Return to Transcripts main page

The Source with Kaitlan Collins

NYT: Trump Wants DOJ To Pay Him $230 Million For Past Investigations; Trump: I'd "Love To Meet" Dems, But Want "Country Open" First; NC Senate Passes New Map To Help GOP Gain House Seat. Aired 9-10p ET

Aired October 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: But I think that it's such an interesting dichotomy.

CRAIG RENAUD, DIRECTOR, "ARMED ONLY WITH A CAMERA," BROTHER OF JOURNALIST WHO DIED COVERING THE WAR IN UKRAINE: Yes. And that was Brent. He was -- he was such a tender person, and very, very intense, very quiet. You would not know about the experiences he's been through, because he wouldn't talk about it. He would not come home from the front lines and be braggadocious about the things that he had seen. He just was -- he just was about the work and telling people stories.

COOPER: The film is beautifully made. Thank you so much.

RENAUD: Thank you.

COOPER: Appreciate it.

JUAN ARREDONDO, JOURNALIST: Thank you.

COOPER: Again, the HBO Original documentary short "Armed Only with a Camera," debuts tonight on HBO and HBO Max.

Craig Renaud, and Juan Arredondo, thank you so much.

The news continues. "THE SOURCE WITH KAITLAN COLLINS" starts right now.

KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, CNN HOST, THE SOURCE WITH KAITLAN COLLINS: What President Trump just told me about the reported hundreds of millions of dollars he's seeking now from his own Justice Department.

I'm Kaitlan Collins. And this is THE SOURCE.

Tonight, President Trump confirms to me that he is planning to essentially, potentially pay himself a major settlement from the Department of Justice that would be paid for, presumably, by the American taxpayers.

The New York Times broke this story just before we went into the Oval Office today, reporting that Trump is seeking some $230 million in compensation from the Justice Department for previous federal investigations into him.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

COLLINS: The New York Times is reporting that your legal team is seeking $230 million from your own Justice Department now, in response to the investigations into you. Is--

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: It could be, yes.

COLLINS: Is that something you want your legal team to do?

TRUMP: I don't know what the numbers are. I don't even talk to them about it. All I know is that they would owe me a lot of money, but I don't -- I'm not looking for money. I'd give it to charity or something. I would give it to charity, any money.

But look, what they did, they rigged the election. And as you know, we had, in one case, "60 Minutes" had to pay us a lot of money, George Slopadopalis had to pay us a lot of money, and they already paid, you know, they paid me a lot of money, because what they did was wrong. And you know, when somebody does what's wrong.

Now, with the country, it's interesting, because I'm the one that makes a decision, right? And you know, that decision would have to go across my desk. And it's awfully strange to make a decision where I'm paying myself.

In other words, did you ever have one of those cases where you have to decide how much you're paying yourself in damages?

But I was damaged very greatly, and any money that I would get I would give to charity.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COLLINS: The President, of course, had these complaints filed, according to The Times, when he was out of office. But he is now in office. So the people who would decide whether or not the President gets the money that his legal team said they were seeking from the just Justice Department, are now his own appointees. And they include his former personal attorney who defended the President in one of the cases that he is referencing here.

The New York Times posted Trump's claim regarding the classified documents case. In it, the President is demanding $100 million from the Justice Department. We've yet to see the other claim, but it is reportedly worth a $130 million, and is tied to the Russia investigation.

Just to put what the President is demanding here, in perspective for you. One example from just last month is where a man who spent 38 years in prison, for a crime that he did not commit got $25 million. The layers of potential conflicts here do extend beyond the Oval Office, where the President was taking our questions on this today. The decision on whether to approve any settlement over $4 million typically is made by a pair of top Justice Department officials. One of them is the head of the Justice Department's Civil Division and -- Civil Division, and that person represented the President and his co- defendants in the classified documents case. The other is the President's former personal attorney, and now his Deputy Attorney General, Todd Blanche.

Todd Blanche was actually questioned, during his Senate confirmation hearing, about what he would do, if this issue, his former representation of the President, came into conflict with his new job.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. ADAM SCHIFF (D-CA): Let me just ask you. You have not been confirmed yet. Are you still Donald Trump's lawyer?

TODD BLANCHE, UNITED STATES DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL: I mean, yes, my attorney-client relationship with President Trump remains. Yes.

What I'm -- what I'm not acknowledging is the broad strokes you're giving it. That work, for example. There will be conflicts. And I will not violate my ethical obligations.

I will follow the rules as told to me by the experts, career prosecutors in the department.

SCHIFF: If you are given the discretion of overseeing cases in which you are his lawyer, will you recuse yourself?

