Return to Transcripts main page
The Source with Kaitlan Collins
Source: Maxwell Granted Limited Immunity To Talk With DOJ; Trump Shrugs Off "South Park" Skewering After WH Slams Show; Former CIA Official Denies 2016 Russia Probe Intel Manufactured. Aired 9-10p ET
Aired July 25, 2025 - 21:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
DONIE O'SULLIVAN, CNN SENIOR CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): His body maybe in the septic tank.
ANNA CORRIGAN, LOST BROTHERS AT TUAM: For the children that are lying up there, they've been crying for a long time. They've been crying to be heard. They didn't have dignity in life. They didn't have dignity in death. And we're hoping now that they will be identified, they will be moved to a dignified burial.
O'SULLIVAN (voice-over): Donie O'Sullivan. CNN. Tuam, Ireland.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
JIM SCIUTTO, CNN HOST, ANDERSON COOPER 360: Good lord, what a story.
The news continues. "THE SOURCE WITH KAITLAN COLLINS" starts now.
KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, CNN HOST, THE SOURCE WITH KAITLAN COLLINS: President Trump says he wasn't told he was in the Epstein files, days after White House officials confirmed he was. And we've just learned tonight that convicted sex trafficker, Ghislaine Maxwell, has been given limited immunity. What that means, and more.
I'm Kaitlan Collins. And this is THE SOURCE.
The fallout from the Epstein saga has followed President Trump to Scotland tonight, where, upon landing, he denied what his own aides confirmed to reporters, just days ago. That, he had been briefed on his name appearing in the Jeffrey Epstein files.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REPORTER: Mr. President, were you briefed on your name appearing in the Epstein files ever?
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: No. I was never, never briefed, no.
REPORTER: Did she tell you at all that your name appeared in the files?
TRUMP: No, no. She's a, she's given us just a very quick briefing.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: So, to be clear, the President's position has gone from 10 days ago, that he received a quick briefing from Attorney General Pam Bondi, to now saying that he was never briefed on his name being in the Epstein files.
The President is being contradicted by his own aides, though, who confirmed this week that Bondi had informed him, his name was in there, in what they described as a routine briefing that included other high-profile names.
It wasn't exactly a surprise that the President's name appears in there, given his well-documented relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, before a reported falling out between the two of them, and because Elon Musk told the whole world that Trump's name was included in those files.
And it also doesn't mean the President is accused of any wrongdoing. It does, however, only add fuel to the fire that the White House has been unable to contain for weeks now. Whether the Justice Department's second meeting with Ghislaine Maxwell changes that, remains to be seen.
As we come on the air tonight, I have new reporting. I'm told by a source that Epstein's notorious accomplice was granted limited immunity, in exchange for sitting down and talking with the Deputy Attorney General, Todd Blanche, going on two days now. This was described as standard, and that because Maxwell has already been convicted, we are told, the only thing she could be charged for is lying in this interview, and a proffer immunity does not cover that.
Blanche has spent nearly nine hours, over the last two days with Ghislaine Maxwell, who, as a reminder, was convicted of sex trafficking, and is serving a 20-year sentence for that years-long scheme of grooming and sexually abusing underage girls, with Jeffrey Epstein.
Her attorney described the conversation with Todd Blanche, this way.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DAVID MARKUS, GHISLAINE MAXWELL'S ATTORNEY: They asked about every single, every possible thing you could imagine, everything.
She was asked maybe about a 100 different people. She answered questions about everybody, and she didn't hold anything back.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: It's clear what Ghislaine Maxwell stands to gain from all of this. A reduction in her sentence. Or a pardon granted by President Trump, who was questioned on that very matter by my colleague Kevin Liptak today.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KEVIN LIPTAK, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE REPORTER: Would you consider a pardon or a commutation for Ghislaine Maxwell?
TRUMP: It's something I haven't thought about. It's really something --
LIPTAK: Would you recommend it (ph)?
TRUMP: It's some -- I'm allowed to do it, but it's something I have not thought about.
A lot of people are asking me about pardons. Obviously, this is no time to be talking about pardons.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: But those comments did not go unnoticed by Maxwell's legal representation.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MARKUS: The President, this morning, said he had the power to do so. We hope he exercises that power, in the right and just way.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: But what remains to be seen tonight is what the Justice Department stands to gain from its conversations with Ghislaine Maxwell.
We start tonight with my lead source. New York Times White House correspondent, and Author of "Confidence Man: The Making of Donald Trump and the Breaking of America," Maggie Haberman.
Maggie, just first on what we heard from Trump, when he was landing in Scotland tonight. Is it clear why he is now saying he wasn't briefed on his name being in the files, after no one denied that when it was reported. Instead, this week, after The Wall Street Journal noted that, White House officials were confirming it and saying, It's not a big deal.
