Return to Transcripts main page
The Source with Kaitlan Collins
Massive U.S. Military Buildup Looms Over Iran Talks; Trump Admin Halts Medicaid Payments To MN Over Fraud Claims; Rep. Gonzales Defiant Amid Affair Allegations: "Not Going To Resign." Aired 9-10p ET
Aired February 25, 2026 - 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: --before we go. You can listen to my podcast on grief, "All There Is," wherever you get your podcast, or on YouTube, also at CNN.com/AllThereIs. It's our grief community page. Tomorrow night, you can also join me there for my all-new streaming show, "All There Is Live." We talk to podcast listeners about their grief experiences. That's at CNN.com/AllThereIs.
Thanks for watching.
"THE SOURCE WITH KAITLAN COLLINS" starts now.
KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, CNN HOST, THE SOURCE WITH KAITLAN COLLINS: We have new reporting tonight on the thinking inside the Pentagon when it comes to Iran, as we questioned the Vice President today about what the threshold could be for military action.
I'm Kaitlan Collins. And this is THE SOURCE.
Tonight, with an additional 30,000 to 40,000 troops, multiple carrier groups, and fighter jets, all ready for a potential strike on Iran, and as two of the President's most trusted aides are headed to Geneva for diplomatic talks, the reasons why you're seeing everything that you see here and potential for an attack on Iran may have not been thoroughly explained to the American people yet.
With that in mind, we have new CNN reporting tonight on the options that President Trump is considering, and what his top General at the Pentagon is saying behind closed doors.
The President insisted the other day that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, that's General Dan Caine that you saw at the State of the Union last night, that he is telling him, the War with Iran... will be something easily won.
But CNN is reporting that in Pentagon meetings, General Caine has actually been vocal about the potential downsides of launching a major military operation that targets Iran.
The President has asked General Caine to develop a wide range of military plans. We are now told, based on our reporting, that includes everything, from strikes on Iranian ballistic missiles and nuclear facilities, to also taking out Iran's top leadership as a way to try to force regime change there.
Now, the President has stopped short of providing a detailed explanation of exactly his objectives. He might still be deciding what they are. He only spent a couple of minutes on Iran, last night, during what eventually became the longest State of the Union address in history.
But earlier today, at the White House, I asked the Vice President, JD Vance, about why military action in Iran could be necessary or justified, given the President argued that the United States destroyed its nuclear program, after those major strikes last summer.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Can you explain to the American people why the United States would need to strike Iran, to stop them from getting a nuclear weapon, if the United States obliterated their enrichment program last summer.
JD VANCE (R), U.S. VICE PRESIDENT: Well, I'm not going to make any news on Iran today, Kaitlan. I'll let the President make those announcements. As you know, he is sending two of his best negotiators to Geneva, tomorrow, in order to continue to try to strike the best deal possible for the American people.
But the principle is very simple. Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon. If they try to rebuild the nuclear weapon, that causes problems for us. And in fact, we've seen evidence that they have tried to do exactly that. So, the President sending those negotiators to try to address that problem, as the President has said repeatedly, he wants to address that problem diplomatically. But of course, the President has other options as well.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: And with regards to the meetings that he's talking about there, the Iranian Foreign Minister just arrived in Geneva, this evening, where he's about to engage in a new round of talks that include top U.S. aides, Jared Kushner, Steve Witkoff.
And that comes, as the Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, said tonight that this may be about more than just nuclear weapons.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MARCO RUBIO, SECRETARY OF STATE: After their nuclear program was obliterated, they were told not to try to restart it, and here they are. You can see them always trying to rebuild elements of it. They're not enriching right now, but they're trying to get to the point where they ultimately can.
The other thing I would point you to, however, is that Iran possesses a very large number of ballistic missiles, particularly short-range ballistic missiles that threaten the United States and our bases in the region and our partners in the region. (END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: There are about three dozen nations in the world that possess some form of ballistic missiles. Almost half are in Asia or in the Middle East, putting United States' bases potentially within range.
My lead source tonight is Republican senator, Markwayne Mullin of Oklahoma, who sits on the Armed Services Committee.
And thank you, Senator, for being here.
SEN. MARKWAYNE MULLIN (R-OK): Absolutely.
COLLINS: Given what the American people heard from the administration, not just last summer, but since then, how would you explain to them the urgency, and the administration's posture now, on Iran, and this kind of--
MULLIN: Yes.
COLLINS: --We hope the talks work. If not, we're prepared to take action.
[21:05:00]
MULLIN: Well, we've made it very clear that we would never allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon. And we tried to, underneath the Bush administration, and the Biden administration, and in the Obama administration, they tried to negotiate the enrichment process, for peaceful energy development.
But we also knew the whole time that Ayatollah was chanting, Death to America, and was building these delivery systems where they could deliver a nuclear weapon. And then we found out their enrichment was reaching that percentage point to where there was a point of no return. There's no way we can allow that to happen. They would disrupt the world economy if that took place. And our economy is tied into the world economy, I don't care which way you look at it.
