Return to Transcripts main page
The Source with Kaitlan Collins
DOJ Releases New Batch Of Heavily Redacted Epstein Files; Dem Lawmaker Sues To Remove Trump's Name From Kennedy Center; U.S. Tells U.N. That Sanctions Will Deprive Maduro Of Resources. Aired 9-10p ET
Aired December 23, 2025 - 21:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[21:00:00]
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
CHEVY CHASE, AMERICAN COMEDIAN AND ACTOR: It's a nice thing to have them release through laughter.
JOHN BERMAN, CNN HOST, ANDERSON COOPER 360: When did you know that you loved making people laugh?
CHASE: Last week.
(LAUGHTER)
(END VIDEOTAPE)
BERMAN: Serves me right for asking.
"I'm Chevy Chase and You're Not" premieres New Year's Day at 08:00 p.m. right here on CNN.
The news continues. "THE SOURCE WITH KAITLAN COLLINS" starts now.
PAMELA BROWN, CNN HOST, THE SOURCE WITH KAITLAN COLLINS: Tonight. Exclusive new reporting on the scramble inside the DOJ to review more Epstein files for release over the holidays.
I'm Pamela Brown in for Kaitlan Collins. And this is THE SOURCE.
And we have breaking news, as we come on the air tonight, from inside the Department of Justice, as exclusive reporting from our own CNN's Katelyn Polantz, reveals the DOJ is scrambling, right now, to find holiday volunteers to redact and review additional Epstein files.
CNN reviewed an internal DOJ email sent to the entire Southern District of Florida U.S. Attorney's Office, coming two days before Christmas, and that email announced a, quote, "Emergency request from the [Deputy Attorney General's] office the SDFL must assist with." It says, We need Assistant U.S. attorneys to do remote document review and redactions related to the Epstein files.
That email raises the possibility of more Epstein files being released in the coming days, including Christmas and New Year's Day. And it comes, as the Justice Department's latest release of Jeffrey Epstein's files today not only references President Trump, multiple times, but also raises new questions on the government's handling of the Epstein investigations.
Among the roughly 30,000 documents released by the DOJ today is a series of internal FBI emails from the day after Epstein's July 2019 arrest.
On July 9th, an employee of the FBI's New York Field Office, the name is redacted, asks for a status update on the quote "10 co- conspirators."
Another redacted email, in response reads, quote, Of the 10 co- conspirators, three have been located in Florida and served GJ -- Grand Jury -- subpoenas, one in Boston, one in NYC and one in Connecticut were located and served. Four of the 10 are outstanding, with attempts having been made.
And a separate email from July 7th names several of those co- conspirators, but nearly all are redacted.
To date, only Epstein and his longtime accomplice, Ghislaine Maxwell, have been charged and convicted.
But the top Democrat in the Senate wants those redacted names made public.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER (D-NY): The law was written very clearly, and it did not allow all these redactions, all these blacking, blacking out of everything. It did not say it can drib -- you can dribble them out over a period of months. These guys are full of (bleep). They should simply release them all now.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BROWN: And earlier today, I spoke to a survivor of Jeffrey Epstein, Haley Robson, and she didn't hide her frustration.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
HALEY ROBSON, EPSTEIN SURVIVOR: At the end of the day, I am no longer supporting this administration. I redact any support I've ever given to him, Pam Bondi, Kash Patel. I am so disgusted with this administration. I think that Pam Bondi and Kash Patel both need to resign. And I would love to see Number 47 get impeached over this.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BROWN: Well, Donald Trump's name appears several times in this latest batch of files, like this January 2020 email. It's from an Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York who wrote that flight logs of Jeffrey Epstein's private jet feature Trump listed as a passenger on at least eight flights between 1993 and 1996, including at least four flights on which Ghislaine Maxwell was also present. And that Assistant U.S. Attorney also wrote that two of the flights included women who would be possible witnesses in a Maxwell case.
It's important to make clear though, authorities have not accused Trump of any wrongdoing or charged him with any crimes in connection with Epstein.
And while President Trump has yet to directly respond to this latest trove of released Epstein documents, the Justice Department today released a broad statement to shield the President.
The DOJ claimed, quote, "Some of these documents contain untrue and sensationalist claims made against President Trump that were submitted to the FBI right before the 2020 election. To be clear: the claims are unfounded and false, and if they had a shred of credibility, they certainly would have been weaponized against President Trump already."
[21:05:00]
Now, it is true that many of the newly-released documents contain unsubstantiated accounts submitted to the FBI, during its lengthy investigations of Epstein. CNN is not reporting the details of many of those claims because they haven't been verified.
And tonight, the top Democrat on the House Oversight Committee, Congressman Robert Garcia, is calling on the DOJ's top government watchdog, to investigate the FBI over its handling of an allegation first made to law enforcement, back in 1996.
