Death Toll in  Venezuela, Now Closer to 1,000

24:30If President Trump and J.D. Vance are really serious to actually help the people of Iran talk about the mass executions, talk about women receiving lashes simply for singing right now. I want to ask you about your latest tweet regarding the World Cup. Iran wants FIFA to prevent any ceremonies or promotional activities in support of the LGBTQ community. At tonight's match in Seattle between Iran and Egypt, Seattle had independently branded it a pride match before organizers knew which teams would be competing. But you think the fact that Iran is saying don't do that says something deeper about the regime?

25:10Exactly, because they found the strength and they believe now they are in the position that they can even tell the United States of America what to do. Look, this is in the DNA of the Islamic Republic to expand their ideology everywhere. So basically, this is the right of the host city to celebrate their own values. So the Islamists should not dare even to lecture democratic countries to actually stop celebrating their values. So when the Islamic Republic, and not just the Islamic Republic, this is the government from Egypt as well. So authoritarianists, I mean, autocracy always, and Islamists always, asking the democratic countries first to respect their culture, which is not culture, but being imposed and forced to their own people.

26:03And then they ask democratic countries to allow them to actually, you know, celebrate their own religious ceremonies here in the United States. There are 50 mosques here, but they take to the Times Square to pray public prayers in Times Square. But they're not going to stop there to just ask the United States of America or other democratic countries to respect their values. They even come further and ask the democratic countries now to cancel your own values. And this is ridiculous. This is ridiculous. This is not because they have fear of rainbow. They have fear of freedom. And I think the U.S.

26:45and FIFA should refuse that. Masih Alinajad, thank you so much, as always. Appreciate your passion. New reaction to the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that ends temporary protection status, which had allowed scores of Haitians and Syrians to be here in the U.S. What we're hearing from some in the communities in the U.S. and the racial undertones spelled out in the ruling.

27:25by over 16 ,000 fast-moving companies like Ramp, Cursor, and Harvey, who are shaping the future with AI and staying ahead of AI risk. Get started at Vanta.com. In our law and justice lead, some 350 ,000 Haitians and thousands of Syrians living and working in the U.S., here legally, are in limbo after the U.S. Supreme Court sided with the Trump administration. Thursday's 6-3 decision removes their temporary protected status or TPS. And now Haitians in Florida and New York are worried about what comes next. My people, they can't go back. It's real. The reality in Haiti is real. So a lot of people going to lose their job.

28:13I have to suffer no matter what. Any Haitian have to suffer to pay the price for that. A UCLA law professor who argued the Syrian TPS case before the U.S. Supreme Court tells CNN it's the, quote, largest de-documentation event of people in U.S. history, unquote. While the legal team representing a group of Haitian nationals at the Supreme Court warned the decision would, quote, directly result in thousands of innocent people dying, violent, needless deaths. referencing the decades worth of natural disasters and political turmoil and violence that has destabilized the country, which essentially operates under gang control.

28:52Most Haitians on TPS have lived in the U.S. for many years. FWD.US, which is a policy and advocacy organization, estimates that Haitians in the U.S. contributed an estimated$5.9 billion to the U.S. economy, as well as pay$1.6 billion in federal payroll, state and local taxes. Liberal Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan didn't let her dissent go unnoticed, noting what she saw as President Trump's clear racial animus towards Haitians driving this case. Quote, the statements fairly shout in their racial undertones and overtones alike that race entered into the president's resolve to remove Haitians from this country.

29:32Unquote. And then Kagan cited some of Trump's most egregious comments about Haitians after she described Trump's comments as, quote, quote, so repellent and racially inflected that the majority declines to put them into print. Here were just some of Kagan's examples. What's happening in Haiti, a tremendous problem with AIDS. Many of those people will probably have AIDS and they're coming into our country. It's like a death wish for our country. They're eating the dogs, the people that came in. They're eating the cats. They're eating, they're eating the pets. Why is it we only take people from shithole countries, right?

30:16Why can't we have some people from Norway, Sweden, just a few. Justice Samuel Alito, who wrote the majority opinion and did not include things that President Trump had said about Haitians in his opinion, acknowledged that the statements Kagan was referring to contain some heated language, but weren't, in his view, quote, overtly racial, unquote. It's unclear exactly when the stripping of protections will start making TPS beneficiaries vulnerable for removal, though it is expected to unfold over the course of months. For now, a state of deep uncertainty for immigrants in America who are here legally in a country founded by immigrants, right ahead of America's 250th birthday celebration.