But the President is not interested in regime change. I want to make that very clear. If we were wanting a regime change, we could have done that during the 12-day war. The President came out very clearly, during the 12-day war, and said, We know where you're at. We also know where your leadership is, and we can take you out. But we'd prefer diplomacy.
We don't want to create a vacuum, like what happened in Iraq, when we pulled out of Iraq, and ISIS, al Qaeda, and all the other terrorist organizations flooded to that region. We know that could possibly take place.
But a nuclear Iran is bad for the entire world. It's bad for the economy. Remember, this is the number one sponsor of terror around the world, and they make no bones about who their enemy is. They chant, Death to America, since 1979. And so, as long as the Ayatollah is going to continue to try to rebuild the system that he said he wasn't going to do? That's why we ended the 12-day war, because he -- they said they were done trying to build a nuclear weapon. Yet, they're obviously trying to rebuild it.
COLLINS: Right.
MULLIN: We're not going to let that happen.
COLLINS: But if we obliterated it, we being the United States, last summer--
MULLIN: Yes.
COLLINS: --then why are you worried about it right now, if it was obliterated?
MULLIN: Because they're rebuilding it, and you can see them rebuilding it. They're not enriching.
COLLINS: But it was obliterated.
MULLIN: Well, but it doesn't mean you can't rebuild. I mean, people have car accidents and obliterate their bones and their legs, and yet they can still put -- you know, they can still put metal back in them and walk again. At the same time, that can happen with--
COLLINS: But I think if it was obliterated in June, how is it February, and we're now, as Steve Witkoff put it, a week away from Iran having this?
MULLIN: Well, I don't know -- I can't speak for Steve. I haven't got those reports. And I've been read in on some of these programs. And so, I don't know what Steve was looking at. I don't want to say he's wrong or right. I just haven't seen those reports.
I do know that the President said that they had 10 or 15 days -- the President doesn't bluff -- to stop pushing forward with rebuilding their nuclear sites.
And by the way, if it takes us removing the Ayatollah from keeping the nuclear program from moving forward, then that's not off the table. But we would prefer diplomacy. The reason why the President has put so much resources in the region is because he wants options, and Chairman Caine is providing those options for him.
COLLINS: Right, but that would be regime change if they took the Ayatollah out.
MULLIN: If that's what it takes to keep them--
COLLINS: How far do you support--
MULLIN: --from keeping their nuclear weapon.
COLLINS: How far do you support that going? I mean, would this be a one-and-done strike? Or would you support a limited military operation in Iran?
MULLIN: I don't think we had to put boots on the ground. I don't think that's necessary. We were able to track them down once. We can definitely track them down again.
The thing is, is that -- I want to make this very clear, Kaitlan. We are not wanting a regime change. But the person that's leading this effort is the Ayatollah. Remember, in 1979, when he came to power, he was saying that he wanted to be a nuclear Iran. And we have been preventing that from taking place.
And when we stopped bombing them -- because we could have obliterated them, and him, during the 12-day war. We chose not to, because he said he wasn't going to pursue it. Now that he is pursuing it, the one person that's driving this is the Ayatollah? That one person may have to be removed. But we don't think he's suicidal, but maybe is.
COLLINS: Well, it's not just him. It could be layers.
But you said, boots on the ground. We all did watch last night, as a pilot, who helped in Venezuela with that raid, got a Medal of Honor from the President.
MULLIN: Right.
COLLINS: I mean, it's not boots on the ground that means military presence. It could involve U.S. pilots as well if there is an extended operation.
MULLIN: Well, anything that we do when we're in enemy territory is a risk, and the men and women that volunteered to serve in our great military, they understand the risk.
What we want to do is mitigate that risk as much as possible, but it's still danger. And when you mitigate a risk, what is mitigation? Are you doing -- you know, is your risk threshold at 50 percent, 30 percent, 20 percent, 10 percent, what is it? But there's still always risk when you're going--
COLLINS: What's your threshold? I mean, do you support a strike, if that's what the President decides?
MULLIN: Absolutely. Absolutely. There is no way, Kaitlan, we can allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon. Can you imagine the destabilization they can have to the world trade by controlling the Suez Canal, or the majority of the world's oil? Because energy is the backbone of our economy--
COLLINS: Yes.
MULLIN: --and of everybody's economy.
COLLINS: I just think it's--
MULLIN: And they produce so much of it, and they got to ship it. And if you have a nuclear Iran that is sitting right there in the middle of it? They can control the oil coming out of Iraq, out of Saudi Arabia, out of UAE, out of Kuwait.
COLLINS: I think people see the risks, for sure, obviously, in a nuclear-armed Iran.
MULLIN: Right.
COLLINS: I think it's just hard sometimes to get your head around that we were told, last summer, it was obliterated. And now, we're saying a strike might be necessary, if the talks don't work.
[21:10:00]
MULLIN: But obliterating is much different than they're rebuilding it. They are perfectly trying to rebuild it. Why do you think China and Russia are silent on this?
COLLINS: But how can you rebuild it, if it was obliterated?
MULLIN: But I'm just saying, but why do you think China and Russia is--
COLLINS: But how can you rebuild it if it was obliterated, I think is the question.