This, nearly 30-year-old, FBI document details a criminal complaint against Jeffrey Epstein related to child pornography. And while the name of the complainant was redacted, Epstein survivor Maria Farmer's lawyer confirmed the complaint is from her.
Back in August, Kaitlan Collins spoke to Annie Farmer about her sister's complaint to the FBI, which she said went completely ignored at the time.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, CNN HOST, THE SOURCE WITH KAITLAN COLLINS: Annie, where do you -- where do you personally come down on the calls to release everything? Do you -- do you agree with that?
ANNIE FARMER, EPSTEIN SURVIVOR: Yes, I'm definitely supportive of more transparency in this case. My sister has filed this lawsuit, in order to have more information released, as to why her FBI -- her 1996 FBI report, why nothing was done, right? That's something that has been so upsetting for us, to know how many people were harmed, that didn't need to be, if there had been more follow-up at that time.
And a piece of this case that hasn't gotten a lot of attention is the fact that, when she was assaulted, there were also photos that were stolen from her. She was an artist. She was a figurative artist, and she took photos of myself and my sister, partially nude photos, to work from, as a lot of artists do. But those photos were stolen by Maxwell and Epstein. And we've never been told, even though we know that photos have been found, we've never been told, were our photos a part of that. We would like to know, of course, if that is the case. And I think that's the kind of thing, transparency might bring, it's more information for people involved.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BROWN: So, this newly-released document corroborates their story, stating, quote, "Epstein stole the photos and negatives and is believed to have sold the pictures to potential buyers. Epstein at one time requested (redacted) to take pictures of young girls at swimming pools. Epstein is now threatening (redacted) that if she tells anyone about the photos he will burn her house down."
In a statement to CNN tonight, Maria Farmer says, We now all know that the FBI ignored my 1996 reports of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell's sexual abuse of minors and possession of child sexual abuse material which I made - not for myself - but for vulnerable girls like my younger sisters and Virginia Roberts Giuffre. Since then, they have engaged in a systematic coverup to protect him and his circle of powerful abusers.
Joining us tonight is Congressman Robert Garcia. He is the top Democrat, on the House Oversight Committee, that's leading the Epstein investigation on Capitol Hill.
Congressman, thanks for coming on.
So, do you have any confidence the investigation you're calling for, into that 1996 complaint, will happen?
REP. ROBERT GARCIA (D-CA): Well, we've asked for it, and it certainly should happen.
And the one thing that's important about these departments, even at the DOJ, is our inspector generals work hard to stay independent. They work hard to launch internal investigations. And so, our ask is simple. We are asking the Department of Justice, the Inspector General, to go after and look into what happened at the FBI, back in the late 90s, when this initial complaint was put in place.
Had the FBI responded to the Farmer complaint? Had they actually opened the investigation in the late 90s? That could have prevented what we know now as hundreds and hundreds of other girls and women having to go through the trauma, exploitation, trafficking, that so many actually went through. And then the fact that the FBI waited 10 years, since that complaint was initially filed, is outrageous.
We need to know what happened back then. And we certainly need to know today why the White House continues to cover up with these redactions, the powerful men, the co-conspirators, whose names are clearly on these documents.
BROWN: So, let's talk a little bit more about this release. The Justice Department was required to release all of the Epstein files by last Friday. I have the law, right here. And it hasn't done so, right? I mean, this is a rolling basis. It still hasn't released all of the documents. It's now asking for volunteers to come in and help with the review for the release.
Is there anything that you can do about that?
GARCIA: Well, let's first start with the facts. This is a coverup. They are covering up the truth. The law was clear. It's illegal, right now, what's happening. The law did not say, You could do a rolling rollout or production. The law said, You drop all of the files on the date, you make them searchable and accessible to the public.
[21:10:00]
And so, we're taking a variety of steps forward. We have a legal avenue. We're looking at our legal options. We have possible actions against the Attorney General, that will be happening within the Congress. You heard Senator Schumer. Senator Schumer is also looking at legislation or resolution action in the U.S. Senate. And we have groups and the survivors who themselves are using the law, the courts, and public pressure, to ensure these documents come out.
And I want to highlight something. I've been talking to survivors as well today, in the last few days. What they are appalled at the most is that in these documents, the redactions are so sloppy and illegal that they are, on one hand, putting names of survivors in these documents that are not redacted. And in these same documents, they're taking extra time and being extra careful to redact the names of the co-conspirators, of the men who committed the abuse. Over-redacting documents that the survivors never wanted, and certainly they're not in line with what the law says.
So, there's a lot of work to do in the weeks ahead. And the President has the power, right now, to un-redact those documents, and to ensure that the names of the co-conspirators who helped Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell get held accountable.