MAGGIE HABERMAN, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST, WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, THE NEW YORK TIMES, AUTHOR, "CONFIDENCE MAN": They were saying, in fact, that it shouldn't be a surprise, because he was in before, and it's not an indication of wrongdoing.
[21:05:00]
I think he is now just reflexively saying no, to certain things, when he gets asked about it, in connection with Epstein to not have additional television footage of him talking about it, honestly. I think that's the main reason. But I think, Kaitlan, it's very hard to track a through line on what he's been saying, what the White House has been saying, what the Justice Department has been doing on this. It has been all over the map, and it just continues to mushroom.
And I understand what's happening, right now, with Ghislaine Maxwell. They are looking at this as something of an escape hatch, in the White House. And the Justice Department, I don't know that it's going to provide that.
COLLINS: In what way do they think it could serve as that?
HABERMAN: Because it is something that could potentially -- here's the theory. It will satisfy the people in the President's base who, to be clear, the administration really -- the people within the White House, I should say, and some people at DOJ, they all clearly, or many of them clearly, really underestimated how much the base was going to care about this, how they were going to react to this.
And these were statements that -- you know, the Epstein files were something of a holy grail, that Trump's own allies, some members of his own administration, had been fanning this idea for years. And so, then they seem sort of surprised that a lot of people believed them and wanted to hear more. So, they are hoping that this sort of moves it away from the idea that they are not being transparent.
This is so unusual, what's happening here, and what the Deputy Attorney General/personal lawyer to Donald Trump, is doing, that it's hard to see how this is going to hold.
COLLINS: Well, and that's also unclear the President's expectations for the outcome of these meetings. He was actually asked today, before he left, for his thoughts on this, what did he have to say about it? This is what he told reporters.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: Well, I don't know about the meeting. I know it's taking place, and he's a fantastic man. He's a great attorney, and people should really focus on how well the country is doing, or they should focus on the fact that Barack Hussein Obama led a coup.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: I mean, he's drawing a direct line with what Tulsi Gabbard put out this week, saying, Focus on this, not on the Epstein files.
But again, the meeting themselves is what's keeping attention on this matter.
HABERMAN: It isn't just a meeting that the Deputy Attorney General is holding with Ghislaine Maxwell, and her lawyer, who is someone on whose podcast the Deputy Attorney General has appeared. They have--
COLLINS: Trump tried to hire that attorney, at one point-- HABERMAN: Trump tried to hire him. He provided a line that the Deputy Attorney General used as the President's defense lawyer, in the only criminal case that went to trial, last year, in which the President was indicted. He provided a line for Todd Blanche's closing.
So for -- with all of that, I don't -- I don't really know where they think this is heading, in a reasonable way, or what they're hoping to get out of it.
Part of my confusion with all of this is that usually when you do something like this, you don't tweet it out, you don't say, I'm going to go do it. You do a meeting in private. Todd Blanche tweeted out that he was going to go do this.
It's not clear what information -- who they're targeting with this information. It's just, We're going to go get this. Usually, it's for a specific investigation.
COLLINS: Yes, and on terms of Kevin Liptak asking the President, this morning, this burning question we've had this week--
HABERMAN: Yes.
COLLINS: --which is -- I mean, we know what Ghislaine Maxwell could get out of this. Obviously, there's -- it's pretty clear why her attorney would want, for her to meet with the--
HABERMAN: Sure.
COLLINS: --the DOJ. What is less clear -- while the DOJ is fighting her appeal, mind you.
HABERMAN: Right. And while, apparently, according to David Markus, her lawyer, the Deputy Attorney General, has been OK with grand jury material being released to Ghislaine Maxwell's criminal team, criminal defense team, to review during this appeal, which is very unusual.
COLLINS: Well, and we saw her returning to the correctional facility, where she's serving her prints yesterday -- her sentence, yesterday, with this Bankers Box of materials. We don't know what's in it.
HABERMAN: We don't know what's in it.
COLLINS: But it was a--
HABERMAN: Yes.
COLLINS: --a point of fascination for me. But on the idea that Trump could pardon her or reduce her sentence.
There she is going in with that box, into the jail there.
(VIDEO - GHISLAINE MAXWELL RETURNING TO PRISON AFTER DOJ INTERVIEW, CARRYING A BOX OF MATERIALS)
COLLINS: I mean, would that not infuriate the MAGA base, though, if he pardons the convicted child sex trafficker?
HABERMAN: It's quite a line to walk. I mean, if he pardons her, if he commutes her sentence, I mean, there's a range of -- there are two options here. There's a clemency grant that could happen. She's facing, I think it's 20 years in prison, right, or a 20-year prison sentence, a couple of years of which she's served already.
He has made a huge claim that there -- that sex trafficking is sex -- excuse me -- sex trafficking is bad, that what -- Democrats are behind this. He has thrown out Bill Clinton's name. Bill Clinton has obviously denied any wrongdoing, just as Donald Trump has. So that's bad, but also, we might pardon her.
