Return to Transcripts main page
The Source with Kaitlan Collins
Trump: U.S. Will Strike Iran Until They "Can't Take It Anymore"; U.S. Officials: Cyberattacks On Water Systems In Multiple States; DOJ Drops Case Against Ex-Olympian, Admits Pool Renovation "Flawed." Aired 9-10p ET
Aired July 31, 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]
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
RANDI KAYE, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): In 2012, President Barack Obama held the largest gathering of world leaders at Camp David, when he hosted the G8 Summit. Nine foreign leaders attended.
The Camp is fully equipped with security and assets needed to run the country. On September 11th, it was activated for then-Vice President Dick Cheney.
According to the National Park Service website, Camp David's exact location isn't identified on maps for security and privacy reasons.
Randi Kaye. CNN. Palm Beach County, Florida.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
JIM SCIUTTO, CNN HOST, ANDERSON COOPER 360: A trip through history there.
The news continues. "THE SOURCE" starts now.
ERICA HILL, CNN HOST, THE SOURCE WITH KAITLAN COLLINS: Tonight. The U.S. is planning new strikes on Iran as the President says, quote, All they do is make me angry.
I'm Erica Hill in for Kaitlan Collins. This is THE SOURCE.
Breaking news as we come on the air tonight. CNN has learned the United States is planning new strikes on Iran as soon as this weekend. Now, sources say the precise scope of the attacks and the potential targets the U.S. may go after aren't clear at this hour. But U.S. Central Command has prepared options and readied its forces for expanding the war, including a heavy two-week bombardment of Iran's missile sites, as well as options that would target key energy infrastructure.
Now, I should note here: Two U.S. officials cautioned nothing is set in stone, and did say the strikes could ultimately be called off. But as the cameras rolled for the first ever Cabinet meeting televised live from Camp David today, the President appeared to shed some light on what he thinks the path forward in Iran should be as this war enters its sixth month.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REPORTER: We've seen these strikes between Iran and the United States in the past 10 days. How do you go about reviving the ceasefire and getting diplomacy back on track?
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Well, I think we just want to win. You know, we just want to win. We're doing very well. Trying to be nice as nice as you can be in, you know, a situation like that. But you know, they're -- they're being decimated.
We'll be hitting. We'll be hitting them very hard. And you know, at some point, they're going to say, We just can't take it anymore.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HILL: Now, asked about reports that Trump had ordered a new round of weekend strikes, press secretary Karoline Leavitt said in a statement, President Trump is not going to stand by and allow this terrorist behavior to occur. Iran will continue to pay until they come to the table in, what President Trump deems, a meaningful way.
Now, with the midterms less than a 100 days away, some Republicans hope that happens sooner rather than later.
For now, though, the President has not found an off-ramp, something that is clearly frustrating him.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: We'll talk about nuclear, and we'll be in there talking about nuclear for seven hours. I say, Why doesn't -- why do you need seven? You can take 10 minutes. You have five minutes, you should solve it. But seven hours.
And then they'll go out, and I'll say, They discussed nuclear.
And they'll go out and they'll say, We never discussed nuclear.
And I say, Why did they say that?
All they do is make me angry.
I'm losing faith in them because they do lie, and they do misrepresent. Well, the other day, the five missiles we shot, we knocked them down. But we were in the midst of a negotiation. I mean, I'm waiting for Steve to call me. How's the negotiation going? And instead, I got a call from Pete that they just shot five missiles at one of our bases in Jordan.
(END VIDEO CLIP) HILL: My lead sources tonight:
Former Deputy Director of National Intelligence, Beth Sanner.
Bloomberg's White House correspondent, Jeff Mason.
And The New York Times White House National Security correspondent, David Sanger.
Good to have all of you here tonight.
Beth, when we look at where things stand, if these previous U.S. strikes were not enough, right, to get Iran to the table, is there any indication that a broader campaign and more intense campaign would have that effect?
BETH SANNER, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST, FORMER DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE: No. I mean, that's the simple answer.
I understand the frustration. The Iranians have been incredibly frustrating people to deal with over the years, and now we have even harder line people in charge. Right? This revelation, which I find kind of shocking, that it's a revelation that the IRGC is in charge, is you know, we've been talking about that for months. Yes, they are in charge. And so, these are going to be very difficult people.
But I also think that the whole lack of trust between the United States and Iran didn't just start now. So, the President's shock that they would fire upon us, when we were in negotiations. Well, that's exactly what we did to Iran, twice. We were in negotiations. Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner were in negotiations, and we bombed them. And so, I think that this lack of kind of understanding about how we are understood. You know, a key part of negotiations is actually being able to understand how the adversary thinks, and we clearly don't.
So, no. That's the short answer. It will not lead them to capitulation.
