Return to Transcripts main page
CNN News Central
Live Hearing on Fauci Contempt of Congress Vote; Senate Committee Passes Vote on Fauci's Contempt of Congress; Sen. Angela Alsobrooks (D-MD) is Interviewed about Fauci and El-Sayed's Win; Investigations into Epstein's New Mexico Ranch. Aired 9-9:30a ET
Aired August 06, 2026 - 09:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[09:00:00]
SEN. RAND PAUL (R-KY): Will call the roll on the Blumenthal motion. I will vote no.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Senator Johnson.
SEN. RON JOHNSON (R-WI): No.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Senator Lankford.
SEN. JAMES LANKFORD (R-OK): No.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Senator Scott.
SEN. RICK SCOTT (R-FL): No.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Senator Hawley.
SEN. JOSH HAWLEY (R-MO): No.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Senator Moreno.
SEN. BERNIE MORENO (R-OH): No.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Senator Ernst.
SEN. JONI ERNST (R-IA): No.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Senator Moody.
SEN. ASHLEY MOODY (R-FL): No.
SEN. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL (D-CT): Yes.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Senator Peters.
SEN. GARY PETERS (D-MI): Yes.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Senator Hassan.
SEN. MARGARET HASSAN (D-NH): Yes.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Senator Blumenthal.
BLUMENTHAL: Yes.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Senator Fetterman.
SEN. JOHN FETTERMAN (D-PA): Yes.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Senator Kim.
SEN. ANDY KIM (D-NJ): Yes.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Senator Gallego.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes, by proxy.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Senator Slotkin.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes, by proxy.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Senator Paul.
PAUL: No.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Mr. Chairman, on the vote of those present, the yeas are five, the nays are eight, and the vote by proxy, the yeas are two, the nays are zero. On this vote, the yeas are seven, the nays are eight, and the motion is not agreed to.
PETERS: Mr. Chairman, I move to table this resolution. I move to table consideration of this resolution until the chairman commits to abiding by the -- whoops -- that was my last one. I move to consider -- until the chairman provides all members of this committee with access to all documents, transcripts and materials related to this investigation, which I have repeatedly requested since the beginning of this Congress. Senate and committee rules are clear that all members of this committee have a right to access committee documents. The chairman has publicly stated he has received over one million documents as part of this investigation, and has only shared a small fraction with the minority despite repeated requests over the past year and a half. That's why I urge my colleagues to vote for this.
And I just want to reply to some of the comments made by the chair that we just didn't want to look at this information. We have been asking for information for quite some period of time over the past 18 months, and at every turn, whether it's the documents or trying to have the ability to question witnesses, we have been denied.
Just in April of this year, your staff conducted a transcribed interview of Ralph Barak (ph) without even notifying my staff about the interview. After you posted the transcript publicly, we asked for the unredacted version, and the classified portion. Received absolutely no response.
You refused to let the minority participate in the transcribed interview that Dr. Fauci agreed to do voluntarily. To a comment of one of my colleagues made, we could just do it and have a transcript in private. We were open to that. Dr. Fauci was open to it. But we were declined ability to do that. It was going to be one sided. and we he knew it was going to be one sided, he didn't want to come in. This committee normally always deals in a bipartisan way. We should have been there asking those questions as well.
I know that the chairman says that there are -- these documents were on some sort of website. We did not know about that website. We were told that there was a letter talking about the website. We understand it was hard copy only. We have no record of receiving it. Most of everybody on the dais has no record of receiving it.
And yet, as we continually ask for documents, if there was this website, which is different than what we have done as a committee, we always have a shared site where all of us can take a look at documents. We all have a right, as members of the committee, to look at those documents. If this other website existed, and we were supposedly told about it in a, in a letter, and we didn't get it, we don't have any record of receiving it, we didn't see it. But there were numerous times where the chairman's staff, when we were asking for documents, could have said, hey, go to that website we have. Oh, OK, we'll take a look at it. We didn't.