BLANCHE: It depends.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COLLINS: Just a few months after that testimony, you heard from there, Attorney General Pam Bondi fired the top ethics official at the Justice Department.

[21:05:00]

And as The New York Times was reporting out this story, they spoke to an ethics professor about how this would play out, where the President and his own officials would technically be in charge of deciding whether or not he would get a settlement from the Justice Department that he is seeking. And this person told The Times, quote, "The ethical conflict is just so basic and fundamental, you don't need a law professor to explain it."

Luckily, I do have two legal sources here tonight.

CNN's Senior Legal Analyst, and former Assistant U.S. Attorney, Elie Honig.

And also, President Nixon's White House Counsel, John Dean.

And it's excellent to have both of you here. Because Elie, I just wonder, as you were reading this story and then hearing what the President had to say today, not to me, but also to another reporter, because both of us asked him about it, what you made of all of this?

ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST, FORMER ASST. U.S. ATTORNEY, SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NY: Well, Kaitlan, it's the case of Donald Trump versus Donald Trump's Justice Department. I have a hunch who's going to prevail here.

So, the question you asked him actually elicited an answer that was spot on. When he said, It's strange to make a decision when I'm paying myself. That's exactly the problem with the conflict of interest here.

Now, as you said, that's not exactly correct. He won't technically be the one to make the decision in the first instance. That would fall either to Todd Blanche, his own private criminal defense lawyer, or Mr. Woodward who represented the co-defendant, Walt Nauta, in the same case. So, there's an obvious conflict of interest there.

The other important point to understand is you don't get paid out by the Justice Department ordinarily, simply because you were not convicted. A person who sues the Justice Department has to show that there was some malice, some intentional wrongdoing, some bad intent.

And let's remember, the reason those indictments against Donald Trump went away was not because of prosecutorial misconduct or malice. It's because he won the election, and they were dismissed.

So, I don't think in the ordinary course, Donald Trump will be entitled to a penny. But of course, who is making the decision here?

COLLINS: John Dean, I mean, as someone who worked inside the White House Counsel's Office, when you hear this, what goes through your mind?

JOHN DEAN, CNN CONTRIBUTOR, PRESIDENT NIXON'S WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL: Well, there's a lot to unpack in that question you gave him and prompted the answer that you got. Most striking to me is he, in essence, said he didn't really know what was going on. He didn't know the dollar amount. Didn't know much about it.

Yet, the application for that claim requires that the claimant be acknowledged, and the fact that it's clear to everybody what's going on, and it's justified. That's a -- that's a federal form that if you don't do it honestly, you can be criminally prosecuted.

So, that's what struck me, is his lack of knowledge and surprisingly naive response.

COLLINS: I mean, but Elie, can you just -- is this actually going to happen, do you think?

Do you think the President is going to -- I mean, he was referencing settlements that he's had with private companies, as he was talking out there, with Disney, with others, that have settled with him after he's made complaints against them.

This would be something of a completely different nature, given it would be coming from the actual federal government, in this situation.

HONIG: Exactly. So, first of all, what Donald Trump's asking for here is not money from some other person or from some private corporation. It's from the United States government.

And as to the question of, will this actually happen? You know, look, if we take the Donald Trump of it all out of this? This process is fairly bureaucratic. It's straightforward. It's even boring, right? You have to file this notice of claim, and then DOJ can decide either to pay you out or to deny it, which they do the vast majority of time. And then you have to sue. But the bar to win on these lawsuits--

COLLINS: OK, but Elie--

HONIG: --is so, so high.

COLLINS: But Elie, the idea, I think, that Pam Bondi or Todd Blanche, or any of these people--

HONIG: Yes.

COLLINS: --that Trump has put in top positions are going to tell him No, here, I think would -- would defy belief--

HONIG: Yes.

COLLINS: --that this is actually going to happen.

HONIG: Well, and let me -- let me add on to that. Not only is it very, very obvious what Pam Bondi or Todd Blanche would do. Let's say Todd Blanche and Mr. Woodward do the right thing and recuse themselves. They say, OK, we have conflicts of interest. We're going to step aside.

Whoever the poor sap is at DOJ, who then inherits this decision, don't you think he's going to know that the person claiming this award is Donald Trump, the President? Don't you think he's going to know, Well, geez, my boss is Todd Blanche, my boss' boss is Pam Bondi. And so, it puts the Justice Department in an impossible bind, even if they go ahead and recuse.

COLLINS: Well, and John Dean, I mean, I've covered Trump for 10 years now. When Jeff Sessions recused himself as the Attorney General, it was something that Trump vented about. I mean, still talks about sometimes.

