Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Epstein Survivors: A Vote for Todd Blanche is a Vote Against Victims; Family of Virginia Giuffre Blasts Attorney Who Said Epstein Claims Lacked Inherent Credibility; Updates on Nolan Wells, Daniel Erving and Tyler Smith Cases; Elon Musk's xAI Sues Minnesota Over Ban on Nudify Apps. Aired 2:30-3p ET

Aired July 30, 2026 - 14:30   ET

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

[14:30:00]

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: Giuffre is blasting a former Obama White House lawyer with ties to Epstein. Giuffre's family is furious after learning that former White House counsel Kathy Ruemmler told the House Oversight Committee she thought some of Giuffre's claims about Epstein lacked inherent credibility. She made that statement during a closed- door interview, according to a transcript released by the committee.

Giuffre's brother and sister-in-law accused Ruemmler of trying to undermine Giuffre's allegations while downplaying her own personal ties to Epstein. CNN's Annie Grayer is with us now with details here. Annie, tell us what you're learning.

ANNIE GRAYER, CNN SENIOR REPORTER: Well, Brianna, there's new drama unfolding in the House Oversight Committee's investigation into Jeffrey Epstein after Kathy Ruemmler, a top lawyer with ties to Epstein, raised questions about the allegations brought forward by Virginia Giuffre. She was asked explicitly in her closed-door interview with the Oversight Committee earlier this month if she believed Giuffre to be a victim of Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. And she said she wasn't sure. She didn't know.

I'm going to read for you now an excerpt from her testimony where she elaborated, quote, "If she says that she was, I don't have a reason to doubt that. However, there were allegations that she made that were, I believed, based on my experience as a former prosecutor and as a defense counsel, that were of such a nature that they were, they lacked inherent credibility."

Now, as soon as that testimony was released yesterday, Giuffre's family came out with a scathing statement for Ruemmler in which the family member said, quote, "The only person who lacks credibility is Kathy Ruemmler, who is trying to get people to believe she didn't know Jeffrey Epstein was actively engaged in sex trafficking. To attempt to cast doubt on Virginia, whose bravery was the reason so many other survivors stepped forward, resulting in more than 50 people from having to step down from their positions of power, is reprehensible. She should be ashamed of herself."

Now, in the wake of the outrage from the Giuffre family, representatives for Ruemmler have said that Ruemmler was not talking about all of the allegations brought forward by Giuffre, only portions of it, and that Ruemmler knew nothing about Epstein's crimes. So this is now all in front of the oversight committee to try and navigate these different perspectives and the outrage from Giuffre's family as a result.

KEILAR: Yes, and Annie, this is all coming as the acting attorney general, Todd Blanche, is trying to become the attorney general. Yesterday, though, Epstein survivors gathered on the Hill. They were trying to urge senators to vote against him.

How's that playing out?

GRAYER: Well, there is a public pressure campaign that went up another notch yesterday as Epstein survivors went door to door to Senate offices to drop off copies of the Epstein files, specifically to members on the Senate Judiciary Committee, whose Blanche's nomination is in front of, as they're trying to make the case that Blanche is unfit to be the nation's next attorney general. There's also a public campaign launch where a bus with all 3.5 million Epstein file documents is going to be making its way around the country. So Epstein survivors are doing everything they can to make their position known.

Take a listen to what some of them had to say on Capitol Hill yesterday.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ELIZABETH STEIN, EPSTEIN SURVIVOR: A vote for Todd Blanche is a vote against victims of crime everywhere. And despite any political differences that we may have as individuals, as citizens of the United States of America, that should concern us all.

AMANDA ROBERTS, VIRGINIA GIUFFRE'S SISTER-IN-LAW: Every survivor in this country deserves better than Todd Blanche. So we are asking you to vote no. Do it for survivors.

Do it for the truth. Do it because justice means nothing if it does not protect the powerless.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GRAYER: Now some Epstein survivors and Blanche have met face to face as part of the confirmation process, but both sides left unsatisfied. Now separately, Blanche's nomination is in limbo because there are two Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee who are withholding their support for Blanche unless they get written assurances that Trump's weaponization fund is permanently eliminated. So Epstein survivors are going to continue to make their case that Blanche is unsuited because of his inability to prosecute and handle the Epstein matter.

But right now, Blanche's nomination is also on hold for separate reasons, Brianna.

KEILAR: Yes, they also want that IRS audit immunity dropped as well, but we'll see where that's going to go. Annie Grayer, thank you so much for the latest from The Hill -- Boris.

BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN HOST: Let's discuss with Arick Fudali. He's an attorney representing 11 of the Jeffrey Epstein accusers. Arick, thank you so much for being with us.