We made, I don't know, we have records of all these emails. We have records. I can go through them. I don't need to maybe go through them all. We got them tabbed. You know, where are these records? We'd like to see records. Crickets. Nothing. No mention of it. Could have been a mention, like, oh, well, by the way, we have those. This is over 18 months. Like stonewalling for 18 months. That's not the way this committee should ever work.
It didn't work when I was chair. Senator -- or now Chairman Paul, we went through an investigation. We had a detailed investigation of Covid-19. All those documents were provided. We worked with then Ranking Member Paul. Under Chairman Paul, we don't get those records. That's just not the way this place should work. And I would hope my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would realize that too, because things change. If we make this the new precedent, there will be a Democrat as a chair. Would you want them to do that? Would you want to be treated that way? I don't think you're going to want to be treated that way as well. And you'll scream and holler about it. It should -- we should stop it right now.
Let's continue to have the kind of bipartisan investigations that has made this committee a powerful committee over the years. Right now we're seeding all that.
[09:05:01]
We're just making it highly partisan. And when you make it highly partisan, people just ignore what you do. And that's really tragic, I think, and it's sad.
So, I would urge my colleagues to table this resolution. Let us take a look at these documents. They're on his private web or whatever he has set up for it. We'll take a look at it. But we should get back to the practice where we actually have shared information. I know when Senator Johnson was chair, we had shared information. I know he wanted shared information under Chairman Paul's chairmanship as well.
PAUL: OK, we need to get to the motion.
PETERS: So, but I'm -- well, let me finish. Is that -- this --
PAUL: I've let you go on and on. And we're going to -- we're going to get to the votes.
PETERS: Well, I understand that, but I don't remember ever cutting you off when you were ranking member.
PAUL: (INAUDIBLE).
PETERS: And I've always respected your rights. And I continue to respect your rights. I would just hope that you would offer that same courtesy to us because things do change and precedent is important. And I would urge my colleagues to table this resolution until we have a chance to look at the information, as has been the practice of this committee for as long as this committee has been in existence.
PAUL: For the record, Anthony Fauci refused a voluntary, private deposition, and that's why he was brought in under subpoena. With regard --
PETERS: Because it was going to be one-sided. Because it was going to be one-sided.
PAUL: With -- don't interrupt the chair. Don't interrupt the chair.
With regard to access to records, there has been an unprecedented access to records. They have all been uploaded on a website that you were invited to join. You refused to join. You had utter disdain. You never even asked for the password. Not one of you ever signed up. It's been up for over a year. The information is there for the taking. I've repeated it publicly over and over.
Don't come to this hearing saying you weren't given the records. The records were given.
The clerk will call the roll.
PETERS: So, you're going to --
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Senator Johnson.
JOHNSON: No.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Senator Lankford.
LANKFORD: No.
PAUL: You been talking ad nauseum.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Senator Scott.
SCOTT: No. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Senator Hawley.
HAWLEY: No.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Senator Moreno.
MORENO: No.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Senator Ernst.
ERNST: No.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Senator Moody.
MOODY: No.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Senator Peters.
PETERS: Yes.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Senator Hassan.
HASSAN: Yes.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Senator Blumenthal.
BLUMENTHAL: Yes.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Senator Fetterman.
FETTERMAN: Yes.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Senator Kim.
KIM: Yes.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Senator Gallego.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes, by proxy.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Senator Slotkin.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes, by proxy.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Senator Paul.
PAUL: No.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Mr. Chairman, on the vote of those present, the yeas are five, the nays are eight. On the vote by proxy, the yeas are two, the nays are zero. On this vote, the yeas are seven, the nays are eight, and the motion is not agreed to.
BLUMENTHAL: Mr. Chairman --
PAUL: Seeing no other motions, the question is on reporting of an original resolution that I've tanked --
BLUMENTHAL: Mr. Chairman, I have -- I have a motion. Mr. Chairman --
PAUL: We will -- we will entertain more motions, but the discussion has become dilatory, and so the discussion will --
BLUMENTHAL: I have -- I have one more motion, Mr. Chairman.
PAUL: Listen to my ruling. The discussion will be for two minutes. You will have two minutes to prevent -- to present your motion.
Senator Blumenthal.
