Return to Transcripts main page
The Source with Kaitlan Collins
Trump Visits Police, Military In D.C. Amid Federal Takeover; California Dems Approve New Redistricting Map To Counter Texas; Erik Menendez Denied Parole After Yearslong Fight For Release. Aired 9-10p ET
Aired August 21, 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]
ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST, ANDERSON COOPER 360: --that's it for us. The news continues. "THE SOURCE" starts now.
BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST, THE SOURCE WITH KAITLAN COLLINS: The White House is on offense tonight. The President selling his takeover of D.C. police, as the Vice President is out promoting the one big, beautiful bill, all on the eve of Congress getting some of the Epstein files.
I'm Brianna Keilar, in for Kaitlan Collins. And this is THE SOURCE.
Tonight, a moment made for TV. President Trump stepping out of the White House, to see his federal takeover of D.C. law enforcement up close. Flanked by several members of his Cabinet, the President thanked the federal agents, and the National Guard troops he deployed, here to the nation's capital, where he argued he's saving the city.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Well, I just want to thank everybody.
I've never received so many phone calls, thanking me for what we've done in Washington, D.C., from people that haven't gone to a restaurant literally in four years.
We're not playing games. We're going to make it safe. And we're going to then go on to other places. But we're going to stay here for a while. We want to make this absolutely perfect, it's our capital.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KEILAR: The President then invited law enforcement to enjoy burgers and pizza, courtesy of the White House. And if you have deja vu, that's because his VP, JD Vance also handed out burgers to National Guard troops, yesterday.
Unlike Trump, Vance was met with boos from protesters. But the message was the same: We are the party that will keep you safe.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) JD VANCE (R), U.S. VICE PRESIDENT: We hear these people outside screaming, Free D.C.
Let's free D.C. from lawlessness. Let's free Washington, D.C., from one of the highest murder rates in the entire world. Let's free Washington, D.C., so that young families can walk around and feel safe and secure. That's what we're trying to free D.C. from.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KEILAR: Crime in D.C. is actually down this year. There was a spike in 2023, which saw a 20-year high in homicides. But the city's most recent statistics show that crime has fallen sharply since then.
Violent crime fell 35 percent from 2023 to 2024, and has since fallen another 27 percent. But facts aren't stopping the administration from pushing what has traditionally been a winning issue for Republicans, and that they think will help them in the midterms next year.
And today, the Vice President hit the road in Georgia, to sell Americans on a different message, that President Trump's big, beautiful bill, which polls show is deeply unpopular, is a big, beautiful tax cut for working families.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
VANCE: We believe that you ought to keep more of your hard-earned money, and we believe that if you're busting your rear end, every single day, the government ought to make it easier for you and not harder for you, and that's why we fought for that legislation.
(CHEERING)
(APPLAUSE)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KEILAR: Of note, all of this happening the day before potential headlines on one of President Trump's least favorite stories. The Justice Department is set to start turning over the first of the Jeffrey Epstein files to Congress, tomorrow. The Chair of the House Oversight Committee says his goal is to release them quickly, but stressed they want to be careful to protect the victims.
My lead source tonight is New York Times White House correspondent, Maggie Haberman, who is also the Author of "Confidence Man: The Making of Donald Trump and the Breaking of America."
Maggie, let's start with this photo op tonight. How did this come together?
MAGGIE HABERMAN, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST, WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, THE NEW YORK TIMES, AUTHOR, "CONFIDENCE MAN": So, the President has wanted to do something like this for a while. I also think that when he sees his aides going out and doing something similar, he tends to follow, because he knows that he can get camera attention. And this is very much, Brianna, the kind of thing that you would see elected officials in, say, New York, where he grew up, where he lived, when there was high crime in the 1970s and 1980s, do this kind of thing, particularly Rudy Giuliani when he was running for mayor.
So, I'm not surprised to see this. It's just that, as you say, look, there are people who still don't feel safe in D.C., for a variety of reasons. But that does not mean that crime is where it was. Certainly doesn't mean that calling in troops is necessary.
KEILAR: Does the timing have anything to do with what is coming tomorrow, with Congress getting its hands on some of the Epstein files?
HABERMAN: I think that almost everything that the President does to try to keep is -- at least he has in the back of his mind -- and I shouldn't say, Everything, because certainly, you know, Russia and Ukraine is really not about that, even though I know that some of his critics have said it is.
But I do think that something like this, he is mindful, it is in the back of his mind, to try to keep Epstein out of the news. I think we don't quite know what this is going to look like, tomorrow. But he absolutely, and certainly a lot of his advisers, were happy that Epstein has not been front and center as an issue, for the last few weeks.
[21:05:00]
KEILAR: And how is the White House preparing for the release of those files and for the media coverage that may come from it?