[21:05:00]
HILL: David, to Beth's point, that lack of -- that lack of understanding, right, in terms of the U.S. perhaps and the delegation who was doing this negotiating doesn't understand the people that they're dealing with. I mean, this is not the first time that that has come up. There has been a frustration, as we know, about who was being sent to do some of this work and the lack of expertise there.
Is there any sense that this will change who is doing some of that negotiating for the U.S.?
DAVID SANGER, CNN POLITICAL & NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST, WHITE HOUSE & NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT, THE NEW YORK TIMES: You know what, I think the negotiating team, the President's pretty well-set because he wants to go with people he trusts, and he's got Steve Witkoff, who is a friend of his from back in New York real estate days. He's got his son-in-law, Jared Kushner. And these are the people who he believes he sends out because the Iranians know he's -- that they are truly speaking for the President.
But that said, I think Beth has really gotten at the key issue here, which is we tried 38 days of bombing, on the theory that this would get the Iranians to, as the President said, Cry uncle. They didn't.
There was a pause, negotiations, a 14-point deal that fell apart quite quickly, partly because it was worded, I think, pretty loosely, and the Iranians drove through those loopholes to try to close off the Strait, successfully. And then we did 13 more days.
And I'm not entirely sure what the theory of the case is that bombing them again for a couple of days, or a couple of weeks, is going to result in a different outcome. Clearly, they are being driven by something other than the desire to just get the frozen funds unfrozen and the sanctions lifted.
HILL: Well, and some of -- you know, Jeff, some of the CNN's reporting that the Saudis were telling President Trump, telling the administration this week that this is actually Iran's plan, right, just to keep escalating. And it seems that that is working.
When all that's coming into play. I mean, President Trump mentioned what happened in Jordan. The concerns about U.S. forces in the region. What is your sense of how much that is figuring at the forefront of the decisions that are being made?
JEFF MASON, WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, BLOOMBERG: Well, it's hard to answer that. I mean, I think that they're taking all sorts of things into mind.
But it's clear that the President -- I mean, just listening to the President's quote again today, saying, We want to win. This is a president who uses that paradigm for all things, whether it's the economy, whether it's an election, in this case, whether it's a war.
And sure, he takes these other things into account, but the bottom line is he doesn't want to walk away from this conflict without being able to declare himself the winner. And Iran has made that very difficult because they keep undermining his plan. They undermined the MOU that he felt was an exit plan. That didn't turn out to be that way.
So now, he's really been hamstrung by that as he both, A, wants to declare victory and, B, no doubt wants this to end because you've got the midterm elections coming up in November.
HILL: Right. And even just based on what we heard from him in the beginning of this conflict, right, when it started. I think it's safe to say the President did not expect we would be going now into a sixth month here.
MASON: No doubt.
SANNER: No. Right. HILL: And also, it's interesting sort of what he's telegraphing in this moment, right? And what we're hearing from some of the reporting tonight. That we have heard in the past, the President has said in the past, talked about energy infrastructure, maybe talked about bridges. But the fact that this could be perhaps in a more substantive way on the table, Beth, that could change things.
SANNER: Yes, I mean, I think that there's actually a risk that this is going to get worse, and that's my big concern. One of the points of discussion is that maybe Israel would join us in this strike. Wow, that would be a bad idea, in my view.
MASON: Why?
SANNER: Because that really, again, expands it regionally. So, Iran, Tasnim News tonight said -- one of the Iranian official news stations, said tonight that if that happens, then we will be attacking Israel again.
Now, we've just made, actually, a very congratulatory of the administration for all the work they're doing on Lebanon. Well, that could take that whole thing off the table, and we could see Hezbollah back in the game, right? Because we have the Iraqi militias in the game, we have the strike on the U.S. LNG tankers off of Egypt. So, we're seeing things happening now that are horizontally expanding and vertically escalating as well.
And so, this strike would be vertically, but we don't want this kind of more regionalization. We're trying to contain and focus on getting the Strait open. This is not -- you know, it could be a problem.
[21:10:00]
MASON: And I would add to that, that an escalation on the U.S. side, in terms of if past is prologue, it does not lead to a Cry uncle on the Iranians.
HILL: No.
MASON: So, that escalation is probably only going to lead to more escalation from the other side, and that means there's really no end in sight and--
SANNER: Yes, they're going to strike back at the Gulf, no doubt.
HILL: Right.
SANNER: And plus Israel if that -- if they join in.
MASON: Sure.
HILL: So, as we're watching all of this play out, another point of frustration, or perhaps maybe a wall that the President is coming up against, involves Todd Blanche, of course. Republican senators John Cornyn, Thom Tillis--
MASON: Yes.
HILL: --really digging in against that nomination for Attorney General, over the administration's refusal to formally kill, in writing, the President's $1.8 billion Anti-Weaponization Fund, and also preside assurances about certain tax investigations.
So, I just want to play part of what the President had to say about that earlier today.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REPORTER: Just to be clear, do you agree with the acting Attorney General that the Anti-Weaponization Fund is dead, and why not just put that in writing?