BLUMENTHAL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move to postpone consideration of this resolution until this committee has an opportunity to seek leave from the Department of Justice to obtain a court order providing Dr. Fauci with immunity from prosecution in exchange for his testimony on matters raised during the committee's hearing. The immunity from prosecution could be limited to perjury. It is standard procedure. And again, we need to hear from his counsel as to whether it would be satisfactory to provide immunity.
If this committee is really interested in serious answers to the serious questions, it will seek to provide him with this very limited immunity to appear before this committee.
There is a need for a serious inquiry to answer questions arising from the pandemic. We need to know where Covid originated, how it spread, what could have been done better. We need to hear, not only from Dr. Fauci, but from others in the course of a bipartisan, non-partisan inquiry, perhaps through a commission where, again, Dr. Fauci could testify. A 9/11-type commission. But this kind of show trial is no way to elicit the important information that the country needs to know.
So, I ask that we postpone consideration of this resolution until we can give Dr. Fauci the kind of legal protection against self- incrimination that he needs.
PAUL: The clerk will call the roll.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Senator Johnson.
JOHNSON: No.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Senator Lankford.
LANKFORD: No.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Senator Scott.
SCOTT: No.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Senator Hawley.
HAWLEY: No.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Senator Moreno.
MORENO: No.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Senator Ernst.
ERNST: No.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Senator Moody.
MOODY: No.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Senator Peters.
PETERS: Yes.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Senator Hassan.
HASSAN: Yes.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Senator Blumenthal.
BLUMENTHAL: Yes.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Senator Fetterman.
FETTERMAN: Yes.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Senator Kim.
KIM: Yes.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Senator Gallego.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes, by proxy.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Senator Slotkin.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes, by proxy.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Senator Paul.
PAUL: No.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Mr. Chairman, on the vote of those present, the yeas are five, the nays are eight.
[09:10:03]
On the vote by proxy, the yeas are two, the nays are zero. On this vote, the yeas are seven, the nays are eight, and the motion is not agreed to.
PETERS: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to -- Mr. Chairman, without objection, I'd like to enter into the record all of the copies of emails that we sent to your staff asking to have access to information. And you will see in these emails there's either absolutely no response or no way to understand that there's a separate email -- or a separate place somewhere where we can get an email. Certainly, I'll put these in the records without objection. Certainly would be opening -- open to see any emails that actually told us about this. We can't find any in any of our electronic records, and we'd be open to seeing that. But I would like to do this without objection.
PAUL: Without objection. Seeing no other motions --
PETERS: Mr. Chairman -- Mr. Chairman --
PAUL: The question is on reporting --
PETERS: Mr. Chairman, pursuant to committee rule 6-B, if I may --
PAUL: Of the original resolution regarding --
PETERS: Mr. Chairman.
Go ahead.
PAUL: Seeing no other motions, the question is on reporting of an original resolution regarding contempt of Congress. The clerk will call the roll.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Senator Johnson.
JOHNSON: Yes.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Senator Lankford.
LANKFORD: Aye.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Senator Scott.
SCOTT: Yes.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Senator Hawley.
HAWLEY: Aye.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Senator Moreno.
MORENO: On behalf of the millions of people harmed by Anthony Fauci, resoundingly, yes.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Senator Ernst.
ERNST: Aye.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Senator Moody.
MOODY: Aye.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Senator Peters.
PETERS: No. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Senator Hassan.
HASSAN: No.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Senator Blumenthal.
BLUMENTHAL: No.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Senator Fetterman.
FETTERMAN: No.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Senator Kim.
KIM: No.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Senator Gallego.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No, by proxy.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Senator Slotkin.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No, by proxy.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Senator Paul.
PAUL: Yes.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: On the vote of those present, the yeas are eight, the nays are five. On the vote by proxy, and for the record only, the yeas are zero, the nays are two. On this vote, the yeas are eight, the nays are five, and the motion is not agreed to.
PETERS: Mr. Chairman, pursuant to committee rule --
PAUL: I have not recognized you.
PETERS: Mr. Chairman.