What I think you're seeing the Trump administration potentially moving toward is claiming she was a victim of Jeffrey Epstein, that she was somehow not a sex trafficker herself, but somebody who was caught up in his crime wave. The reason, I think, that is that people close to the administration have started describing her as a victim.
COLLINS: MAGA media has already been doing that. I'd actually -- we have two of those sound bites put together, of people making the shift that you're referencing here.
[21:10:00]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GREG KELLY, NEWSMAX HOST, "GREG KELLY REPORTS": She just might be a victim. She just might be. There was a rush to judgment. There was a lot of chaos there for a while. All right, granted, she hung out with Jeffrey Epstein, and I know that's apparently not good. But she's in jail.
CHARLIE KIRK, HOST, "THE CHARLIE KIRK SHOW": This is why they're going straight to the source, and why this is so powerful. If anybody actually has the information of what has happened around Jeffrey Epstein, it's not going to be some James Comey-created file. It is going to be Ghislaine Maxwell.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: She hung out with Jeffrey Epstein, and I know that's apparently not good.
HABERMAN: Apparently--
COLLINS: The victims, I think, would like to have a word.
HABERMAN: Well, I mean, I think you just -- you just hit on a thing that I think is key here, is that this involves real crimes that Jeffrey Epstein committed against young women. There are real--
COLLINS: Girls.
HABERMAN: There are real -- girls. There are real victims here. There are real victims who suffered, whose lives have been irreparably damaged. And they are being -- some of them have said, feel like they are being used in a way that is very unpleasant.
COLLINS: Maggie Haberman, as always great to have your reporting.
HABERMAN: Thanks, Kaitlan.
COLLINS: Also here tonight:
Astead Herndon from The New York Times.
And CNN Senior Legal Analyst, Elie Honig.
Elie, can you please explain to us this immunity process for Ghislaine Maxwell? Because this is something we were reporting on today. I asked people, just how limited is this? What does this mean? People were not -- no one has articulated that to me. Whether just they don't know, or they're not willing to.
ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST, FORMER ASST. U.S. ATTORNEY, SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NY: Right.
COLLINS: What does being queen for a day, or two days, I guess, in this case, mean for Ghislaine Maxwell?
HONIG: Don't you love prosecutor lingo? Queen for a day?
COLLINS: No, I don't.
HONIG: I haven't heard that one in a long time.
So, no defense lawyer who's at all competent, and this defense lawyer is very good, would ever walk a client, into a meeting like this, with DOJ prosecutors, unless that client had protection. And usually, what you work out is some deal of, Whatever this person tells you today cannot be used against her. There's various ways to do that. Sometimes, you just do it by written, what we call a, proffer agreement.
The way they've done it here is a little bit more formal. It's called immunity. And it basically means she cannot be further prosecuted for what she says today. To be clear, has no impact on her existing conviction, her existing 20-year sentence. But it protects her, moving forward. It's a standard arrangement you'd have in place for this type of meeting.
COLLINS: Well, and when it comes to, Astead, how Republicans are seeing this. They've subpoenaed her on Capitol Hill. What we were told by her attorney is that it depends on how these two days of meetings go, before she makes a decision on whether or not to show up.
But I want you to listen to what the House Oversight chair, James Comer, told Manu Raju, about whether or not she should be given immunity.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. JAMES COMER (R-KY): I don't think there are many Republicans that want to give immunity to someone that may have been sex trafficking children. So the immunity thing, I would assume, will be off the table.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ASTEAD HERNDON, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST, NATIONAL POLITICAL REPORTER, THE NEW YORK TIMES: He says so, but we can't necessarily assume. And I think it speaks to the tension between the Republican base, and the personal interests of Donald Trump and those around him.
This is a uniting issue, specifically among the electorate. We don't even see polling like this, generally. The CBS poll, this week, said more than 90 percent of Americans, including 80-something percent of Republicans, think the DOJ should release all files related to Jeffrey Epstein.
Numbers are showing in a Quinnipiac poll, the highest number of Republicans disagreeing with President Trump's actions that we've seen, really in his terms in office. That's the reason why there has been a bottom-up pressure on Republican congressmembers, and particularly on Speaker Johnson, and I don't really think that's going anywhere.
And I think it really speaks to the heart -- Maggie and I were talking about this -- about what -- sometimes what Donald Trump's brand has been, the tightrope that he has walked, about being someone who has been among the elites, but fighter against the elites.
What this situation does, I think, is speak to the hypocrisy kind of at that core. Because, for a lot of folks in the base, they made a kind of alliance with Trump, thinking he was going to expose this wing of rich and famous, icky people that they have kind of projected a lot of feelings on to. And that was -- seems as if he's doing the opposite. I think that's why this is cut through in a kind of different way and reached someone who even may not be following a typical news story.