TRUMP: Well, it is dead, but you know, I wish it weren't, to be honest with you. I think people were horribly treated, horribly abused. This has nothing to do with Todd. This was me. Horribly abused, and I'd like to see them compensated for the pain.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HILL: It is dead, I wish it wasn't.
You know, there's a lot of talk about getting things in writing, David. In many ways, that may have clarified for the senators why they want that in writing.
SANGER: Absolutely. Look, Todd Blanche said it was dead, under oath, in front of a committee. And yet, when the senators asked the Justice Department to simply put this in writing so that it represented the administration's view, they couldn't bring themselves to do it.
And when they asked them to unwind the tax agreement that they've reached, which essentially gives the President and his family, immunity, from future reviews of their taxes and audits, they wouldn't do that either. So, I think it's fairly clear that the administration is leaving open its options to be able to renounce those.
And the President's making a big bet, if he thinks that he can hold this over to the next Senate. It might work if he holds on to the Senate. But it might all collapse if he does not. And maybe he's happy enough to have Todd Blanche just serve as the acting Attorney General.
HILL: Yes, a lot of ifs in there.
David. Jeff. Beth. Thank you all. Appreciate it.
Up next here. The Arizona Sheriff's Office investigating the disappearance of Nancy Guthrie just released the ransom notes that were sent. So, why make them public now, nearly six months after she disappeared?
And the DOJ dropping its case against a former Olympian accused of damaging the reflecting pool. We'll tell you who the administration is now blaming. [21:15:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
HILL: Tonight, six months after the mysterious disappearance of Nancy Guthrie, investigators are releasing the full contents of a ransom note as well as a grim follow-up letter, with hopes that they could spark new leads.
The first note, which was addressed to NBC anchor, Savannah Guthrie, was sent a day after her mother went missing in February. It reads, We have your mother Nancy. She is safe but scared. She will be held for ransom and once payment is received she will be released unharmed. We will be holding her for a maximum of 7 days. You will need to send bitcoin in the amount of $4 million USD before 5PM on Thursday the 5th.
The note goes on to say, If payment is not received, the ransom will be increased to 6 million USD which will need to be paid by 5PM on Monday the 9th. Once payment is received to the bitcoin address below, the note says, She will be released within 12 hours of deposit to a safe drop off location back in Tucson. If payment is not received by the last deadline on Monday the 9th at 5PM, she will be killed. Your mother is aware of this and her life is in your hands. It is in the best interest of everyone to have this completed as soon as possible. You will not be able to contact me from here on out, there will be no negotiation. Do not play games, law enforcement will not be able to help you.
My source tonight, Andy McCabe, CNN's Senior Law Enforcement Analyst, former FBI Deputy Director.
It is, every time I read that, I have to say it is chilling, and my heart just goes out to Savannah and her family.
When you see that letter, is there anything that you can glean from that first letter?
ANDREW MCCABE, CNN SENIOR LAW ENFORCEMENT ANALYST, FORMER FBI DEPUTY DIRECTOR: Yes, Erica, it is chilling, and yet another awful aspect of this terrible situation for the family.
But as an investigator, when you look at this letter, it doesn't tell you who's done it. But there are some unique things that stand out from this one. It's unlike any sort of ransom demand or extortionate demand that I have seen in the course of my career.
There is like a passive voice to this that is very atypical for people writing such missives. It's almost as if the writer is trying to keep some like arm's length distance from the act itself. The terms are described more in what you would hear in like a business proposal than an actual ransom letter.
Typically, somebody who's sending a ransom letter wants to control the communication. They want to be overwhelming and communicate that like they're in charge here, like, This is what you will do, or we will kill your loved one. You will send me the money.
In this note, you don't hear that tone at all. It's all, you know, The ransom will be sent. There's like no people attached to that.
[21:20:00]
It's also interesting to me that they mention, If the ransom is received that she'll be dropped off back in Tucson, which seems to suggest that they are not in Tucson when they're writing this note, and likely Nancy Guthrie was not either.
HILL: Yes.
MCCABE: So, it is atypical and maybe indicates a lack of experience and some discomfort with what's going on.
HILL: Yes, which is sort of what I was wondering as you're walking through all of that. It doesn't sound as you paint that picture, like the person or people responsible for this were -- perhaps had done something similar before.
Investigators then also released this second note, which was sent on February 6th. This one directed to the Guthrie family, which reads, We did not fully grasp the seriousness of her physical condition. We never intended to hurt her, that was not our intention. She perished shortly after she was taken. We believe it was heart related. She is buried in nature now. Nothing you could have done could have changed the outcome. We want your family to know this and hope you all can find peace. We are truly sorry.
Of course, when she first disappeared, you know, her family was very clear, she has a heart condition, she needs her medication.
When you read that letter, is there anything that, A, stands out that would help you maybe identify the kidnappers, but B -- I find it interesting. They're sort of done at this point. Like, Oh hey, we're sorry. We hope that you can find peace in this, but we're done here. All good.