HABERMAN: Well, look, I mean, it is sort of baked in for them, at this point, Brianna.
I think the big question, to my mind, is going to be, do they ever turn these files over publicly, which they clearly have the ability to do, and just have chosen not to do it, and instead have looked for judges to release grand jury testimony, that judges have said, don't contain some kind of a smoking gun.
They know what's coming, and they have their talking points. It's just that it is not a topic that any of them enjoy.
KEILAR: I also want to ask you about Vance's pitch to voters today, on Trump's big, beautiful bill, which has been a hard-sell for Republicans. Here's Trump ally, Steve Bannon, saying, They're not even trying.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
STEVE BANNON, EXECUTIVE AND FORMER WHITE HOUSE CHIEF STRATEGIST: I noticed a paucity of town halls, and I realized that there are, you know, Democrats, some of these groups, thugs, are showing up and trying to shout people down, so it's not the easiest. But I haven't seen a massive effort to sell the big, beautiful bill, and actually what it stands for.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KEILAR: Bannon then told Politico, The 2026 midterms have started, and the Republicans are letting down the president.
Does the President feel that way, do you know, Maggie?
HABERMAN: I think the President would like people to go out and sell the bill. I don't think that he feels as if that Congress -- congressional Republicans are failing him at the moment.
Traditionally, these kinds of things start after Labor Day. It is August. But yes, it is August, and these are when these members are home, and this is when you would have them trying to hold town halls. Republicans have not been holding many town halls, this year, for the reason that Bannon was talking about, is that some people are shouting at them, and it has gotten very raucous.
So, there is going to be, I think, a point where the White House is going to start pushing people to sell more aggressively. But members know that there are some problems with this bill. It's part of what -- you know, there are aspects of it that they feel very good about it. There's also aspects of it that is going to end up cutting Medicaid for millions of people.
KEILAR: Yes. Maggie, great to speak with you and get your insights. Thank you so much.
HABERMAN: You too.
KEILAR: My sources tonight:
Former Acting Vice Chief of the National Guard Bureau, Major General Randy Manner.
We have former communications director for the Democratic National Committee, Karen Finney.
And Editor at the National Review, Ramesh Ponnuru.
General, thank you so much for chatting with us about this.
Right now, you, we should note, have been critical of this mission, that we are seeing, the National Guard having been called to Washington, and activated here, and brought in from other states for. What did you think of this photo op today, with President Trump, and law enforcement, and Guard members?
MAJ. GEN. RANDY MANNER (RET.), FORMER ACTING VICE CHIEF, NATIONAL GUARD BUREAU: Like most Americans, I fully support a community-based law enforcement system combined with a great judicial system. This, at best, is a police operation, not a military operation.
Our National Guardsmen and women are not trained in this. This is something that's potentially a very dangerous situation. In contrast to law enforcement officers, which receive four to six months of training, our soldiers and airmen receive a few hours, at best. They are trained to close with and destroy the enemy. And last time I checked, that's not happening in Washington, D.C., nor should it happen in any American city.
I'm also very concerned that, putting it bluntly, readiness. Our nation's readiness is being reduced by using our soldiers and airmen, in these kinds of missions, that quite frankly, in my 35 years of service, in the National Guard, and the regular army, would not have been justified under any other president.
In addition, there's no money for this. It's something where Congress has not allocated additional funds. So the National Guard Bureau, right now, is scrambling to pull money back from the states to be able to pay the pay and allowances of these young men and women. That means that in September, the last month of the fiscal year, it's very likely that some soldiers will not be paid in the month of September. So that's something that we have to be very concerned about.
And lastly, we have to remember that these are -- these young men and women are citizen soldiers, citizen airmen. They are being pulled out of college, if they're in college. They're being pulled from their civilian jobs, many of which they actually make more money in their civilian jobs than they do in the military. So they're having a military -- they're having a cash flow issue.
And then if they have children, they're married, in some way, this reduces the ability of a missing family member, during vacation month in our country, as well as, of course, back-to-school for children, and those spouses will not be there.
KAREN FINNEY, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, FORMER DNC COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR: Yes.
MANNER: I find this appalling.
KEILAR: And again, General, Trump floated that this law enforcement crackdown would go on to other places. It's unclear what that will look like, because D.C. is sort of specific, in how he can do this. But you saw L.A. What is your concern for how civilians will start, perhaps, to view the military as this might expand?
[21:10:00]
MANNER: I hope I am wrong with my next prediction. I am 100 percent certain, the President will move troops into other cities that are basically not supportive of his policies. I hope I'm proved wrong.
The other concern, of course, is that all of these soldiers and airmen, which are, from the United States citizens' point of view, they're there to rescue them, in times of trouble, during hurricanes, during floods, forest fires. They're there to help them.