First, I just want to get your reaction to Kathy Ruemmler telling the House Oversight Committee that she didn't know if Virginia Giuffre was a victim of Epstein's and Maxwell's.

ARICK FUDALI, ATTORNEY REPRESENTING 11 EPSTEIN ACCUSERS: I agree with the reaction of Ms. Giuffre's family. It's appalling. It's gross.

[14:35:00]

You know, any adjective you can possibly think of and really offensive for her to say that about Mr. Giuffre, who, in my opinion, is an American hero, someone who suffered greatly and someone who inspired so many other survivors, not just of Jeffrey Epstein, but of sexual abuse around the world. You know, Ms. Giuffre is the reason I know personally that a lot of women were able to feel comfortable, feel strong and feel empowered enough to step forward. So shame on her for saying anything of the sort, anything negative, especially casting doubt on Ms. Giuffre's allegations.

SANCHEZ: Ruemmler repeatedly denied that any of her exchanges with Epstein via e-mail revealed awareness of what he was doing. A spokesperson for her said that she would have acted if she'd known about his criminal activity. I wonder if you believe that.

FUDALI: Yes, I mean, I certainly don't know the details of her situation, what she knew or didn't know. What I can say is that seems to be an answer I'm hearing a lot these days. Seems like every single person closely associated with Jeffrey Epstein in any sort of either financial, logistical, friendly, romantic relation with Jeffrey Epstein seems to have had no idea that he was the most prolific predator of our time, sexually abusing up to three women a day, perhaps for decades.

So again, I certainly don't know the details of her relationship and what she knew. But I can say this denial of having any idea of what Jeffrey Epstein was up to, despite the fact that, as I said, he's the most prolific sex trafficker and abuser of our time. It seems to be a very common answer that I hear.

SANCHEZ: For a multitude of reasons, Todd Blanche's nomination as attorney general appears to be at a logjam on Capitol Hill, not the least of which is what we showed just a moment ago, the survivors of Epstein that came to Capitol Hill, urging lawmakers to strike down his nomination. I just wonder if you think his handling of the Epstein files may impact his confirmation process.

FUDALI: I mean, absolutely. We're seeing that in real time. And, you know, first, it's a testament to the strength of the survivors who, despite being wronged and disrespected every step of the way, continue to fight, as was just reported, literally going door to door with files, talking to senators, trying to get them to reject Todd Blanche's, you know, bid for attorney general.

But absolutely. I mean, to say that the Department of Justice failed in their release of the Epstein files would be an understatement. I mean, this almost appeared as a deliberate obstruction of justice, a deliberate obstruction of transparency and a deliberate obstruction of justice, despite the fact that justice is in the very name, the Department of Justice.

So Todd Blanche has handled this poorly. Pam Bondi handled this terribly. They've showed nothing but contempt and disrespect for the survivors.

And it looks like that is finally, at least in some way, coming back to hurt them, at least as it relates to Todd Blanche's desire to be anything more than acting attorney general.

SANCHEZ: We still don't have any answers about why Ghislaine Maxwell was moved to a federal prison camp, very different circumstances than she was in before she met privately with Todd Blanche almost a year ago now. Do you think we'll ever find out why she was moved?

FUDALI: Unfortunately, not. I mean, perhaps after this nightmare of an administration ends and maybe there's some real investigations to actually what went on here with the release or, you know, or how this Epstein, you know, file situation was handled. And maybe, you know, years and years into the future.

But I don't think anytime soon. I mean, this has been a Department of Justice who has acted at the will of the president. I find Ms. Maxwell's transfer to a minimum security resort style prison an absolute slap in the face and re-victimization of the victims. She belongs to be in a maximum security prison where convicted child sex traffickers belong. I find those circumstances beyond suspicious. The timing of it doesn't make sense.

And I don't believe any reasonable person could come to any other conclusion than it was the Department of Justice or this administration that facilitated that transfer. So, you know, hopefully one day, maybe years from now, we'll get to the -- we'll get to the bottom. I certainly won't rest until we have some answers.

I know that the survivors are going to continue to fight until we get answers on that. But, you know, given what we know about this administration, the Department of Justice, I don't expect them to all of a sudden become transparent about anything, anytime soon.

SANCHEZ: Arick Fudali, we have to leave the conversation there. Appreciate your time.

FUDALI: Thank you.

SANCHEZ: Still to come, their lawyer says there are more questions than answers in the mysterious deaths of three black teenagers in separate incidents. The attorney for their families is speaking out today. We'll bring that to you after a quick break.

[14:40:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KEILAR: Today, civil rights attorney Ben Crump joined the families of three 18-year-old black men, Nolan Wells, Daniel Erving, and Tyler Smith. They died in separate circumstances, but civil rights lawyer Ben Crump says all of their cases, quote, demand justice.

