Return to Transcripts main page
The Source with Kaitlan Collins
Trump: I Have Not Been Briefed On What Maxwell Told Blanche; Trump: There's A "Good Chance" I'll Meet With Putin "Soon"; Army Sergeant In Custody After Five Soldiers Shot At Fort Stewart. Aired 9- 10p ET
Aired August 06, 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]
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
NICK PATON WALSH, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): --the buzz and gunfire we heard outside, moments earlier, just how life is here.
PATON WALSH (on camera): The all clear has been given, after the three drones overhead, and now we have to go quickly.
PATON WALSH (voice-over): Hours after we leave, the city and island are hit hard. Russian bloggers giving all civilians a week to leave the island. Talk of mercy here, short-lived, short-sighted too.
Nick Paton Walsh. CNN. Kherson. Ukraine.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
JOHN KING, CNN HOST, ANDERSON COOPER 360: And the news continues. "THE SOURCE WITH KAITLAN COLLINS" starts now.
KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, CNN HOST, THE SOURCE WITH KAITLAN COLLINS: Tonight, what's happening behind-the- scenes at the White House, and what the survivors are saying about this administration's handling of the fallout from the Jeffrey Epstein files.
I'm Kaitlan Collins. And this is THE SOURCE.
At the White House tonight, as his own top aides are still strategizing a path forward, when it comes to the handling of the Jeffrey Epstein fallout, the President of the United States is using two of his favorite words, to make crystal clear what he thinks is the best option. Moving on.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Look, the whole thing is a hoax. It's put out by the Democrats, because we've had the most successful six months in the history of our country, and that's just a way of trying to divert attention to something that's total bullshit. (END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: The President calling it total BS, as we are hearing directly now, from Jeffrey Epstein's accusers, and their allies, who say it's anything, but. In fact, at least three of them have now used the term, Coverup, to describe what they fear is happening.
They weren't consulted about the number two, at the Justice Department, meeting with Ghislaine Maxwell, and don't yet know what she told the Deputy Attorney General. For his part, the President says he doesn't know either.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REPORTER: Mr. President, have you been briefed on what Ghislaine Maxwell told Todd Blanche?
TRUMP: No, I haven't. Have not.
REPORTER: So you don't know whether--
TRUMP: I don't know.
REPORTER: --it came up in the conversation on that--
TRUMP: I know Todd is a very respected person, all over the country, all over the world, legally. So, I don't know.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: The victims and their families also were not given a heads-up that she was being moved to a minimum-security prison camp, which is unusual, given that a convicted sex trafficker, like Ghislaine Maxwell is, as we've reported, would require a waiver for such a move.
What we're hearing from the victims and their families is that they're increasingly unhappy, and feel that they are being shut out of the room, including, and what my colleagues were told, was a dinner involving the Vice President, the White House, Chief of Staff, the Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney General, and the FBI Director. It's unclear if that dinner or conversation about Epstein, that was reported, happened. Though we did see the Attorney General leaving the White House, a short time ago.
Just the fact that Pam Bondi and Kash Patel were said to be the same dinner table, is even notable, given that relationship fell apart when the FBI Director, and his number two, Dan Bongino, were upset with how Pam Bondi handled the Epstein files. They made that clear in a blowup that happened, with the Attorney General, inside the West Wing, when Bongino then subsequently skipped work, and contemplated resigning from his role.
Bondi's memo essentially shut down the conspiracy theories, about Epstein, that Patel, Bongino and others had pushed for years.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) KASH PATEL, DIRECTOR, FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION: Put on your big boy pants and let us know who the pedophiles are.
GLENN BECK, CEO, BLAZE MEDIA: So who has Jeffrey Epstein's--
PATEL: Black book?
BECK: --Black book?
PATEL: FBI.
BECK: But who? That is that -- I mean, there's--
PATEL: Oh, that's under direct control of the Director of the FBI.
DAN BONGINO, UNITED STATES DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION: What the hell are they hiding with Jeffrey Epstein? Why do they want to make this Jeffrey Epstein story go away so bad?
I'm not letting it go, ever. Ever.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: The victims and their families say they're not going to let it go either.
My lead source on this tonight, and more, is The New York Times White House correspondent, Maggie Haberman, who is the Author of "Confidence Man: The Making of Donald Trump and the Breaking of America."
And Maggie, it's great to have you here tonight.
I just wonder what you are hearing, and what you made, about such intense reaction that there was today, among the idea, the notion that there would even be a high-level conversation about what to do, about how they've handled the Epstein saga here.
MAGGIE HABERMAN, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST, WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, THE NEW YORK TIMES, AUTHOR, "CONFIDENCE MAN": Yes, so Kaitlan, I'm not sure that this was supposed to be a dinner, or if this was supposed to be just a gathering, to try to get Pam Bondi and Kash Patel, who, as you noted earlier, don't like each other, on the same page, or at least, in a better place, together.