And here we have, quite frankly, almost an intimidation factor going on, with these large military vehicles, and in many cases, armed soldiers and airmen. This is going to change the tremendous support that so much of our country has for our soldiers and airmen. And I'm very concerned about the relationship between the National Guard and our citizens, as well as what impact it might have in recruiting.
KEILAR: And I've talked with some people, they are -- there is intimidation. They're feeling that right now.
And I want to be clear, Karen, D.C. has gotten better, for sure, on crime. You can feel that, it tracks with the statistics. But it still has major challenges. We should also be very clear about that. How do Democrats counter what Trump is saying without appearing to be not sensitive to issues of public safety.
FINNEY: So, I think there's a couple of things. For starters, the irony that JD Vance was out talking about the bill, the ugly bill, I will never call it their language, when it's the Trump administration that cut millions of federal dollars that go to violence interruption programs, Violence Against women -- Women's Act, other programs that do prevention, community policing.
So, they actually are making America less safe, right now, with the cuts they've made to police forces around the country. And you actually had a letter that was written by a number of police chiefs, from red cities, blue cities, to say, Please restore these funds.
So, I think we've got to talk about what public safety really is. Certainly, I'm going to say the obvious thing. We should -- Democrats should not be lectured to, about public safety, or law and order, from a convicted felon, right? Donald Trump isn't -- and by the way, as a person who lives in D.C., it's very clear, he does not care about the people of D.C. This is about -- this is all for show.
I mean, if you cared, he wouldn't have cut the budget by a billion dollars. And today, when he was talking about, Oh, we're going to -- I'm very good at grass, and we're going to make the grass -- well, what about the public schools? What about safety services, community services that you've cut?
So, if you really care about the people of D.C., and if you really care about public safety, you're doing all the wrong things that actually have efficacy, and we know work.
KEILAR: For youth crime, for instance, which--
FINNEY: Absolutely.
KEILAR: --D.C., they really need some help with--
(CROSSTALK)
KEILAR: I want to ask you, Ramesh, because, I mean, Republicans just feel so comfortable with this issue that this is a strength for them, they can lean into this. How easy is it for them to goad Democrats into this? How perilous is this for Democrats?
RAMESH PONNURU, EDITOR, NATIONAL REVIEW, COLUMNIST, THE WASHINGTON POST: Well, I think it depends on what the Democrats say. I think the argument that this is not the right solution, the sorts of arguments that General Manner has made, I think can be effective.
I think saying, or to -- There's no problem in D.C., or minimizing the problem? That, I think, is the wrong course. Because I think even if people look at the statistics and see the decline, they're going to see that the decline was from a super-high number to a high number, and that violence is unacceptably and intolerably high in the district, yet was tolerated and accepted for too long. I think people are going to prefer the wrong solution to the real problem, to people saying that there is no problem.
I also think the message that, It's a distraction from Jeffrey Epstein, is not going to work. I think that Republicans being tough on crime, being performatively and visibly tough on crime? That's something they will do every day of the week, whether or not Jeffrey Epstein is threatening to lurk in the news.
FINNEY: Although one of the talking points I heard from a Trump surrogate, just last night, was that they took 28 child predators off the street.
I said, You know how you can get a whole bunch more? Release the Epstein files, because there's a whole bunch of child predators who are -- been running around for years without any accountability.
So, I think they're going to have to watch their talking points while they're at it.
KEILAR: Touche, Karen.
So the split-screen, Ramesh.
Today, you had Trump out, and he is sort of, you know, he's promoting this takeover, flanked by service members and law enforcement.
Then you have JD Vance. He's in Georgia. He's promoting the big bill.
But I wonder, as you look at Vance promoting this, how good of a messenger is he on this issue?
PONNURU: Well, I thought that Vance's comments about freeing and liberating D.C. from crime, from fear, I think that was actually a pretty strong message from him.
[21:15:00]
I don't know whether the message on the one big, beautiful bill, or whatever they call that in law, is going to be as helpful. And not really, not even so much that I think it's a terrible bill. I wasn't a huge fan of it. But if you think about the major victory of that bill? It was just taking a tax cut that already existed and extending it. It's hard to say to people, Our big accomplishment is just leaving things the way they were.
KEILAR: And Vance was actually in Fayette County, Georgia. I hope I'm saying that correctly. Republicans have seen a serious slide of support there, in the Trump area -- era, actually a 28-point swing toward Democrats, which I think would raise a lot of eyebrows for people.
What do you think about that, and him going there?
FINNEY: Well, I think a couple of -- I mean, clearly they're trying to see if they can swing that back the other direction. But it's part of why we've had all of this performative activity, from the White House, over the last several weeks. It's not just about the Epstein files.