31:00Our panel is here now. So that was the Kagan opinion and the Alito opinion and Trump's opinions. And here's another opinion. This is from podcast host Megan Kelly. We should warn our viewers that she uses some disturbing language. Go home. Get out. We know our country's better than yours. That's because we filled it with our work ethic and our culture and our values. You being here only dilutes it for us. Go back to fucking Haiti. Maria, she has a heart of gold, doesn't she take? I mean, come on. That I think is indicative of exactly the kind of xenophobia, hatred, racism that is at the heart of this administration's decisions at the heart of the Supreme Court decisions based on what this administration wants them to do.

31:55I think it's inhumane. It's indecent. It's un-American and it's dangerous. You went through all of the sort of reasons as to why this frankly shouldn't happen. But I think one of the things that we have to underscore is what the woman from Haiti said. Haiti is a failed state. It is not ready to receive their nationals. Syria is not yet proven that it is a sustainable government. They are not ready to receive their nationals. I used to work at the former INS. TPS, when you are ready to revoke it, you work with the country. The State Department works with the country to make sure that the environment is such that they can receive their nationals safely and sustainably.

32:41That kind of conversation did not happen between DHS and the State Department. It's one of the reasons why the argument against this was underscored. And so I think this is incredibly dangerous. It's going to be a huge hit on our economy. So many Haitians are the ones that work in the health care industry, Jake. My mom has, she lives in an assisted facility and her care workers are phenomenal. They're all Haitian. So this is going to be a blow to us. Ashley, Republican Ohio Governor Mike DeWine, and we might remember that the eating the dogs and eating the cats lie that was put out there, That was about Haitians in Springfield, Ohio.

33:20Republican Ohio Governor Mike DeWine said 10 ,000 Haitians contributed to the economy in Ohio and that the ruling is a, quote, mistake. What do you think? Is it bad economic policy? That's an argument that DeWine is making. I'm not 100 percent bought in. It's a bad economic policy that's going to impact our bottom line at this point. But listen, first of all, I don't like the rhetoric that has been talked about. And these are human beings. And I so I do really want to remember that. But what the Supreme Court ruled on is if the president, whoever it is, has the ability to make this decision of who has this temporary status or not.

33:55And that is what they ruled on. And so that that take all the emotion out of it and just think about the actual legal aspect of it. And that's what they were ruling on. However, I do have to say, from what I understand from people I've talked to in the State Department, as well as DHS is that they are working with other countries. They're not going to send them back to Syria or Haiti. They're going to send them to work with other countries to send them there. Shocking story from former Transportation Secretary and possible 2028 presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg, who said a politically motivated anonymous tip to police ended in his two twin four-year-old boys being separated from him for a night.

34:35Michigan police say they responded to the call. All Child Protective Services, quote, determined the report that they'd received was false. Buttigieg wrote, quote, I cannot describe the mix of rage and sadness that I feel at the idea that someone brought our children into this. They are four years old, four. They do not know or care what a Democrat or Republican is. Apparently, what happened is somebody did a call saying that Buttigieg was putting these kids in danger. His children and social services came and took them away. a form, I guess, of swatting, which is when people abuse the police system that's there to protect us to use it as a weapon.

35:10What's your reaction? It's awful, Jake. When I heard the story and we've been talking about this, exactly. And you as a parent, I mean, how awful is it that you would have to be separated from your kids, especially if they were that young, four years old, completely traumatic for the parent and for these kids, especially when they're four years old. What I don't understand is I can't imagine that this would happen from any kind of an anonymous call. If Child Protective Services actually figured out that it was false, which I understand that they did, why did they make him spend the night away from the kids?

35:44Could they, did they not? I assume it's just, you know. Yeah, but so then does that happen? Standard operating procedure. So any crazy person can call Child Protective Services and this is going to happen to an elected official or somebody who clearly is on the receiving end of political hatred. And we know that people on the left are swatted by people on the right. People on the right are swatted by people on the left. This is just the state of our union right now. Well, absolutely. And he's obviously blaming that this and said it was a political motive. So he may know something that we don't know in public.

36:17But I do actually think, because I don't, from what I understand, even in Michigan, and you can't go in and take them away, that it was offered for him to put the kids with their grandparents to try to, like, lower the issue. But still, it's horrible. I mean, like, at the end of the day, these four-year-old kids have to be scared to death. But, I mean, you had this personal experience. So the other, a couple months ago, I was on your show. That night, I was slotted. There were eight black SUVs, blinding lights, the sirens going on. They were knocking at our door at 4 a.m. Ma 'am, ma 'am, is everything okay in there?

