Return to Transcripts main page
The Source with Kaitlan Collins
DOJ To Meet With Ghislaine Maxwell As Soon As Tomorrow; Gabbard Pushes Obama Conspiracy Amid Epstein Questions; French President Sues Right-Wing Podcaster Candace Owens. Aired 9-10p ET
Aired July 23, 2025 - 21:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[21:00:00]
HARRY ENTEN, CNN CHIEF DATA ANALYST: --what did you feel?
JOHN BERMAN, CNN HOST, ANDERSON COOPER 360: I think I may have liked C the best.
ENTEN: You liked C the best. And according to what I have here, C is in fact with a can. It is a can. It is not in fact the one that was the Mexican Coke, which was in fact A. So you, like the AC360 staff, did not prefer Mexican Coke, that is Coke with sugar, which proves my point that this whole thing is just a giant fugazi.
BERMAN: And I will say, when you mentioned baloney, the first time, I'm like, Oh, that tastes good. That's what they should change the flavor to.
Harry Enten, thank you very much.
ENTEN: I prefer Royal Crown Cola anyway.
BERMAN: The news continues. "THE SOURCE WITH KAITLAN COLLINS" starts right now.
KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, CNN HOST, THE SOURCE WITH KAITLAN COLLINS: Tonight, inside that Oval Office meeting, where Attorney General Pam Bondi informed President Trump his name was included in the so-called Epstein files.
I'm Kaitlan Collins. And this is THE SOURCE.
Tonight, new CNN reporting shows that President Trump's efforts, to make the Epstein crisis that is unfolding within the Republican Party go away, just isn't working.
CNN has confirmed tonight that when Attorney General Pam Bondi briefed President Trump, earlier this spring, regarding the Justice Department's review of the Jeffrey Epstein case, she told the President that his name appeared in those files. Undercutting what we heard from the President himself, just last week.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REPORTER: The Attorney General briefed you on the DOJ and FBI review. The findings of that review. The Attorney General briefed you on that.
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: On what? On the--
REPORTER: On the DOJ and FBI review.
TRUMP: On what? On what subject?
REPORTER: Epstein. On Epstein -- of the review of the files. Attorney General Pam Bondi briefed you on that.
TRUMP: A very -- very quick briefing.
REPORTER: Did she tell you -- what did she tell you about the review? And specifically, did she tell you at all that your name appeared in the files?
TRUMP: No, no. She's given us just a very quick briefing, and in terms of the credibility of the different things that they've seen.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Now, to be clear, you hear what the President says there.
And also, being mentioned in the files doesn't mean that Trump is accused of any wrongdoing. We don't even know how significant the reference to him in these documents are.
But during that briefing, we are told, by sources, that the Attorney General also noted other high-profile figures who were also mentioned in the files.
And all of this is coming, as the White House has been desperately attempting to shift attention away, from this administration's decision to close the investigation, and what they were saying publicly about it into the disgraced sex offender.
The White House confirmed, the conversation between the Attorney General Pam Bondi, and President Trump, and added that Trump kicked Jeffrey Epstein out of his Mar-a-Lago Club for being a creep, as they said, and that this is a continuation of, quote, Fake news.
But this comes as earlier today, we saw a federal judge, in Florida, declining to release grand jury documents from the criminal investigation into Jeffrey Epstein. But that doesn't mean that's going to be the last word on this matter, at least not in court.
Even though the Trump -- the President wants anything Epstein related, to go away, we've seen how it has consumed Republicans, here in Washington, on Capitol Hill.
House Speaker Mike Johnson sent members home early, for a month-long recess, to stop what we have seen playing out, this bipartisan push to release the Epstein documents.
Then, in a surprise move, a key House subcommittee that is led by Republicans, and made up of some of the President's Hill allies, voted to subpoena the Justice Department to release the files.
Now, it needs a sign-off from the House Oversight chair, James Comer. That may be likely, given Comer is almost -- also moving ahead with a subpoena to depose Jeffrey Epstein's former associate, Ghislaine Maxwell, who is a convicted sex trafficker herself, and is currently serving a prison sentence in Florida.
House Speaker Mike Johnson, though, questioned and cast doubt on whether or not she could be a credible voice to talk to.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. MIKE JOHNSON (R-LA): I will note the obvious concern, the caveat that Chairman Comer, and I, and everyone has that, could she be counted on to tell the truth? Is she a credible witness?
I mean, this is a person who's been sentenced to many, many years in prison for terrible, unspeakable, conspiratorial acts, and acts against innocent young people. I mean, can we trust what she's going to say? Even if she raises her hand and says that she'll testify under oath, is that something that could be trusted, you know? That's a reasonable question. Is that credible evidence? I don't know. But we'll have to see.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Speaker Johnson himself questioning whether or not she'd be a credible voice to hear from.