It's about the fact that for several months now, we've had poll after poll, showing Trump's numbers sliding, approval rating sliding, handling of the economy, handling of foreign policy, handling of inflation. And by the way, with all of these things he's doing, inflation is still a problem for people, and they know it. And the bill that they passed is so vastly unpopular.
So, JD Vance may be a good messenger, but I don't think people are buying it. So clearly -- and I think, look, it's part of why we had this redistricting, racial gerrymandering in Texas, because Trump understood he can't win by -- if he plays by -- plays fair. So, he's trying to cheat in order to guarantee control of Congress.
PONNURU: I so agree that inflation is a potential problem for this administration. We just had an administration, which minimized that problem--
FINNEY: Yes.
PONNURU: --which told people, Whatever you think you're concerned about, you shouldn't be. And it did not work. You cannot tell people that the problems they're having with bills don't exist.
KEILAR: All right. Epstein files starting to go to Congress tomorrow, from DOJ. James Comer, the Chairman of House Oversight, says his goal is to publicly release as quickly as we can. He stressed, they want to be careful not to harm victims.
There's going to be stuff that is redacted, as there should be, because there are victims. They were children when this occurred.
This is a politically vulnerable issue. What are you expecting?
PONNURU: Listen, I think that there is a group of Republicans, who spent the last four to five years, drilling people with the idea that there's going to be all kinds of revelations, all kinds of powerful people are going to be toppled. That is a demand that cannot be satisfied.
Whatever comes out will be less sensational than what people were promised, and there will be a group of people saying, What are you hiding? They created that problem.
FINNEY: Yes, it will be up to the survivors also, to kind of set the tone for how this goes. Because, as they've said on -- over and over, every time they have to talk about this, they have to relive it. And they want justice, and they're calling for the files to be released. So, I think they're actually going to be a very important part of this.
The President can control them. Congress can't control them. So, it'll be interesting to see what they do.
KEILAR: Yes, and some victim lawyers. We've spoken with someone, a very important lawyer of some victims who has not been contacted. So, we'll see how that goes with the committee.
Thank you all so much. Really appreciate your insights tonight.
And up next. A major victory for President Trump, why he won't have to pay millions of dollars, millions and millions of dollars in fines.
[21:20:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEILAR: Tonight, President Trump is taking a victory lap, after a New York appeals court threw out a roughly half billion-dollar fine that he owed in a civil fraud case brought by the State's Attorney General.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: I had a victory today. You know? They stole $550 million from me with a fake case.
This was a terrible thing they've done. It was a witch-hunt.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KEILAR: While Trump and his adult sons are calling this a, quote, "Total victory," the President is still liable for fraud.
In a divided opinion here, the majority of judges upheld a lower court's finding that Trump and his eldest sons inflated the value of their properties, to mislead lenders and insurers, but they found the penalty to be excessive. One judge writing, quote, "While harm certainly occurred, it was not the cataclysmic harm that can justify a nearly half billion-dollar award to the State."
Now, New York Attorney General, Letitia James, who is a target of the President's retribution campaign, says she plans to appeal the ruling.
Joining me now is my legal source. Former federal prosecutor, Elliot Williams.
Elliot, how surprising was this decision?
ELLIOT WILLIAMS, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR, CNN LEGAL ANALYST, FORMER DEPUTY ASST. ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS: I think surprising was the fact that it was 323 pages long. It was a lot of different opinions here. I think there were enough, let's say, infirmities, in the judge's decision before, or at least open questions, as to the wisdom of a $500 million penalty, and just how it was tabulated that I think, you know, the appeals court was going to break it up somehow. It just wasn't clear how they were going to do it.
KEILAR: So Trump, as I mentioned, has Attorney General James in his sights.
WILLIAMS: Yes.
KEILAR: DOJ has opened these investigations on her, in part on her civil cases against Trump.
But four of the five judges, in this decision, agreed that James had the right to bring civil action against Trump. That's really important here. Noting in today's opinion, We agree with Supreme Court that the Attorney General acted well within her lawful power in bringing this action, and that she vindicated a public interest in doing so.
WILLIAMS: Yes.
KEILAR: How much does that work in her favor when it comes to at least this particular issue, she's being investigated for?
[21:25:00]
WILLIAMS: It does. And in fact, they note, a number of the judges note, even the judges that are favorable to her, note, concern about her political rhetoric on the campaign trail, saying, Look, she behaved in a certain manner on the campaign trail. However, we can separate those things. We've already addressed the question of her being too partisan. And just looking at the substance here, yes, she had the right, under New York state law, to bring this case in the first place.
So yes, there was a basis for the case, and a clear majority of them.
Now, I want to be clear, Brianna, the judges were all over the place. They wrote, like I said, 323 pages.