36:53My husband and I answered, we're like, yes, what's going on? We received an anonymous call that there was violent crime going on, that there were drugs, there were arms going on here. Are you okay? Is there anyone else in your house? Yes, our children are here. We're okay. I mean, they were lovely. The police officers were lovely. Then the next day, I went to MPD. I reported it. They are monitoring my house. But this is horrendous. And, yes, it happens on both sides of the aisle. But this is the kind of stuff that should not be acceptable. And I don't know what you do to actually fix it, because if it's anonymous, they don't know how to trace it.

37:30Yeah, they don't know how to trace it. They've got to figure out ways to trace it, and we've got to increase the penalties. That's what it is. So that it's not even, nobody even thinks about it. And by the way, the police don't want to be doing this as well. They're taking them away from real crime. People have been killed in swatting raids. People have been killed mistakenly thinking something was going, A police going in there mistakenly thinking something's going on because a tip and they kill someone. It's horrible. Thanks to both of you. Appreciate it. Next on the lead, acclaimed author James Patterson and a special guest joining him for a new summer page turner.

38:00We'll be right back.

38:05In our national lead now, when a terrorist assassinates a presidential candidate on Nantucket Island, a covert, highly classified unit codenamed Rockets Red Glare is called in to confront the chaos. And what begins as a manhunt for a terrorist quickly unravels into a global conspiracy. That's the setup for Rockets Red Glare, the new military thriller from James Patterson and retired U.S. Army First Sergeant Matt Eversman. And both authors join me. James Patterson, always great to see this book echoes some real world political and national security fears. How much was the plot shaped by the moment we're in right now?

38:44I don't think it was shaped by it, but it certainly fits it fits into it. I think at the core of this for for Matt and I is that and we both believe this America's military is very good and they're very clear on their job, which is to protect us. Now, the what if in this thing is what if we're attacked inside our borders again? And Matt, the novel opens with the assassination of a presidential candidate. What is what is the scenario in the book reveal about your views of the real vulnerabilities of modern democracy? well you know i've been telling you i don't know necessarily the uh uh threat to our democracy however you know this is all based off of real you know world uh battle you know from regular warfare to cold warfare to the global war on terror and you know as jim said it all starts with what if and you look at a place like nantucket which right out of the headlines i mean it's a really wealthy island with really little security and it's surrounded by water.

39:51And I mean, what a great setup for something really nefarious to happen with little reaction other than our hero. So that's kind of the truth being told. We started thinking about this just literally right out of reality, if that makes any sense. Speaking of out of reality, you as a sergeant were portrayed in Black Hawk Down. What was it like teaming up with James to try to bring that level of authenticity to fiction? Well, that's a great question, a better one for Jim to answer. But I can tell you that working with Jim has really helped bring, just as you said, bring the reality to this fictional world in such a way that it's absolutely believable.

40:37It keeps moving forward and hopefully keeps everybody's attention and it never strays from the truth. James. That's my best lead in for you. But James, I do want to change the subject a bit to the fact that you have this long history writing about true crime. You detailed Epstein's crimes in a book called Filthy Rich. That's way back in 2016. Then your Netflix doc in 2020 with the same name came. And it seems as though the rest of the world is catching up to what you revealed a decade ago. Yeah, that's absolutely true. I mean, the weird thing to me was when I brought the book out, I took it everywhere and pretty much nobody covered it.

41:19The Wall Street Journal did. The Miami Herald did. And I'm going like, how can you not cover this? This story is insane. This billionaire down in Palm Beach and in New York. And he's clearly, you know, had terrible relationships with these young girls. And one of the things that's in the book that I haven't seen anywhere else are police interviews with the young girls, which are devastating. Yeah, and the story just will not go away, obviously. Well, you are. You are way ahead of so many. James Patterson and Matt Eversman. The book is Rockets Red Glare. Congratulations. Yes. Let's let's hope that you are not you are not prescient when it comes to Rockets Red Glare.

41:58Thanks to both. You really appreciate it. Congrats on the book. Thank you. Welcome to The Lead. I'm Jake Tapper. This hour, a billionaire investor tied to Jeffrey Epstein testifying behind closed doors on Capitol Hill today about his interactions with the dead pedophile. But lawmakers say Leon Black refused to answer questions about non-disclosure agreements between him and other women and whether Epstein was involved. A member of Congress who was in the room for today's interview joins us live on set in moments. Plus, former Trump National So a security advisor turned Trump critic John Bolton pleading guilty today in his classified information case.