[21:05:00]
I think it is clear that -- and I'm not clear that this event happened, and if it happened at the Vice President's residence, either, but we'll know more in the coming hours and days. What I do know is that there has been a consistent effort to try to turn the page on the Epstein saga, over the last week and a half, and it has dug deeper and deeper.
Now, I think they do have a sense of what they are likely to do, going forward. I think we are going to see some of Ghislaine Maxwell's interview, or maybe hear some of her interview with Todd Blanche. It's not clear to me how much it will be. It's not clear to me if that's all that we will hear from the administration, in terms of the files.
But they have clearly gone down a path that they are going to have to put more information out. I just don't know what that does when there are victims, as you note, who are -- I mean, sure, it will let them say, Look, we've put things out. And maybe they will just stop answering questions about it. But one of the people keeping it alive, as we know, was President Trump.
And victims who suffered, and who are ostensibly the people that everyone involved in this is concerned about, saying they want files released and so forth, are very upset.
COLLINS: We had Jasmine Crockett here, last night, a Democrat. She's the second Democrat in charge on House Oversight -- or in line at House Oversight. And one point that she made was, If this transcript of what was said between Ghislaine Maxwell and Todd Blanche does come out, that is actually not even what the MAGA base really considers to be the Epstein files.
HABERMAN: Right.
COLLINS: I mean, this is something that just happened. The Epstein files is a whole trove of documents before that conversation with Ghislaine Maxwell.
So, I guess, one question is also if, even if they do put out part of that, or audio, if that will be seen as sufficient in MAGA's eyes?
HABERMAN: Right. That's the -- that's the $64 million question on all of this is, what exactly would set the bar.
And at what point would people who support the President or have in the past, but now think that he's involved in an alleged coverup, at what point are they going to say, Oh, actually, we have been shown that this -- you know, here's documentation that backs up what the President's saying about whether who's in the files, or who might not be in the files, and so forth and so on. I don't know when we reach that point. I just know we're not there yet.
COLLINS: What do you make of Trump's denials, again today, that -- he says he doesn't know what Todd Blanche and Ghislaine Maxwell discussed.
He also said, yesterday, to me, that he was not aware of Ghislaine Maxwell being moved, which is a pretty high-level move, for the Justice Department to undertake, without telling him beforehand. It kind of actually surprised me, when he said he didn't know.
HABERMAN: Yes, I mean, it's -- I was surprised by it. It is for all of the reasons you just said, it's certainly possible, but it's hard to believe, given how closely this DOJ has been working with this White House, and how many tabs people are being kept on activities that are happening, related to this investigation. It would be a little hard to see Ghislaine Maxwell getting moved to this much lesser security prison facility without the President of the United States knowing. COLLINS: To the sound bite that we heard, at the beginning of the show, of Dan Bongino, Kash Patel, Pam Bondi, talking about the Epstein documents of what they were going to release.
Given it was these senior officials who were helped -- helping and planting the seeds about this -- there being a coverup regarding Jeffrey Epstein, do you think they realize how far it's boomeranged that now some of the victims, and accusers, and survivors, are saying, These same people are now also guilty of a coverup?
HABERMAN: Oh, I think they're very well-aware that this has become problematic for them. I think that's been part of the issue for the last couple of weeks.
Todd Blanche, Emil Bove, Pam Bondi did talk about the Epstein files. But Todd Blanche certainly did not make his career talking about the Epstein files. This has now engulfed all of them.
But Dan Bongino and Kash Patel built up credibility with the base, and built up followings, talking about this, as you just showed. So, I think they're very well aware of it. I just don't know what it means for the future.
It tends -- if no one in the administration is going to acknowledge that the victims, which we really haven't heard them do so far, Kaitlan? Correct me if I'm wrong. But I'm not aware of any instance, where they've spent a ton of time talking about that. Other than, that, We don't want to release certain information that could hurt victims, but they haven't said much about the victims who are speaking out against this. If they keep ignoring it, then I'm assuming they believe it will go away, and maybe it will. But I don't think these women are going to stay quiet.
COLLINS: Yes, it certainly doesn't seem that way.
Maggie Haberman, as always, it's great to have your excellent insight and reporting here with us.
HABERMAN: Thanks, Kaitlan.
COLLINS: Also here tonight, my political, White House, and legal, sources, all together on this one, because it is necessary.
Jeff, I just wonder what you make of how everything's kind of played out over the last 24 hours.
And also, the President today saying, It's total BS, it's concocted by Democrats?
It's certainly -- Democrats are happy to keep it in the news cycle, but they are not the ones who are perpetuating it at the beginning.
[21:10:00]
JEFF MASON, WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, REUTERS: Totally. I mean, quite rightly, the Democrat -- politically anyway, the Democrats are happy to keep this in the news cycle.
But it's his base that's been upset. It's his base that started everything in the first place, when they were -- when they sort of, I don't know what's the word I'm looking for, would get -- got outraged by the fact that the DOJ didn't release the files that they said were going to be released.
But I think another point that I'd like to underscore that Maggie sort of touched on, is that close relationship between the DOJ and this White House. That is very unusual.