MULLIN: Just so -- I've already explained that. How do you rebuild your legs after you shatter them? How do you rebuild a house after it's been locked down by a tornado or a hurricane? You can rebuild things. The foundation may still be there. You can build a lot back on a foundation once the top of it's removed. And so, the structure, the -- if the structure of the foundation is there, they can start rebuilding.
COLLINS: We'll see what the President decides.
I do want to ask, because the nominee to be the next Surgeon General was in front of your committee today.
MULLIN: Right.
COLLINS: And there was a moment, during that hearing, where it became contentious, not between you and the nominee, but between you and Senator Bernie Sanders.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MULLIN: So, how about we work together and say, Hey, let's scrap ACA, admit it doesn't work, admit you guys made a mistake, and let's work on something with President Trump to make affordable health care healthy and affordable for everybody. But there's zero chance you guys could do that. Zero chance.
Yet everybody we bring up here, you guys chastise for trying to make changes. God forbid we change and go after and try to fix our broken system.
Anyways, I ranted too long. Let's talk about some-- SEN. BERNIE SANDERS (I-VT): Yes, you did.
MULLIN: I'm sorry, I didn't ask your opinion on that. And if I cared about your opinion, I would ask you.
SANDERS: Got it (ph).
MULLIN: But I don't care about your opinion.
SANDERS: Well.
MULLIN: You're part of the system. You're part of the problem. You've been sitting here longer than I've even been alive. This is your problem. You should have fixed this a long time ago. You've been running on it so long. What have you been doing?
SANDERS: I've decided not to run for -- Surgeon General, you're the nominee.
MULLIN: That is definitely--
SANDERS: I've decided not to accept that nominee -- nomination.
MULLIN: That is definitely something we would never accept.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: I mean, what happened there?
MULLIN: Bernie and I just don't see eye to eye. He's a socialist that I have no respect for.
You keep in mind, right before Christmas, I was having -- I had a bill that was unanimous consent, Republicans, Democrats, everybody was supporting it, and it was to give kids a chance, kids with terminal illness, to have a chance to have experimental drugs, to have access to. And Bernie Sanders came out there and blocked it. He blocked it. Why? Because he had some socialist health care program, it was more important to him.
In this case, right here, he had just railed off, saying that Republicans were responsible for expensive health care.
And I was like, ACA climbed three times faster, affordable health care, three times faster than inflation. That was -- that was your baby.
COLLINS: But Bernie Sanders famously doesn't like that.
MULLIN: Yes, but he--
COLLINS: And he does not like the ACA.
MULLIN: But he voted for it.
COLLINS: Famously so. MULLIN: And he's voted for it every time it came up, and he continues to protect it. But he wants universal health care. He wants socialized health care. I'm just not for that.
And I can get along with anybody. I can get along with you. I can get along with -- I mean, I can get -- I can get along with most Democrats. As long as I feel like you believe in that flag, that it's the most beautiful flag in the world, as I do, and not want to change it to a socialist government? I can get along with.
COLLINS: I just think some people might see that exchange and say, Well, Bernie Sanders, I mean, like him or not, and agree with him or not, I mean, he has fought to bring down health care costs. Has he not?
MULLIN: And he has done zero for it. What has he accomplished? He's fought on health care for 40 years, and he's done nothing. We've seen health care rise through the roof. We've seen the Democrats lie, when they said it was going to be affordable health care. And it's not affordable.
COLLINS: But Republicans are in power now, and the President has tried to, I mean--
MULLIN: Yes, we would love to change it. We would love to change it.
COLLINS: What have Republicans done on health care? Somebody might say in response to that.
MULLIN: Well, we'd love to bring down a lot of the mandates that's caused it to go through the roof. We'd love to bring in competition again. We'd love to start looking at the PBMs and reforms.
COLLINS: But there's no plan so far from the Republicans.
MULLIN: No, we have. We actually have a bipartisan bill that we've tried to pass out on PBM. When that guy, Chairman Bernie Sanders, at the time, refused to bring it up in his own committee. We brought it up in committee, and he's voted against it.
PBMs are a big cost-riser to what you see in prescription drugs with -- and so the President decided he's going to bring in Most Favored Nation, and bring down the costs that way. Well, that's great. Why didn't other presidents do it? President Trump is doing it. But you want to start talking about--
COLLINS: Yes, but I just think, a comprehensive health care plan.
But can I ask you, because affordability, these concerns over health care costs, this was all kind of front and center, last night, in the State of the Union, what people were looking for. Did you think it was a good speech from President Trump?
MULLIN: I thought it was the best speech that I've ever seen him give. I actually texted him that last night and said, Sir, that was one of the best speeches I've heard you give. And think about the contrast that he used. He showed compassion. He showed where the country came from. He showed the contrast between the Democrat Party and the Republican Party. I mean, he had two Medal of Honor individuals there that he -- that received the Medal of Honor for their bravery. What an opportunity. He talked about the West Virginia National Guardsmen, that what a miracle. Shared the story of the mother that he spoke to the day of the incident, and how positive she was.