And so, the word, recusal, I think, for him, to hear if that does actually happen here, that also just seems like a non-starter. I mean, we don't know, obviously. We can't predict what's going to happen here. We've just been reporting it out and following this amazing story from The New York Times.

But do you really think that they're going to recuse themselves? DEAN: I would be surprised if they did. He certainly sent a very clear message, when Jeff Sessions did it, that he didn't like it, and why did they take the job if he were going to recuse themselves. So, his employees are on notice that they can't back off.

[21:10:00]

I think there are probably some ways that this can be handled, where I -- I just can't envision this Department of Justice, which even Trump recognizes, is in a terrible conflict, given this claim. I don't think these claims can stand any scrutiny whatsoever, and I don't think they're going to try to justify them and push it. So, I think this is more of a tempest in a teapot right now, and it's going to go away.

COLLINS: But John, I got to ask you, because one of the reforms put in place, after Watergate, was when they established the Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility.

There is no one listed right now as the current leader in that position, when you look at the office's website. I mean, how does this work? Or what's the point of establishing that office, if there's not actually anyone who is running it?

DEAN: I don't know what he has got in mind. He has vacated almost all the internal oversight offices, not only within the Department of Justice, but across the government. That's clearly intentional. He doesn't want oversight, intentionally. So, there's no check here.

That doesn't mean that everybody isn't watching, and these people don't have obligations as members of the bar to honor the code. So, they don't have a free rein just because there's nobody in the office.

COLLINS: John Dean. Elie Honig. Great to have your reaction on this story tonight.

Next up here joining me is the Senate -- someone who sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee, and was a top prosecutor before she was elected to Congress. Democratic senator, Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota.

And Senator, I just think -- well, I don't know. What do you think for this?

SEN. AMY KLOBUCHAR (D-MN): I think it's one more example where Donald Trump is using the Justice Department as his private playground, trying to fleece his pockets. He says he'll ultimately give it to charity. Appreciated you asking those questions today.

But in the end, this is really part of the pattern, right? He prosecutes his so-called enemies, goes after Comey, goes after Letitia James, against the advice of career prosecutors. And then he protects himself and those he considered friends, including, I got to say, weirdly, George Santos, you know, the volleyball champion and Spider- Man producer, and major fraudster, he decides to help him out, for some reason. Sometimes I think he just does stuff to get attention, this thing. But in the end, the thought that in the middle of this shutdown, when he should be engaged in negotiations and being serious, he decides, Well, I'm just going to try to get a bunch of money for myself, just to spark things up a little bit, and then I'm going to expect these lawyers that I put in place, that have done my bidding so far, and have been willing to fire career prosecutors and been willing to do my bidding in every single way, including dismissing the case against Eric Adams, well, now they're going to do it again. But this time, they're going to give me $230 million. That's exactly what's going on.

COLLINS: What would you say to someone who might look at this and say, Well, he is a former federal defendant, and he has the same rights, as anyone else, to file for damages against charges made against him. What would you say to that?

KLOBUCHAR: As your legal experts just pointed out, these are for other kinds of cases, when someone falls in front of a government building and sues. This is cases that were brought when he was a private citizen, as they pointed out, dismissed because he became President of the United States.

I don't think there's any merit to him, but he's going to just see if his puppets that he put in that Justice Department are going to perform for him. And I would agree, he doesn't think they should conflict themselves out. Perhaps they will. But he deliberately put his personal lawyers in there.

And I love the analysis of the poor sap who then ends up with it on his or her lap, because in the end, everyone that seems to have decided against Donald Trump ends up getting fired, thrown out the door, or he basically makes their life miserable.

COLLINS: If he gets this money, do you think that you, as a member of the United States Senate, will find out about it, or will know about it?

KLOBUCHAR: I would think so. Things don't seem to keep quiet. We usually find things out.

But again, this is just the pattern. Corruption is up. Chaos is up. And sadly, for the American people, costs are up.

COLLINS: Can I ask you on the government shutdown that's been playing out? One other thing that we talked to the President about today, and we saw a bunch of Senate Republicans over at the White House today, was how this has been dragging on. Nothing has really changed on either front.

And the President said today that he's not going to meet with Democrats until the government is reopened.

Are there assurances that you could get on the health care subsidies to vote, to reopen the government and then negotiate with Republicans?

KLOBUCHAR: The President needs to meet with the leaders in Congress. Leader Schumer, Leader Jeffries, asked to meet again before he flies off to yet another part of the world. He's been willing to negotiate in the Mideast. He's been willing to negotiate in Asia. But he's not willing to walk down the block and meet with the leaders of Congress.