Keep in mind, most White Houses, with the Trump White House being the major exception, try to keep some distance between the Department of Justice and the rest of the administration. That is absolutely not happening here, and that's evidenced by the fact that Pam Bondi was there and is often at the White House.
That's another thing that raises questions, I think, about how much President Trump may know, and others around him may know, about what DOJ is doing with regard to Epstein and how much they're coordinating.
COLLINS: Yes, and interesting to see how the President has talked about this.
I would just wonder, what do the two of you make of how all this has played out, as our political minds here.
SHERMICHAEL SINGLETON, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: I mean, look, I think you got to calibrate your message and control the narrative here. I mean, we know what the problem is. I'm looking at this from two different sides.
You don't want to give my friends on the left an opportunity to keep hammering this home, every opportunity they can, because they've been struggling, for months now, trying to figure out what their message should be to sort of coalesce their base.
But you also have to satisfy the President's most ardent supporters somewhat. And I say somewhat, because I would argue you can give them enough, release something, and then move beyond this.
Yes, you're going to piss some people off, Kaitlan. I would tell the President, That's OK. You're not going to lose the base. They're going to stick with you. We need to focus on the economy. We've got to start getting ready for midterms, next year, which, again, Democrats are starting to have conversations about what their messaging, what their targeting, is going to be like, specifically for those Independent voters. We got some vulnerable Rs on the House side. I want to make sure we protect those folks. We got to get beyond this as quickly as possible.
ASHLEY ALLISON, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, FORMER OBAMA WH SENIOR POLICY ADVISER: Yes, I think I would recommend focusing on the victims here, which--
SINGLETON: Yes. ALLISON: --there have been some terrible things that happened to these people. And if you center the victims and actually listen to them? Maybe not listen to Democrats, or your most ardent supporters, but the people who have been most directly impacted? I think you can solve a solution -- find a solution to this problem.
I also, though, don't have much sympathy for this administration, because this is -- besides the awful things that the perpetrators did, this is of their own making. They spun up this conspiracy theory, and so now they're having to reap what they sow, and they are going to have to feed the beast.
I mean, Democrats are not keeping this -- the clips that Kaitlan played at the beginning of the show were not Dems. They were his Deputy Director and Director of the FBI. Those are as Republican and MAGA as they come. So, this is not a Dem thing. This is a Republicans' making, and they're not even centering the victims in it.
COLLINS: Yes, and there's not that much longer in recess before they're all back here in Washington.
SINGLETON: Yes, we got to do away with it.
COLLINS: And, as in -- I mean, we saw in Nebraska, this is being brought up in town halls there, with Mike Flood and -- the Congressman there.
ALLISON: South Carolina.
SINGLETON: Listen, Ashley said something interesting. She said, Listen to the victims.
Now, I wonder, as a strategist, Do Democrats then begin to target some of those suburban women, who slightly moved back over to the Republican side, last November? Do they start targeting them with the message of some of these victims, going into midterms next year?
Then you raise the question is, Where will this register on the litany of other things going into midterms, next year? I'm not exactly sure. It's a problem now. Will it be a problem six, seven months from now? I don't know.
COLLINS: Elie--
ALLISON: I mean--
COLLINS: Elie Honig, you're also with us.
When Maggie was saying that her reporting shows they are considering maybe releasing part of that transcript, part of the audio of the conversation that the Deputy Attorney General had with Ghislaine Maxwell. One, how do you go about a 10-hour -- looking at a 10-hour conversation, deciding what to release? And two, whether or not that's going to be sufficient for their -- for the base?
ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST, FORMER ASST. U.S. ATTORNEY: So, first of all, this is exactly part of the dilemma that DOJ has created for itself.
I think, to Shermichael's earlier point, I don't think anything short of releasing the entire 10 hours is going to satisfy the MAGA base, or liberals, for that matter. I don't think you're going to be able to say, Here's some excerpts, everybody, and people to be satisfied.
To the broader question here, Kaitlan though, there's a really important tell. The very fact that they're even considering, releasing any of the Ghislaine Maxwell testimony that she gave to Todd Blanche? That tells you that DOJ is not and never has been serious about actually indicting anybody, based on Ghislaine Maxwell's testimony.
Because if you were going to bring an indictment, based on any witness' testimony, the last thing you would do would be to blast it out publicly. That would reveal your targets. It would reveal your investigative methods. It would undermine your witness. And I know that Todd Blanche knows that, because we were both trained and raised in the same office, the SDNY, at the same time. So, all of this tells me they are not and never have been serious about actually indicting anyone else.
COLLINS: But Elie--
HONIG: This is more for show.
COLLINS: Can you explain to me how that works? I mean, the DOJ just decides, We're going to sit down with someone, who has already been convicted and is being held, and we're going to speak to her for 10 hours. I mean, is that a typical legal process to just interview someone, and then just publish the transcript, and then it doesn't actually result in anything, if that is what happens here?