PAUL: We've had ample remarks on this. The chair will limit remarks to two minutes. I will give you another chance to state your opinion, which has been amply stated. You have two minutes.
PETERS: Well, Mr. Chairman, pursuant to committee rule 6-B and Senate Rule 26, Section 10-C, I'm notifying you that I intend to file minority views regarding this resolution.
PAUL: The clerk will report the conclusion of the vote.
PETERS: Just --
PAUL: And that is reported favorably. The committee --
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: (INAUDIBLE).
PAUL: The committee will now proceed to consideration of S-4505, a bill to require the U.S. Postal Service to designate zip codes for certain communities.
Senator Ernst.
JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: All right, about two minutes ago you heard it right there, the Senate Homeland Security Committee voted to hold Dr. Anthony Fauci in contempt for his testimony last week where he refused to answer questions. He cited the Fifth Amendment, the right to not incriminate himself, more than 100 times. The committee voted to hold him in contempt for that testimony, or lack of testimony. Now it will be up to the Justice Department, presumably, to decide whether to prosecute.
There are all kinds of legal issues. There are all kinds of Senate procedural issues. You just got a civics lesson a little bit on the idea of what can be tabled and not tabled. But the bottom line is, this committee just voted to hold Dr. Fauci in contempt.
We've got a number of people with us to answer some questions about what we just saw. We want to start with our senior legal analyst, Elie Honig.
And I just want to start with the basic legal question at play here, which is, Dr. Anthony Fauci was granted a pardon by President Biden for his activities up until, you know, January 20, 2025, right? So, that -- does that mean he can or can't take the fifth when he's testifying? That's what's at play here.
ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: First things first, any person can take the Fifth when they're questioned by Congress. You have that right.
The complication here, of course, as John said, is that Dr. Fauci received a pardon from Joe Biden. If a person has been pardoned, he cannot be criminally charged for anything within the scope of that pardon and therefore you cannot take the Fifth for anything within the scope of the pardon.
But the third thing, and the wrinkle here is, Dr. Fauci's position through his lawyer is, he might still have criminal exposure outside the scope of that pardon. That pardon only covers federal crimes. He could still be prosecuted for state crimes. We know there have been various state attorney general investigations of Dr. Fauci. He also could theoretically be charged for anything after the date of the pardon, after January 19, 2025. And on that basis, I believe Dr. Fauci does have a valid legal right to take the Fifth.
SARA SIDNER, CNN ANCHOR: All right. So, this is a very pedantic question but what is the difference between the power that Congress has legally or, in this case, a congressional committee, and a court of law?
HONIG: Right. So, right now, Dr. Fauci is in, I would say, contempt of Congress, sort of.
[09:15:02] He's more like in contempt of one committee of Congress. So, first of all, ordinarily, the way this goes, and we've seen various contempt motions over the past several years, first the committee votes. If it gets through the committee, then it goes to the full House or the full Senate. Apparently, Senator Rand Paul believes that he doesn't need to bring it. He doesn't want to bring it to the full Senate. Why that may be I'll leave to Manu and our congressional experts.
But Dr. Fauci has not been indicted right now. He's not under any criminal charge for contempt. But what happens now is going to be the really important decision. It goes over to the Justice Department. Specifically, by law, the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, Jeanine Pirro, who's made a lot of news recently over the Reflecting Pool case. She, presumably along with the attorney general, will make a decision, do we bring a criminal contempt prosecution against Dr. Fauci?
This has been done in different circumstances. But in recent memory, for example, Peter Navarro and Steve Bannon both were prosecuted, they were indicted, they were tried, they were convicted, and both went to prison for four months for contempt of Congress in relation to the January 6th investigation back in 2022, 2023. So, this is real. I mean the stakes here for Dr. Fauci could potentially be, depending on what DOJ decides, a criminal indictment and prosecution.
BOLDUAN: And this is because Anthony Fauci didn't, they say, the Republicans say, didn't answer their questions in this committee hearing, beyond some -- and we can get into the why they asked some of the -- what would be seen as less serious questions. They had reasons to do that, they say. What are the questions that he was asked that they believe -- that they wanted to get answered from him?