42:35He now faces millions of dollars in fines and potentially years in prison are going to break down the deal he made with prosecutors and why his case did not fall apart like the other investigations into other Trump enemies. Also, any concept of a firm and strong separation of church and state was ignored today in Texas, where the Board of Education voted to require millions of students to study Christian Bible stories in classrooms. We're live in the Lone Star State with reaction to these major changes to Texas school curricula.

43:10The lead tonight, a billionaire investor with ties to Jeffrey Epstein is being deposed amid the ongoing House Oversight Committee investigation into the dead pedophile and his evil web. Leon Black, the former head of private equity firm Apollo Global Management, sat today for a closed-door interview on Capitol Hill about his relationship with Epstein. Lawmakers say Black declined to answer questions about non-disclosure agreements, or NDAs, and that's when the chairman of the committee, James Comer, made this move. I have just issued two subpoenas to Mr. Black. The NDAs are between him and other women.

43:49We want to know, was Jeffrey Epstein involved in the NDAs? Was he involved in writing? Was he involved in awarding funds to the women for the NDAs? What was the reason for the NDAs? We want to know everything about the NDAs. It's hard to overstate just how significant it is that a Republican chairman of this committee made that announcement to issue two subpoenas. That is a big deal. Leon Black apparently expressed regret about his dealings with the late sex offender in a letter to investors in 2020 after a New York Times report alleged, quote, the two men often socialized and dined together, and Mr.

44:32Black was a lucrative client for Mr. Epstein over the final decade of his life, unquote. Black then stepped away from Apollo in 2021. An internal investigation by the company found no wrongdoing. That probe ultimately concluded Black's payments to Epstein totaled $158 million between 2012 and 2017. Black is one of the rare witnesses that the House panel has talked to who have faced allegations of abusing women in connection with Epstein. One woman told the FBI that Black became sexual in a massage Epstein had directed her to give him. A separate woman alleged that Black had raped her in 2014 and described going to Epstein's Florida house with Black, where she says she was told she would have sex with Epstein.

45:12An attorney for Leon Black tells CNN he has never, quote, abused, assaulted, or raped, unquote, any girl or woman, and calls the allegations, quote, completely false. Black has categorically denied any wrongdoing and knowledge of Epstein's crimes. In his opening statement to the Oversight Committee, he said, quote, I have never abused a woman. I have never been with an underage woman. I have never engaged in sex trafficking. I have never paid Epstein for access to women. I was never blackmailed by Epstein. I was not involved with and had no knowledge of any of Epstein's heinous conduct, unquote.

45:44Let's bring in Virginia Democratic Congressman James Walkinshaw. He sits on the House Oversight Committee. And Congressman, obviously, you were there. What do you make of Chairman Comer's announcement that the committee is going to issue two subpoenas for Leon Black? And did he earn those subpoenas by not really testifying and cooperating? I agree 100 percent with Chairman Comer. You know, we were in the first hour of what we expected to be a multi-hour interview with Mr. Black as soon as questions came up about the NDAs. And it's a result, in at least one case, of women making allegations of sexual abuse against Mr.

46:20Black. He then paid them to sign NDAs. We want to understand more about that, whether Jeffrey Epstein was involved, what were the circumstances, was there any coercion in the signing of those NDAs. Black refused to answer any questions related to the NDAs. The subpoena will require him not only to answer questions, but the turnover details of the NDAs. And were you able to learn anything new from his testimony at all? I don't know that we learned anything new in the hour. He described his friendship with Jeffrey Epstein. He expressed some admiration for Epstein's intellect and lifestyle. He seemed to enjoy their friendship and relationship and profess to have no knowledge of Epstein's crimes.

47:04That's why we want to understand the NDAs and any relationship to Epstein. Under subpoena, will you be able to ask him questions about the two women that have alleged sexual misconduct or rape by Leon Black, both of whom have ties to Epstein? Again, I should remind people that an attorney for Mr. Black tells CNN he has never assaulted, abused, or raped any girl or woman. But will you be able to ask about it under a subpoena? Yes, we will. The NDAs don't bar Congress from asking questions and don't prevent him from being responsive to the subpoena. But he'll be able to plead the fifth, right? Is that the only way he doesn't?