BROWN: Right. And in terms of those 10 alleged co-conspirators, the law says, here it's on the second page, it says, No record shall be withheld, delayed, or redacted on the basis of embarrassment, reputational harm, or political sensitivity, including to any government official, public figure, or foreign dignitary.
The Deputy Attorney General has already said that he did not see any basis for any third-party investigations here.
So, do you think the DOJ is violating the law?
GARCIA: The DOJ is violating the law. The Deputy Attorney General, who I remind folks, was Donald Trump's former personal lawyer, is violating the law. The Attorney General is violating the law. They are not following the law that Congress passed. And certainly, they're defying the U.S. Congress and certainly the work the U.S. Senate did, to get this law through quickly as well, on their side. What's crazy right now is that it's not just a defiance of the law. It's the back and forth. It's the A.G. saying, the files were on her desk, and now they're not. It's them saying that there was no one essentially, that they needed to go after, or that there was no prosecution that was available to them. And yet, now we're getting memos and information in these documents that there are co- conspirators.
We also know, for example, when Jeffrey Epstein was first brought forward on charges, we know that the line prosecutors were recommending federal charges for not just Epstein, but for up to possibly 20 other men and co-conspirators who helped Epstein and Maxwell. Yet, at the time, Alex Acosta turned his back on that recommendation.
The question comes back, Why? Why did they not listen to the line prosecutors? Why are they redacting the names of the powerful men? Why does Donald Trump say the birthday book doesn't exist, then it exists? I didn't ride on the plane. And now we know he rode on the plane, multiple times. The lies keep piling up, and the American public, I think, have seen through it.
It's time to release all the files, and let's bring justice for these women.
BROWN: And you referenced what was released today, where an official acknowledged that Trump rode on Jeffrey Epstein's plane at least eight times, which was more than what they had known.
Congressman Robert Garcia, thank you so much for your time.
I want to bring in:
Former FBI Deputy Director, Andrew McCabe.
And former Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Tom Dupree.
Thank you both for coming on.
So, Tom, even with today's release, the DOJ is now nearly five days past Friday's deadline to release all of the files, and now the DOJ is scrambling to find holiday volunteers to do this. Did it have to be this way?
TOM DUPREE, FORMER DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL: Well, it didn't have to be this way. And look, this is not the way that the Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney General, or, frankly, anyone in the Department of Justice, envisioned spending the holidays, doing what appears to be a 24-hour-a-day, seven-day-a-week, dive through these documents to figure out what can be disclosed.
In a perfect world, yes, the Justice Department knew this deadline was coming, they would have started moving more quickly. But look, I think the fact that now at least they put out this call, saying, We need volunteers to get through these materials? Arguably, it's better late than never. They should have started sooner. I wish they had produced documents with far fewer redactions. But when this production is done, hopefully by the New Year, hopefully we'll see a lot more information that we should have seen initially.
BROWN: And Andy, those FBI emails, we were just talking about it with the Congressman, noted 10 co-conspirators were released with nearly all of them redacted those documents. When you looked over those internal memos, what stood out to you, particularly knowing what this law that the President signed requires?
ANDREW MCCABE, CNN SENIOR LAW ENFORCEMENT ANALYST, FORMER FBI DEPUTY DIRECTOR: Yes, I'll tell you, what it looks like to me, Pam, is that the government is taking the same tact that they normally take, when releasing documents through FOIA and in other means. And that is, redacting the names of personally-identifying information of people who weren't charged.
[21:15:00]
The problem here is that that kind of old way of doing business does not seem to be consistent with the way this law was written. This tranche of information was not put out because of a FOIA request. It's put out because of an act of Congress, and I think it specifically states that you can't redact names of people to avoid embarrassment, things like that.
So, yes, they are kind of bringing the old analysis of how to look at releasing very sensitive investigative files to the public, and rather than kind of adapting to what the law actually requires.
BROWN: And just to follow up with you. I mean, they're asking for volunteers. They had 30 days to do this. I mean, it is a very heavy lift, right Andy?
MCCABE: It's a massive amount of work. All right? And that's assuming they haven't -- they haven't done it, which also seems odd to me, Pam, because we know that months ago, during the first kind of consideration of whether or not the FBI and DOJ were going to spontaneously release this information themselves, they actually pushed hundreds, potentially thousands, of employees through the same process, of reviewing these materials and redacting victims' names, witnesses' names, things like that.
So, it's not clear to me why this has to be done from scratch this time. But apparently, they are still pretty far behind the ball in an enormous amount of work, and that's why you see these somewhat panicked calls going out for volunteers over the holidays.