MCCABE: Yes. It's -- it's--
HILL: Which is amazing in itself.
MCCABE: This letter is remarkable. I've never seen anything like this.
First of all, let's not run past the fact that it's totally unnecessary. If you had committed a kidnapping, and the entire thing fell apart because your victim died. Typically, you would just walk away and never engage, never take the risk of engaging with the victim's family again. Or you might continue to engage to try to get the money you were seeking when the whole caper was hatched, and just hide the fact that the victim had died. So, this is bizarre.
There is obviously a note of regret here, which is also strange for someone who's just committed a kidnapping. Again, you see the same sort of distancing and making excuses, Oh, we didn't know about her -- her health condition. This is not what we intended. We're sorry.
Like, this is what you did. You are directly responsible for this. She didn't die because of a health condition. She was living fine with health conditions. She died because she was kidnapped by presumably the author of this letter.
So, it does say something about their state of mind and the fact that what motivated them to send this. Was it regret? Was it the desire to kind of try to make things better in a weird way with the family?
These are -- the important thing here is these are all elements that could appeal or kind of resonate with someone who knows the person who wrote this letter, and it's the sort of thing that this is what investigators are hoping for now. By releasing these letters, that someone will see these texts and say, You know what? That kind of rings true. And then pick up the phone call, and they'll start to get some good leads.
HILL: Yes, well, hopefully -- I mean, six months now, you would hope that someone may see something out of this. So tough though to read that and to have that out there now.
Andy, appreciate it. Thank you.
MCCABE: Yes. Thanks.
HILL: A reminder: if you do have any information about the abduction of Nancy Guthrie, as officials said today, if anything sparks your -- sparks something, perhaps a change in behavior you notice in someone you know, you can call the FBI tipline at 1-800-CALL-FBI.
So, U.S. officials tonight are looking at Iran as a possible suspect after hackers targeted water systems in six states. Officials say some utilities had to issue boil-water notices; others took their systems offline. In Minnesota, authorities say about 30 water systems were targeted.
Well, when asked about those cyberattacks today, President Trump said this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: I blame it on Minnesota because they're grossly incompetent. There was a cyberattack of 30 water plants, and I would blame it on Minnesota and the governor, the corrupt governor of Minnesota. They like to say, Oh, it's Iran. Iran should be so lucky. Iran's got bigger problems than worrying about Minnesota.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HILL: My tech source tonight, Juan Andres Guerrero-Saade, who's also known as JAGS. He's the Vice President of Intelligence and Security Research at SentinelOne.
So, Minnesota's governor, Tim Walz, posting on X in response to this: Trump knows exactly who is responsible for this attack, and knows that other states were hit too. This is what modern warfare looks like, and it further illustrates there's no plan to win a war with Iran.
The President said Iran would be too busy to deal with something like this.
We don't yet know who is responsible. Iran is being looked at as a possible source of this attack. Does this have any of the features, the hallmarks of something that you would expect from an Iranian- directed cyberattack?
JUAN ANDRES GUERRERO-SAADE, VP OF INTELLIGENCE AND SECURITY RESEARCH, SENTINELONE: It absolutely does, but it's important to keep in mind just how complex attribution is when it comes to these sorts of attacks.
[21:25:00]
So, when we talk about that kind of operation, our research at SentinelOne points to the kind of activity that we're used to with opportunistic Iranian attacks in the past. But we don't have any of the technical material out of these utilities to be able to assess that in a way that I think would actually satisfy the needs of the public.
HILL: So, what we do know from investigators is that the attackers, according to them, were targeting internet-facing equipment, so things that control critical function, things like water pressure, chemical dosing. Would that be sort of sophisticated enough in your view? Or maybe, you know, maybe the attackers don't want it to seem too sophisticated?
ANDRES GUERRERO-SAADE: To be completely honest, it doesn't seem all that sophisticated.
HILL: Yes.
ANDRES GUERRERO-SAADE: This -- you know, I call up -- I call it up opportunistic because they're internet-facing devices, and what we see is these sorts of devices tend to have a lot of manufacturer problems, a lot of issues with configurations. So, what we end up seeing is sometimes, it's a nation state taking advantage of that opportunity to seem 10-feet tall. Sometimes it's just kids playing around.
HILL: All things -- all things on the table, right?
I also want to ask you about. There's been a lot in the world of AI this week, specifically with the companies behind some of the biggest, most well-known AI models.
So, the latest being Anthropic, which has now revealed that its models accessed the internet, hacked into three separate organizations during, what they said was, routine testing. The company didn't notice until OpenAI disclosed what had happened with its models. So then Anthropic went and took a look. All of this is happening, right?
Earlier this week, you had hundreds of employees at some of the top AI companies and tech companies saying, Oh, hey, we think we need some -- I'm paraphrasing -- We need some oversight here because this thing that we created, we're not sure we can keep a handle on it.