MEG TIRRELL, CNN MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, specifically from Rand Paul. As he said at the beginning, it's this focus on the origins of Covid, whether NIH funded what he says is dangerous research in the lab in Wuhan, and whether Dr. Anthony Fauci covered that up, including in testimony to Congress.
We have heard from Dr. Fauci on this before, including as recently as 2024, in front of another congressional committee, where he says the origins of Covid are more likely a natural spillover event, although we all must keep an open mind about that scientifically until we have better answers. The WHO has said it's seeking more information from China on it. He says that while the NIH, it is well documented, was funding some research out of Wuhan, that it wasn't against the restrictions around this kind of gain of function research.
You know, I think a lot of people would say that these are valid questions to talk about for preventing the next pandemic. What kind of research should the United States fund? What kind of research has the risk benefit profile that will help us prevent the next pandemic, while avoiding risky research that we don't want to have done? Those are the kinds of conversations people want to have, but it's obviously difficult to have them in these kinds of contexts.
BERMAN: All right, Meg Tirrell, Elie Honig, thank you very much for helping us understand what we just saw.
Stand by. Maybe more to come.
Kate.
KATE BOLDUAN, CNN ANCHOR: Absolutely. Let's get some reaction to this. Joining us right now is Democratic Senator Angela Alsobrooks. She serves on the Senate Health Committee, which takes up many of the issues and has been looking at many of the issues that we're talking about right here.
Senator, thank you for your time.
SEN. ANGELA ALSOBROOKS (D-MD): Thank you.
BOLDUAN: What do you think -- you may not have been able -- had the chance to listen to all of what just transpired in that Homeland committee, but you know the issues. You know what they're talking about. And you understand the political issues at play as well.
ALSOBROOKS: Yes.
BOLDUAN: What do you think of what just happened? Anthony Fauci now voted to -- recommended by this committee to be held in contempt of Congress.
ALSOBROOKS: Well, you know what? I think I heard enough of it. And I think the American people will say what I say is that these Republicans have now become the master of the Jedi mind trick. They prefer for us to focus on Anthony Fauci at a time where cyclospora is spreading through our communities. It is surging. Where we see measles at the highest rates that we've seen in 35 years. Where RFK Jr. has lied every single time that I have been in a hearing with him.
And so, rather than dealing with what is currently harming and killing Americans, they prefer to dig up 84 or 85 year old Anthony Fauci, bring him into a hearing room, and now try to hold him in contempt. These Republicans are so unserious, I -- and it is the reason that we are going to, in November, see Americans come out from everywhere and vote Democrats up and down the ballot. We have got to. Every single seat. We need to replace these Republicans for the sake of our country.
BOLDUAN: Let's talk about -- let's talk about what we have seen so far in the primaries, especially just this week. We had the major Democratic primary. That was a bruising primary in Michigan. And we now know that Abdul El-Sayed, the progressive candidate, is now the Democratic nominee there. Right away, President Trump wasted absolutely no time, along with other Republicans, of course, in coming out to attack El-Sayed.
Let me play what the president said about him.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Abdul El-Sayed, lovely gentleman. He's a man of hate. And now he's going around saying, no, I love everybody. I love -- he doesn't love everybody. Put him in office. You're going to find out what he loves.
When I watch Abdul, he's full of shit.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[09:20:04]
BOLDUAN: The president also taking the opportunity to say that he is congratulating Republicans over the win of this progressive candidate. He says it's going to help them. What's your reaction to Republicans celebrating El-Sayed's win here?
ALSOBROOKS: Well, you know, I don't have time to focus really on what Republicans are doing because we've already seen what they're about. Our country is in a race to the bottom with them at the helm. And I think everybody can see it.
What we need right now is to elect Democrats in every seat. And why? Because I've been across the country. Last weekend I was in Mississippi. I was in Georgia the weekend before that. You know, of course, Marylanders. And they all want the same thing. Finally for us to focus on having the ability, like my elderly mother, to afford her health care, to be able to buy homes for our children, to be able to have wealth, generational wealth, passed along to our kids, to be able to afford your groceries again. This is what the American people want us focused on. They don't want us laughing and mocking each other. They want us to see each other as neighbors again, to care once again about whether or not you can afford your utilities. And until we do that, I think Americans are going to continue to insist that we see change, that we're so tired of what we've seen.