[21:15:00]

So, I think what has changed since the beginning of this is the American people are starting to see the bills. They're starting to see their premiums go up, at the same time, their grocery costs are going up, their electricity is going up. And these premiums are going to double. November 1st is the date. It's not something that's going to happen in December or January. This is when the marketplace opens for a whole bunch of small businesses, farmers.

75 percent of the people with Affordable Care Act plans are in states that were won by Donald Trump. These are people that aren't working at big corporations. They're not working for the government. They are people that have these policies and cannot afford. In rural America, as one of my soybean farmers told me, between the mess they've made of their markets, between the money going to Argentina that would, by the way, pay for their premiums. All of that happening at once, it's the perfect storm of ugly.

That's what the American people are in the middle of, while Donald Trump refuses to negotiate and gets on his plane and flies away.

COLLINS: Well, he's going on a trip, a long-planned trip, to Asia. It's not just like a vacation.

KLOBUCHAR: Well, so he can't meet in the--

COLLINS: This trip, technically--

KLOBUCHAR: --in these next two days?

COLLINS: But I asked him that today, and I said, Would you meet with before you go to Asia? Because obviously he'll be gone for several days.

KLOBUCHAR: Good question.

COLLINS: But he basically said, I'll meet with them if they reopen the government.

We haven't seen any movement from Democrats. Should we expect the government to be reopened by Friday?

KLOBUCHAR: I don't know what he's going to do. He's not here. And clearly, the rubber stampers that, behind closed doors, say to us, We really need to do something about these premiums. We know it, we understand it. But they're waiting for his orders. And so, that's what's happening right now.

COLLINS: Those are Senate Republicans who say that to you, behind closed doors?

KLOBUCHAR: There are Senate Republicans that understand. Some people in the House have been very outward about it, like Marjorie Taylor Greene. But others have said it behind closed doors. They understand that these premiums are a problem, because especially in rural states, they're hitting in a big way. So, this should be something.

In every other shutdown, there have been negotiations, there's been compromises, there's been a way to get through it. But he just keeps piling on for people out there. So, I just don't think, no matter how many videos he puts up, making fun of people and flying planes with a king's hat on, no matter how much he does that and makes fun of it? People's bills are not funny. When they start getting those premium increases, that's not a joke.

COLLINS: Senator Amy Klobuchar, thank you for joining us here on set tonight.

KLOBUCHAR: Thanks, Kaitlan.

COLLINS: And up next here for us. The Justice Department case was not the only thing the President was talking about. What else he said about sitting down with top Democrats, as this government shutdown is stretching on for another week.

[21:20:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COLLINS: Tonight, as top Democrats are pushing to sit down with President Trump on day 21 of the government shutdown, as you just heard with Senator Klobuchar. The President told me today in the Oval Office that he's willing to meet with Senator Schumer, and Hakeem Jeffries over in the House. But he said, there is one major condition.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

COLLINS: Senator Schumer said he reached out to you about meeting on the government shutdown. Will you meet with him before you leave for Asia on Friday?

TRUMP: Well, I will actually -- I'd love to meet with them. I just want them to open up the country first. You know, the country's -- is so hot right now. And they've never voted against continuation. They've never voted again. They've never done that. They're doing this because they have Trump derangement syndrome.

But I will -- I would love to meet. I would like to meet with both of them. But I set one little caveat. I will only meet if they let the country open. They have to let the country open.

COLLINS: Just to be clear. You won't meet with them until the government's opened?

TRUMP: The government has to be open, yes. The government has to be open.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Mr. President--

TRUMP: You know -- you know how long it would take for them to do that? Just say, OK, government's open. That's it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COLLINS: Joining me tonight, Republican senator, Mike Rounds of South Dakota.

Do you agree that the President should not meet with Democrats until the government is open? Or would it be more helpful, since we are 21 days into this, for him to get in a room with Senator Chuck Schumer?

SEN. MIKE ROUNDS (R-SD): I totally agree with the President. He absolutely cannot meet with the Democrats until they quit holding the shutdown in abeyance. They have to eliminate the shutdown, and then the President is more than willing to come in and sit down and visit.

Republican leadership, both sides, are ready to sit down and to work on the issues that we all care about. But you can't do it when you're holding the government hostage, when you're holding people hostage.

Did you know that we're actually losing 43,000 jobs a month, $15 billion in GDP, while the government is shut down? If these Democrats actually cared about that, they wouldn't be doing it the way they are right now. They would end the shutdown, and they would take a very serious look at what it's going to take to pass appropriation bills, and to start talking about how we fix health care in America today.