BROWN: Tom, why do you think the names of numerous law enforcement officials are redacted from the release of these Epstein files? I mean, do you think that fuels conspiracy theories about who exactly was protecting Epstein for all those years?
DUPREE: Well, I think the reason they did it is, to Andy's point, the Justice Department is operating from their traditional manual, in which case you often do redact the names of kind of line law enforcement officials. But we're in a different world now. I think the public has demanded transparency. Congress has demanded transparency. And so, for that reason, I think the Justice Department is obligated to provide more information than it ordinarily would.
And yes, I do think it feeds transient -- excuse me. It does feed conspiracy theories. Because people see these redactions, they see things blacked out, and they kind of don't -- understand, Why it's blacked out? They say, Why aren't we allowed to see this information? Why can't we see this name?
The people don't always understand the legal explanations of the reasons, why the Justice Department is doing what it does. So, I do think the DOJ would be well-advised to err on the side of full disclosure, err on the side of full transparency, and make absolutely as much information public as they possibly can.
BROWN: If they don't, this just isn't going to go away. I mean, that's the bottom line, right?
And Andy, Congressman Garcia, you heard our conversation earlier, he's calling for an investigation into that 1996 complaint filed by Maria Farmer to the FBI. It's among the first against Jeffrey Epstein.
Is it clear to you why the FBI failed to act on it? Help us better- understand why that may have happened?
MCCABE: Yes, sure. So, it's not clear from the document that we have to look at now, which is an FD-71. It's the old version of the complaint form.
Typically, what would happen is someone would call into the office, in this case, the New York Field Office, and indicate that they wanted to talk to an agent, that they had some sort of a suspected crime to report.
A person on the phone would take down a very brief kind of recitation of facts. They'd fill out that FD-71. And then the form would get routed to the squad in the office that was responsible for investigating whatever violations are potentially alleged in the form.
You can see on the bottom lefthand corner of this form, there's a notation that has C-20. That's likely a reference to the Criminal 20 squad. That's the 20th Criminal squad in the office, was likely a violent crime squad at that time, but I can't be sure.
So that once the report, that FD-71 goes to the supervisor of that squad, the supervisor has the authority to assign that complaint to an agent to investigate, or to take no action. If there's not enough facts or enough substance there upon which to predicate an investigation, the complaint might not go any further.
So, it's impossible to know, today, exactly what decisions were made around that complaint. And it's entirely appropriate to ask the I.G. to come in now and do an investigation, try to look back at the documents, try to contact people who may have knowledge of what happened back in those days, and to piece together exactly what happened here.
BROWN: But just I'm looking at that complaint and what was said, at that time, by who the lawyer says was Maria Farmer. Was a predication, Andy, to follow up on that and investigate?
MCCABE: It's possible that there's predication to investigate a couple of different things.
[21:20:00]
Obviously, you have the most serious allegation, which is, to be fair, not entirely clear in the complaint, but an allegation that may suggest there's some sort of CSAM material or Child Sexual Abuse Material has been stolen.
If not that, there is at least the allegation of a theft of property, which may or may not reach the threshold of investigation.
And then, of course, there's the threat of burning her house down. That potentially could be investigated as an extortion, which is something that the FBI investigates all the time.
So, there's a couple of different ways this could have gone. I think it's really important to bring in some investigators, to piece this together and find out exactly what happened.
BROWN: All right. Andy. Tom. Thank you so much. Appreciate it. And Happy Holidays to you both.
MCCABE: Thank you.
BROWN: Well, up next here on THE SOURCE. The Epstein issue has split the President from some of his most loyal supporters, people like Marjorie Taylor Greene. We have her reaction to today's release, coming up.
Plus, Trump ramps up his pressure campaign on Venezuela, as the military strikes another alleged drug boat.
And Trump's name was just added to the Kennedy Center. But one lawmaker is already suing to take it down. She's my source, coming up.
[21:25:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BROWN: New reaction tonight from Congresswoman, and former Trump ally, Marjorie Taylor Greene, after the DOJ's latest Epstein files release.
The Georgia Republican posted on X, quote, "This is horrifying. Trump called me a traitor for fighting him to release the Epstein files and standing with women who were raped, jailed in stalls, and trafficked to men. Only evil people would hide this and protect those who participated. I pray for these women."
I want to bring in tonight's political sources. CNN political commentators, Karen Finney and Brad Todd.
Great to see you both.
Brad, let's start with you. A huge factor of Greene's split with Trump is how he has handled the Epstein files. And last week, she told our Kaitlan Collins that he should welcome survivors into the White House, he hasn't done that, and this process has been traumatic for them. Do you think other Republicans feel the same way Congresswoman Greene does?
BRAD TODD, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, I think everyone agrees that the process has been traumatic for the survivors and the people who are guilty need to be punished. I think that that's a universal belief.