We should note, that the administration will be also having a direct conversation with Ghislaine Maxwell, after we learned from Attorney General Pam Bondi, that the Deputy Attorney General will be setting up a meeting with her.
I am told, by two people familiar with the meeting, that the Deputy Attorney General, Todd Blanche, is expected to meet with Ghislaine Maxwell, as soon as tomorrow.
My inside sources are here tonight.
Politico's Dasha Burns.
CNN Legal Analyst, and former federal prosecutor, Elliot Williams.
[21:05:00]
And also, investigative reporter for the Miami Herald, Julie K. Brown, who is the Author of "Perversion of Justice: The Jeffrey Epstein Story," and one of the best-sourced reporters on this.
And Dasha, let me start with you, though, just on the fallout that we're seeing happening here in Washington. I'm told this meeting is expected to happen as soon as tomorrow. I think there's real questions about what they're going to actually get from Ghislaine Maxwell, what they're going to learn in this. But what are you hearing about the briefing that happened, between the Attorney General Pam Bondi, and President Trump, over his name being included in the Epstein file?
DASHA BURNS, WHITE HOUSE BUREAU CHIEF, POLITICO, HOST, PLAYBOOK'S "THE CONVERSATION WITH DASHA BURNS": Yes, so, my White House sources have really been brushing off this reporting.
They're saying, Look, his name being mentioned in the files, what does that even mean? No one's been clear about exactly what context has been mentioned in. They're saying that this is nothing new, that everyone has seen the photos of Trump and Epstein, everybody knows that they associated, along with many other high-profile names, and they're saying that this is sensationalized reporting.
The other thing that I'm hearing, over and over again, Kaitlan, is that the President is furious that this news cycle is eating up what they thought was going to be a moment for a real victory lap, between the two sort of heavy lifts that they achieved in Congress, the trade deals that he's been announcing. They've been doing everything that they can to shift this, the narrative, and then they're in this unfamiliar position of being unable to change the conversation.
COLLINS: I mean, Elliot, what do you make of all this in terms of what the Justice Department is now doing, and how they're trying to get information, but not release everything at once, but you're seeing House Republicans try to force them--
ELLIOT WILLIAMS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: Yes.
COLLINS: --to do so.
WILLIAMS: It's damage control that's unmoored from how law enforcement or prosecutions would work in a number of ways.
Let's really step back and think about what it really will mean to work with Ghislaine Maxwell. And Mike Johnson talked about this a little bit.
Number one, anyone who is a convicted felon, their testimonies ought to be viewed with a certain degree of skepticism. Number one.
Number two, if they are going to get quality evidence out of her, they're probably going to have to strike some kind of deal with her and lower her sentence, or even let her out of prison. Now, is that what they -- the road they want to go down for this -- for the sole purpose of winning the PR battle over this, just because the internet is clamoring for it?
And finally, the idea of the Deputy Attorney General himself, an individual who runs a $44 million entity -- billion -- massive entity with a 115,000 employees, why he's doing a jailhouse interview with somebody, is a bizarre use of his time. I've never seen a Deputy Attorney General--
COLLINS: Well-- WILLIAMS: --doing something like that.
BURNS: And they risk not satisfying the base with this at all. Because if none of this turns up what everyone is so hungry for--
COLLINS: Yes.
BURNS: --in the MAGA base, that's still a problem for them.
COLLINS: And we know why he's going down there, because they basically have been there -- had their hand forced by Republicans, and by the MAGA base, who's been outraged with their handling over this.
WILLIAMS: Right.
COLLINS: And Julie K. Brown, that's why, I mean, you are the best- sourced reporter on this, and reported extensively on this, and is part of the reason why we know so much about this case in the first place, when it wasn't getting enough attention from prosecutors.
On the credibility part. We did hear from Ghislaine Maxwell's attorney today, David Oscar Markus. He said in a statement to CNN, they understand Speaker Johnson's concern. He said -- and I want to quote him now. He said, If Ms. Maxwell agrees to testify before Congress and not take the 5th - and that remains a big if - she would testify truthfully, as she always has said she would and as she will with Mr. Blanche. The truth should not be feared or preemptively dismissed.
I wonder what you make of that.
JULIE K. BROWN, INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALIST, MIAMI HERALD, AUTHOR, "PERVERSION OF JUSTICE": Well, she's testified under oath before and been charged with perjury. So, I'm still not certain how that makes this any prettier, really, quite frankly.
Also remember, the victims really believe that she was the mastermind behind Epstein. Epstein -- she was the one that started the whole pyramid scheme, going to spas and gyms throughout Palm Beach, and recruiting these young girls, and then using them to turn over other girls, their friends. So, she started this whole pyramid scheme, in Palm Beach.