KEILAR: That's right.
WILLIAMS: Multiple different opinions. Some saying there should have been a new trial. Some saying, No new trial, but just throw the whole set -- thing out. And they just weren't in agreement, beyond the fact that they agreed that there was fraud committed somewhere.
KEILAR: Yes, the appeal will be very interesting here.
WILLIAMS: Yes.
KEILAR: I want to ask you about Alina Habba, who actually was on Trump's legal team. In this case, she is in the midst of a legal fight herself. A judge ruling today that Habba isn't legally serving as acting U.S. Attorney for New Jersey. How did this case, questioning her authority, even begin?
WILLIAMS: Right. So, the law sets rules on how people can be appointed to their positions. Normally, you know this well, somebody gets appointed, the Senate takes them up, and votes them up or down, and then they serve in the role.
Now, sometimes presidents, and this has happened here, install people on an acting basis. They can only have that role for a short period of time. Now, the Trump administration has put her in, sort of circumventing those limitations on how long someone can serve in the role, and the -- and the courts have said that that just doesn't work.
Now, fine, this is a legal question, but I think it hurts the work of the office, Brianna, in that, every single person that this office prosecutes now has a reason to say, My prosecution is not valid because the person in charge of this office doesn't even hold the role properly.
KEILAR: So, they can come back, if a decision is made, or they're investigated, and actually use that as a basis for a challenge?
WILLIAMS: Oh--
KEILAR: How successful can they be with that?
WILLIAMS: It's already -- it's already happened.
And just by way of example, it's not the same type of scenario. But if you remember, Jack Smith, the special prosecutor who was going after Donald Trump, last year, faced criticism in Florida.
There were suits against him, in Florida, over his appointment being improper. And if his -- if his appointment wasn't proper, then none of his work was proper, and a court found that. The same thing could happen here, and it's starting to happen here, where defendants are beginning to say that the work of the office is tainted.
Like, the President could avoid all of this by appointing someone to be U.S. Attorney in New Jersey, my home state, my beautiful home state, but appoint someone properly, get the Senate to confirm them, and avoid this political and sort of logistical cloud that's hanging over the office.
KEILAR: Elliot Williams, always making us smarter. Thank you so much.
WILLIAMS: Thanks.
KEILAR: And up next. President Trump appears to suggest that Ukraine go on offense, as Russia launches its largest missile and drone attack in more than a month.
My source tonight, Trump's former National Security Adviser, Ambassador John Bolton.
[21:30:00] (COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEILAR: Tonight, President Trump appears to be urging Ukraine to go on the offensive and strike inside of Russia, as efforts to broker a peace deal or even a meeting, between the country's leaders, appears at an impasse.
The President posting on Truth Social, It is very hard, if not impossible, to win a war without attacking an invaders country. It's like a great team in sports that has a fantastic defense, but is not allowed to play offense. There is no chance of winning.
Now, this comes as Russia hit Ukraine with the largest drone and missile attack in more than a month.
My source tonight is Trump's former National Security Adviser, Ambassador John Bolton.
Ambassador, the President clear today on who started this war, but he does often switch back and forth on that. He ended this post with, Interesting times ahead. I wonder if that's foreboding, you think? How are you reading this comment?
AMB. JOHN BOLTON, FORMER TRUMP NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER, FORMER U.S. AMBASSADOR TO THE UNITED NATIONS: Well, I think that's a statement of his position as of this afternoon, and this evening. We'll see what happens next. But I'm delighted with the substance of what the President said there.
There's no question but that for the time before he took office, the Biden administration tried to limit both weapons systems and supplies to Ukraine, and limit their strategy to hit targets inside Russia, which is to say, Oh, it's bad if Russia invades Ukraine, but somehow it's worse if Ukraine defends itself by striking Russian targets behind the front lines inside Ukraine.
Now, the corollary to the President's tweet today is, if it's critical for a country defending its freedom and independence and territorial integrity, to strike in the country of the invader, that we'll provide weapons systems more quickly and in greater quantity. So, I hope that's on the Pentagon's list of things-to-do as well.
KEILAR: Extraordinary shuttle diplomacy, this past week. In Alaska, with Putin. At the White House, with Zelenskyy and European leaders. And yet, Trump doesn't have really anything to show for it now.
Do you get the sense that Trump is starting to feel like Putin is taking him for a ride?
[21:35:00]
BOLTON: Well, this has happened before, after six months in office and there -- with no progress toward a ceasefire, or any kind of substantive resolution of the Russian invasion, I think Trump did think that Putin had pierced the envelope of what he considered the limits of their friendship to be, and he threatened sanctions and took a number of steps that quite likely convinced Putin that he was in enough trouble, he had to try and meet with Trump, and roll him back in, which I think he did in Alaska.