I don't know that that's unique at all to Marjorie Taylor Greene, who's basically just getting ready for a book tour, and she's only staying in Congress through January 5th, because that's the day she becomes eligible for a pension. If she were to quit January the 3rd or the 4th, she would not be eligible. So I suspect that's her motive. I don't think she's a leading indicator here.
BROWN: She's denied that. I did ask her that, and she's denied that.
But she is speaking from the perspective of what the survivors want. And they have not felt like they have gotten what they deserve from the President, including a visit to the White House.
And I'm wondering, Karen, one of those survivors is Haley Robson. She is a former Trump supporter, an Epstein survivor, who I spoke to this morning on my show. And she called for Trump and Pam Bondi to be impeached over the handling of this probe. Is that something Democrats should pursue?
KAREN FINNEY, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, SENIOR ADVISER, 2016 CLINTON CAMPAIGN, FORMER COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR, DNC: Well, I think Democrats feel like we've got to get whatever is in the files released first. That may be at some point on the list of things around this case that, that is appropriate.
Certainly we know that, at a minimum, I mean, Pam Bondi is the one who said months ago that this was all wrapped up, it was on her desk ready to go. And we know for a fact that just is not true. And we know that, in part, because of the chaotic manner in which the files are being released, and which is re-traumatizing the survivors. So, I suspect that could be something they'll take a look at.
But again, I think the most important thing is to, A, get the files released. But B, try to make sure that the survivors are protected in this process. That has not happened to the level that it should have been, thus far.
BROWN: There have been cases, right, where there was a woman who, a Jane Doe, does not want to be named, who says she was named in the documents, has asked for her name to be removed, and it has taken multiple attempts. And then you have cases where people's names, like officials, law enforcement officials are redacted.
When it comes to the way these documents have been rolled out, Brad. The DOJ, also missed its Friday deadline to release all the documents under the law that Trump signed. Then you have this mix-up with the you know, redactions, and some are and some aren't based on the law.
I'm wondering what your view is of this, and do you think DOJ officials, like Attorney General Bondi need to answer for that?
TODD: Well, there are a million pages we're told of this evidence.
And you may remember that when this -- the law was on the floor or trying to be pulled onto the floor via a discharge petition, right? This bill was pulled onto the floor by a rogue group of members who went against the leadership to pull it onto the floor. That's not how laws normally pass. They normally go through committee and subcommittee, where they're perfected. People argue through logistical problems. This bill never got that. It never got that treatment.
It was a political bill that the Democrats wrote to achieve a political objective.
FINNEY: Well--
TODD: And had this been done the right way, and the agency, the Department of Justice, in this case, been given ample time to go through a million document -- million documents, and with the instructions and the strictures in the law, this would have been a lot less chaotic. And this is what happens when you pass laws as press releases, which is what House Democrats did here.
BROWN: Well, just to be clear, that was--
FINNEY: Now, Brad--
BROWN: --near-unanimous with Republicans having the majority in Congress.
FINNEY: Yes.
BROWN: Go ahead, Karen.
[21:30:00]
FINNEY: Well, and the only reason it got to a discharge petition was because the Trump administration, Trump himself, were failing to do what they campaigned on. And that was to make the files available, to make the information available, something that these survivors have been trying to make happen for years.
And so, let's be -- if we're going to talk about it, Brad, let's tell the facts, let's be honest, that the reason we got a discharge petition was, again, so that to make people, hold people accountable for doing what they said they were going to do. TODD: Well--
FINNEY: As you recall, the survivors themselves, very powerfully, appeared on Capitol Hill and told their stories. I mean, they walked the halls of Congress to meet with members, to ask them, to beg them to release the files. And some said to their faces that they would, and then changed their minds.
So, this was a way to hold people accountable to that. And as you mentioned, Pam, when it came to the floor, it was an almost near- unanimous vote, as it should be, by the way.
BROWN: Yes, one Republican did not vote--
TODD: Well, while we were holding people accountable, Karen, let's talk about Merrick Garland. The Democrats' Attorney General had these files for four years and did nothing with them, and didn't even prep them for a day like today, when they might have to be made public.
FINNEY: Well actually, Brad--
TODD: So, House Democrats only got excited about this, and the Democratic Party in general, when they thought it would hurt President Trump.
FINNEY: Well actually, that's not true, because during the--
BROWN: Quickly, Karen. And we have to go.
FINNEY: Sure. During the Biden administration, remember, the Ghislaine Maxwell case was ongoing, and she was actually convicted and sent to prison. And now, the files are going to be released.
TODD: In 2021.
BROWN: When she--
(CROSSTALK)
TODD: She was sent to prison in 2021. Three years ago.
BROWN: She then appealed that. But then--
TODD: Four years ago.
