I think that the Israelis at the moment see him, together with maybe Secretary of State Rubio, as the person who is more open to hear their point of view inside the administration. And I think that while those interactions between Director of Mossad and Director of CIA are relatively normal, that there's a very tight cooperation between the two intelligence agencies.

I think that the timing two weeks ago, before the current escalation, but when the U.S. was about to start nuclear negotiations with Iran, I think that was the context of this visit, to try and make sure that the U.S. hears what Israel has to say before such negotiations start. And I think that that's why the new director of Mossad also met White House officials that are involved in the negotiations -- in the nuclear negotiation with Iran. Since then, the situation's dramatically changed.

I think that over the last two weeks, since that visit took place, the U.S. and the President is very close. And I think this might be something that people don't appreciate enough, how close the President is to giving an order for return to major combat operations in Iran, basically to go on Operation Epic Fury 2. I think people are not aware how close we are to such a thing.

It could happen within days. Because on the other hand, at least for now -- and I hear it from the mediators -- the Iranians still have not come back with a positive answer to the proposal they got from the Qatari mediators regarding the Strait of Hormuz. And I don't know how long President Trump is going to wait for that answer.

And if it's not going to come in the next few days, I think it is highly likely that the President will order a return to major combat operations in Iran.

SIDNER: Well, as you said, they're getting the apparatus in place at this time to potentially do that. Barak Ravid, great reporting from you, as always. Thank you so much. Appreciate it -- John.

BERMAN: All right, a dangerous moment. Alleged road rage. A man points a gun at another driver. And it's all on video because that other driver was actually wearing a camera and caught that moment on video. Wow!

And then Amazon, Uber, DoorDash, a new study that shows a high number of workers still need federal assistance.

[08:20:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BERMAN: All right, this morning, why is this man smiling? Well, it's because this guy right here, the vice president, might be hearing footsteps in a very important place. New Hampshire. CNN chief data analyst, Harry Enten, is here. We've got fresh polling from UNH, which tells a pretty interesting story.

HARRY ENTEN, CNN CHIEF DATA ANALYST: Yes, watch out. The closest vehicle may be behind you. Take a look right here.

OK. OK. 2028, New Hampshire, GOP primary polls. You go back to February. The vice president, United States, J.D. Vance, was absolutely crushing Marco Rubio. Look at that.

53 percent the first choice. Marco Rubio was just down at 7 percent. Look at this race now, though.

What was a 40? What is that? A 45 point margin or so?

A 46 point margin has now become just a 10 point margin. What? That is a closing of well over 30 points.

Now Vance is at 36 percent, dropping like a rock. And look at Marco Rubio up there climbing up to Mount Washington up to 26 percent. What wasn't a race in February has become very much a race right now with the Secretary of State very much closing the gap between him and the Vice President of the United States.

BERMAN: This is February of this year.

ENTEN: This is February of 2026. Yes, it is February of this year. Just in six months time, Marco Rubio has absolutely climbed out of the cellar right behind the vice president.

And as Johnny B. was pointing out to me in the break, this is happening when J.D. Vance is making one of the biggest pushes of his vice presidency in terms of PR. It doesn't seem to be working in the Granite State.

BERMAN: All right, put this in some historical perspective, Harry.

ENTEN: Yes, OK. So you see right here, you see a 10 point gap, right, between Rubio and Vance. Well, I wanted to look back in prior years to understand where we're sitting, V.P.s who eventually ran. How big were their leads in New Hampshire in the early primary polls and compare that to Vance. So these are V.P. leads early New Hampshire primary where we're sitting, V.P.s who eventually ran. How big were their leads in New Hampshire in the early primary polls and compare that to Vance.

So these are V.P. leads early New Hampshire primary polls. You know, Vance is up 10 points, as I mentioned. Al Gore was up 40 points at this point.

He barely won in New Hampshire, right? He barely won over Bill Bradley. How about George Herbert Walker Bush?

He was up 26 points in the early primary polls. And of course, he had to come back and win New Hampshire after losing the Iowa caucuses. So this lead is historically small.

You would expect a V.P. to be much more up in the in New Hampshire, especially with a popular president within their own party. But that is not the case right now with J.D. Vance. He has a historically small lead for a V.P. and a lead that has been closing, very much closing over the last six months. This is probably the best polling data that Marco Rubio has received and probably the worst polling data that J.D. Vance has received ahead of 2028 so far.

BERMAN: Very quickly, what are the prediction markets saying?

ENTEN: What are the prediction markets saying? Well, this is part of a national picture. J.D. Vance was way up in January, chance to be the Republican nominee 49 percent to 11 percent. But now look at the Kalshi prediction markets. They're again much closer now. Marco Rubio not just surging in New Hampshire.

He's also seems to be surging nationally when it comes to his chances to be the Republican nominee. J.D. Vance's 2028 bid looks to be a little bit of -- a little bit of thin ice at this point.

BERMAN: Jeopardy, you might say.

ENTEN: Jeopardy, jeopardy, jeopardy, jeopardy, and conk it.

BERMAN: All right. Very good. Harry Enten, thank you very much.

ENTEN: Thank you.

BOLDUAN: OK, thank you. Thank you, boys. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

A team dropping a social media addiction lawsuit against Meta just days before trial was set to begin. We're now hearing from his lawyers and a little bit more about what's going on here.

Plus, two critical U.S. water reservoirs are running dangerously low. What is at risk here and what is causing the water here -- the water levels to dwindle to dangerous levels?

We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)