COLLINS: And the White House doesn't seem to know how to handle that.
HERNDON: Yes.
COLLINS: Because they are so rarely in a position where they're out of -- out of place with the base, in a way, where the base is so angry.
HERNDON: They're so used to issues in which they lead their base, where they kind of make an issue, and folks then kind of calibrate their positions based on how to defend Donald Trump.
But that's not all of Republican voters. A lot of the people we meet on the road see themselves as a -- sees Donald Trump as a vessel of a movement. And frankly, if he were to stray from something, particularly on an issue like this, that's where we could see a bigger break.
A lot of times we've asked the question, When might an issue come around that breaks the relationship between Trump and his base? But a lot of times, those issues we're focusing on were the more conventional ones. Because he is an unconventional politician, I don't think it's a surprise that it's this issue, rather than the ones we may have thought previously, that's caused more tension, even in the Republican Caucus.
COLLINS: Yes, that's great point. We'll see how Republicans deal with this, after they come back from recess.
Astead. Elie. Great to have you. Maggie as well.
[21:15:00]
Up next. There are three former Justice Department employees who are now suing the Trump administration. They say their firings were politically motivated. My next source is one of those plaintiffs who handled some of the most high-profile cases against the January 6 rioters.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: Tonight, the Trump administration is facing a new lawsuit from three former Justice Department employees who say that their abrupt firings were politically motivated.
The lawsuit was brought by these three individuals. Joseph Tirrell, who was the top ethics official at the Justice Department. Patricia Hartman, a public affairs specialist who handled communications for January 6 cases for the U.S. Attorney's Office in D.C. And Mike Gordon, who handled some of the most high-profile cases against January 6 rioters.
The lawsuit says they were told of their removal in a one-page letter from the Attorney General, Pam Bondi, and that quote, "No cause, let alone a proper merit-based one, or required due process was provided."
[21:20:00]
This isn't the first time that the Justice Department -- Trump's Justice Department has purged, reassigned employees connected to the January 6 cases, and other high-profile matters.
Remember, earlier this year, more than a dozen officials who worked on the criminal probes into Trump were fired. And in February, the then- acting U.S. Attorney in D.C. demoted at least eight senior prosecutors, who had worked on the Capitol riot cases, to entry-level positions.
My source tonight is Mike Gordon, the former Justice Department prosecutor who is part of this lawsuit.
And it's great to have you here, Mike, tonight. So, thank you for joining.
First off, just since you filed this lawsuit, have you heard anything from the Justice Department, or from their attorneys?
MIKE GORDON, FORMER DOJ EMPLOYEE SUING TRUMP ADMIN., FORMER JANUARY 6 PROSECUTOR: I have not.
COLLINS: Does that surprise you?
GORDON: It doesn't. It's very early. The Rules of Civil Procedure give them some time to respond to the suit.
The only thing that's happened so far is the HR department in my former office, here in Tampa, has essentially told me they can't answer any more questions that I might have.
COLLINS: I mean, I imagine you probably have a lot of questions. Because, my understanding is you were in the middle of a bunch of cases, when you were -- when you were ousted. Were you surprised by this at all?
GORDON: I was shocked. Honestly. I thought that after they had demoted the supervisors, that that was it, that they would have fired those people if they thought they could have. So when they didn't, I thought that they had moved on to something else.
I had proceeded with my work. I was in the middle of several important cases. I had just indicted, a few days before, the most complex, important, high-profile case in our district, against a man named Leo Govoni, who embezzled $100 million from special needs children.
I had just had my performance review, two days earlier, when I had been rated Outstanding, the highest possible rating that AUSAs, like me, can receive, same rating I had received every six months for the last eight and a half years. And I had also been asked to do a trial that was coming up in just two weeks.
So, the timing of my firing stunned me.
COLLINS: So you had literally just gotten a rating -- or a performance review, giving you the best rating two days before you were told, Actually you've been fired?
GORDON: That's right. And it goes a step further than that. At that same performance review, I had asked my supervisor for some constructive criticism. I asked him, What do you see as my areas that -- for improvement? What should I be working on? And his answer was, I can't think of anything.
COLLINS: I mean, I think some people would look at that, and then look at what you have worked on, some of the most high-profile cases of January 6 rioters. Richard Barnett, he was the one who was photographed lounging on then-Speaker Pelosi's desk. We're showing a picture of that. Another rioter who was inside the Capitol with those plastic handcuffs.
I mean, they may look at that and say, Is there a through line between what you worked on and your firing? And you clearly seem to think, yes.
GORDON: I think that's the only logical explanation for why I was fired. And to be clear, this is all guesswork, because the only thing, the only information I have, on why I was fired is the boilerplate three- paragraph letter that I got from Attorney General Bondi, that just says, I was fired because of the President's Article II powers.