But frankly, the confusion over the past two and a half weeks, in substantial part, is due to the administration itself not being able to say consistently what has been discussed, and what has been decided, whether it's on the issue of land swaps, or security guarantees, and that -- that confusion continues to this day, and I think that's a contributing factor.
Of course, the Russians want to slow-roll this. They're hoping the whole thing will go away as they successfully slow-rolled Trump's efforts during the first six months.
KEILAR: Trump shared this photo from his Friday meeting with Putin, next to a picture taken in 1959 of then-Vice President Richard Nixon seeming to confront Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev. What do you think about that comparison?
BOLTON: Well, it's certainly unusual for any sitting President to compare himself to Richard Nixon. But I think it reflects the White House's concern that Trump didn't stand up to Putin in Alaska. So, by borrowing the comparison to Nixon, in the famous Kitchen Debate, in Moscow, in the Eisenhower administration, he's trying to have toughness by association with Nixon. And I wish it were true. Maybe it is, and let's see more of it.
KEILAR: In today's attack, Russian missiles also struck an American- owned manufacturing company in Ukraine. This is actually, this is an Austin-based company that does business all over the world. This is its Ukrainian part. So very telling, that is what Zelenskyy said about this. He said there were several missiles that were used in this case.
Do you think it's very telling? How are you looking at this strike?
BOLTON: Well, it's hard to believe this one's an accident, along with the hundreds of other accidents of Russian missiles and bombs hitting civilian targets in Ukraine. So, it'll be interesting to hear what they have to say about it.
There's a related consequence of this. The administration sold the investment in uranium -- in mines, in Ukraine, as a way of economically providing a security guarantee against further Russian action, saying, The more American investment there is, the less likely the Russians will take further military action.
Have to say, after this, I don't see a long line of American firms rushing to do business in Ukraine, if we continue our present policy.
KEILAR: Yes, very interesting point there.
Ambassador John Bolton, thank you so much.
BOLTON: Thanks for having me.
KEILAR: Up next. Right now, Texas state leaders are voting to redraw districts to gain more Republican seats in Congress. I'll speak to a California Democrat, who is hoping that his state will cancel them out, next.
[21:40:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEILAR: Tonight, an unprecedented redistricting war is solidifying before our very eyes, between Texas and California, at this hour.
You're looking at live pictures from the Texas State Senate floor, where the Republican-dominated chamber is on the brink of approving a Trump-backed redistricting map that is all but certain to go into effect. Texas Governor Greg Abbott's signature will finalize a map that could create five more Republican seats, in the House of Representatives.
And it all comes, as California Democrats approved Governor Newsom's redistricting plan, tonight, in a direct response to Texas, clearing the way for a special election in November to replace the state's existing congressional map with a new one of their own. Now, if California voters approve, Democrats hope the five new left-leaning districts will wipe out any gains from Texas for Republicans.
Governor Newsom saying this a short time ago, about President Trump's redistricting demands.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GOV. GAVIN NEWSOM (D-CA): He is failing. He recognized that, and that's why he made a phone call to Greg Abbott, asking for five seats. Can't win by playing by traditional sets of rules. He plays by no rules. I remind you all the time, it's not the rule of law, it's the rule of Don, and we're standing up to that, we're responding to that. They fired the first shot, Texas. We wouldn't be here had Texas not done what they just did, Donald Trump didn't do what he just did.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KEILAR: My source tonight is Democratic congressman Pete Aguilar of California.
Sir, thank you so much for being with us.
And I certainly understand what California is doing is a reaction to Republican redistricting in Texas. We anticipate it in other places.
But I do want to read from your state's constitution. Article XXI Section 2, line (e), quote, "Districts shall not be drawn for the purpose of favoring or discriminating against an incumbent, political candidate, or political party."
So, how does what California is doing not violate a principle that was so important it was enshrined in the state constitution?
[21:45:00] REP. PETE AGUILAR (D-CA): Well, the state constitution also has California's gold-standard independent redistricting committee, which is something we lift up, and we appreciate. We think that should be the rule, for every 50 states.
So, the fundamental question is, what will we do, now that Texas takes five seats at the request of Donald Trump? And so, it seems to us that the reasonable solution is to put this before the voters. And so that's what this does, Brianna. And ultimately, the voters will have the ability to pass a constitutional amendment that allows us maps that match what Donald Trump has asked Greg Abbott.
Different than Texas, though, California is actually going to put this to the voters. In Texas, they're going to pass this, in the dark of night, and then it just goes into effect.
California is going to say, We honor the Voting Rights Act. We want to build on the work that the Commission has done. We want the Commission to come back in 2031, because we appreciate their work. But in this moment, at this time, we have to push back against Donald Trump and--
KEILAR: So--
AGUILAR: --and House Republicans.