[21:15:00]
HONIG: Right. It's a great question. So, the way this would work -- and I've been in situations, actually, where I've taken people, like Ghislaine Maxwell, not like Ghislaine Maxwell, but in her position, who have already been sentenced, and built cases off them.
But the way you do that is you go meet with the person in prison. You get all the information they have. You build up a case file. You corroborate what that person has to say. Then you go indict your cases. And only after the cases are indicted do you turn the information over, by the way, not to the general public, but to the defense lawyer, as you're required to do. So, that's the way you would do this if you were serious about making cases.
What they're doing here is for show. It's for the public. It's for appearance.
COLLINS: Yes, I mean, Jeff, on that front, in terms of what this looks like. The other -- we do know that the administration is trying to figure out what they're doing here, even if they were denying that there was a meeting, a dinner, focused on this.
Because one consideration that we reported was under -- under discussion, last night, was having the Deputy Attorney General do something like Joe Rogan's podcast, something that obviously has a massive reach, directly to their base who has been quite angry about how they've handled the Jeffrey Epstein situation, and has criticized them for it. That's also a question of what that looks like.
MASON: Yes, absolutely. I mean, one of President Trump's superpowers, as a public figure, before he was in office, and since he's been in office, has been the ability to distract, get people to move on from stories, to deny, and that just hasn't worked with the Jeffrey Epstein piece, certainly to his chagrin.
So, studying from a White House perspective and a communications perspective, how do we do this, how do we get this story to move on? It makes good political sense. But it is -- there are so many more things there, the things that you two were just acknowledging as well. There are political risks here that go beyond just his base.
COLLINS: If you're the comms staff, and this is your Justice Department watching this play out, would either of you recommend a Joe Rogan appearance?
SINGLETON: I would. I think you -- I think you have to move on. I think you're going to look at a trusted source that many Republicans would trust, those who are completely in the President's corner, and even those who are like, OK, I want to know a little bit more, I don't know if I trust Ghislaine Maxwell. What's going on here?
You watch the interview. If Todd Blanche comes across as credible and believable, then people say, OK, we got everything we need. It's time to move on. They got to figure this out, and they haven't quite put their thumb on the scale. You have to tip this into their direction--
ALLISON: No. No. No.
SINGLETON: --or their favor.
COLLINS: Elie is laughing.
SINGLETON: So, what do you say, Ash?
ALLISON: No.
SINGLETON: I want to -- what do you say?
ALLISON: No. Because -- because you have to do a risk analysis, right?
SINGLETON: OK. Sure.
ALLISON: And the question is, why don't you release the files? They have yet to be able to answer that question, and they're not going to be able to answer it properly on Joe Rogan. And Joe Rogan is going to want to continue to press the issue, so that he doesn't lose viewers, like, there's a risk.
SINGLETON: Sure.
ALLISON: Like, Joe Rogan can't look like a soft person--
SINGLETON: It's true.
ALLISON: --in this moment.
COLLINS: And he has a base too.
ALLISON: And he has a base, right, that is a cash cow. So, he's not going to let -- give Todd Blanche a pass. He has no loyalty to Todd Blanche.
SINGLETON: Certainly, if you and I were in that position, we would prep Todd Blanche, we would prepare for those tough questions, right?
ALLISON: Yes. And if the answer is still going to be everything they've been saying the same? I'd say, Thanks, but no thanks.
COLLINS: I mean--
SINGLETON: Well maybe he'll drop something new.
COLLINS: --look at what Thomas Massie--
ALLISON: Free advice from them (ph).
COLLINS: Thomas Massie posted this today, posted this, basically saying, We're criticizing Democrats for leaving Texas -- I think we have a picture of this meme. And then put Mike Johnson in there, saying, Republicans leaving D.C. to protect the Epstein files.
I mean, Elie, you're laughing. What are your thoughts?
HONIG: Well, I'm watching two brilliantly political minds go at it. And Sherm, you know I love you, but I'm with Ashley on this one.
You say you're going to prep -- you're going to prep Todd Blanche. Shermichael, how are you going to prep Todd Blanche, for this question, Shermichael, OK? When Joe Rogan looks at him and goes, Todd Blanche, you just spent 10 hours face-to-face with Ghislaine Maxwell, did you find her believable and credible and honest?
What do you -- what's he going to say to that? If he says, Yes? Forget it, he loses all standing. If he says no? Then, why did you do this, and why are you trying to foist this on us?
ALLISON: Right.
HONIG: How do you prep him for that?
ALLISON: And why not release the files?
SINGLETON: Well, can I respond to my dear friend, Elie?
COLLINS: Yes, you may. You may. You may respond.
SINGLETON: And so, Elie, I would say, We took the opportunity to sit with her to see if there was anything else that we didn't previously know that we could learn, to the point that you said, maybe we can corroborate some of her statements with other individuals who were involved, engaged at the time, and we'll check some of those things out. That doesn't necessarily mean that you have to trust the individual, but you should certainly verify their statements.
ALLISON: But it's not about the interview with Todd Blanche and Maxwell. It is about everything that happened prior, that got Ghislaine Maxwell in prison. That is what the base wants to know.