And importantly, that -- and that's what sort -- I find so outrageous about this, is the law on civil servants, like prosecutors, is crystal clear. It's -- there's no gray area.
We're not the same as at-will employees. And I think that's something people have a lot of trouble with, people have trouble understanding, Why isn't it any different than their job, where they can just be fired for any reason? That's not the way it is for civil -- for civil servants.
We are required to be told, possibly 30 days in advance, what the reason for our firing would be. We're supposed to have an opportunity to contest that. And then, we're supposed to be given a merit-based cause for that firing.
The Justice Department didn't do any of that, in my case. They just ignored the law. And that is both shocking, but also extremely concerning. When the Department of Justice is the one just ignoring the law? What comes next?
COLLINS: Mike Gordon, we will stay tuned to see what does come next. Thank you for joining us tonight on your lawsuit.
GORDON: Thank you.
COLLINS: Meanwhile, we have seen the President and the White House continue to say not to talk about Epstein case, instead to talk about what happened around the 2016 election. The new claims they are making of treason about former President Obama tonight.
My source tonight wrote that 2017 CIA report on Russian meddling in the race. What they were told, and what their instructions were. That's ahead.
[21:25:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: As he left the White House today, President Trump was asked about that raunchy South Park episode that skewered him, when the show returned to the airwaves, this week.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: I've never watched South Park. I don't know anything about South Park. I never watched South Park.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: The President shrugging it off, after we heard from his aides, issuing a furious response to that animated satire episode, depicting Trump in a relationship with Satan, mocking his handling of the Epstein case, and also that recent settlement with Paramount.
It's an episode that revolves around a Trump character, suing residents of South Park for $5 billion, after they protest, Jesus appearing in local schools, with residents preparing to fight back before Jesus urges them to settle.
[21:30:00]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JESUS (ph), CHARACTER FROM "SOUTH PARK": You guys saw what happened to CBS. Yes, well, guess who owns CBS? Paramount. You really want to end up like Colbert? You guys got to stop being stupid.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We can't understand you.
JESUS (ph): Just shut up. We're going to get canceled, you idiots.
If someone has the power of the presidency, and also has the power to sue and take bribes, then he can do anything to anyone. It's the (bleep) president, dude. All of you shut the (bleep) or South park is over.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: The White House responded by saying, quote, "This show hasn't been relevant for over 20 years and is hanging on by a thread with uninspired ideas in a desperate attempt for attention."
My media Source tonight is Michael Grynbaum, who is the Media Correspondent for The New York Times, but also the Author of the brand-new book, "Empire of the Elite: Inside Conde Nast, the Media Dynasty That Reshaped America."
And it's so great to have you here, Michael Grynbaum.
Obviously, there was a question of how, and if the President would respond to that episode. It came right after the word of -- about this merger, with CBS and Paramount and Skydance Media. I wonder what you made of how the White House is responding to this tonight.
MICHAEL GRYNBAUM, MEDIA CORRESPONDENT, THE NEW YORK TIMES, AUTHOR, "EMPIRE OF THE ELITE": Yes, I was a little surprised that the President didn't immediately issue a Truth Social post, or some sort of denunciation of South Park.
Right after the episode aired, it sort of went viral on the left. Felt like this cathartic moment for Democrats, who feel that entertainment and news sources are kowtowing to this president, or acquiescing to him, as opposed to going after him more directly, as Trey Parker and Matt Stone did.
And it's an interesting moment too, I think. Conservatives and MAGA media have really claimed comedy as their own. The fact that woke liberals were too serious and humorless was one of the tropes of the election cycle, last year. And even Donald Trump going on podcasts with so many, the flagrant and other -- Theo Von, and other personalities, seemed to suggest that he was a little more able to laugh at himself, or be a little more humorous.
And now, we have South Park, this comedy institution, going after the President, and he hasn't been able to laugh it off. His White House issued a denunciation of it. And there he was, as you just played the audio, kind of almost pretending like he hadn't heard about it.
COLLINS: Well, it's fascinating, actually, to think about how he's responding to things like that, the cancelation of Stephen Colbert's show, predicting Jimmy Kimmel's demise next.
With your new book, which I'm in the middle of reading right now, it's called "Empire of the Elite," and it's really this deep dive on the Conde Nast media empire, and basically how it influenced every aspect of American culture for decades, and the control it had, and the validation that people sought from it, including powerful people and figures and elites, like Donald Trump in New York.
And I just wonder what you make of how he views those institutions now, versus how they were viewed, as you chronicle in your book, when they were at the height of their power.
GRYNBAUM: Yes, the book looks at the history of Vanity Fair, The New Yorker, GQ and other powerful glossy magazines.