CNN senior national correspondent Ryan Young is with us now from Nashville. Ryan, tell us what you're learning.

RYAN YOUNG, CNN SENIOR NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes, Brianna, you know, sometimes in live television, things happen for a reason. Ben Crump was walking by. We wanted to have a conversation with him to talk about today's events and the news conference.

Three families coming together. Tell us why you felt it was important to amplify all three stories.

BEN CRUMP, CIVIL RIGHTS ATTORNEY: It was so important because Nolan Wells' case got so much attention. But I wanted to remind that there were other young black men, all 18 years old, Ryan, who all died in similar circumstances like Nolan Wells. So I'm so grateful to Nolan's parents for using their attention to help give more attention to those other families.

[14:45:00]

Tyler Smith, Lexington, Kentucky. Daniel Erving, outside of Dallas, Texas. We have to get answers.

YOUNG: We know the Wells case is getting a lot of attention. You said something today about maybe having another meeting with the DA's office. Do you believe that's going to happen?

And is more evidence coming into your office as people call in?

CRUMP: Man, we're getting a hundred calls a day. I am confident we're going to get to the truth, Ryan Young, of what happened to Nolan Wells. And I want to thank everybody, those people, for calling.

But for those of you who haven't called yet, I'm speaking directly to you. You know, if you're Nolan's friend and the roles were reversed, Nolan Wells would have told what he knew to help your family, help his family. All we want are answers.

YOUNG: The personal attacks against his family, his mother, his father, yourself. What has that been like to deal with and see online as you're saying that you just want justice in this case?

CRUMP: Yes. You know, for me, it comes with the job. But for them, I mean, just lost their son, still seeking answers, and they're being attacked.

I don't ever, ever want people to think that they are going to discourage us from getting justice for young people who have been taken from this earth far too soon. Like we did for Trayvon, Breonna Taylor. We're going to do for Nolan Wells.

YOUNG: Last question, because I know you have to go, but just the idea that there's a lot of speculation on the internet. I know your investigators are trying to work through some of this speculation. Is it helping the case?

Is it moving it in the wrong direction? Do you think truth can be found with as much speculation that is out there right now?

CRUMP: I am confident, just like with these other cases, our firm, we put our head down and we do the work. We don't listen to the noise, but it is very helpful that everybody is focused in on trying to give us photographs, give us videos. So I want everybody on social media, keep doing what they're doing because they're all going to help us.

They're all our co-counselors to get to the truth. And that's all we want, Ryan, is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. So help me God.

YOUNG: Thank you. Thank you, Benjamin Crump.

So Brianna, he was walking by. We wanted to get that information out in terms of the calls that are coming in and the fact that they're going to meet with the DA again. Obviously, none of these cases have stopped just yet and we'll continue to try to follow the details so far.

KEILAR: Yes. And multiple families looking for answers there. Ryan Young, thank you so much for that report. That's right.

Coming up, Elon Musk's AI company suing Minnesota after the state declares a ban on apps that create fake nudes or sexualized images of real people. Could AI possibly win in this case? We'll talk about it next.

[14:50:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SANCHEZ: Now to some of the other headlines we're watching this hour. The outbreak of cyclospora has taken a bite out of Taco Bell's profits. Its parent company, Yum! Brands, says the Taco Bell sales fell 2 percent from June to July. That was around the same time that health officials connected its lettuce to an outbreak of nearly 2,000 illnesses across nine states. To win customers back, Taco Bell rolled out a one-day promotion last week, offering lettuce-free menu items for a dollar.

Also, Shell, the oil and gas giant, says its profits hit the second- highest level in the company's history as the Iran war raised oil prices. Shell made more than $9.8 billion in the last quarter, more than double what they made in the same period last year. The price of Brent crude oil has soared by nearly a third since the start of the war in February.

And finally, Amazon's robotaxi service, Zoox, just announced it'll be allowed to put thousands of vehicles on the road and start charging fares in the next two years. What makes the Zoox different? It has no steering wheel at all.

And when you step inside, the seats face each other instead of facing forward. I don't know, it could be a little bit awkward. The car is currently being tested in parts of California and Nevada -- Brianna.

KEILAR: All right, so Elon Musk's xAI is taking the state of Minnesota to court. The company is suing the state over its ban on so-called nudify apps. These are apps that give people the ability to make fake, sexualized images of real people.

And in the filing, attorneys for the plaintiffs say quote, "xAI strictly prohibits its users from generating nude or sexualized images of people without their consent and has indeed filed suit against users who evade its extensive technological blockers to generate such images in violation of this strict prohibition." The lawsuit also says that xAI, quote, does not contest Minnesota's interest in prohibiting the dissemination of artificially generated nude images of real people without their consent, end quote. But they also say that the law is overbroad.