COLLINS: Yes.
MULLIN: And then he showed the picture of where our nation has been, and where it's -- where it's came from, what we've been through, where it's going and--
COLLINS: Well, I'm glad you brought up the contrast, because--
MULLIN: --and what a great opportunity.
COLLINS: Because on the economy, obviously, that is the number one concern. That was what our polls showed Americans wanted to hear truthfully about from the President.
MULLIN: Right.
COLLINS: And when you talk about a contrast. We actually looked at things that the President said last night, compared to what President Biden also said in a similar venue.
[21:15:00]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOE BIDEN, 46TH U.S. PRESIDENT: I inherited an economy that was on the brink. Now our economy is literally the envy of the world.
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: We were a dead country. Now we are the hottest country anywhere in the world.
BIDEN: 15 million new jobs in just three years. A record. A record.
(APPLAUSE)
TRUMP: More Americans are working today than at any time in the history of our country.
BIDEN: Now, I want to cap prescription drug costs at $2,000 a year for everyone.
TRUMP: I'm also ending the wildly inflated cost of prescription drugs like it's never happened before.
(APPLAUSE)
BIDEN: For millions of renters, we're cracking down on big landlords who use antitrust law -- who're using antitrust -- who break antitrust laws by price-fixing and driving up rents.
(APPLAUSE)
TRUMP: We want homes for people, not for corporations. Corporations are doing just fine.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: I mean, his message sounds a lot like the one that did not work for President Biden.
MULLIN: Yes. What's interesting to me is when President Biden was saying that, inflation was averaging over 5.5 (ph) percent. Now we're down at 2.4 percent.
When he talked about housing, he said, what he wants to do, he wants to cap and do rent control.
President Trump said, We're just going to quit allowing these corporations to go in there and buy up all the housing. We're going to put it back in the private market.
When he -- when he was talking about prescription drugs, he said he's going to cap the price, cost control. He's going to cap the price at $2,000.
Now the President said, No, what we're going to do is Favored Nations. We're not going to allow nations, when we develop the drug here inside the United States, to pay a cheaper price than what we are when we're the -- when we're the driver of the economy around the world.
So, the President came up with solutions.
What Biden had was words. And what we had with Biden is a bunch of cheap words, because we knew the economy was in a tailspin.
When he starts talking about creating jobs, President Trump actually came back and said, They all have been private sector jobs. A lot of the jobs that was created underneath Biden was government jobs. We saw more than one agency -- actually saw most agencies double in size. Those are government-created jobs. That's not -- that's not true economy jobs that's stimulating the economy.
When the President starts talking about the investments by bringing back manufacturing, it's not just saying, We're going to bring back manufacturing. We've had trillions of dollars committed to rebuilding manufacturing plants, right here inside the United States.
And so -- and that's all happened, by the way, in 12 months.
COLLINS: Well but manufacturing jobs actually were down for eight months straight.
MULLIN: It's amazing that's taken place.
COLLINS: But just-- MULLIN: But we have trillions of dollars being invested back in to the economy to build those manufacturing. We've lost those, we've offshored those, Kaitlan. For the last three decades, we have built other countries' middle-class, while our middle-class has suffered. President Trump is actually bringing manufacturing back to the United States, which is going to bring that middle-class back, and we should applaud him for that.
COLLINS: We'll see if that's reflected in those manufacturing jobs numbers.
Senator Mullin, thank you for joining us here tonight on THE SOURCE.
MULLIN: Thank you.
COLLINS: Up next here for us. The Vice President has a new assignment that he was given last night during the State of the Union. He is fighting a war on fraud. It starts in Minnesota, apparently. We'll show you what the Vice President said to me this afternoon about that.
Also, an ally of Congressman Tony Gonzales, a Republican of Texas, why he says he should shrug off those calls to resign over an alleged affair with a staffer who later died by suicide.
Also tonight, those dozens of FBI records that are apparently missing from what was published in the Epstein files, that include interviews, concerning a woman who was underage when she says she was assaulted by President Trump, decades ago.
[21:20:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: At the White House, earlier today, the Vice President, JD Vance, announced that they are withholding nearly $260 million in Medicaid funding to Minnesota over allegations of fraud and, what officials described as, a failure to adequately police their Safety Net Program.
Vice President, JD Vance, and Mehmet Oz, who oversees Medicaid and Medicare for the federal government, gave Minnesota governor, Tim Walz, 60 days to respond to this.
I was in the room for the Vice President's announcement. And this comes shortly after we heard from President Trump himself, last night, saying during the State of the Union, that Vance has now been tapped to lead the administration's war on fraud, as they are describing it.
I asked the Vice President what exactly Minnesota needs to do, in order for these payments and this money to be released.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: One, on the 60 days that Governor Walz has to respond, what exactly is the condition that he needs to meet for this funding to be released back to his state? VANCE: Look, it's actually pretty simple. What we want to see from the Governor of Minnesota, from the entire administration there in Minnesota, is some affirmative steps to make sure that the people who are billing us for Medicaid services are actually providing those Medicaid services.