COLLINS: Senator Klobuchar said that there are Senate Republicans that say -- that recognize something has to be done about the health care subsidies. It affects a lot of their constituents as well, who are going to see bigger premiums.

If you're going to come to an agreement with them on that, is it not helpful to talk about that, to offer them assurances, if that's their primary demand in the government shutdown?

ROUNDS: There are several items that have to be discussed. And I won't try to go into it today. We've been talking privately for a long time about it.

[21:25:00]

But number one, even if these subsidies that came in, the COVID subsidies, as we call them, or the subsidies that President Biden authorized? Even if those were put back in the way they are, with all of the corruption and all the fraud that were still included in it? And Democrats admit that there was fraud that needs to be fixed in it. But even if we left it all alone and just redid it? You could probably change the premiums that are going to go up by maybe 5 percent.

It's going to go up between 16 and 30 percent this next year, regardless of what Congress does. And part of it's because Obamacare has never worked correctly. It's always needed subsidies. And that's the reason why President -- why they -- when they put it in, in the first place, there were subsidies included in it. And secondly, they put additional subsidies in, at the time that the -- that the COVID crisis hit. And now, it's Democrats that set the time in which it would expire. They set it up for December of 25 for those credits to expire. And now they're telling us, and they're suggesting to the American people that it's our fault that their subsidies are expiring right now. They could have put it in permanently, if they would have wanted to, when they did reconciliation. They decided not to do that.

COLLINS: Yes, well, that was the same argument that Democrats were making, when Republicans wanted to extend the tax cuts, to be fair. They were saying, Well, they put this deadline in place, and now Republicans are saying, Well, if we don't extend this, it's going to be a tax hike.

But on that, there are 54,000 enrollees in the ACA marketplace in your home state.

ROUNDS: And there is 18,000 of them that are going to be dramatically impacted by this, if we don't do something.

COLLINS: So what do you say to them, if nothing's done, and their premiums do double?

ROUNDS: Even if we do the enhanced subsidies, their premiums are already going to go up, probably 18 to 24 percent.

COLLINS: But they may say, I'd rather have 18 percent than double.

ROUNDS: I don't disagree. But in order to do that, and we are more than willing to work with them, but not when the government is shut down. You can't take a hostage and then expect the other side to simply say, Oh, you're taking a hostage. You shut down government. You're costing 43,000 jobs a month. And then to say, Well, I guess you're just going to have to win this, and we're going to let you do it.

No. The answer is open government now. Let's get back to doing the business of the people. And with regard to the ACA, let's try to do something to actually fix some of the reasons why it continues to explode in price ever since it was incepted.

COLLINS: But it sounds like you would not vote for just a one-year extension of the subsidies. Is that right?

ROUNDS: I thought originally, when we had some time, we could find a way to make some modifications to the existing subsidies that are in place.

Number one, the fraud has got to go away. And Democrats tell us that they agree with us on that. We know that there's literally billions of dollars in fraud. We've already got the criminal cases going on.

Second of all, we've got to make it very clear that taxpayer dollars are not going to fund abortion services, regardless of it's in a state that it's legal in or illegal.

COLLINS: OK, so that's a red line for you. Can I ask about today. ROUNDS: Yes.

COLLINS: Because the other day, the President said, as you know, the United States is about -- is going to be bailing Argentina out, to the tune of $20 billion. The President also suggested that the United States could start importing beef from Argentina. You seem to have had issue with that.

ROUNDS: Yes.

COLLINS: You were at that lunch today at the White House today. What did you say to President Trump about that?

ROUNDS: The President heard from a number of us that are in states where cows outnumber people.

And in South Dakota, like in Montana and North Dakota and Nebraska, in places where farmers and ranchers have actually, for the first time, been able to make a profit on the livestock that they're producing. The best way, if you really want to bring down food prices, do it like you did -- because energy prices are down. But we did it because we created more American energy and got it into the market. Allow those producers to do the same thing. Make it easier for them to make a profit, allow them to be able to produce more livestock. But let's make it American livestock.

One way to do that, and then you can talk about bringing in exports or imports, if you really wanted to, mandatory Country of Origin Labeling. Let the consumer know where their livestock is coming from. The consumer will decide, they want American beef. But if we can't put a mandatory Country of Origin Labeling in place here in this country, then the consumer doesn't know where their beef is coming from.

COLLINS: The other thing the President said today, when we were in the Oval Office, and it's something that you and I have discussed a lot, is when it comes to Russia and Ukraine. He had suggested, last week, that he might be meeting with President Putin again quite soon in the next two weeks. Today, he said that he didn't want to be meeting with him if it was going to be a waste of time.