That is very disconcerting to people watching all of this.
ANDRES GUERRERO-SAADE: Right.
HILL: How concerned are you in this moment?
ANDRES GUERRERO-SAADE: Not as concerned as I think the folks pushing that narrative would like us to be. I think there's a certain amount of fearmongering that's going into this that seems to be tied into a certain amount of regulatory capture that we want to discuss around these models.
They are tools. They're phenomenal tools. It's an unbelievable advancement in capabilities. But these scenarios where we're seeing them break out and quote-unquote, Go rogue, are actually scenarios where we are instructing them to not heed guardrails and to do what they need to do to show us the vulnerabilities in these systems. So, it's like asking the computer to hack us and then going, Oh my God, I can't believe it did that.
HILL: So then, are you saying you trust the companies that they have a handle on the technology?
ANDRES GUERRERO-SAADE: I wouldn't necessarily go that far.
HILL: OK.
ANDRES GUERRERO-SAADE: I think that it's important to realize that AI is not going to ultimately govern itself. Governance has to come from the outside. It has to be mechanical, deterministic. It can't be that the model has a conscience and it's going to decide not to do bad things.
HILL: Do you think the answer then, as this letter was calling for, is some sort of government oversight?
ANDRES GUERRERO-SAADE: I'm not sure that that's exactly the shape it will ultimately take. But I think we need way more players involved in this. Ultimately, the Frontier Labs are doing a great deal of research. They're advancing the frontier capabilities.
There's going to need to be a lot more players involved. Like, we see in the U.K., you have AISI. There's a government institute that does some of these evaluations, and they provide objective information about how well they're performing. There's going to need to be a lot of that surrounding the adoption of this technology for anything critical.
HILL: Last question for you: How prepared do you think, you know, looking at who we have in Washington, right? How prepared do you think those lawmakers are? How well do they understand AI and the issue to get to a point?
ANDRES GUERRERO-SAADE: I think this is a critical time for everybody to question how well they understand these things. HILL: Yes.
ANDRES GUERRERO-SAADE: And it's not to dodge the question. It's more to say that I think the people who think they understand these systems don't necessarily -- the best way to get to know them is actually to experiment, to read the benchmarks, to try to use them for your own competencies. The Frontier Labs have something to sell. At the end of the day, it's going to be up to us to determine what the actual value of that is.
HILL: Yes. Absolutely. Thank you. Great to have you here.
ANDRES GUERRERO-SAADE: Thank you so much.
HILL: Up next here. The Justice Department's stunning late-Friday admission about damage to the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool.
[21:30:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
HILL: Tonight, the Justice Department is admitting, President Trump's $14 million renovation of the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool is flawed, and dropping its case, its criminal case, against former Olympian, David Hearn, for alleged vandalism.
In a new court filing today, D.C. U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro writes, it wasn't until after the return of Hearn's indictment that the Department of Interior provided additional documents indicating the damage to the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool was the result of flawed installation by the contractor and the rush to complete the project prior to events associated with the America 250 celebration.
It is a remarkable about-face, given just how adamant Pirro was when announcing Hearn's indictment.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JEANINE PIRRO, U.S. ATTORNEY FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: There was an effort, a violent effort, to rip up the sealant from the bottom of the pool.
We can state and prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he caused damage, and that damage is over a $1,000.
REPORTER: Keying in on that, how do you prove that $1,000--
PIRRO: With an expert.
REPORTER: Is that because--
PIRRO: Come to the trial.
REPORTER: Did he have any tools, or is it just his bare hands?
PIRRO: Right now we believe it's his bare hands, both hands. REPORTER: So, does that indicate, in your belief, that it was probably damaged before, or do you believe that he--
PIRRO: Oh, he damaged it.
REPORTER: Further. But do you believe there -- it had already been damaged before, so--
PIRRO: He damaged the pool.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[21:35:00]
HILL: Don't forget, President Trump himself repeatedly blamed vandals for the damage.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: We caught some people vandalizing our beautiful reflecting pool.
They tried to destroy it. They'd cut it up with a box knife and tried to destroy it. And it's in great shape now. They're terrible. They're vandals.
And these people went in and cut it up, and they got caught.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HILL: Joining me now, tonight's political sources.
Maria Cardona, Democratic strategist.
And Scott Jennings, former senior adviser to Senator Mitch McConnell.
Nice to see you both.
So, the DOJ now says it just didn't have additional documentation of that damage from the Interior Department until after the indictment was returned, Scott. Do you have any concerns about a rush to judgment from this DOJ?
SCOTT JENNINGS, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, FORMER SR. ADVISER TO MITCH MCCONNELL, FORMER SPECIAL ASST. TO PRES. GEORGE W. BUSH, HOST, "THE SCOTT JENNINGS RADIO SHOW" ON SRN: Yes, of course. I mean, on this one, the administration looks like a monkey having intimate relations with a football. It looks terrible.