And throughout the trial, she denied that she even knew some of these women. She completely denied that any of this ever happened. So, it's hard to understand how, even if she said, If I'll testify under oath, I'll tell the truth? Well, she didn't tell the truth the other times that she had to go under oath.
COLLINS: The one thing that I read in a statement from her attorney, a few weeks ago, was that clearly, she would like a pardon here, and they were saying that -- you know, when they were appealing her conviction to the Supreme Court here, that is something the President could offer her, a reduction in her sentence or a pardon.
Do you believe that she would tell them anything substantial with -- without an indication that she's going to get something in return for it?
[21:10:00]
K. BROWN: No. She knows where the skeletons are, and I don't think she will do anything without getting some kind of a deal.
And I think that what the victims are looking at here is potential for a sweetheart deal 2.0. In other words, first, the Justice Department gives Jeffrey Epstein this slap-on-the-wrist plea deal, this sweetheart deal. And now they're looking at doing it with Maxwell? I mean, I just think that that's not going to send a good message to the victims, or to the public.
COLLINS: And can I just ask you also, Julie, just given your reporting on this. Elon Musk said publicly, months ago, that Trump was in the Epstein files. It's not totally a surprise that Pam Bondi briefed him on that. But I wonder what a significance to people attached to that, if any?
K. BROWN: It's hard for me to say. I don't really know Musk's motives. It seems like his motives change all the time. He's not been consistent. So, it's hard for me to say.
But what I will say about this is that even though we've known for a long time that Epstein that -- I'm sorry -- that Trump's name is in there? For example, we know that he was on the plane passenger list for Epstein's plane. We know that he was on some of the phone messages that they found in his -- in a search of Epstein's home. We know that he was in the black book.
But the idea that, if that's all there was, which really doesn't show that Trump did anything, any wrongdoing at all? Then why all this resistance to releasing this material? It sort of makes one consider, whether there's a lot more there that we don't know about.
COLLINS: Yes.
I mean, and Dasha, how does the White House respond to that? Because that does raise the question of -- they have made so clear they want this to go away and want to stop talking about it, but now seem to be bowing to that pressure in a real way. And also, House Republicans might be forcing their hand on a lot of this.
BURNS: Yes, and look, the more that they've tried to make this go away, the louder those voices have really become. And then Democrats have jumped on the bandwagon as well.
So, this is, again, a time when the President has been backed into a corner, when the White House -- one source told me, I have never seen the White House so frozen on something. Because, this seemingly unbreakable bond between the President and the base seems to have broken here, and the White House is a bit paralyzed on where to go from here.
They don't want a special counsel, because they feel like that'll open up too many cans of worms. But they are doing this sort of drip, drip method here that I don't -- I don't get a sense that they feel like this is going to satisfy anybody in the end. So, they're really just hoping that there will be other news cycles that will distract from this.
You were in the Briefing Room with me today, when they had Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, come out--
COLLINS: Yes.
BURNS: --and try to point fingers at Obama, and release other documents that have nothing to do with this. But this changing of the subject isn't working.
COLLINS: Yes. I mean, Elliot, what do you make of that? And in terms of, also just, to your point earlier, like, sending the Deputy Attorney General to go meet with someone convicted of child sex trafficking, in hopes that she's going to produce something that would quell this? Maybe. But it doesn't seem likely right now.
WILLIAMS: Right. And, again, we have to make clear what actually would be released, and I think it was to Julie's point.
So, perhaps Donald Trump's name is on some file or some list somewhere. He's not being accused of a crime. And quite frankly, from The Wall Street Journal reporting today, it was clear that the Attorney General had said to the President, that they didn't have anything further that would trigger more investigation.
So, we're talking about releasing the names of individuals just to embarrass them, and that's something that our criminal justice system does not do, and should not do, even if they're unpopular people. And even if you're talking about potential sex crimes, if you're not actually going to charge someone with a crime, you do not release their names.
COLLINS: Yes.
WILLIAMS: And this -- we're going down a dangerous road with talking about putting some of this material out.
COLLINS: I will say the meeting tomorrow could be critical, because what Ghislaine Maxwell's attorney said to me earlier is, as for the congressional subpoena, she's taking it one step at a time, and is doing this meeting, and then that will help inform how she proceeds.
We'll see what happens there. Great to have you all.
Julie K. Brown, a special thanks to you as well, just given your deep insights on this.
And just as CNN was confirming tonight, reports that Pam Bondi had briefed the President on his name appearing in the Epstein files.
I sat down with Republican senator, Lisa Murkowski, for a one-on-one interview, as she is releasing her new book, "Far from Home: An Alaskan Senator Faces the Extreme Climate of Washington, D.C." (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
COLLINS: Senator Murkowski, thank you for being here.