Do you believe that it is now the time to move on the Russia sanctions bill in the Senate? Do you want to see Leader Thune take action on that?

ROUNDS: I think we still want to coordinate with the President. He wants to mediate a peace. That's his goal. He wants the killing to stop. But most of us believe that Mr. Putin doesn't want to stop. Mr. Putin doesn't care about the loss of life. It's time to provide the President with the tools that he needs, so that he can negotiate this out.

Mr. Putin should know that the President has said in the past that he's going to end this one way or another, and he's warned Mr. Putin in the past that there are better ways to do this and to continue on.

[21:30:00] So number one, yes, look, when it comes to providing the opportunity to sanction those countries who are buying petroleum right now from Russia, we would do that in a heartbeat. Let's get it on. Let's get going with it. We would provide the President with those tools.

And the other piece on this, there's money right now, in Europe that's being held. $350 billion of Russian resources, assets.

COLLINS: Yes.

ROUNDS: We think it's about time that maybe those be released, and we use that to help start rebuilding Ukraine.

COLLINS: Well, and that includes China that is importing Russian oil and has not faced sanctions or tariffs yet for that -- that matter.

ROUNDS: I know that the President has a good working relationship with Xi Jinping. Let's utilize that. Let's get Xi Jinping to recognize that this could be extremely expensive for his country as well, if we don't get Mr. Putin to come around, get to the bargaining table. And let's end the bloodshed.

COLLINS: Senator Mike Rounds, as always, thank you for your time tonight.

ROUNDS: Thank you.

COLLINS: Thanks for joining us here on set.

Up next. The House Speaker, Mike Johnson, is now facing a new lawsuit for not swearing in that new House Democrat who could be the final vote when it comes to the Epstein files. What he had to say about that tonight, as we're learning new details about the scope of Jeffrey Epstein's abuse from one of his most prominent survivors. Virginia Giuffre's family is here next.

[21:35:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COLLINS: New tonight, as Arizona's Attorney General is now suing the House Speaker, Mike Johnson, because he has not yet sworn in the new House Democrat from there, Congresswoman-elect Adelita Grijalva.

In her suit, she argues that it's either to prevent the new Congresswoman from signing the final signature on the Epstein files petition, or to strengthen Speaker Johnson's hand during the shutdown negotiations, or both.

Johnson dismissed the lawsuit outright, earlier today.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. MIKE JOHNSON (R-LA): I think it's patently absurd. We run the House. She has no jurisdiction. We're following the precedent. She's looking for national publicity. Apparently, she's gotten some of it, but good luck with that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COLLINS: Congresswoman-elect Grijalva is expected to be the 218th signature on that petition over in the House. It would trigger a vote to release the Epstein files.

And the Speaker told Politico, earlier today, that if it hits 218 signatures, a vote will come to the floor.

While it remains to be seen when that will actually happen, we are learning more about Jeffrey Epstein's shocking abuse from one of his most prominent survivors. A new memoir that was just released today, from Virginia Giuffre, who died by suicide earlier this year, shares horrific details about life inside his sex trafficking ring.

In the titled book, "Nobody's Girl," it's a devastating account of what happened to her. In one chapter, Giuffre revealed how Epstein threatened her in exchange for her silence, showing her a picture of her brother, Sky, and telling her, We know where your brother goes to school. She writes that, He let that sink in for a moment, then got to the point: 'You must never tell a soul what goes on in this house.' ... 'And I own the Palm Beach police department,' he said, 'so they won't do anything about it.'

Joining me tonight are members of Virginia Giuffre's family. Her brother, Sky Roberts. And her sister-in-law, Amanda Roberts.

And I just want to thank you both for being here on a day like today. And we've spoken many times. And your sister's story is just devastating. And to read this account is heartbreaking to me. I can't imagine what it's like as her family.

And Sky, I just -- knowing that he used you to threaten her, I wonder how that felt for you to read that.

SKY ROBERTS, VIRGINIA GIUFFRE'S BROTHER: I would say that it was -- it was shocking to me. I didn't realize that that, to the -- that extent, my sister was very transparent with us as to what was going to be coming out in the book. But when you see those details and you hear her voice coming through those pages, it feels so much different. And I could really hear her in those moments.

And I mean, truthfully, I think it's -- it's disgusting. I mean, it really is, from the basic level of my own father using it against me, to Jeffrey Epstein using it against me as well, or to my sister, of threatening me, like it is a predator's playbook. And so, I think we have to continue to remind ourselves that these people were using the people around these survivors, the victims, at that time, to hold them hostage in so many ways.