The main source of fraud, whether it's a small business or a bigger company, is you have people who are billing the government, millions, tens of millions, billions of dollars, saying that they're providing a service. But there's no actual confirmation, there's no follow-up to ensure that they were actually providing those services. We want to see that follow-up from Minnesota.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Well, like I said, the Governor responded, saying this has nothing to do with fraud, and he called it a campaign of retribution, and accused President Trump of weaponizing the entirety of the federal government to punish blue states like Minnesota. These cuts will be devastating, he said, For veterans, families with young kids, folks with disabilities, and working people across our state.
Joining me tonight is Minnesota's Democratic Lieutenant Governor, Peggy Flanagan, who is running to fill the Senate seat of retiring Minnesota senator, Tina Smith.
And thank you for being here.
[21:25:00]
They have said that you have 60 days to respond to this announcement about pausing this funding. Obviously, they've been talking about it before. Will Minnesota meet that 60-day deadline? Or what's your reaction to that tonight?
PEGGY FLANAGAN, (D) MINNESOTA LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR, (D) CANDIDATE FOR U.S. SENATE IN MINNESOTA: Well, my first reaction, to JD Vance being in charge of the war on fraud, is that maybe he should start at home.
This is one of the most corrupt administrations we have ever seen. Donald Trump has enriched himself to the tune of about $4 billion since coming back into office. One of the first things he did, in his second administration, is to fire these 17 inspectors general who whole job it was to police and prosecute this fraud. Last count I saw, he also pardoned 27 white-collar corporate fraudsters. And this has been just a pattern of pocketing billions of dollars through cryptocurrency gifts as well, so.
And I also just want to be really clear that if the Trump administration were truly concerned with fraud, they would have sent forensic accountants. And not 3,000 ICE agents, to Minnesota, to completely terrorize our entire state.
COLLINS: Well, prosecutors -- I mean, that's fair on the immigration point, because that was the justification for that surge of federal agents that we saw there. Prosecutors have estimated, back in December, that roughly half of the $18 billion in federal funding, that Minnesota has gotten, could be potentially fraudulent. That's from prosecutors.
I mean, is there -- does Minnesota plan to respond within the 60 days that the Vice President laid out today?
FLANAGAN: Well, I want to be clear that the amount of fraud that is acceptable is zero, and hard-earned taxpayer money being stolen from Minnesotans is unacceptable. It is not tolerated. And especially, in this moment where everyone is feeling squeezed, folks have the right to be upset. It can't be tolerated, and it isn't.
And again, if the federal government wants to be an actual partner in this effort? Great. But it's a little hard to investigate fraud when a significant number of U.S. attorneys, who were responsible for investigating fraud, quit.
And I just want to be clear that there have absolutely been people who have been prosecuted and put in jail, and that this is something that is incredibly important. But, again, I think it rings pretty hollow, when what they're doing is essentially hurting some of the most vulnerable people in our state.
COLLINS: Well, and if they're not going to offer these payments for Medicare and Medicaid Services, given what they announced they're withholding today.
They sent a letter that they had sent to Governor Walz, back in December, where they said they want DHS in Minnesota to provide CMS with updates on their audit activities that the Governor said Minnesota is doing. They want them to halt new provider enrollments for the remaining 14 high-risk programs. They want them to submit a review of an action plan outlining timelines.
Some people might see the allegations of fraud, and read those demands, and say, those are reasonable, and that Minnesota should comply with that. Do you -- how do you see that?
FLANAGAN: Well, again, I think that Minnesota is doing good work in this area and making sure that fraudsters are being held to account.
And again, I would just say that this campaign of retribution, going after Minnesota. We have experienced a tremendous amount of harm in this state. The 3,000 ICE agents and CBP agents who were in Minnesota who literally detained 5-year-old Liam, 10-year-old Elizabeth, 2-year- old Chloe, violently detained citizens. And we had two people who lost their lives at the hands of federal agents. Renee Good and Alex Pretti. This just feels like this ongoing retribution.
[21:30:00]
And again, we need partners. Not folks, who are going to cause harm for some of the most vulnerable people in our state. As someone, you know, myself, who was on Medicaid as a kid, it saved my life. And I know JD Vance is someone who grew up in similar circumstances. I would like him to remember who he is and where he comes from. There are ways to do this work that doesn't cause tremendous harm to children, and to people with disabilities, and for families who are struggling and on edge.
And what I would also say is just these are the very people who are being completely discarded by this administration when the cost of living is going up. When just the other day, I was at the grocery store at Cub Foods, and I watched a mom tell her kiddo to go put back two items because they didn't have enough money to cover the cost of the groceries that they had purchased.
So, I think, there is incredible work to be done to help people across the country, to be able to afford the lives that they want to live.
COLLINS: Yes.
FLANAGAN: And it's time, it's time for them to do right by these folks who have been impacted.
COLLINS: Lieutenant Governor Peggy Flanagan, thank you for joining us tonight.
FLANAGAN: Thank you.
COLLINS: Up next here on THE SOURCE. We have more reporting on those dozens of FBI records that are missing from the Epstein files. They're not published. They're related to an allegation, in part, against the President. And we're going to get reaction from a member of the House Oversight Committee that is also investigating this.