You have this new book, and you get into your life as a senator, how everything got started.
I do want to get into what's happening, right now, on Capitol Hill--
SEN. LISA MURKOWSKI (R-AK): Yes.
COLLINS: --where we're not far from, the halls of your workplace.
And something that has been consuming Washington, over the last few days and weeks, is the handling of the Jeffrey Epstein files. When you look at how the Trump administration has handled that, do you believe that the administration has let this get out of control? How do you see this?
[21:15:00]
MURKOWSKI: You know it's -- I suppose, it's easy to do after-action, and to be critical, from where we're sitting. But it seems to me that it has occupied all of the airspace, here in Washington, D.C.
You just saw the House go out, because they didn't want to deal with that. The President is trying to move to other news, but that doesn't seem to be holding. Everybody is occupied by this. And in the meantime, we've got serious work that we need to be finishing up, here in the Senate. We're in the midst of appropriations right now.
Just, just deal with the Epstein thing once and for all. I think if they had done it earlier on and moved on to other things, maybe we wouldn't be in this place where everyone is now thinking about, What is the next -- what's the next big conspiracy behind all this?
So, it's really easy to be critical and say, They should have done it. But it sure would have made things easier, on the legislative front, if the Congress weren't being swept into -- into this whole swirl.
COLLINS: Yes, Speaker Mike Johnson is sending the House home--
MURKOWSKI: Yes.
COLLINS: --so they don't have to vote on it.
So do you -- that sounds like you think they should just release everything.
MURKOWSKI: Just be done with it. Be done with it. If in fact, there's no there, there, for the President? Get it out there. Just, just get it out there, and be done.
COLLINS: Does it give you any pause with the reporting tonight that his name -- he was told his name is included in it. That doesn't mean that he did anything wrong. MURKOWSKI: Yes.
COLLINS: But does -- do you think that is a factor, in why they have been hesitant to put more information out there?
MURKOWSKI: It's so hard to -- so hard to determine what may or may not have been a factor.
But I don't think it's any secret, certainly, the President has not made it a secret that, that years and years ago, he was a friend of Jeffrey Epstein, and that was -- that was a time prior. They had had a falling out, and there has been no -- no engagement since. But, so if there's really nothing there? Again, just, just put it out. Get this behind us.
And, again, what you're seeing happening now is the country is talking about this. Well, at the same time, the Congress has so much work that we need to be doing. We don't need to be caught up in the chatter about what is in, what is not in. But we can't get to it because of this.
I view it as a political distraction. And I think if the administration wants to get beyond it, if President Trump wants to get beyond it, just get this stuff out there, and let's move forward.
COLLINS: Just one more on this. Because you do write so much in your book about hearing stories of sexual assault, from women, in your home state--
MURKOWSKI: Yes.
COLLINS: --and you write very candidly about that. It's one of the most probably gripping parts of the book. You obviously write about your vote, when it came to Justice Brett Kavanaugh.
But what the White House is doing now is they're sending the Deputy Attorney General, Todd Blanche, to go meet with Ghislaine Maxwell who was obviously convicted of child sex trafficking.
MURKOWSKI: Yes.
COLLINS: Some women, some girls, I should say, as young as 14-years- old.
Do you think that they would be better-served by talking to the victims rather than the woman who was helping Jeffrey Epstein sex traffic these young girls?
MURKOWSKI: I think if what they're really trying to do is to convey how awful these crimes are? Then, yes, you do not -- you do not have it be presented in what some would say or suggest is a one-sided way.
COLLINS: Yes you don't -- do you find her credible?
MURKOWSKI: I don't know that I find her credible.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
COLLINS: A notable pause there, from the Senator. We'll have much more from our substantive and expansive interview with Senator Murkowski ahead. That includes her reaction to what we heard from the Director of National Intelligence today, Tulsi Gabbard, accusing former President Obama of manufacturing intelligence, and treason.
My next source was President Obama's Director of National Intelligence. James Clapper will join me, right after this.
[21:20:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: There was a surprise appearance today, at the White House, with the Director of National Intelligence appearing in the Briefing Room, during the scheduled press briefing, this afternoon.
This comes as the Trump administration has tried to stomp out the furor over one conspiracy, with Director Tulsi Gabbard reopening another one that has caused her boss, President Trump, to seethe, for years.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TULSI GABBARD, DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE: President Obama directed an intelligence community assessment to be created to further this contrived false narrative that ultimately led to a years-long coup to try to undermine President Trump's presidency.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: It's an incredibly serious accusation by the Director of National Intelligence. But what was in these 46 pages is not dramatically different than what we've known for years.