SINGLETON: Sure. Sure.
ALLISON: And so, I would probably ask one question about that interview, and I would just keep asking the same question over and over.
SINGLETON: But I would push back and say, I think -- I do think you have to release something. I'm in agreement there.
I don't know if you have to release every single thing, because I'm not convinced that the President's base would abandon him. I think you got to feed the beast enough, and then move on. You have to move on.
ALLISON: Not going away.
SINGLETON: This can't become a story three weeks from now.
COLLINS: Yes.
ALLISON: It will be.
COLLINS: I want to have Joe Rogan and Elie Honig here, so we can all just--
SINGLETON: Oh, that would be good.
COLLINS: --strategize what this is going to look like.
HONIG: I'm in. I'm in.
COLLINS: This is now our second night where we've--
HONIG: I'll take a train right down. Let's go.
COLLINS: --we've talked about this. Well we might do it in Texas.
[21:20:00]
It's great to have all of you here. Excellent reporting. Excellent insight. Elie, thanks for that legal analysis as well.
And meeting or not, how the administration has handled the Epstein fallout has left the survivors feeling like they are on the sidelines here. They are speaking out about it, a lot tonight. My next source is actually representing two of them, and has a lot of thoughts on how this has been handled so far. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: Tonight, Jeffrey Epstein's victims, and their families, are asking why they're not a bigger part of the conversation when their stories remain at the center of the crisis that has been consuming the White House.
[21:25:00]
The family, of the late Virginia Giuffre, responded to CNN's reporting, about that potential strategy session that senior officials were expected to hold, regarding the Epstein matter, a meeting that the Vice President JD Vance denied today was about Jeffrey Epstein.
But Virginia's family noted this, saying that, as senior officials were expected to gather, quote, "Missing from this group is, of course, any survivor of the vicious crimes of convicted perjurer and sex trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein. Their voices must be heard, above all."
And joining me now is attorney, Jennifer Freeman, who represents Epstein survivors, Maria Farmer and Annie Farmer, as well as other Jane Doe Epstein survivors, I should note.
And Jennifer, it's great to have you here tonight.
Because, just for everyone else, to give them the background. Your client, Maria Farmer, alleges that she was sexually assaulted, by both Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, in the 90s. Her sister testified at Maxwell's trial, Annie did, saying that when she was 16, Maxwell massaged her, when she was naked, at Epstein's ranch in New Mexico.
Just given that background, I wonder how your clients react, when they hear the President, as he did today, kind of dismiss everything that everyone's been talking about with Epstein, as total BS.
JENNIFER FREEMAN, ATTORNEY FOR EPSTEIN VICTIMS: It's really painful. I know, from talking to them, many -- many survivors, to hear that they're dismissed, while someone like Ghislaine Maxwell, the convicted sex trafficking felon, is given so much attention. It's just is very distressing and sickening, really.
COLLINS: What do they -- what do they want to see the government, and the Trump administration, do here?
FREEMAN: Well, we brought a lawsuit, very much, trying to achieve some kind of justice for them. Because Maria Farmer, in 1996 did what many American citizens are taught to do, which is, when they see a crime, when they experience a crime, when crimes are ongoing, they go to law enforcement.
She went and reported these crimes to the FBI. And what did they do? Absolutely nothing. And as a result, some one -- over a 1,000 survivors exist of Epstein and perhaps Maxwell too, and nearly 30 years of trauma they have suffered. It shouldn't be that way. COLLINS: One thing that we've obviously talked about here is, there's so much of the details of the grand jury transcripts, and the conversation with Ghislaine Maxwell and her prison transfer.
I wonder if they feel, or maybe are surprised even, or maybe not surprised, that the survivors aren't being discussed more and aren't more central to everything that we've been talking about lately.
FREEMAN: Well, they certainly should be. I mean, this is outrageous, that they are given virtually no voice. When the voices are so strong from everyone else except for them. They're not given any attention whatsoever, which is one of the reasons we brought a lawsuit, on behalf of Maria Farmer, and soon-to-be others. Because what happened in 1996, and happened again in 2006, ignoring the survivors over and over, is one of the largest law enforcement failures in U.S. history.
COLLINS: If now -- tomorrow, Congress or the Justice Department called, asking for your client's testimony, for the -- to speak with either of the Farmer sisters, do you think they'd give it?
FREEMAN: I do believe they would. Yes. I think they would actually -- it would be difficult, because it's always difficult to go over and over something, but I think they would welcome it.
COLLINS: And why do you think that is? Because they'd have -- I mean, I -- it would give them an opportunity, I assume, to be able to speak again about their experience, and what they went through.
FREEMAN: Yes. And to have a voice is very important. Here we are, talking about, perhaps this meeting tonight that may or may not happen, or may have happened or would happen. And who is at the meeting? A lot of people in the Trump administration. But where are the survivors? They're, again, not listened to at all. They're not welcome.
COLLINS: Jennifer Freeman, thank you for coming on, and sharing their perspective, and how they do feel, because we think it's important to hear that tonight. Thank you.