[21:35:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: Tonight, the Justice Department says it is now reviewing a tranche of Jeffrey Epstein related documents, that CNN and several other news outlets identified as missing from what they had published. That includes FBI interviews with a woman who accused President Trump of sexually assaulting her in the 1980s.
This CNN review found that there are dozens of these missing FBI witness interviews. They're known as 302s. They're based on an index that Reeb (ph) found out this, that they are missing based on an index that lists the serial numbers for each of those documents.
Among those that are missing are three interviews related to a woman who told agents that Jeffrey Epstein had repeatedly abused her, starting when she was underage and about 13-years-old, and that President Trump, then a citizen, had also sexually assaulted her.
The Justice Department only published one document that lays out her allegations. It shows, the woman first reported these assaults in 2019, several days after Jeffrey Epstein was arrested. It's unclear how the FBI handled the investigation after that. But getting ahold of these documents could obviously provide clues to that. The President himself has consistently denied any wrongdoing or knowledge of wrongdoing in connection with Jeffrey Epstein. And the White House has also called the allegations against the President false and sensationalist.
But hours after this story broke today, the Justice Department responded to questions of where these documents are, saying, As with all documents that have been flagged by the public, the Department is currently reviewing files within that category of the production. Should any document be found to have been improperly tagged in the review process and is responsive to the Act -- meaning the law that forced them to publish all of this -- the Department will of course publish it, consistent with the law.
My source tonight is California congressman, Dave Min, who is a Democrat on the House Oversight Committee.
And thank you for being here.
When you hear that response from the Justice Department, do you believe that's sufficient?
REP. DAVE MIN (D-CA): Thanks so much for having me, Kaitlan.
And the answer is no, it's not. They are not responding to the law. And at this point, I think it appears clearer and clearer every day that they are knowingly violating and willfully violating the law that we passed, that Donald Trump signed into law, requiring them to turn over every responsive document.
And I want to be clear. Just to clarify two things that I think you alluded to. One, Donald Trump is accused of sexually assaulting a child in those memos that you mentioned.
Two, that it's not just a few dozen documents that are not being turned over. Fully -- half of the documents that we're aware of, some 3 million documents, have not been turned over by the DOJ. They claim they fully responded. And yet we've found over and over again, and I can tell you that Oversight Democratic staff have confirmed what you have found, that these documents are missing. They were not turned over. Even though they were very clearly responsive to the questions that we asked.
And this appears to be part of a very broad coverup. And you may remember back to last May, when Pam Bondi reportedly told Donald Trump he was in the Epstein files. After that, there were a lot of reports that DOJ attorneys were being asked to go redact documents, to hide documents, to remove documents from the files that had Donald Trump's name.
So, we're definitely continuing to look at this. But it appears that the DOJ is willfully violating the law.
COLLINS: Yes, and, of course, an interview -- or a witness statement, it doesn't mean that it happened. I mean, there's -- you can read through these documents. There's a lot in there. MIN: Yes.
COLLINS: But in terms of what should be published in accordance with the law that you passed, and these haven't been. I mean, do you believe that this is, they're intentionally breaking that law? Or do you think it's because, which is what we've heard from DOJ, they had so much to publish, such a compressed timeframe, that's the issue here?
MIN: Yes. And so, just to give you a quick heads-up on my background. I was a federal enforcement attorney to start my career at the SEC. I have spent many, many hours doing this type of document review and management and looking things through.
[21:40:00]
And at this point, I do not believe that this is just a delay in turning the documents over. The fact that so many Donald Trump related documents have not been turned over, that his name has been repeatedly redacted, matches a lot of the reports that we heard that they were trying to cover this up.
And at this point, I think, look, everybody is entitled to their day in court, whether that's Donald Trump, Elon Musk, Les Wexner, anybody else. But the fact is that everything here looks like the DOJ is, again, under the direction of Pam Bondi, the A.G., willfully trying to hide a lot of what's happening right now.
COLLINS: Does that mean you support, like some of your colleagues have suggested, impeaching her?
MIN: Pam Bondi?
COLLINS: Yes.
MIN: Yes, absolutely. I think, at this point, look -- and it's not just around this. If you look at what Pam Bondi has done as A.G., it is unconscionable.
The Department of Justice is the most important law enforcement agency in the world. It's supposed to be a beacon of the rule of law, going after everyone equally. And under Pam Bondi's direction, and I don't say leadership, because she's not a true leader, they have gone after Donald Trump's political enemies and critics.
COLLINS: Yes--
MIN: They have gone after them with specious lawsuits that have been -- have had difficulty getting indictments. And as they say, among lawyers, it's so easy to get an indictment, that you can indict a ham sandwich.
COLLINS: Yes. So, you--
MIN: And the fact that they can't get indictments speak to the weakness of their cases. COLLINS: OK. So, you do support that.
You mentioned a few names.
MIN: Yes.
COLLINS: The Clintons are also going to be interviewed by Congress tomorrow. One of them tomorrow. One of them on Friday. Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton, obviously.