While it wasn't clear why this is being released now, the President, just last night, did make clear what he would like for his people to be talking about.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: And you should mention that every time they give you a question that's not appropriate, just say, Oh, by the way, Obama cheated on the election. You'll -- you'll watch the camera turn off instantly.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: In the Briefing Room today, the press secretary stepped in, when I asked Director Gabbard about the timing of this release.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: What would you say to people who believe that you're only releasing these documents now to improve your standing with the President, after he said that your intelligence assessments were wrong?
KAROLINE LEAVITT, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: Who is saying that, that that she would release this, to try to boost her standing with the President? Who has said that?
[21:25:00]
COLLINS: Well, the President has publicly undermined her when it came to Iran. He said, she was wrong. He told me that she didn't know what she was talking about. That was on Air Force One--
LEAVITT: No, the--
COLLINS: --on camera.
LEAVITT: The only people who are suggesting that the Director of National Intelligence would release evidence, to try to boost her standing with the President, are the people in this room who constantly try to sow distrust and chaos amongst the President's Cabinet. And it is not working.
COLLINS: This case (ph) was investigated by John Durham--
LEAVITT: I -- I am--
COLLINS: --directed by the Attorney General Bill Barr at the time.
LEAVITT: I will -- I will just answer your question directly. I am with the President of the United States every day. He has the utmost confidence in Director Gabbard. He always has. He continues to. And that is true of his entire Cabinet, who is all working as one team to deliver on the promises this President made.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Tonight, the Department of Justice has announced the formation of a so-called Strike Force to investigate what they says is potential legal steps against those that Director Gabbard called out by name today.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GABBARD: President Obama, Hillary Clinton, John Brennan, James Clapper, James Comey and others, including their mouthpieces in the media, knowingly lied as they repeated the contrived narrative that was created in this January 2017 intelligence community assessment with high confidence as though it were fact.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: The person she mentioned there is my next source tonight. Former Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper.
And it's great to have you here, Director Clapper.
I mean, it was a remarkable appearance by someone who now holds the job that you previously held. And she's basically accusing the President that you served under, and the people you served with, and you, of fabricating an intelligence assessment to damage President Trump. What's your response to that?
JAMES CLAPPER, DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE UNDER PRES. OBAMA: Well, it's patently false and unfounded.
I was present at the meeting that everybody talks about, and I heard directly what President Obama asked us to do, which was to compile all the reporting and summarize it, that we had accumulated in the runup to the election of 2016, put it in one document, in various classified -- various levels of classification, and including a public release. And he wanted that done before the end of his administration. It was not to concoct intelligence, or make it up, or anything of the sort, which is absurd.
COLLINS: So he told you to investigate, but you're saying he did not tell you what conclusion to reach.
CLAPPER: He did not.
COLLINS: Because that's what they're essentially alleging here. She's saying, the assessment used unclear, unknown sources, and that it was subject to unusual directives from President Obama. And also, the allegation that it was -- that it was a rushed assessment, essentially.
CLAPPER: Well, yes, we had a short deadline to get it done, because the President stipulated, he wanted to complete it before the end of his administration, in order to be able to hand off a compilation of what the Russians had attempted to do, to influence the outcome of the election in 2016. He wanted to be able to hand it to then-President elect Trump, and to the Congress.
COLLINS: There seemed to be some conflating over whether Russia could actually change voting machines, whether they did do that, and in terms of who Russia wanted to win the election. And one thing that was a huge point of focus, for Director Gabbard, was that they're pushing back on the notion that Russia wanted Trump to win, that they did this to help Trump.
Was that intelligence you believe sound, when that finding that Russia was doing this in the favor of Trump?
CLAPPER: Well, it's -- first, though, on the voting machines. It's quite correct, the Russians did not electronically penetrate any voting machine or anything connected with tallying votes. So they did not succeed, even if they attempted, which we don't think they did, to manipulate voting.
What the Russians did do, in contrast to that, was mount a very sophisticated, extensive and aggressive information operations campaign to influence public opinion in this country, and they used phony social media posts, phony social media accounts.
RT, the Russian government-controlled media outlet which has a bigger following in this country than this network does, they used fake news implants. Was very sophisticated and very focused on what -- and they wanted to first sow doubt, discord and distrust among the American public. And I believe they succeeded. And unfortunately, we were a ripe target for exploiting our divisiveness and polarization. And they did favor President -- Candidate Trump over Candidate Clinton.
[21:30:00]
Long-standing animus for the Clintons by Putin, and that carried over to the election. He held Secretary Clinton responsible for fomenting a Color Revolution to overturn the Putin government. So, he had great distrust and dislike for Clinton.