BROWN: --she was still appealing it, when Democrats then called for the release of these documents under President Trump.
FINNEY: Right.
BROWN: There's a lot here.
TODD: Correct.
BROWN: Karen Finney. Brad Todd. Thank you both. Appreciate it.
FINNEY: Thanks.
BROWN: Up next. One lawmaker is suing to take Trump's name off the Kennedy Center just days after it was plastered on the building. She's my source, next.
[21:35:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BROWN: Tonight, a Democratic lawmaker is suing to remove President Trump's name from the Kennedy Center, right here in Washington. It was added in big letters to the Center's exterior, last week, after a vote from the Board of Trustees.
Ohio Congresswoman Joyce Beatty is an ex-officio trustee, and she says that vote went beyond the Board's authority as given by Congress. And she's my source tonight, along with her attorney, Norm Eisen, who is bringing this case as the founder of Democracy Defenders Action.
Great to see you both.
All right, Congresswoman, so you say in this lawsuit that the vote and the addition of Trump's name to the outside of the building were, quote, "Scenes more reminiscent of authoritarian regimes than the American republic."
You may feel that way. But how did this break the law?
REP. JOYCE BEATTY (D-OH): Well, it breaks the law because it was by statute, put into the congressional statute, that only the Congress would be able to do a name change. And the building, shortly after John F. Kennedy's assassination in 1963, in 1964, it was named after him. It is the only living memorial dedicated to him.
And it is very clear that the board did not have the authority to do what they did. And so, that makes it illegal. It's quite that simple. This administration cannot, just because they want to put Donald Trump's name on a building. So what's next? The Lincoln Memorial? I mean, it's just not legal. And it's simple. We have it in the statue. It's in the congressional statutes, clearly defining how you have to go about a name change.
BROWN: Well, and we know that President Trump likes to put his name on things, right? This is just the one example of many recent examples.
BEATTY: Yes, he does (ph).
BROWN: But the law says here that no additional memorial shall be designated. And the Center's spokesperson says, quote, The memorial is not impacted at all.
So Norm, does that give the board an opening to add Trump's name to the Center as a whole?
NORM EISEN, FOUNDER, DEMOCRACY DEFENDERS ACTION, REPRESENTING REP. BEATTY IN KENNEDY CENTER CASE: Absolutely not. The statute is very clear.
And Pam, all you have to do is look at that picture, when they say the memorial is not impacted at all, and they've put Donald Trump's name in giant letters on the front of the memorial. This is the reason this kind of illegal contempt for the law, self-serving Donald Trump behavior at the expense of the rule of law, it's the reason the courts have struck down his actions, hundreds of times.
And we are confident here that this is a grossly illegal action. It's disrespectful to the memory of our slain President Kennedy, his family, but to all Americans who treasure that memory, and to the idea the congressional purpose that this is supposed to be a non-partisan arts center, a crown jewel for the country. So, for all those reasons, this is grossly illegal.
BROWN: Congresswoman, Trump and his allies, as you well know, argue that he was able to save and improve the Kennedy Center with needed upgrades and new programming. Do you believe he deserves any credit for any of that, name change aside?
BEATTY: I don't think name changing has anything to do with the things that his team, board members and staff there say they identified. But you have to also realize, he was the president before, and handpicked and appointed people to the board. So, why didn't they see any of those things four years ago?
[21:40:00]
I think he got in his mind he wanted his name on the building, and they made all of these changes. It's no different than what he did with the East Wing and the Rose Garden at the White House. Again, things that he should not have done. So, I think this is why what he is using to make the public think that it's OK.
And I'm not taking anything away from, if there were improvements, structural things that needed to happen. But that does not constitute one to then put their name on the John F. Kennedy Center. It's just that simple. It's a disgrace, and it's illegal.
BROWN: And Norm, the lawsuit named several Trump allies on the board, but also others, including the House Speaker, Mike Johnson, who has the same ex-officio status as Congresswoman Beatty. So, he's not on there. Why sue him too?
EISEN: Well, Pam, the idea here is to make sure that we have complete relief. So, we've named the President. He's appointed himself as the head of the Kennedy Center, his allies, who are on the board, the trustees he's appointed, and also the Kennedy Center itself, so that everybody who needs to be in court is there, so the judge has the power to say, Guys and gals, this is illegal.
Congress has been very plain. And you know, whenever the rule of law is assaulted, that is a serious matter for the Constitution. And all of those individuals are part of getting the relief here, of taking that name off of the memorial. It could not be more simple in the law.
BROWN: All right.
Congresswoman Joyce Beatty. Norm Eisen. Thank you both.
BEATTY: Thank you.
BROWN: Now, I want to bring in former federal prosecutor, Gene Rossi, to talk more about this.