COLLINS: Yes, and just to think about the fear that she must have lived in, when he makes a comment like that about not having -- not only threatening her siblings, but also saying, that he owns the police department in Palm Beach, as he put it. And extended far beyond that, Amanda, because she also talked about being taken to his infamous island, and she says that a well-known Prime Minister beat and brutally raped her. And a part that really crushed me was she writes that she was worried she would die a sex slave.

AMANDA ROBERTS, VIRGINIA GIUFFRE'S SISTER-IN-LAW: Yes, I think reading that off the page, those details, they're extremely hard to read, especially being so close. There's moments that we've had to stop and take a breath. But what I do -- I do want to say, there were moments in there that she allowed us to take that breath, and she said, Hey, stick with me here, because I promise you, it's going to get better.

[21:40:00]

And to know that she was so viciously assaulted, it's a reminder of what these survivors went through, and it really pulls on you to want to fight for them, because this wasn't this lavish thing. And we get so caught in the salacious details of naming a name. There's very real, brutal trauma there that these survivors are having to live through, every single day of their life.

COLLINS: Yes, and she writes, in regards to the -- to the unnamed Prime Minister here, how, in a weird way, she -- she always -- felt like that Jeffrey Epstein would eventually look out for her. But it was that situation, with that person, that made her realize he wouldn't. And that even when she was scared of this person that the -- Sky, that he still didn't -- that he didn't care, essentially, what happened to her.

S. ROBERTS: Yes, I mean, I think that's a good point, Kaitlan, because that was really the beginning of the end for her in so many ways.

I mean, I think in some ways, she wanted to look at Epstein as somebody, as you had noted, was looking out for her. He had promised her a lot of different things. I think that's sort of the playbook of a predator, right? It's to promise you things that you think you're going to get, but you don't get any of those.

And it's -- I think, the fact that he sent her back to him, and he brutally already had abused her. And although the second time may not have necessarily been as bad around, it's still a pretty big, I'd say, it's a pretty big statement, the fact that he didn't care for them. He didn't care about the victims at all.

And so, I think it's important not to get caught up in the salacious details, like Amanda had noted, and to really get down to kind of the basics of how these people groom these young girls at the time. It's absolutely disgusting.

COLLINS: Well, and just, you know what she -- she writes about how she kind of just witnessed, once this came to light, the denials from the people that were involved in this.

And I think obviously, Prince Andrew is one of the most infamous ones. And she wrote in it -- obviously, you know now he's relinquished his titles, he's no longer going to be known as the Duke of York. And he claimed he never met your sister. And she wrote in the book that after he cast doubt on her credibility for so long, that his team had even gone so far as to try to hire internet trolls to harass her. And she said that she felt he owed her a meaningful apology for that.

Obviously, he fiercely denies these accusations from her.

But I wonder, Amanda, if you still think that -- that she's owed that apology from him.

A. ROBERTS: Absolutely. I think he absolutely owes her that apology, especially with the information that just released, that he had given her personal information, her Social Security card, to dig up information on her. Why would you go through those lengths, if you're not guilty?

And it's just you deserve -- she deserves more than an apology, to be quite honest. And we're hoping that the things that have come to light will lead to real investigations, because again and again and again, our sister is proving to be a truth-teller.

And I hope that this moment is vindication for her. And every single survivor that has come forward and still has yet to come forward, I hope that it opens the door for them to say that, There is proof out there, and we believe you, and we see you. And those things will come to surface. The truth will come to surface.

COLLINS: Sky and Amanda, I just want to say thank you. I know that every time we have you on, to talk about this, it's never an easy conversation for either of you, and I'm very grateful that you will come on and talk about your sister, and what she survived, and her legacy, and what she fought for. So, thank you both for your time tonight.

A. ROBERTS: Thank you so much.

S. ROBERTS: Thank you.

COLLINS: It's great to have you too.

Up next here for us. We'll continue to follow that story, obviously, and the developments that come out of that.

Also, we're checking on what's happening in North Carolina today, as Republicans said that they want to give the President what he asked for, inside the Rose Garden today, when it comes to the midterms next year. A Congressman in North Carolina, who might lose his seat because of this, is going to join me, right after this.

[21:45:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: The only thing wrong with the midterms is that, statistically, when you look, a president gets elected, and for some reason, and nobody, even the great John Thune, cannot explain to me, for some reason -- even if he's a reasonably good president? And we've had success like nobody. But for some reason, you lose the midterms.

I don't know what it is. But we have to win the midterms. Otherwise, all of the things that we've done, so many of them, are going to be taken away by the radical left lunatics.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COLLINS: That was President Trump in the Rose Garden today, laying out how he views the stakes of next year's midterm elections. And as he was making those remarks, Republicans over in North Carolina were working to add another seat to project that majority in 2026.