FREEMAN: So appreciate that. Good to be with you.
COLLINS: And as we continue to follow that story. Up next here for us, President Trump says he may meet with President Putin as soon as potentially next week. What that means for the war, raging in Ukraine.
We'll also speak with Trump's former National Security Adviser, John Bolton, for his thoughts on what a face-to-face between Trump and Putin could look like.
[21:30:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: It has been seven years since presidents Trump and Vladimir Putin last met face-to-face, and that could change as soon as next week, potentially, after Putin suggested a meeting, during his own sit-down with President Trump's envoy, Steve Witkoff, that happened in Moscow today.
[21:35:00]
I'm told tonight that planning is urgently underway at the White House, as Trump has directed his team to set up a possible in-person summit, with the Russian leader, which, according to their thinking, would then be followed by a trilateral summit, with the Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, with Trump's goal being to bring an end to Russia's war in Ukraine.
While presidential travel, and a major sit-down like this one, especially in the middle of a war between these two countries, would normally take quite some time to plan, the President seemed optimistic about it happening, tonight.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: There's a very good prospect that they will, and we haven't determined where, but we had some very good talks with President Putin today, and there's a very good chance that we could be ending the -- ending the round -- ending the end of that road. That road was long, and continues to be long. But there's a good chance that there will be a meeting very soon.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: My source tonight served as President Trump's National Security Adviser. Ambassador John Bolton.
Ambassador, what do you make of the fact that this could happen as soon as potentially next week?
JOHN BOLTON, FORMER TRUMP NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER: Well, it's entirely possible. I think the first question is, Where will the meeting be?
I think obviously, Putin's first choice would be Moscow. Can't think of anything better, from his point of view, than to host Trump at the Kremlin.
More logical place, from the U.S. perspective, to do it would be one of the traditional meeting cities, Geneva or Vienna. It's -- the logistics are difficult, but not impossible. And Trump obviously wants the meeting. So, it will be very interesting to see what the arrangements are.
But I think Putin will see it as an opportunity. I think he knows he's deliberately or inadvertently pushed Trump a little too far, and it's -- he'll have some ideas about how to bring things back in his direction.
COLLINS: What do you make of -- well, I was told today that it was actually Putin who suggested this meeting with Trump, when he was meeting with Steve Witkoff.
BOLTON: Sure, absolutely. Look, this is -- Russia is heavily sanctioned by the West as a whole. This is legitimizing Putin in a way he hasn't -- hasn't seen anything like it, since the February 24, 2022, invasion of Ukraine. That's why Moscow, for him, would be the ideal place.
And he's watched how Trump dealt with Kim Jong Un in three meetings, in Trump's first term, meetings which produced nothing ultimately. But he sees this as a real opportunity.
He does believe, Putin does believe, I think, that he can still work his KGB training on Trump, knowing, as I say, that one way or another, deliberately or not, he's pushed Trump a little bit beyond the envelope, and he's going to try and rectify that, and also play a larger game with the sanctions against India for purchasing Russian oil--
COLLINS: Yes.
BOLTON: --with the China question up in the air. There may be an opportunity here for Putin to advance his agenda on a number of fronts.
COLLINS: On those sanctions. I mean, India is really bearing the brunt of this. They got their tariffs doubled today by President Trump, because he's so angry that they keep buying Russian oil.
But a question that I had for Peter Navarro, Trump's -- you know, one of his trade adviser on this, today -- one of his top trade advisers on this was, China is importing way more Russian oil than India is. So, why is China not getting the same kind of treatment?
I want you to listen, given you wrote about this today, Ambassador, to what Peter Navarro told me.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: China buys more Russian oil than India does, and they have not been targeted for that. So why is India having its tariffs doubled?
PETER NAVARRO, COUNSELOR TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: As the boss says, let's see what happens. Keep in mind that we have over 50 percent tariffs on China already.
COLLINS: Right, but you could get higher.
NAVARRO: We have--
COLLINS: But they haven't been punished for buying Russian oil.
NAVARRO: We have--
COLLINS: And India is being punished for that.
NAVARRO: We have over 50 percent tariffs on China--
COLLINS: But not because of buying Russian oil. NAVARRO: --so we don't want to get to the point where we actually hurt ourselves. And so that question--
COLLINS: But do you see why people would be confused by that?
NAVARRO: And I think I've given a really good answer to that. We've got tariffs 50 percent -- we already have high tariffs on China. So, I take your point. President certainly will be working with China on that issue.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Do you agree with him that that was a really good answer?
BOLTON: That shows exactly what I think could be the worst outcome for the United States, that India has reacted very negatively, as you might expect, to these tariffs related to Russian oil purchases, in part because they see that China has not been tariffed.
And Trump seems to be, in the minds of many China experts, setting up to treat China more leniently than he has treated India, thus putting in jeopardy decades of American effort, to bring India away from Russia, to bring India away from China, to join us in trying to push back on Chinese efforts, to gain hegemony along its long Indo-Pacific perimeter.