And after everything that was said, this guy, he is owed an apology. And I don't know what the procedures are for it, but he ought to sue anybody that he thinks he can, to get his name back. I have a strong reaction, to be honest with you, when people have their name dragged through the mud, and that's obviously what happened here.
So, I'm glad the charges got dropped. But they don't have evidence. They shouldn't be trying to go to trial with something. So, that's good that they admitted it. They dragged this guy's name through the mud.
And I think, at this point, also, the administration just needs to get the pool fixed. I think the impulse to fix the pool and make it nice is a good one. But it needs to get fixed, and it needs to get fixed by somebody who knows how to do it.
HILL: A lot of people would probably agree with you on that one.
You know, his attorney had said here, when we reached out, his attorney said, The Trump administration's case against David Hearn should never have been brought. Its dismissal today does not erase the abuse of government power in arresting and charging a patriotic American who did nothing wrong. The government's approach was ready, fire, aim. The administration owes Mr. Hearn an apology.
Scott agrees. I think the question is, Maria, and you know, Scott, you can weigh in after too, is whether you think that apology will actually come? I mean, Scott, you're certainly not the first Republican tonight, nor the first supporter of President Trump to say, Yes, they screwed this up.
So, Maria, will it actually change?
MARIA CARDONA, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: I doubt it. I really doubt it, Erica. But he is owed an apology. And I think that Pirro should step down, or she should be fired. I mean, this is an indication of the clown car that this administration has become, and in an example of incompetence, of buffoonery, and complete unseriousness.
This isn't the only time where the Department of Justice has been seen as a vehicle to do Trump's bidding, as opposed to dispensing justice under law for the American people. You even have judges, across the country, who are saying they don't even trust the attorneys that are before them in cases, in various cases, coming from the Department of Justice.
This is just sort of the icing on that ridiculous, embarrassing cake. And I do think he's owed an apology. I don't think he's going to get it. And I think that this is also going to reflect badly on Republicans, as we go into the midterm elections, as an example of so much that is wrong with this administration, and the Republicans who have been unable and unwilling to stand up to it.
HILL: One of the -- there is the question of a rush to judgment, right? Which we have seen in other cases. There have been certainly other instances for this DOJ where there have been issues, right? Most recently, The New York Times having to -- DOJ dropping those subpoenas, after the judge challenged the government's approach.
Scott, when we look at this too, you said, Look, the pool needs to be fixed.
A lot of people would agree on that. But the reality too is that this is not seen, right, in the President's priorities in his beautification of Washington projects, including the pool, including the ballroom.
In our most recent CNN polling this week, this is not landing well with Americans. 58 percent say they're angry or dissatisfied when it comes to these construction projects, only 17 percent had positive feelings about it.
That, coupled with what we just saw, how much does this concern you heading into November, that this, in fact, could be the focus?
JENNINGS: It won't. I mean, this is not a voting issue for the American people. This election is going to be about the economy, it's going to be about national security, and it's going to be possibly about immigration and quality of life. And it's going to be a contrast between a party that's trying to work on those things. And a party that's still despised by a vast majority of the American people, meaning the Democratic Party.
Now, I don't agree on this polling. I think when you lump things together, you could get a weird result. If you have been to Washington, D.C., this year, and you've been, say, in front of Union Station and you have looked at that gleaming fountain. I didn't even know it was a fountain. And it's great and it's cleaned up.
[21:40:00]
You go all over town, and there have been things that have absolutely been improved about our nation's capital. That was done for America 250. That was a good thing. And people who live in D.C., and people who visited D.C., saying, Wow, this is amazing.
So, the impulse and the execution to get that done was absolutely a good one. I think lumping that in with the ballroom are two separate things, frankly.
But in terms of the election. Look, this election is about the economy. It's going to be a little bit about national security, immigration, crime, and quality of life. And things like this are good debating fodder, but I don't think it's the number one thing on people's minds.
HILL: Maria, we're a little out of time, but you get last word.
CARDONA: Well, I live in D.C. and I guarantee you, very few people are walking around saying, This is awesome.
And when you talk about an election that is going to be about the economy, I agree with--
JENNINGS: Why?
CARDONA: --I agree with Scott on that. You look at the American people, and what they are seeing is this is an administration that cares more about a reflecting pool than allowing my family to make ends meet; an administration that cares more about going into a war that no one wanted and no one needed, and we're spending billions on than giving me health care. That is going to be a disastrous contrast going into the midterm election for Republicans.
HILL: Maria Cardona. Scott Jennings. Thank you both.
CARDONA: Thank you.
HILL: Well, as the President weighs his options when it comes to Iran and Senate, and Democrats prepare for a pivotal primary election, here's Kaitlan's behind-the-scenes look at the week in Washington.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
TRUMP: We're going to be hitting them very hard because it's our turn to hit them.