But it is so clear right now. The Republicans have the White House, the Senate and the House, and our lives couldn't be more miserable in this country. And so, we are focused now on Democrats and getting them elected.
BOLDUAN: But are Democrats going to unify? There is real question around that given the insurgence that we've seen amongst Democratic socialists in the party. You are known as a moderate.
CNN's Isaac Dovere has reporting that Democratic leaders talk confidently about how they know the party can come together behind El- Sayed, but then many, Dovere reports, asked to go off the record to say just how terrified they are that the wounds just are too deep and festering to heal. And look no further than Senator John Fetterman, asked about El-Sayed, and then how El-Sayed responded.
Let me play this for you.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. JOHN FETTERMAN (D-PA): The tough guy. He called me ugly that I should be on a pike. And I'm like, chief, I own mirrors. Well, I can't come together with someone if you are willing to embrace
people that loves Hamas or that thinks America deserved 9/11. I think -- I think that's reasonable.
KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN ANCHOR: What's your response?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BOLDUAN: Well, the response is that El-Sayed --
ALSOBROOKS: (INAUDIBLE).
BOLDUAN: Yes, El-Sayed then answers Kaitlan. She says, what's your response to Senator Fetterman? And El-Sayed says, in Trump's words, what a lovely gentleman. That, Senator, that's not unity. How big of a problem is this? Do you think people are downplaying how deep these wounds are?
ALSOBROOKS: You know what -- you know what, these have been passionate primaries. The issues couldn't be more serious. The time couldn't be more serious. These are really dire times. We are absolutely unified. Democrats are going to come together because we recognize we have no choice --
BOLDUAN: But does that look like unity?
ALSOBROOKS: Well, you know what? Right on the heels of a -- of a passionate primary race, the passions are very high. But what I can tell you you're going to see is, we are going to line up behind Democratic nominees all across this country and recognize, again, the Jedi mind trick of those who want us to focus on any place other than the fact that the Republicans are the reason for the pain in our country, the reason we can't afford our health care, the reason why people are dying. Our kids are dying in this war, this needless war, while this president's children are getting rich.
Be clear about where the pain has come from. And I am going to be a voice to help us remember that. For those who are concerned about how we got here, I think we can look right at the map and it all leads back to Republican leadership.
And so, we are going to unify. We're going to get back our country. We're going to fight again for those who are tired of living on the margins, who are tired of just trying to get by, they want wealth for their families, wealth for their children, and Democratic opportunities once again. And that's what we're going to focus on. And we are going to win in November because these messages resonate with the American people.
BOLDUAN: Senator Angela Alsobrooks, thank you so much for sticking around to join me this morning. I appreciate it.
We are following a lot of breaking news. We will be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[09:28:42]
SIDNER: It's been roughly a year since Congress launched its investigation into Jeffrey Epstein's crimes and his network of associates. And frustration is growing over a lack of major breakthroughs here in the United States. Now, a separate investigation in New Mexico focusing on alleged crimes at Epstein's former ranch is adding new pressure on the Justice Department. The state's attorney general, Raul Torres, is suing the DOJ, accusing the department of withholding unredacted records and, quote, "stonewalling" the state's investigation.
Joining me now, CNN legal analyst and criminal defense attorney Joey Jackson.
I have spoken with the A.G. about this. He is very passionate about it. He wants answers. And he says the victims want answers in this case. What is the state's power to get the records it is requesting from the federal government?
JOEY JACKSON, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Yes, good to be with you, Sara.
I think the state does have power to do that, right. When we always talk about issues relating to state and the federal government, yes, we know that the federal government is centralized and has much power and control, but states certainly have their rights too.
I think the best path forward for the state, however, is to make the argument they're making, and that is that you're withholding these documents in a very arbitrary and capricious way.
[09:30:03]
There has to be a basis. We know that you have this Epstein Transparency Act, and there are exceptions. Certainly, if