And one of the things that interested me about it -- I cover media and politics in my day job. And President Trump, his entire life, he had this symbiotic relationship with the media.
I traced the story of how a GQ cover story of Donald Trump, back in 1984, actually written by Graydon Carter, who later became Editor of Vanity Fair, led to the publication of "The Art of the Deal," and arguably was one of the first moments of national exposure that Donald Trump had, going from a New York City provincial curiosity to a national phenomenon.
And Conde Nast was just one of these old media institutions that Trump cultivated for many, many years. He had very close relationships with editors and executives at these companies. And NBC, putting him as the star of "The Apprentice" was one of the ways that he really boosted his reputation.
So, it's been interesting to see, of course, ever since he became President, and became -- rose as a politician, the way that he has attacked the news media. And what's happened, as you were saying about CBS, and this deal with Paramount, where the FCC, Trump's FCC now says they're going to bring in an ombudsman and change things at the network. He's really done a 180 from where he was 20, 30 years ago.
COLLINS: Yes, it's such a fascinating read. I just started a few days ago. I'm already loving it. Michael Grynbaum. Everyone should read it. Thank you for coming on tonight. Really great having you.
GRYNBAUM: Thanks so much.
[21:35:00]
COLLINS: Up next. Some of those powerful people in the White House who have been pushing claims of treason, by former President Barack Obama. One person, who helped push and write the analysis of what happened in the 2016 election, says, That's not true. We'll go straight to the source, right ahead.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: After accusing former President Barack Obama of treason, President Trump acknowledged today that thanks to his own Supreme Court fight, even if that was true, the Justice Department likely can't charge him.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: It probably helped him a lot. Probably helped him a lot, the immunity ruling. But it doesn't help the people around him at all. But it probably helped him a lot. He's, he's done criminal acts, there's no question about it. But he has immunity, and it probably helped him a lot.
Obama owes me big.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[21:40:00]
COLLINS: This hasn't stopped the Director of National Intelligence from pushing this idea that top officials in the Obama administration conspired to push what she says is a, quote, Contrived narrative that Russia interfered in the 2016 election to help President Trump win.
Just yesterday, CNN's cameras saw Tulsi Gabbard at the White House. She was actually speaking here, with former congressman, Devin Nunes, who also tried to undercut the claims of the intelligence community, when he was Chair of the House Intelligence Committee.
The work, at the heart of the accusations by the Trump administration, was done by people, including my next source tonight.
Susan Miller spent 39 years, at the CIA, serving Presidents of both parties. She served the U.S., through multiple tours, in places like Eastern Europe, Russia, Israel, Malaysia. Miller rose to become the CIA's Assistant Director of Counterintelligence, and played a vital role in President Trump's successful strike on General Soleimani. She also authored the 2017 CIA report on Russian election meddling.
And retired Senior CIA Operations Officer, Susan Miller joins me now.
And Susan, I'm so grateful to have you here, to talk about something that has been just at the center of all of these discussions, that I've been having in Washington, this week.
And really, what the accusation at the center of this is that what we are told, is the intelligence community here, the Trump administration says, was told what conclusion to reach, in its investigation about Russian meddling in the 2016 election.
Can you just walk us through what happened, from your point of view, in the CIA?
SUSAN MILLER, RETIRED SENIOR CIA OPERATIONS OFFICER, FORMER CIA ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR COUNTERINTELLIGENCE, LED TEAM THAT WROTE 2017 CIA REPORT ON RUSSIAN MEDDLING, WORKED AT CIA FOR 39 YEARS INCLUDING EIGHT TOURS ABROAD: Yes.
So, what happened in our point of view is we've gotten some information -- received some information, I should say, that was corroborated that the Russians were trying to influence the election on the part of -- on the part of Trump -- towards Trump, towards the Republican Party and Trump.
And we took a look at that, and we took it very seriously, because Russians meddling in our election process is a pretty ugly thing to do, and we have to assess it and look at it. And so, we assessed it to a point, where we could determine that 100 percent, the Russians were trying to influence the election. And we wrote the paper, basically saying that.
And the paper ended with, And unless we poll -- and it had all -- it was a big, thick piece. But we had a lot of data that went with it and -- but the bottom line is, yes, they tried to influence it. No, unless we poll every voter as to why they voted, we can't tell you if that worked. And therefore, from our perspective, Trump is our President. And we just left it at that.
COLLINS: Well, what they're saying now is basically that the people who assembled this report, you included, were told the conclusion to reach.
And so just to be clear, did anyone from the President, the CIA director at the time, anyone, did anyone tell you what conclusion to receive -- to reach, when you putting this report together?
MILLER: Absolutely not.
In fact, when we were called in to start this, we were simply told, We want you to basically be in this cell alone (ph). We want you to look at the data. You might need to ask a couple other people some questions. But the bottom line is, we don't even want an interim readout. We just want you guys to understand -- to take a look at this and see, did the Russians really try to mess with our election process?