ON SCREEN TEXT: Monday, July 27.
(APPLAUSE)
TRUMP: They have very friendly negotiations going on.
When the fuel comes down, which it did for a little while, then they didn't behave and I had to go back and now they're behaving again. You know, it's like playing a banjo.
JON STEWART, HOST, "THE DAILY SHOW": You are very straightforward with him. You don't get angry.
KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, CNN HOST, THE SOURCE WITH KAITLAN COLLINS: It's really not about me. When he is insulting me or when he is criticizing me, it's important to put the reminder back on the work, on the question, and on the non-answers that we get.
ON SCREEN TEXT: Tuesday, July 28.
TRUMP: Virtually everyone, Republican or Democrat, liked Lindsey. Well, not everybody.
He was extremely hawkish. He never saw a war that he didn't like.
JAKE TAPPER, CNN ANCHOR AND CHIEF WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT: Graham's funeral service is the reason both wartime leaders are in town right now.
COLLINS: One thing that stands out here, though, they did not bring reporters into the Oval Office for these meetings that are typically status symbols. The White House has not put out an official readout or their version of events of that meeting either.
Your letter says that Senator McConnell needs to prove his capacity directly and verbally, or you believe he needs to resign.
GOV. ANDY BESHEAR (D-KY): We don't have any timetable for when he might get back.
We're asking the bare minimum. And if he won't do it, it is up to John Thune and the majority in the Senate to make him do it.
COLLINS: Please let us know if you hear from Senator McConnell's office.
BESHEAR: You'll be my first call.
COLLINS: Thank you, Governor.
BESHEAR: Thank you.
ON SCREEN TEXT: Wednesday, July 29.
TRUMP: Last night, all five rockets were knocked down to the ground.
It's our turn.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Todd Blanche--
TRUMP: Todd Blanche is outstanding.
I heard he's going through quite nicely.
TAPPER: What's the White House doing behind the scenes to try to salvage Blanche's nomination?
COLLINS: Todd Blanche has a lot of Republican support on Capitol Hill. He doesn't have it from the two Republican senators that the White House has the least influence and leverage over.
Senator Cornyn had canceled that meeting that he was expected to have with the acting Attorney General, Todd Blanche, earlier today.
Thank you.
SEN. BERNIE SANDERS (I-VT): I think it'd be good if I interviewed you.
COLLINS: You can totally interview me.
The Republican-run Senate Judiciary Committee has now just postponed a vote on Todd Blanche's nomination.
John Cornyn's vote comes with a condition: he wants Todd Blanche to kill that $1.8 billion Trump Anti-Weaponization Fund.
Do you think Todd Blanche becomes the attorney general?
SANDERS: Between you and me, I don't know that it matters all that much.
COLLINS: Why do you think it doesn't matter that much?
SANDERS: He's the acting Attorney General. He does what he does. He's acting as Attorney General. He would like to be officially the Attorney General, but in the great scheme of things, he continues to do what he does.
COLLINS: There's a huge primary happening next Tuesday in the State of Michigan.
You're supporting Abdul El-Sayed in that race, progressive, challenger to Haley Stevens.
If he wins on Tuesday, what's the singular takeaway in your view?
[21:45:00]
SANDERS: If Abdul wins, the word goes out all over the country, We can take on the oligarchs, we can take on the Super PACs. That is what makes the Democratic leadership very nervous.
ON SCREEN TEXT: Thursday, July 30.
TRUMP: Rigs like that, you got to know something to drive well.
PAMELA BROWN, CNN ANCHOR/CHIEF INVESTIGATIVE CORRESPONDENT: Kaitlan, what are your sources telling you as to whether Trump will withdraw Blanche's nomination.
COLLINS: Well, Pam, it's pretty remarkable because just 24 hours ago, the President was telling reporters in the Oval Office that he did not think there were any issues with Todd Blanche's nomination that he was going to sail through. And now, of course, the President is threatening to withdraw his nomination entirely.
Thanks to y'all.
Do you think Todd Blanche is going to be the next Attorney General?
SEN. CHRIS VAN HOLLEN (D-MD): Well, Kaitlan, only time will tell.
The President clearly has prioritized protecting his $1.8 billion slush fund, and protect his sweetheart tax deal. And he's prepared to allow Blanche nomination to sort of hang in limbo because the President doesn't want to give up those things.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
HILL: Up next here. A remarkable story of survival: the hiker who was impaled by his own trekking pole shares his mile-by-mile account of hiking out of the mountains for help, and of course, an update on how he's doing now.
The smile is a good indicator.
That's next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[21:50:00]
HILL: The trek up Montana's tallest mountain, a nearly 12,000-foot climb to the infamous Froze-to-Death Plateau, involves miles of potentially ankle-breaking terrain, extreme winds, thin air, and some unexpected obstacles that could test the most experienced of hikers. For example, accidentally impaling yourself on your own hiking pole. 32-year-old David Cifaldi certainly was not expecting that when he slipped and fell last week.