In contrast, they -- when the Candidate Trump became the nominee, they decided, over time, that they would prefer to deal with a President Trump, this one who had been to Russia, who was a businessman, and probably wouldn't beat him up about human rights.
COLLINS: Well, and one thing that wasn't mentioned today was the CIA did determine, weeks ago that, that initial assessment that Russia interfered in the election, in Trump's favor, was sound. Despite with issues of how that conclusion was reached, or how many sources it was based on, the CIA still reaffirmed that.
This does come back, though, with the Special Counsel John Durham, he issued hundreds of pages of a report, basically cataloging a series of mistakes the FBI did make.
Do you believe there could have been a better way to do this investigation to where there weren't -- where areas where they could attack it?
CLAPPER: I'm not sure what you -- what you mean by the question. You mean--
COLLINS: With John Durham saying that the way that the FBI handled this, they rushed the investigation. They didn't have an adequate basis. Sometimes they ignored evidence that undercut the premise.
CLAPPER: Well, I don't believe John Durham took issue with the intelligence community assessment. He did take issue, and critiqued the FBI, on the process they used specifically for a FISA application against Carter Page.
COLLINS: Right.
CLAPPER: That's different than -- I don't think he found issue with it, after a four-year investigation.
I do need to mention that the Senate Intelligence Committee did an exhaustive examination of the totality of Russian engagement in this country, focusing specifically on the intelligence community assessment that we did, and released in January 2017, and they endorsed the findings, that tradecraft used to derive those findings, and the confidence levels. And no less than then Senator Rubio, now-Secretary of State, Rubio, who was then, I believe, Acting Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, made that observation himself in -- when that report -- redacted version of that report was released.
COLLINS: And that was pointed out to Director Gabbard today.
I mean, she occupies the office that you once held. What did you -- did you -- was there anything new that since Friday, and what she's released that you've seen that you didn't know before?
CLAPPER: Well, what she drew on today, best I could tell, was a partisan Republican-only report, issued by the Republicans on the House Permanent Select Committee for Intelligence.
I can attest to the inaccuracies in that report, on things they said about me, which were wrong or false. So, I think -- and then, of course, they cite Russian intelligence as a source of information on characterizing Secretary Clinton's behavior and past -- past performance.
COLLINS: When the Director says that she's referred these filings to the Justice Department for criminal investigation, tonight we're told they formed what is called a Strike Force. Do you have concerns that they will attempt to prosecute you?
CLAPPER: Well, certainly I do. After eight and a half years of this. And I don't know of an intelligence product that was more scrutinized, more investigated than that product was, by numerous people. It's very disconcerting. It really is. And I take seriously when President of the United States accuses me of being a participant in a treasonous conspiracy, which is ridiculous.
COLLINS: Yes, what's your reaction to that?
CLAPPER: It's ridiculous. It just -- it is untrue.
COLLINS: So, what will you do if they come after you? What is your plan?
CLAPPER: Well, I'll lawyer up, I suppose. Already have.
COLLINS: You've already hired attorneys in case of an anticipation that this--
CLAPPER: Oh, yes, well--
COLLINS: --Trump Justice Department could try to prosecute you?
CLAPPER: We've had sort of perpetual attorneys, since I left the government in 2017.
COLLINS: Former Director, James Clapper, thank you for joining us tonight to respond to this.
CLAPPER: Thanks, Kaitlan, for having me. COLLINS: Appreciate your time.
Up next here on THE SOURCE. We're going to have more of my one-on-one interview with Senator Lisa Murkowski. What she had to say about the timing of the attacks on former President Obama, and specifically President Trump accusing him of treason.
[21:35:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: During our one-on-one interview, with Republican senator, Lisa Murkowski, tonight, I asked her about the Trump administration's attacks on President Obama, accusing him of, quote, Treasonous conspiracy, and about her critical vote to advance President Trump's agenda.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
COLLINS: Today, we heard from the deputy -- the Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard. She was out at the press briefing today. She's issued documents that she says shows a treasonous conspiracy from the Obama administration, in terms of how it handled Trump and trying to hurt him with regards to Russia.
[21:40:00]
I just wonder, as a Senator -- obviously, the Senate Intelligence Committee investigated this -- what is your reaction to what you've heard from the DNI, in recent days?
MURKOWSKI: Obviously this is -- this is new -- new language. The words like -- words like treason are big words, right?
And so, to have this come out, at this point in time. I'll just take it back to, there is so much work that needs to be done that we, in Congress, need to be working on. It does cause one to wonder, if this is an effort, by folks in the administration, to have the conversation, move onto something else, other than the Epstein matter. Move on to something else, another -- somebody other than President Trump. So, let's go back to prior presidents.