And that's exactly what we were looking at. Was it that -- was our process at risk? And if so, how did they interfere? And when did they interfere? And all of these other who, what, where, when, why, questions. And so that's what we were looking at, at the time, yes.
COLLINS: Yes.
MILLER: A 100 percent.
COLLINS: And so, if you had been told--
MILLER: And that's all we were looking at.
COLLINS: If you had been told, This is the conclusion you need to come to? What would you have done?
MILLER: I would have gone to the I.G., and I would have quit. And I can guarantee, the other three members of my team would have quit too. They are -- they are just righteous people.
COLLINS: How sound was that, that intelligence, to make you reach that conclusion?
MILLER: So first of all, I can't go into a whole lot of details. The intelligence was extremely sound and was verified. So, that's one piece of it.
COLLINS: Did John Brennan, the CIA Director then, at the time, overrules--
MILLER: Right.
COLLINS: --overruled others about including that? There's disputes over, he thought it was more serious than others did, or more sound, as you just noted there. Is that accurate from your--
MILLER: So--
COLLINS: --your recollection?
MILLER: Well, he didn't overrule anything. Here's the deal. He told us to be, completely dispassionate.
[21:45:00]
And so, after we came back, and actually said what I've already said, that, The Russians did influence it, and we can't, tell you if it worked, and therefore Trump is our President.
We told him the same thing that -- that we -- we know that people wanted a -- you know, there's half of the population, both inside the agency, as well as in America, wanted it to come out one way. Somebody else wanted it to come out another. Nobody realized that there might be some ambiguity, but it was definitely in favor of Trump, and in favor of the Republican Party, at the time. And that's what we explained to him, as well as our Director did to him, as well as to both sides of Congress.
COLLINS: Let me also ask you. The Steele dossier was something that Director Gabbard brought up this week. It's the -- for people who don't remember, or have forgotten--
MILLER: Yes.
COLLINS: --the discredited report, written by British intelligence official Christopher Steele, paid for by the Clinton campaign. It alleged coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia, ended up in an annex of this report.
There is dispute over how this ended up. And I wonder, one, what do you remember about how it was included? And two, did you agree, or disagree, or have an opinion, on whether or not it should be included?
MILLER: Yes. So, we had taken a hard look at the Steele document. And, at the time, we had absolutely nothing that could confirm it or refute it. We looked really hard at it.
And it came to us by the FBI, very, very late, where they were like, We want to put this in.
And we said to them, Wait, we've had one of your own officers on our team. Why do you want to put that in? We haven't had a chance to even look at it, to see if there's any evidence of it. We don't know what sources Steele used. We don't know any of this stuff. And so, we really need to understand this better before we put it into the paper itself.
And so, that was where CIA stood, and Brennan stood, and Gina and, well, basically all of us stood, on this particular issue, I should say Brennan did, that -- that is -- that's ridiculous to kind of add that on at the very end. And so, but FBI--
COLLINS: So your memory is that John Brennan didn't want it included?
MILLER: He did not. It was FBI who wanted it included. And we argued with them, and we finally decided that we would put this as an addendum, because they were not going to sign off on it unless we actually -- actually put it in as an addendum.
COLLINS: Wow.
MILLER: And so, we put it in as an addendum. It had a cover sheet on it that basically said something to the effect of This is -- this is being put in here at the request of the Director -- or the FBI, and it is unverified information. And we -- none of our sources themselves, raised this type of information.
They clearly raised that the influence was in favor of Trump.
COLLINS: Yes. And that's an important--
MILLER: But it was not about Trump being elected or anything like that. And so, FBI was like, We're not -- we're not going to sign off on it as a joint paper, unless you leave it in. And so--
COLLINS: Well, and that's an important, I think, because you're saying the conclusions of what you reached about Russia's meddling in the election, and the outcome Russia wanted, that was not based on the Steele dossier, the conclusions that you've reached?
MILLER: Not at all.
COLLINS: What is your thought on how Director Gabbard has introduced what she says is this new intelligence that, they're saying that all of this -- they're calling it a hoax, saying that none of it was real? That this idea that they were working in favor of Trump was not true? And basically saying that the top intelligence officials could be prosecuted here, and that they're recommending criminal referrals to the Justice Department?
MILLER: Right. And my team and I, just yesterday, had a few drinks and talked about that, and talked about what lawyers would be looking for, if that happens, again, so, which is sad.
COLLINS: So you're worried that you will have to get another attorney here?
MILLER: A 100 percent. And this time, you can bet the government's not going to pay for it, so. Yes, so. But I'll do it, I'll fight, I'll fight to the end.