MIN: Yes.
COLLINS: What questions do you want the former President to answer?
MIN: For Bill Clinton -- and I don't think Hillary is really mentioned in the Epstein files. I think he needs to explain what he was doing with Jeffrey Epstein. Did he visit the island and explain some of the interactions that they had.
And if, by the way, the Department of Justice and others decide that Bill Clinton was culpable, that he participated in some of these horrific activities? I hope they investigate him. I hope they have a criminal investigation.
The challenge I have, though, as someone on the Oversight Committee, is that we're not going after people that are similarly situated. Donald Trump's name is all over these Epstein files. We have not once talked about Donald Trump in the committee. We don't talk about people like Howard Lutnick, or Elon Musk, or RFK Jr., all of whom are mentioned in the Epstein files.
So, we need the chips to fall where they may, regardless of what party affiliation people have.
COLLINS: Yes.
MIN: If Bill Clinton is guilty and people get to prove that in the court of law? Let's go after him.
But, again, everyone deserves their day in court. But we do need to make sure that the survivors have their day in court as well.
COLLINS: Congressman Dave Min, thank you so much for joining us tonight.
MIN: Thank you so much, Kaitlan.
COLLINS: Up next. Speaking of Congress. There is a new -- a Republican congressman who is defying new calls to resign. It's coming from members of his own party, after he allegedly had an affair, that he denied, with a staffer who later died by suicide. More on the latest and what we're hearing on Capitol Hill next.
[21:45:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK) COLLINS: Tonight, at least seven Republicans are calling on their embattled colleague, Tony Gonzales of Texas, to resign or drop out of his run for reelection, amid allegations that he had an affair with a former staffer who later died by suicide after she set herself on fire.
There's at least one Republican ally of his in Congress who says he believes that he should stay in office.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. TROY NEHLS (R-TX): He's not been indicted for anything. Does it look good? No. I don't like the appearance of it. He's got a problem here. Don't get me wrong. The optics are horrible. But I would in no way ever resign right now.
If he does that, then you got to give the gavel to Hakeem Jeffries, and I'm sure the Democrats would love that, and would love that. But no, I wouldn't do that, for any reason.
MANU RAJU, CNN ANCHOR AND CHIEF CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: But aren't some things bigger than politics?
NEHLS: Well -- No. No.
RAJU: No?
NEHLS: Not up here, not the way we -- what we do in the House.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Gonzales is six days out from a primary vote that could end his tenure in Congress. It remains to be seen how that race will play out.
But Speaker Mike Johnson's majority, as the Congressman alluded to there, is so thin he can't afford to lose a single Republican in a party-line vote.
Now, Congressman Gonzales has denied the affair, and he has argued that he is being blackmailed by the former staffer's husband, and also says that his political opponent Brandon Herrera is behind the reports of the affair. I should note, this is a reelection match between the two, as Gonzales beat Herrera by just over 350 votes, two years ago.
On Tuesday, Gonzales made clear to my colleague, Manu Raju, that he does not intend to go anywhere.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
RAJU: Those illegal text messages, have you sent to--
REP. TONY GONZALES (R-TX): I'm not going to resign -- I'm not going to resign. I work every day for the people of Texas, and--
RAJU: Did you carry it? GONZALES: and there will be an opportunity for all the details and facts to come out. What you've seen is not all the facts.
RAJU: Did you have an extramarital affair with a staffer?
GONZALES: What you've seen is not all the facts, and there will be -- there will be an ample time for all of that to come out.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: My political sources are here with me tonight.
Karen Finney is the former senior adviser to Hillary Clinton.
And Scott Jennings is Scott Jennings. Needs no introduction.
Obviously, this is -- there are so many political angles to this, as the Republican congressman there was alluding to, Troy Nehls, with Manu.
SCOTT JENNINGS, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, FORMER SR. ADVISER TO MITCH MCCONNELL: Yes.
COLLINS: It's also a deeply tragic story about this woman, and what has happened with her family.
Scott, what do you make of how Republicans on Capitol Hill are responding to this?
JENNINGS: Well, a lot of Republicans are appalled by it. You know, it's detestable allegations, and they're troubled by it. I mean, I don't think there's any real secret about that.
[21:50:00]
There is an election coming up in Texas here in the next few days. As you mentioned, there is this primary going on. Pretty soon, the voters will weigh in on this. And oftentimes, voters have a way of sorting things out.
He's not the only person in Congress right now that's got ethics issues. There's a couple of Democrats that are under indictment right now as well. So, there's a lot of stuff swirling.
And as was mentioned, the majority is so thin, the margins up there is so thin that one way or the other, if either party lost one or two people, it would make a difference.
So, it is a tragic situation, crazy details. Obviously, you can't escape the politics of it because it's happening on Capitol Hill. But I can just tell you, there are a lot of people who are disgusted by it.
KAREN FINNEY, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, FMR. DNC COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR: But can I just say, I think there's another dynamic in this era of the Epstein files, where I think there is a -- some of these folks on the Hill are wedged between wanting to be on the side of transparency, because we want to know what happened.