KEILAR: So, you want to put it before voters. A recent political poll found nearly two-thirds of California voters favored keeping the Independent Redistricting Commission, even after hearing it was over concerns that other Republican states were changing their maps. How do you get voters on board? Because that is quite a way to go.
AGUILAR: Well, multiple polls have shown that this measure is actually above 50 percent. The question in that poll was, Do you like the Independent Redistricting Commission? I like the Independent Redistricting Commission. That's not the question that voters in California will vote on.
The question before the voters is Donald Trump and House Republicans are trying to rig this map, not just in Texas, but in Ohio, in Indiana, in Missouri, in Florida. They are trying to rig this map, so they can avoid accountability for gutting health care and disappearing people off the streets. That's what this will be about.
And I'm confident, once we tell the voters of California, exactly what we're doing, and that this Commission will come back in 2031, that they will be supportive of these efforts.
KEILAR: Politically, that's what the message is going to be. But actually, the language in this, the new congressional maps will no longer include language that says it's going to be triggered by redistricting in Texas or other states that favors Republicans. This was initially a selling point the Democrats had, that it was triggered as a reaction. Is that a bait and switch?
AGUILAR: No, this is a moot (ph) deal, because we actually know that Texas is passing this map today. But it's my understanding that our state legislative leaders, and I want to give them some support as well, because they passed this today, and the Governor signed it.
KEILAR: But can I ask you. There could be a legal challenge--
AGUILAR: The split-screen of Texas -- but -- but--
KEILAR: There actually are legal challenges.
AGUILAR: There was a legal -- there was a legal challenge. The California Republican Party lost to the California Supreme Court, earlier today, for a challenge that they made, last night.
KEILAR: No, no, I'm saying, in Texas.
AGUILAR: Yes, but I'm just saying--
KEILAR: In Texas, LULAC is challenging. So, for instance, if it's not triggered by Texas in the--
AGUILAR: We've been in--
KEILAR: --in the rare instance that you actually have something that could derail the Texas process, California's is now a standalone.
AGUILAR: California, and our state legislative leaders, will pass a bill, by next week, that includes this language, that includes the trigger language that says, This will not take effect unless it happens in other states. But we know, Brianna, we know this is going to happen even if--
KEILAR: KCRA is reporting that that's being pulled out of the--
AGUILAR: --litigation stops Texas, we know that -- we know that--
KEILAR: --that that is being in a separate bill stripped from this.
AGUILAR: --we know that Missouri -- we know Missouri -- we know Missouri and Indiana and Florida are all -- and Ohio -- are all taking these actions. So, we know that this is happening. Donald Trump, just like he called Brad Raffensperger and said, Find me a 11,780 votes, asked these governors--
KEILAR: Yes, but sir, sir, KCRA is reporting that that trigger language is being stripped out of this.
AGUILAR: --to find him votes. Indiana legislature was asked to go to the White House.
KEILAR: Is that incorrect?
AGUILAR: That trigger -- that trigger language will be in an accompanying bill that will be passed and signed into law by the Governor, by next week. So, the language was, according to state legislative leaders, language was removed. But that language will reappear in a trigger mechanism, next week, signed by -- signed by the Governor. But look, let's not forget what this is about. This is about Ohio and Indiana, not just Texas. Ohio, Indiana, Missouri, Florida, all trying to rig elections. If they were so happy with the policies of Donald Trump, they would have used their August recess to sell the public on it.
The first thing they do is to change the maps, so they can try to engineer a political advantage for next year. That's all that's at stake here. That's what Republicans do, and that's what House Republicans are doing in this case.
[21:50:00]
KEILAR: I hear your argument. But I do want to ask you, as right now on your congressional website, it states that you support the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, which would end partisan gerrymandering.
It's clear Democrats, because of what's happening, are prepared to jettison some of these principles. But where do you stop? Which principles--
AGUILAR: Not true. Not true, Brianna.
KEILAR: Which principles are you not--
AGUILAR: No, not true.
KEILAR: --going to jettison, like, where is the line?
AGUILAR: I'm going to -- I'm going to support everything that was in H.R.1, which included independent redistricting in all 50 states.
But the question before us, right now, in this Trump era is, why should California, and New York, and other states, who have independent commissions do the right thing, just for the sake of doing the right thing, when no one else is playing by this set of rules?
KEILAR: No, I'm clear on that. So, I'm asking you--
AGUILAR: That's what's fundamental. That's fundamentally what's at stake.
KEILAR: --where do you not jettison a principle, just because someone else is?
AGUILAR: Look, I understand -- I understand what you're saying. And what I'm saying is, in this moment, at this time, we have to act differently.