Following in the footsteps of Texas and Missouri, North Carolina is now set to become the latest state to pass a new congressional map that could give Republicans an extra House seat, in next year's midterm elections. That would bring the total number of new Republican-friendly districts created this year to seven.

[21:50:00]

In North Carolina, that proposed map would make the First District much more Republican by adding in more conservative areas from the Third District, and in doing so, targeting the seat that is held by one of three black members of Congress from that state.

Democrat Don Davis is my source here tonight.

And it's great to have you here, and thanks for joining me.

I mean, you look at that map, you look at what Republicans in your state are working to do. Do you think that you're essentially going to be drawn out of your district?

REP. DON DAVIS (D-NC): Well, Kaitlan, I can definitely tell you this, that people are frustrated, and they're frustrated because they see this. And you wonder why people think Washington is broken. It is when you see things like this. This is about a power grab, putting power above the people.

I've been going around, talking to so many people. Their concerns are rising costs. They are concerned about raising their kids. And recently, I've spoken to farmers about tariffs. There's so many concerns. And the answer is not, Oh, we're going to redraw the district.

And I would simply say, I've been listening to the hearings. And it was shared earlier when residents have entered their comments, submitted their comments, addressing all of this, over 11,000 have responded, and just three said that they want this. Overwhelmingly, people are not asking for a new map. They're asking for dedicated represent -- representation, those who are going to go and listen and advocate for them. COLLINS: I mean, but it looks like they're going to get this new map. And, I saw today the North Carolina Senate Leader Phil Berger posted this. He included a picture of himself with President Trump, and he wrote, Across the country, Democrat-run states have spent decades ensuring that Republicans would be drawn out of Congress. This new map respects the will of the North Carolina voters who sent President Trump to the White House three times.

What's your response to him?

DAVIS: The response is simple. When you look at our numbers in North Carolina, President Trump won by 50.86 percent of the vote. Very close election. But yet, this is going to take the representation up to over 78 percent.

COLLINS: And so, if that happens, some people say, Well, there's a Democratic governor there, Josh Stein, but he doesn't have the power, because of state law, to veto this new map. So, I think one question some people might have, if they agree with you, is, how do you intend to fight this?

DAVIS: What I believe is so important right now is for people to still continue to let the voices to be heard. And it's a matter of time. We know that this will make its way to the court. But we need to continue to encourage residents to come out, submit their comments, let your voices be heard. And I believe truly that this is about the people, and it will always be about the people, and especially for all of those in eastern North Carolina.

Let me share this. I want to be clear. President Trump won North Carolina's First Congressional District. I won the district. And since the beginning of the year, we've had 46,616 who have reached out to our office, sharing concerns on the different issues, and making different requests of me. Not one of them asked for a new congressional map.

COLLINS: Congressman Don Davis, I really appreciate you joining me tonight to talk about this move by Republicans in your state today. Thank you for your time.

DAVIS: Thank you.

COLLINS: Coming up here tonight. We have a big update to a story that we brought to you, last night, about one of the President's nominees for a top ethics office. Why his plans for Thursday just got changed. That's next.

[21:55:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COLLINS: Tonight, White House officials are confirming to CNN that Paul Ingrassia's no longer the nominee to lead the Office of the Special Counsel, after his chances of getting through Senate confirmation imploded, following reports of racist text messages. Ingrassia himself acknowledged that, on X tonight, saying, unfortunately, I do not have enough Republican votes at this time.

I should note, his nomination as head of a key government watchdog agency had been on thin ice from the start, given his history of racist remarks and his ties to a Holocaust denier.

Support from key Senate Republicans, though, evaporated after, as we reported last night, Politico revealed that some of his text messages from a group chat of Republicans, where Ingrassia argued that Martin Luther King Jr. Day belongs in hell and said that he has a Nazi streak.

Last year, he even wrote, quote, "We need competent white men in positions of leadership. The founding fathers were wrong that all men are created equal. We need to reject that part of our heritage," he said.

His lawyer would not confirm to Politico, if those messages were authentic.

The White House has yet to respond on who will be nominated in his place. Of course, he was still nominated to that job, despite all of the other allegations against him, and all of his other previous remarks.

[22:00:00]

We'll keep you updated as we follow that, and that story here on CNN.

Thanks so much for joining us.

"CNN NEWSNIGHT" starts now.

ABBY PHILLIP, CNN HOST, CNN NEWSNIGHT WITH ABBY PHILLIP: Tonight, an unprecedented demand. The President wants his own DOJ, run by his own appointees, to pay him more than $200 million--