I want us to be focusing on the matters that people care about, things that people are talking about at home, like the cost of goods, education and what that means to them, matters about their own personal security. And it just -- it seems that there's a fair amount of trying to deflect to other issues, again, things that may be prior history. So better--
COLLINS: So, you think it's a distraction technique?
MURKOWSKI: Based -- based on the timing of all of this, it does kind of cause you to question.
COLLINS: And do you believe that President Obama is guilty of treason, as President Trump said? MURKOWSKI: Not as -- not with anything that I have been informed about. Treason, again, is a pretty significant word.
COLLINS: Yes, and President Obama seems to agree with you that it was -- they called it a weak attempt at distraction.
But your book that's coming out, it's titled, "Far from Home: An Alaskan Senator Faces the Extreme Climate of Washington, D.C." You're wearing a parka in front of the Capitol, on the cover of it.
We are far from your home, and I know that you are supposed to go home soon for the Senate's recess.
MURKOWSKI: We're still counting on that.
COLLINS: Well, the President is calling on--
MURKOWSKI: Yes.
COLLINS: --Senate Majority Leader, John Thune, to cancel it, so senators can stay here and confirm his nominees.
Do you think that the White House should dictate the Senate's schedule? How do you see that?
MURKOWSKI: We need to work with the White House. The congressional branch needs to work with the White House. OK, we get that. But the White House can't dictate the terms of what we do, how we do it. They can suggest things.
And I know that President Trump has placed a keen priority on his nominees, and we will -- we will advance them as quickly as we possibly can. I'm leaving this interview, to go skate off to yet another confirmation vote. We are working to do that diligently.
But I think it's also important, just as it's important for the White House to have their people in place, we, as lawmakers, also have a responsibility to our constituents at home.
COLLINS: You voted yes, on the one big, beautiful bill, something that the White House has been touting, and you had a lot of wins for your state in that.
But you recently said something. Three weeks later, you told a local paper in Alaska, regarding the President's executive actions that he's been taking, when it comes to wind and solar projects that you, quote, "Feel cheated... I feel like we made a deal and then hours later, a deal was made to somebody else."
MURKOWSKI: We passed through that reconciliation bill, a provision that allowed for a shorter phase-out, but still a phase-out for clean energy projects related to wind and to solar. It was a negotiated agreement, between lawmakers, like myself, Senator Curtis, and with the White House. And that was not only passed through the Senate. It was passed by the House, and signed into law by the President. And then, less than three days later, an executive order comes out that literally pulls the rug out from underneath it. And then, about 10 days later, a secretarial order that says, Anything that is done with regards to wind or solar has to be personally reviewed and signed off by the Secretary, or the -- yes, the Secretary of the Interior.
To me, that is -- that is taking an agreement that was made in the context of a negotiated product, and just changing your mind, changing your mind on something that had been passed into law -- passed and signed into law by the President. So, that's not -- that's not how I think you respect and negotiate an agreement, but, yes.
COLLINS: Do you think the White House doesn't respect?
MURKOWSKI: I don't think they respected that agreement, plain and simple.
[21:45:00]
COLLINS: Does that change your calculus, going forward, with this White House, or?
MURKOWSKI: Well, I've always been one who's kind of the Reagan approach of trust but verify. And I think I just need to perhaps verify a little bit more.
COLLINS: Does it change your view on the bill overall?
MURKOWSKI: There are many things in that bill that I think were good, are good for Alaska, good for the country.
There are -- there are many things that I think are not as good as I would like them to be. Certainly, when it comes to the Medicaid and some of the SNAP benefits. We tried to address that to the best of our ability. We made some incremental progress there.
But for many Alaskans, and I think for many around the country, there's still a great deal of concern about what the impacts of that reconciliation bill are going to mean to them, and to their families, when it comes to food security and to health coverage.
COLLINS: Yes, and questions about whether Republicans will face blowback for it in the midterms.
MURKOWSKI: Yes.
COLLINS: Do you think that's possible?
MURKOWSKI: I absolutely do. I absolutely do. When people feel that their health care has been threatened? That's very personal to them. It's very personal.
And they may say, Well, I absolutely supported the increase to the Coast Guard budget, and I certainly supported what we did on border security. That all fades, that fades. And what is real, and what is in front of you and your family are the fact that, Wait a minute, things changed with my health care, and you don't forget that.
So how, again, I think we make improvements to what we saw with that reconciliation bill, I think, are going to be important. And if we fail to make improvements, I think that there's political consequences.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
COLLINS: We'll have more on what Senator Murkowski said about the future of the Republican Party, here tomorrow night.
Up next for us here on THE SOURCE. French president Emmanuel Macron suing a right-wing podcaster from the United States for defamation, over claims that his wife is secretly a man.
My source tonight, Donie O'Sullivan, is here with the latest on that.