We have to be able to be uncomfortable with what we're doing, because the country demands it, because health care is at stake, because women's reproductive freedom is at stake, because people are disappearing off the streets, under Donald Trump's regime, because of all these things, supplemental nutrition evaporating and leaving. Those are the things that are at stake. And we have to be prepared to ensure that Republicans don't try to engineer an advantage, for political gain, just to avoid accountability. Donald Trump does not want a House Democrat -- the House Democrats in control, because he knows that means accountability will be coming. That's what this is about. And everybody, all his henchmen and governors, doing his bidding, is only hurting our cause.
But I stand true to my values of independent redistricting and fairness, it just has to be a nationwide standard.
KEILAR: All eyes on California now.
Congressman Pete Aguilar, we really appreciate you being with us tonight. Thank you so much.
AGUILAR: Thanks, Brianna.
KEILAR: Moments ago, a parole board just decided if Erik Menendez should be released from prison.
My source, award-winning L.A. Times journalist, James Queally, who was in the courtroom all day.
[21:55:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEILAR: Breaking tonight. A California parole board has denied parole for Erik Menendez, who was convicted alongside his older brother, Lyle, for the 1989 murder of their parents.
My source tonight is James Queally, an award-winning L.A. Times journalist, and the only reporter given access to today's parole hearing.
James, what more can you tell us about the Board's decision here?
JAMES QUEALLY, STAFF WRITER, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, SOLE REPORTER IN ERIK MENENDEZ'S PAROLE HEARING: It was an emotional hearing. This was a 10-hour hearing, which is very unorthodox for a parole board hearing. 18 of Erik's relatives, supporters, a priest, and mentor, all spoke on his behalf.
But ultimately, the Board decided a number of rules violations that he committed in prison, namely, having cell phones. There was a situation in which he helped a prison gang with a tax fraud scheme. He was involved in at least two instances of violence. They decided those behaviors were ultimately a sign that he was still a danger to the public. Not that it was -- they pretty much weighed those, almost more than the actual facts of the initial crime, as a reason not to release him.
KEILAR: That is really interesting. And in the initial crime, talk to us a little bit about -- you know, long these brothers have held that it was self-defense, and that is why they shot their parents. But that came up too, right, whether he still believes it was self-defense? QUEALLY: They revisited the idea that both Erik and Lyle have accused their father of sexual abuse. Erik has said even that night, it came up today, that he was afraid that his father might assault him that evening.
The parole board is not necessarily taking a position as to whether or not the sex abuse happened, but their position is that they weren't actually in imminent danger, that their father and mother were not going to kill them that night. The Commission has brought up the idea they could have gone to the police, they could have gone to other family members who might have taken them in, taking them in for shelters.
Ultimately, again, the Board just decided that this is -- there was not an imminent threat to their lives, that that self-defense factor wasn't enough for the, again, to be a factor in their release today.
KEILAR: So, tell us what else you heard in these proceedings from Erik Menendez? And how much did you hear from him over the course of 10 hours?
QUEALLY: Erik spoke a lot. I mean, the thrust of these parole hearings is usually the Commissioner interviewing the applicant.
Erik gave a closing statement, where he expressed extreme remorse for the killings. He acknowledged, you know -- yesterday was actually the 36th anniversary of the murders. And he pointed out that everybody's speaking in support of him today. This would have been the day they found out that Jose and Kitty were murdered in 1989, this was basically their trauma anniversary.
So, he spoke in detail about how he can -- there's nothing he can ever do to ultimately make up for the fact that he's put generational trauma on his family, that he's got cousins that are younger than him, that have lived their whole lives with the Menendez name in the news, and always in it, forever connected to this horrible crime. He spoke at length about that. He spoke at length about wanting to get out to further a lot of the prison programs and rehabilitation programs that he started inside.
A number of his relatives, gave very tearful statements. Several of them are sick. At least one of his relatives has stage four cancer, and was pleading with the Board that if they weren't released today, you know, several of these people that want to see their loved one out and hug them may die before they get the chance now, with this denial.
So, a lot of -- lot of heartrending testimony. But, as the Commission kind of made a point of, in their result, they have to go with the state of the law over emotion, at least in their view.
KEILAR: Yes, really interesting that they took so much of his behavior in prison into context, because it makes you wonder what today is going to mean for tomorrow with Lyle. But perhaps if that's the case, these are really going to be standalone.
[22:00:00] James Queally, thank you so much. You were the only one there, over the course of these 10 hours, and we really, really appreciate you sharing all of the details with us.
QUEALLY: Good to be here.
KEILAR: And thank you so much for joining us tonight.
"CNN NEWSNIGHT WITH ABBY PHILLIP" starts right now.