OK. Gene, just for--
GENE ROSSI, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: Sure.
BROWN: I'm just trying to channel people watching this right now.
ROSSI: Yes.
BROWN: And they may say, Why should I care about a name change on a building in Washington? What do you say to them?
ROSSI: Well, in November of 1963, John F. Kennedy was assassinated. He is buried at Arlington National Cemetery. That is on one end of Arlington Memorial Bridge. Congress specifically put at the other end of that bridge the Kennedy Center, which is a living memorial to John F. Kennedy. So, when Donald Trump puts his name on the living memorial, he is desecrating the name of John F. Kennedy.
And what really shocks me is that Robert F. Kennedy Jr. voted to put Donald Trump's name on the living memorial of his uncle. Why does that shock me? I can't tell you how poorly it looks in the eyes of people who love John F. Kennedy.
And it's a disgrace that Donald Trump, as Mr. Rosen just -- Eisen just said, Donald Trump has violated the law by putting his name on this -- on this building.
BROWN: So you think the Board of Trustees broke the law here?
ROSSI: As Norm said, and he wrote a brilliant complaint, he clearly broke the law. It's not a close call. And not get into the weeds, if it gets to a jury, which I don't think it will, it could be decided under -- on a motion for summary judgment. It's that clear, where a judge decides, There's no dispute about the facts, I'm just going to apply the law to the undisputed facts, and they broke the law, and it should be taken down.
So, what's going to happen is, last point I want to make, any Democrat who takes the oath of office, in 2029, the first executive order should be to remove his name from the Kennedy Center, from the Institute of Peace.
Where is it going to end? Is he going to have the Trump RFK football stadium? Is he going to have the Trump Martin Luther King statue? The Trump Lincoln Memorial? Where is it going to stop? They talk about authoritarian regimes. I'm reminding the Benito Mussolini. I'm Italian. He did the same thing. Crazy people do crazy things, and this is a crazy thing for him to do. BROWN: Well, I remember my mom used to know him back in the day, and said he told her, this was decades ago, that he wanted his name--
ROSSI: Yes.
BROWN: --on every building in the world.
ROSSI: Right.
BROWN: So, he is carrying it out.
ROSSI: And including a hotel in Moscow.
BROWN: Wow.
ROSSI: That's what he really wants.
BROWN: Can I just quickly ask you about the defendants?
ROSSI: Sure.
BROWN: Because you have Pam Bondi. We were just talking about Mike Johnson. As--
ROSSI: Oh?
BROWN: Would that complicate the case, all these--
ROSSI: No.
BROWN: --people in the lawsuit?
[21:45:00]
ROSSI: No. Norm's right. You have to include as many people as possible, because what they're doing is they're trying to get an injunction against all the individuals involved. So, if you don't list Mike Johnson, John Thune, and if they're not in the lawsuit, they could try to do something outside the statute to get around what's happening in this lawsuit. So that's why you name everybody.
BROWN: All right. Gene Rossi, thank you so much. Great to see you.
ROSSI: Thank you. I wore this tie for you.
BROWN: OK. I love it. Very festive.
ROSSI: Not bad.
BROWN: All right. Coming up here on THE SOURCE. The military says it hit another alleged drug boat. The top Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee is my source, up next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BROWN: Well, the U.S. military is keeping up its deadly campaign against alleged drug boats. U.S. Southern Command released this new video, late last night, saying it targeted a quote, Low-profile vessel, in the eastern Pacific Ocean, killing one person on board.
In all, the U.S. military has destroyed at least 30 boats, resulting in 105 reported deaths. The Trump administration says the campaign, known as Operation Southern Spear, is aimed at curtailing drug trafficking.
[21:50:00]
The strikes are also part of an increased military presence, near South America, as Trump ramps up a pressure campaign on Venezuela. And in recent days, the U.S. has seized two oil tankers right off that nation's coast, and President Trump says it's pursuing a third one.
The U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, Mike Waltz, defended the actions today.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MIKE WALTZ, U.S. AMBASSADOR TO THE UNITED NATIONS: The reality of the situation is that sanctioned oil tankers operate as the primary economic lifeline for Maduro and his illegitimate regime. These sanctioned tankers also fund the narco-terrorist group, Cartel de Los Soles.
And one has to ask: why have sanctions either bilaterally, unilaterally, or backed by the international community -- if they are not enforced? Well, the United States, under President Trump is enforcing them in international waters. Otherwise, they are just empty words.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BROWN: My source tonight is Democratic congressman, Adam Smith, the Ranking Member of the Armed Services Committee.
Hi, Congressman. Nice to see you.
So, what do you make of the U.N. Ambassador there, arguing the U.S. is rightfully enforcing sanctions to deprive Maduro and drug cartels of its resources?