[21:50:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: Tonight, the far-right podcaster, Candace Owens, is being sued by the French president, Emmanuel Macron, and his wife, with the couple filing a 22-count defamation lawsuit, in a Delaware court, over her claims that the French first lady could be a man.
The complaint points to Owens' own post in March of last year, saying that she'd, quote, Stake her entire professional reputation on the fact that Brigitte Macron is, in fact, a man.
It's a lawsuit that alleges, though the conservative commentator has broadcast a quote, Relentless, years-long campaign of defamation against the Macrons, including numerous far-fetched fictions about the couple online, like the conspiracy theory that Macron is being controlled by the CIA. Also, that Owens can gain money and fame.
My source tonight is CNN's Donie O'Sullivan.
And Donie, obviously, when -- this is something that is, anyone who follows Candace Owens knows she has been kind of obsessed with this, and relentless in this, and talking about this. I think the fact that they took this step, to sue her in a U.S. court for this, is what makes it so remarkable.
DONIE O'SULLIVAN, CNN SENIOR CORRESPONDENT: Yes, and in a 200-page lawsuit as well, really, where they lay out this sort of years-long campaign by Candace Owens. She's selling merch online, they're alleging that she's obviously profiting from this, where she's selling merchandise, T-shirts, alleging this conspiracy theory about Brigitte Macron.
But look, I think I heard some commentary around this that like this is -- you know, I think a lot of viewers will think maybe this is just part of the rough and tumble of politics, right? I mean, people say terrible things about politicians and their spouses, all day long. So I think -- you know, the same conspiracy theory has been out there about Michelle Obama for years. I think she's sort of taken the, When they go low, we go high, approach to that.
But, I mean, I think this could be -- send a warning shot, right? Because this might make other peddlers of mis- and dis-information and, frankly, just hateful speech, right, think twice, before they sort of engage in this conspiracy theory type stuff in the future.
COLLINS: You're so familiar with this world, and the conversations that a lot of these far-right podcasters are having. I mean, how prolific is it, when Candace Owens -- it's not just one episode where she's talked about this.
O'SULLIVAN: Oh, yes.
COLLINS: It's kind of made into the mainstream that this is an allegation that--
O'SULLIVAN: Yes, it's pretty much every day, right?
And I think the lawyers, by the way, in this case, who were suing, on behalf of the Macrons, are this -- this is the same law firm that went after Fox News on behalf of Dominion. So, they got a good track record here.
What they're going to have to prove, though is that, that there's malice, right? That Candace Owens actually doesn't believe what she is saying. And given all the stuff that Candace Owens has said in the past, that could be trickier than expected.
And here is -- we have a clip, I think, of what Candace Owens said today.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CANDACE OWENS, AMERICAN COMMENTATOR AND AUTHOR: If you need any more evidence that Brigitte Macron is definitely a man, it is just what is happening right now. The idea that you would file this lawsuit is all of the proof that you need.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
O'SULLIVAN: And so, I think this just goes into a, Kaitlan, of is this lawsuit, especially if it ends up being unsuccessful, just giving Candace Owens more of what she wants, which is eyeballs in this attention economy? There really is no such thing for a lot of these people as bad publicity. And could this end up making her more money in the long run?
COLLINS: Yes, we'll see what happens.
Donie O'Sullivan, thanks for the update on this.
[21:55:00] Up next for us here on THE SOURCE. If you'll of course recall, when the administration inadvertently added a reporter to a group chat about attack plans, then said, No classified information was shared. We have new reporting tonight that says otherwise, ahead.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: There was no classified information, as I understand it.
GABBARD: There was no classified material that was shared.
LEAVITT: No classified material was sent on this messaging thread.
PETE HEGSETH, UNITED STATES SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: There's no units, no locations, no routes, no flight paths, no sources, no methods, no classified information.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: For months, the President and his top officials have maintained no classified information was shared, when the Defense Secretary, Pete Hegseth, discussed pending military strikes in Yemen, in a Signal group chat, back in March, that had inadvertently included a reporter from "The Atlantic."
[22:00:00]
But tonight, sources tell CNN, a Pentagon watchdog has gotten evidence that the military plans that Hegseth shared were, in fact, taken from a U.S. Central Command document that was marked Classified, at the time. It was specifically marked Secret/NOFORN, meaning no foreign nationals should see it.
Despite the new reporting, the Pentagon is maintaining tonight, quote, "This Signal narrative is so old and worn out, it's starting to resemble Joe Biden's mental state. The Department stands behind its previous statements: no classified information was shared via Signal."
More on that ahead, as we continue to report that out.
Thanks so much for joining us tonight.
"CNN NEWSNIGHT WITH ABBY PHILLIP" starts right now.