Minnesota's AG writing, "Using AI to generate nude images of people against their will is appalling. There are plenty of worthy debates to have about AI. This is not one of them. AI nudification robs the target of their dignity and could cause them immense harm on many levels. I'll see X in court."

Let's talk about this with CNN contributor and tech journalist Jacob Ward. Jacob, this is going to get so much attention. XAI says it's already prohibiting users from using their tech for this.

[14:55:00]

They sue users who evade their blockers. Inherent in that argument that they're policing wrongdoers is an admission that people are using their tech to nudify people. How widespread is this problem?

JACOB WARD, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Well, I think it is very widespread. I mean, the statistics that I've seen from researchers I speak to say that the vast majority of the use cases in which somebody uploads something and then messes around with it is, in fact, this kind of use. You know, there are people innocently doing things like, you know, show me in a different haircut.

I literally was just doing that the other day. But for the most part, the majority of the use case there is this kind of sexualized imagery. And that seems to have created the problem here.

It's the scale at which that kind of thing is happening that gives this new law such teeth. And I think that's probably why xAI is filing suit here, Brianna.

KEILAR: OK, so let's explore their claims. They say it's overly broad, that it's a free speech issue. Is there something to those arguments? WARD: I mean, you can get philosophically into this question of whether or not you should be all about free speech in this case. But I think the money is really the thing to look at, right? The law would impose a $500,000 fine every time somebody creates one of these images.

And so the lawyers in their very -- the xAI lawyers in their suit say that, you know, that would run into the billions of dollars very quickly. And so it's those costs, I think, that this company is really most concerned about. Because, you know, Brianna, they're in an impossible situation in that if this law stands, and it's supposed to go into effect in just a couple of days, if it stands, then it's going to put them in a position where they either have to figure out a way to filter this stuff out entirely, which is very expensive to develop and not very reliable.

Or they have to just prevent people from uploading and then tweaking images entirely, which is, I would argue, a pretty good technological solution. But it's an enormously costly thing in terms of the stickiness and virality that these companies depend on. And so, you know, to me, I think you really know that a regulation is beginning to touch a company where it hurts.

It's beginning to cause real concern in a company when a company files suit like this.

KEILAR: Yes, and I mean, they're saying if a business whose users created 100,000 prohibited images had to pay these fines, you're looking at $50 billion, to your point there. But if you're Michigan, don't you say, well, yes, exactly, if xAI is arguing it's too expensive for a company to be facilitating users creating 100,000 of these prohibited images, maybe the penalties will actually force the company to address the problem?

WARD: I mean, I think what that piece of math is inadvertently doing, and I'm no lawyer here, but I think that I'd probably be critiquing a lawyer who wrote that, is you're basically admitting the possibility that at least 100,000 of these are being produced at a time, right? And so that's sort of the issue here. I think, you know, there are established laws around, you know, peeping toms and taking explicit photos of people without their permission.

There are laws around revenge porn, right? This is not something that Minnesota has just kind of invented out of nothing. And if xAI's lawyers are to be believed, this could be happening on a scale of the hundreds of thousands, if not more than that.

And so I do think we're really seeing a place, you know, we've just seen for years, states and federal regulators being criticized for somehow not, you know, being cool enough, with it enough, tech savvy enough to regulate this stuff. When you see a company fight back like this, it definitely shows that some traction is happening when it comes to regulation.

KEILAR: The scale of the problem that you're describing is pretty amazing though. So, you know, broadly speaking here, we're talking about state regulation of AI and there is this tension between whether AI is federally regulated or whether states can go their own way and then you end up with this patchwork of different state laws. What would AI companies prefer?

What is the thing that's going to keep people safer, more protected, but also allow them to use some innovative technology?

WARD: You know, I think that the folks that I speak to at these companies, you know, some of them have an earnest desire for regulation. And I think that that is a mixed bag of a little bit of self-dealing and some, you know, philosophical earnestness where for one part, you know, they would really like, I think, everyone to have to play by the same rules and having federal regulations, you know, defines the rules of the game that you are all playing. So that's one thing.

But yes, these state actions are a patchwork that are creating real trouble for these companies. I think on the one hand, you could think of it as it being kind of a logistical pain that they have to deal with each state. On the other hand, the way to think about it, right, is that the states are the laboratories of democracy and these laws that are being passed are in many cases, very sophisticated.

And I think xAI's reaction to this is showing how sophisticated Minnesota's move is here and really threaten the bottom line of these companies. And so I think one reason we're seeing such a push toward wanting some kind of federal regulation is because in the United States, that would in many ways wipe out the state laws that ...

END