[21:40:00]
And the irony here is that while the secondary tariffs against India are intended to hurt Russia, it could push India back closer to Russia, and ironically closer to China, perhaps negotiating together, against the U.S. tariff efforts.
COLLINS: Ambassador John Bolton, always great to have you. Thank you for your insight tonight.
BOLTON: Thank you.
COLLINS: My next source is the best-selling historian and journalist, Garrett Graff, whose new book, "The Devil Reached Toward the Sky: An Oral History of the Making and Unleashing of the Atomic Bomb," just came out and is an excellent book, and we'll talk about it in a second.
But I just wonder what you make of this dynamic that is now playing out. Trump's been on the phone with Zelenskyy, repeatedly, over the last few days, on this very matter. What you make of the idea that we could see this summit playing out maybe as soon as next week? White House officials seem to say, Give us a little time here as we're planning this potentially. What do you think?
GARRETT GRAFF, JOURNALIST & HISTORIAN, AUTHOR, "THE DEVIL REACHED TOWARD THE SKY": I mean, as someone who spends a lot of time, thinking about the history of the presidency, it is unprecedented to think of a summit, at this level, coming together in this level of speed. And normally, one of the things, I think, you really need to think about is the process behind-the-scenes, at the staff level, that normally goes into ensuring that there's going to be some set of outcomes or deliverables for a high-level meeting like this. And it seems like Trump is announcing this summit, not only not having outcomes or deliverables in place, but not even necessarily having commitments from Zelenskyy and Putin to even attend.
COLLINS: Well, and I mean, Zelenskyy has said, I'll agree to this, X, Y and Z. Putin is the one who's never really agreed to anything, and Trump has been really frustrated with that.
I do wonder if Trump's approaching this, you think, more realistically than maybe he did with some of the North Korea summits that the Ambassador mentioned?
GRAFF: Yes, the North Korea summits, of course, also didn't go particularly anywhere.
And I think, to me, the big question, which I don't think we have a good answer for, is, what of any of Putin's goals, in this invasion of Ukraine, have changed, that would bring him to the peace table? And I don't think we've seen any reason to believe that Putin's end goals are any different than they were at the start of this invasion.
COLLINS: And thinking about this moment in history, and what is the outcome of this war going to be. I mean, this book, I've been reading it. Anyone who follows me on social media knows that I have been reading this book. My copy is actually on my bedside table, right now.
But it is so fascinating, because it's telling this oral history of -- through the eyes of the scientists, of military officers, as they were building the atomic bomb, not knowing, were the Nazis also building one, were they beating the United States in the race against this, what was the outcome of World War II going to be?
I just wonder what you -- what you found, as you read through and were creating this book?
GRAFF: Yes, to me, the power of oral history, the reason I love doing projects like this, where you're sort of trying to tell the stories in the first person, in the experiences of the people who lived them, is history is a lot less neat, clean, simple and preordained than it often seems like when we're teaching it. I mean, look right now at our modern moment. We don't know where this story is going, and we don't know how it ends.
And to go back and to try to tell the story of these apocalypse events, like the Manhattan Project, like the atom bomb, like thinking about World War II at moments when the physicists involved in the Manhattan Project didn't know whether the allies were actually going to be able to win World War II, I think, gives us some important context for thinking about our modern moment.
COLLINS: Yes, and just thinking about how they viewed Hitler, and not knowing what the outcome of that was going to be. That part about Japan, I thought, was especially interesting.
The other part that I thought was fascinating was in terms of the scientists who had to flee Europe, and were finding refuge in the United States, who were the brilliant minds who were behind this.
GRAFF: Yes, I mean, obviously today, 80th anniversary of the bombing of Hiroshima. And so, we immediately, when we talk about the atomic bomb, associated with Japan, and the war in the Pacific.
But all of the roots of the Manhattan Project really lie in the enveloping cloak of fascism, of Hitler's Third Reich, and the mostly Jewish refugee scientists who flee to the United States and the U.K., in 1939, 1940 and 1941, showing up on our doorstep, and saying, Guys, you need to start building an atomic bomb, because our old friend and colleague, Werner Heisenberg, is back there, in Germany, building a bomb for the Nazis, and we can't let Adolf Hitler get that bomb first.
COLLINS: I mean, the whole book is fascinating. I thought one of the most touching parts was the little boy, who witnessed Pearl Harbor, and -- he was eating his breakfast, and seeing the planes fly overhead, and just that. It's just the whole thing is fascinating.
Garrett Graff, great job. And thanks for joining tonight. As always.
GRAFF: Thanks so much for having me
COLLINS: The book is "The Devil Reached Toward the Sky." It is out now. I highly recommend it, if you can't tell.
[21:45:00]
Up next. We have new details today, and we're learning more, about what was behind that mass shooting at a Georgia Army post today. A sergeant is now accused of injuring five of his fellow soldiers. What we know about that suspect and a potential motive?
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: Tonight, investigators are still piecing together why an active-duty Army Sergeant opened fire today, on his own fellow soldiers, at one of the country's biggest army posts.