And I do want to warn you: some of the images that we're about to show you are tough to look at.
I also want to let you know, David is OK.
So, this 34 -- or 44 rather inch steel-tipped pole passed through his body under his left arm and out his back. You can see it there. He was fully conscious here and opted to hike 10 miles back down.
David is my source tonight.
I'm glad you're OK. Glad you're with us tonight.
You're also a nurse, which I think is really important for people to know here. So, you assessed yourself in that moment.
A 11 days later, how are you tonight?
DAVID CIFALDI, INJURED HIKER & WOUND NURSE: I'm doing a lot better. I'm feeling a lot better. Most of my -- most of my pain is gone. The swelling's a lot better. Things are moving in the right direction for sure.
HILL: OK. So, that's a great news. We love that.
Can you take us back to that moment? I'm not sure how much you remember, right? The fall. The pole. Can you walk us through it?
CIFALDI: Yes, it's very surreal. A little bit of a -- the actual fall is a little fuzzy. But I remember kind of rolling over, sitting up, and I can see my two friends in front of me, and I can see Granite Peak looming behind us -- behind them, and they turn around and this shock and awe on their face.
And then I just remember looking down, and my one trekking pole's on the ground in front of me, and at my peripheral, I see the other one sticking up out of my armpit, and you know, you reach over with your hand and you feel and you go, Oh my God, this thing is -- this is inside me.
HILL: Yes.
CIFALDI: It's just a crazy situation.
HILL: It's got to be. I can't, you know -- I think you paint such a vivid picture too, that moment where you look at your friends' faces and all of a sudden that tells you, right, something has gone wrong here.
You were also pretty close to the summit at this point, as I understand it. You had hiked up seven hours. So, you could have been rescued, right? And I know you put out an alert just so that people know. But you made a conscious decision to hike down with that pole in your body. That was part medical. The reality too is, as I understand it, this was also part financial.
CIFALDI: Absolutely. I was very fortunate, with my training to be able to assess myself, the basics: you never pull out an object that's impaled anyone, anything. You leave it in place. It helps stop the bleeding, and you -- you know, I was able to take a deep breath, I wasn't in pain, and my friends helped me up standing, I was able to walk around a little bit.
And at that point, my friend was on the phone with Search and Rescue, and I looked at him, I said, Don't let them send that helicopter. I knew -- you know, in my field, I know how much that costs. An ambulance ride is thousands of dollars. Somebody coming to pick you up off the top of a mountain. We found out later on from the actual Search and Rescue team, it would have been anywhere from $50,000 to $70,000. So, you know.
HILL: Wow. So you--
CIFALDI: Second mortgage on your house--
HILL: Yes.
CIFALDI: --you know, whatever.
HILL: But as you're making that decision, I mean, it's no small feat, right? So then, you are walking down. You have been impaled with a hiking pole, right? So, you feel pretty stable, I know, and you did your medical assessment. But then you have to walk down, we're talking hours.
As I understand it, one of your friends went ahead to warn other hikers not to be too worried when they saw you. Because obviously that could be a little -- a little concerning.
How difficult was that walk back down?
CIFALDI: It was -- it was tough. I look back on it, and you're just -- you're hyper-vigilant about every step, every rock, every tree root because, you're just thinking to yourself, The next trip could be the end. You know? Do I drive this pole deeper into me?
[21:55:00]
And so, by the time we got back to the trailhead, I was just mentally exhausted from watching my feet for six hours. And there's boulder fields and snow fields and switchbacks and thousands of feet of elevation, and it's no easy task.
HILL: Yes. Yes. It's not an easy task, even without being impaled by your trekking pole. I'm not making light of it. But I know we're pretty much out of time. You didn't make it all the way to the top. Will you try again? CIFALDI: Oh, we'll be -- it's on the list for next year for sure. I'm not giving up. I'm getting to that mountain.
HILL: All right, good. Well keep us posted. We look forward to the picture at the summit.
David, thanks for joining us. Glad you're OK.
CIFALDI: Thank you so much for having me.
HILL: Up next here. The Source Code. We're going to give you a number, as you know, at the center of a story in the news. So tonight's Source Code, 150. Can you guess the story? We'll be right back with the answer.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:00:00]
HILL: Tonight's Source Code is 150, as in a library book that was 150 years overdue. But, not anymore. An Australian man found it during home renovations. The book was tucked inside a tea crate, hidden in a sealed fireplace. The book "Antiquities of Athens" was part of the library's original collection when it opened in 1872.
And if you are wondering about the late fee because, I admit, that was my first question. Adjusted for inflation, it would be about $19,500. Ouch. The library's records though from the 1870s are missing. So, no one can be held responsible.
Thanks so much for joining me tonight. I'm Erica Hill.
"CNN NEWSNIGHT WITH ABBY PHILLIP" starts right now.