REP. ADAM SMITH (D-WA): Well, the important thing to remember here is the focus of the Trump administration is to do regime change in Venezuela, to drive Maduro out of power. So, that should be the conversation, is that a legitimate effort on behalf of the United States first -- that's the biggest point about this. Because there are sanctioned oil tankers and sanctioned vessels cargo -- with mal- mannered different cargo all over the world. The U.S. isn't choosing to board them.
So, the focus isn't really enforcing sanctions. It's really focused on the broader campaign that the Trump administration is driving against Venezuela, to basically do regime change, and start a war with Venezuela. And that's what we ought to be questioning and examining, is that a good policy for the U.S.?
And same thing with the drug interdictions. Blowing up a few dozen boats with cocaine on them in Latin America is not going to significantly impact the drug problem in the U.S. And again, that's not what it's about. It's about trying to drive Maduro from power.
BROWN: Why would the administration want to drive Maduro from power by going this route, in your view?
SMITH: Yes, well, in my view, it really stems from Trump's National Security Strategy, and his talk about how the U.S. should have the right to dominate the Western Hemisphere, in a sort of very 19th- century-Monroe-Doctrine way of looking at the world.
You will note that he recently, weirdly, appointed the Governor of Louisiana, of all people, to be the Special Envoy to Greenland, and that the initial announcement was, Thank you, Mr. President, I'm going to go take Greenland for the U.S.
He is challenging the sovereignty of a variety of different countries. He's threatened to annex Canada, invade Panama, to seize control of the Panama Canal.
Basically, he's blowing apart 80 years' worth of effort to try to create a rules-based international order, which admittedly has not been perfect, no system ever is perfect. But there was an idea that sovereignty would be respected, and we're going to move away from the world that led to World War I and World War II, which basically said, powerful nations are free to dominate their region as they see fit, not based on the rule of law.
Well, Trump wants to blow that up. He wants the power. He wants to control the Western Hemisphere, Maduro and also, to some degree, Petro in Colombia, President of Colombia. They don't support Trump, so they got to go. We have to get people who are going to be compliant with Trump's worldview. That's the way it looks to me.
BROWN: Have your efforts to get answers from the administration on the strikes done anything to either check, or curtail, rather, the administration?
SMITH: Well, I think one thing that has happened, the administration has decided to at least give some information to Congress, which they didn't do at the start of this.
They decided to do this, and the end of July, the first strike happened. September 2nd. Congress learned about it with the rest of the world, when the boat blew up on September 2nd.
Since then, they have done some briefings for Congress. They have not yet provided us the information they're supposed to provide us with, the execute order that was issued in August that tell -- told the Department of Defense how to carry this out. By law, they're supposed to give it to us. They haven't. So, that has improved. But the basic legality of this effort, they have not established that. Now, they draw a lot of analogies to some of the strikes that we did against al Qaeda and ISIS in Iraq and Afghanistan, Somalia, elsewhere. All of that was done pursuant to congressional authorization.
There is no congressional authorization for what they are doing, and there is no imminent threat as that -- as that term is defined. So, they are acting illegally. They're blowing up boats and killing people in Latin America without the legal authority to do so.
BROWN: Yes.
[21:55:00]
SMITH: And for all the pressure we've put on them, Republicans in Congress have refused to try and make them stop.
BROWN: And the administration is arguing that these are drug terrorists, who are enemy combatants, and they're trying to traffic drugs into the U.S., to kill people. That is what the administration has argued.
But you brought up September 2nd. Quickly, are we any closer to seeing that video of the second strike? I know you've seen it. Hegseth -- Secretary Hegseth had indicated he didn't want it to be public, even though DOJ has released other videos of the strikes. What do you know about that?
SMITH: Yes, he doesn't want it to be public because it looks bad for him. And a lot of what he and other Republicans have said about what's on that video is simply not the truth.
It is not an accurate description of what you see in that second strike, after the boat has been destroyed and capsized, and you have two survivors clinging to the overturned bow of that boat. They've described it in ways that simply are inaccurate. So, Secretary Hegseth doesn't want to release it, because it's going to show that he hasn't been honest, and he's not telling the truth.
They've released, I think, 25, 30 different videos now. Clearly, they can edit these things in such a way that there is no classified sensitive information released. They don't want to release it, because it undermines their argument.
BROWN: Congressman Adam Smith, thank you so much.
We'll be right back.
SMITH: Thank you.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:00:00]
BROWN: Quick programming note. On Friday, at 09:00 p.m., you don't want to miss a very special edition of THE SOURCE, featuring Kaitlan's exclusive behind-the-scenes look at the White House this year. Thanks for being here with us. Happy holidays.
"CNN NEWSNIGHT" starts now.