[21:50:00]
Officials say that 28-year-old Cornelius Radford is in custody, after shooting five soldiers at Fort Stewart in Georgia. All five of them are luckily in stable condition tonight.
And as we're continuing to monitor that, we're learning that the suspect allegedly got into a disagreement with one of the victims, just yesterday. That's according to a law enforcement official, who was briefed on the case, who was telling CNN, The suspect arrived this morning with a nine-millimeter handgun that he had bought, in Florida, in May. He followed the victim to a maintenance area, shot them in the chest, and then shot four others, before he was ultimately tackled and subdued, and then arrested and taken into custody. Tonight, the suspect's father is speaking out, telling The New York Times, he hadn't noticed anything unusual about his son's behavior, but that his son had been seeking a transfer, and had complained to his family about racism at Fort Stewart. The Times didn't publish any specifics.
And as we're learning more tonight, the law enforcement source that is joining me now is former FBI Assistant Director, Chris Swecker.
And it's great to have you here, sir.
Because a motive is still unclear. We're trying to learn more. But given what we just laid out there, how does that help investigators, as they're developing what this could look like?
CHRIS SWECKER, FORMER FBI ASSISTANT DIRECTOR: Yes, I mean, there's always that issue, given past history with Hasan at Fort Hood, and the shootings at Pensacola involving the airman there, and Chattanooga Training Center, those were terrorist incidents.
But this clearly is not, so we're now looking at possibly what was described earlier in the day, as a domestic violence incident. Now, it seems like maybe it's more of an argument, a beef between him and someone else. But be that as it may, he -- you know, he -- now we want to look at whether this was premeditated. Was this something that he has concocted and planned for, over the course of time, or was it something that was spontaneous?
The fact that he took a nine-millimeter into a workspace, where they probably don't allow weapons on that base, tells me that there was at least some premeditation, if you will, that he went in there, targeting a certain victim, and some people intervened, and maybe got themselves wounded in the process. So, those folks are heroes.
COLLINS: Yes, so grateful that they were able to tackle him, as reports said that he did that immediately.
I do wonder how this works, when it comes to prosecuting this suspect here, and this individual. The President said that he'd be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. But military officials have said he won't be charged and tried like a typical civilian, given who he was and where this happened. So how does that work here?
SWECKER: Yes, I mean, there's the Code of Military Justice, and that -- there's the Uniform Code of Military Justice. It's parallel civilian prosecution, if you will. I mean, there has to be something worked out between the U.S. Attorney's Office, locally, and the Military Justice -- and the JAG -- the JAG Corps there, the JAG Command.
So they have to work them out. And it seems like the way the reporting is coming out, right now, that it's in favor of the Military Justice system. So we'll see how that works out. Sometimes, that's a very clunky, drawn-out system.
COLLINS: Yes, we'll see what that looks like, obviously for him, and how that plays out.
Chris Swecker, it's great to have your expertise. Thank you so much.
SWECKER: Thank you, Kaitlan.
COLLINS: Meanwhile, at the White House, President Trump has long- touted his administration's historic ability to develop and administer COVID vaccines in his first term. What he said today then about RFK Jr.'s major cuts to vaccine research, including the very specific kind that was used for the COVID vaccine.
[21:55:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: Tonight, President Trump's own former Surgeon General is warning that RFK Jr.'s latest vaccine move is quote, Going to cost lives.
The Health Secretary announced yesterday that his department is canceling nearly $500 million worth of grants and contracts for mRNA vaccine projects, including those underway to help fight the flu and COVID.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ROBERT F. KENNEDY JR., UNITED STATES SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES: After reviewing the science and consulting top experts at NIH and FDA, HHS has determined that mRNA technology poses more risks than benefits for these respiratory viruses.
To replace the troubled mRNA programs, we're prioritizing the development of safer, broader vaccine strategies, like whole-virus vaccines and novel platforms that don't collapse when viruses mutate.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Vaccine experts, like Dr. Paul Offit, from the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, say that mRNA vaccines are remarkably safe and effective.
Tonight, we're hearing from Republican senator, Bill Cassidy, also a physician, who says, if President Trump wants to make America healthy and great again, this move by HHS is against both of those goals.
(inaudible) he served as the Surgeon General during Trump's first term, and he is slamming this decision by the Health Secretary, RFK Jr., arguing, mRNA technology has uses that go far beyond vaccines... and the vaccine they helped develop in record time is credited with saving millions. Of course, he is talking about the first Trump administration's successful effort, highly-successful effort, to create a COVID vaccine.
[22:00:00]
Trump himself once praised mRNA vaccines as a medical miracle. Tonight, asked about this, he says that his second administration is moving on.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: Operation Warp Speed was, whether you're Republican or Democrat, considered one of the most incredible things ever done in this country. The efficiency, the way it was done, the distribution, everything about it was -- has been amazing. But you know, that was now a long time ago, and we're onto other things.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: On that note, thanks so much for joining us.
"CNN NEWSNIGHT" starts now.