[21:50:00]
COLLINS: Can I get you to respond to -- we asked the White House, about this tonight, and they said, quote, "Thanks to President Trump and Director Gabbard's leadership, the American people can finally see the Russia, Russia, Russia collusion narrative for what it really was -- a total hoax and political witch hunt to snub President Trump's historic first term in office."
And then they praised Gabbard for her commitment to transparency and ending the weaponization of government against American citizens.
What's your thoughts on that?
MILLER: Yes, I did read that and tried to get it out of my mind. So thanks for reminding me of it.
I think it is wrong in every single way. What Tulsi is saying is we only want to hear anything that's pro-Trump, pro-Trump policy, pro- this, pro-current Republican Party, from any of our intel services. And if we hear anything that's not that? Then we're going to come after you.
And that's what it feels like. And so, what analyst wants to put his or her or their name on any paper now?
We looked at everything, and we're being now told that we somehow did it wrong. We didn't have analysts involved, when three of my team were analysts. We had rigor -- rigorous analytic reviews--
COLLINS: Yes.
MILLER: --by our then-head of analysis. And it just, it doesn't make sense to me. It just doesn't. It really is sad.
And if I was -- if I was still there, and still working? Even with all the trouble that this has been, I would do it all over again. Because, again, I'm just -- just there to tell the truth, you know, what we find, our assessments of what we found, and this is what we have found, and it is -- it is very-well-sourced. So, I don't know what else we could have done.
COLLINS: Susan Miller, it's great to have your perspective. Thank you for joining us tonight to explain all of this.
MILLER: Thank you for having me.
COLLINS: Up next. We'll take you behind-the-scenes, this week, at the White House.
[21:55:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: As the President begins his weekend, in Scotland, I want to take you behind-the-scenes, this week, at the White House.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
COLLINS: Do you think it's a distraction technique?
SEN. LISA MURKOWSKI (R-AK): It does kind of cause you to question.
ON SCREEN TEXT: Monday, July 21.
REPORTER: Why hasn't the President just ordered the FBI to release all the Epstein files? Just, get it all out there?
KAROLINE LEAVITT, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: The President has said, if the Department of Justice and the FBI want to move forward with releasing any further credible evidence, they should do so. As to why they have, or have not, or will? You should ask the FBI about that.
ON SCREEN TEXT: Tuesday, July 22.
TRUMP: The leader of the gang was President Obama. Barack Hussein Obama, have you heard of him?
Tulsi told me, she's got thousands of additional documents.
With this made-up hoax that they're talking about, my numbers have gone up four and five points. They want to do anything to get us off the subject of making America great again.
ON SCREEN TEXT: Wednesday, July 23.
COLLINS: Director Gabbard, you referenced the past intelligence reports and assessments on this.
Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, said in a statement that they did not find any evidence of Russian collusion, but they did find, however, is very troubling.
Are you saying that he's wrong in that statement that he made then?
And secondly, 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?
TULSI GABBARD, DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE: The evidence and the intelligence that has been declassified and released is irrefutable.
LEAVITT: I am with the President of the United States every day. He has the utmost confidence in Director Gabbard.
COLLINS: 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.
What is your reaction to what you've heard from the DNI, in recent days?
MURKOWSKI: It does cause one to wonder if this is an effort, by folks in the administration, to have the conversation move on to something else, other than the Epstein matter.
ON SCREEN TEXT: Thursday, July 24.
TRUMP: It looks like it's about $3.1 billion, went up a little bit, and--
JEROME POWELL, FEDERAL RESERVE CHAIRMAN: I'm not aware of that, Mr. President.
TRUMP: Yes, it just came out.
POWELL: You just added -- you just added in a third building.
It was built five years ago.
COLLINS: So, you're saying that the number Jay Powell gave was wrong, and the one the President had is accurate, in your -- in your assessment. Is that right?
JAMES BLAIR, DEPUTY WHITE HOUSE CHIEF OF STAFF: I think what the Fed chair is doing is splitting hairs.
COLLINS: One big question I've had is this remarkable meeting that the Justice Department had with Ghislaine Maxwell today.
What's the outcome of this going to be?
Obviously, what Ghislaine Maxwell would be seeking here is either a pardon, or a reduction in her sentence, something the President has the power to do. Would that not infuriate the MAGA base?
[22:00:00]
O'SULLIVAN: Sure, I think people would be upset to see a pardon for Maxwell.
I think people are not going to be happy with how any of this goes, unless they get what they were expecting and hoping for, for years, which is that this would all somehow result in the incrimination of Democratic Party politicians.
ON SCREEN TEXT: Friday, July 25.
LIPTAK: Would you consider a pardon or a commutation for Ghislaine Maxwell?
TRUMP: It's something I haven't thought about.
I'm allowed to do it, but it's something I have not thought about.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
COLLINS: Thanks so much for joining us, behind-the-scenes, and every night this week.
"CNN NEWSNIGHT WITH ABBY PHILLIP" starts now.