Gonzales is not answering questions. He's saying, Well, there's another side to this, but he's not -- he's clearly trying to get through this primary to see if he can sort of eke it out.
And it's just not a good look at a time when there are allegations that the Department of Justice may be holding on to files that would -- that don't look good for President Trump, when there are concerns that the victims have been re-victimized by the way those files have been released.
So, I think there's also this dynamic that is also hanging over of -- because it is such a tragic incident that you'd want to be on the side of saying, This is horrible, we need transparency. But it does feel like people are trying to hedge their bet a little bit in this moment because of the other political dynamics.
COLLINS: Yes. And I think Kevin McCarthy, who got into this race when it was the primary, the last time, between these two, he was even saying that he believes Gonzales should step aside, just given everything going on.
I mean, Manu's question, I think, summed up what a lot of people might think of, when you talk about what that margin looks like is, Aren't some things bigger than politics?
JENNINGS: Well, I mean, look, it's up to -- everybody who wins an election is entitled to hold that seat. I mean, I think there's a lot of people on Capitol Hill who look at this not through a political lens, but through a personal lens. If you had a family, the way he does back in Texas, and what are your personal responsibilities versus what are your professional responsibilities? What are your moral responsibilities? In this case. There's a lot of -- a lot of conversation going on about this.
Again, I do think the fact that there's an election coming up, and voters are getting ready to render some judgment on this, could be a clarifying moment, and we'll see what happens in the aftermath of that.
FINNEY: And I do think there's also the dynamic. There's not necessarily a legal case that is bearing itself out, which I think means, if I'm not mistaken, in Texas today--
JENNINGS: Well is he -- has the Ethics Committee--
FINNEY: There's an Ethics Committee report that I--
JENNINGS: Yes.
FINNEY: --that I believe they're holding until after his primary. So that's why I say, I feel like he's hedging his bets to try to get through this primary.
COLLINS: Yes, the information has come out largely because of the husband of this staffer. FINNEY: Right, where we've seen the text messages.
COLLINS: Yes.
And he was actually on with Erin Burnett, earlier tonight, and this is what he said about this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ADRIAN AVILES, LATE WIFE ALLEGEDLY HAD AFFAIR WITH REP. TONY GONZALES: I'm not saying he's the one that went out there and did it himself, and I'm not saying that. But, yes, he played a role in it. You know? He predatorized my wife.
He runs his whole campaign on family values, and he runs everything, saying that he's some family man, you know? He's actually quite of a sick man. You know, I have all the messages that's shared between them two. And you know, the things that you know, I -- I just released a tip of the iceberg, of the things that this man was telling her.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: I mean, that's where most of this information is coming from.
FINNEY: Yes. It's--
JENNINGS: I mean, it's quite likely that if the Ethics Committee deeply investigated this, which it sounds like they did, probably all the communications that exist are in the hands of those people, it's probably going to be in a report.
I mean, again, we're just a few days away from an election, and then probably just a few days away at that point from a report possibly coming out. So, I would say we'll get clarity on this pretty soon.
COLLINS: Yes.
FINNEY: Yes, he should. I mean, look, he should step down and step back out of respect, also, for this tragedy. But we'll see what the voters say.
COLLINS: We will.
Karen Finney. Scott Jennings. Thank you both for being here. Great to have you tonight.
Up next. It has been 40 years, and now there's new insight and new footage, actually, it's pretty astonishing. Inside Chernobyl.
[21:55:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: 40 years after the world's worst nuclear disaster, a new CNN Original Series uncovers the full story of the Chernobyl meltdown, from the explosion and the KGB coverup, to today's war in Ukraine. Here's a preview.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (voice-over): The reactor was not receiving any cooling water, that would cause a reactor meltdown.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (on camera): So, they became fixated at that point on getting water into the reactor.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (voice-over): The gate valves on the cooling system had to be turned manually.
Aleksandr Akimov and Leonid Toptunov went to the valve compartment, and they spent a long time there in enormous fields of gamma radiation, struggling to open first, one gate valve, then the other one.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (on camera): What they didn't realize was that opening the valves was a complete waste of time, because there was no longer any reactor core too cool.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (voice-over): Akimov and Toptunov both received lethal doses of radiation.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (on camera): They died a few weeks later.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
COLLINS: Be sure to tune in. The full series, "Disaster: The Chernobyl Meltdown" is going to have back-to-back episodes that premiere this Sunday at 09:00 p.m. Eastern and 09:00 p.m. Pacific on CNN, and you can also watch it the next day on the CNN app.
Thank you so much for joining us here tonight on THE SOURCE. We'll see you tomorrow night.
"CNN NEWSNIGHT WITH ABBY PHILLIP" starts right now.
[22:00:00]
ABBY PHILLIP, CNN HOST, CNN NEWSNIGHT WITH ABBY PHILLIP: Tonight.
The war of words intensifies.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
VANCE: They won't even have the courage of their convictions.
REP. ILHAN OMAR (D-MN): His administration was responsible for killing two of my constituents.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: Now, the President suggests--