47:38He could plead the fifth. Or he could say, I don't remember. He could. That would be at odds with his multiple professions of innocence, but he could. Black's payments to Epstein totaled$158 million between 2012 and 2017. We know that from an internal investigation about Black's ties to Epstein by Apollo, that probe found no wrongdoing after reviewing more than 60 ,000 documents and interviewing 20 people. Is Apollo cooperative at all? Well, we have questions about that investigation, and there was a line of questions in the first hour pointing out the fact that some at that law firm involved with the investigation had relationships with Jeffrey Epstein.

48:20I think if we had more time with Mr. Black today, we would have asked more detailed questions about that. I think that's a topic that will come up in the deposition on July 16th. But at the end of the day, Congress is not going to rely on an investigation hired by a law firm that Apollo Group hired. We're conducting our own investigation. You know, we reported that a group of survivors met with Comer and pushed him to look at some leads. We reported that a few weeks ago. It really does seem like that meeting had an impact on Chairman Comer. I think so. Look, absolutely. And I think he's done exactly the right thing here with Leon Black.

48:56I hope he'll find the same enthusiasm for the truth with respect to Todd Blanche and the ongoing cover up in the White House that I think has come to more light in recent days with legal opinions. Stand by, Congressman. Amid the House Oversight Committee investigation, a federal judge yesterday ordered the Justice Department to unredact additional pages of the Epstein files, concluding that, quote, Quote, the attorney general has violated the Epstein Act by redacting the names of senders and recipients in at least eight email exchanges with Mr. Epstein regarding a torture video and sexual activity with young women, including minors.

49:35Joining our conversation right now is former federal prosecutor Brendan Ballew, who represents Katie Fang. Katie Fang is the independent journalist who filed the suit, and good for her for doing so. So, Brendan, the Justice Department now has until July 2nd to either turn over these documents or explain why the redactions should not be unredacted. Are you expecting to see the files or are you gearing up for a bigger battle? Well, Stanley Woodward, the number three Justice Department official, just entered a notice of appearance in our case. So we expect that they are really freaked out right now because it's more than just the redactions.

50:08You know, there are the specific emails where you're talking about, as you said, torture videos, potentially sex with minor women, where the names of the senders and recipients have been redacted. But there's also the fact that there are documents related to Donald Trump that were never produced in the first place. There are issues with the fact that this is a case, an investigation that spanned multiple countries internationally. The Department of Justice categorically did not review documents that weren't in the English language. They just said that they didn't do it. And then on top of that, the redactions that they did make, they didn't explain, which they were required to do by law.

50:43So, you know, Judge Sullivan issued a preliminary injunction granting everything that we and Katie Fang requested and rejecting every single argument that the Department of Justice made here. Why does your client, why does Katie Fang want to see the unredacted versions of these particular files? Not faulting her at all. Good for her. Great journalism. Good for her for subpoenaing it. But there's like three million files still missing. There's so many things. What is it about these files? These are, you know, as you said, there are millions of documents at issue here. When you're going for a preliminary injunction, it's really important to focus on the things where it is just obvious.

51:19It's indisputable that the government is violating the law here. And the important thing is, in their defense, the government didn't even try to argue that it was following the law. They just argued on standing here. And so, you know, these are cases where it's so clear that there is potential wrongdoing here, that these are not the names of victims or minors. These are the names of potential co-conspirators, potential perpetrators that need to get. Right. But but as you note in their previous release of about half of the documents that they are under law supposed to have released by a long time ago, they redacted the names of possible perpetrators and did not redact the names of of of victims and survivors.

51:57Again, contrary to the law, are you worried at all about that happening with these files? Only if the Department of Justice is actively malicious and tries to punish victims here by releasing names. You know, it is obvious here that the names that are are at issue are the names of perpetrators or people in Jeffrey Epstein's orbits, not victims. And if in the incredibly unusual case that they are victims, Judge Sullivan has given them a chance to say as much and explain why they can't produce that. So they have the chance to do that. I don't know if you've seen these files because members of Congress on the Oversight Committee have been allowed to see some of these files, although again, not all of these files, even though the law says so.

52:37Do you have any concerns? What's your take on this side battle? I've been to the DOJ reading room and read, not the files specifically in this case, but I've read files embarrassing to Donald Trump that, in my view, were illegally redacted. There's a file that's been widely reported, read into the congressional record, back and forth between Epstein's lawyers and Trump's lawyers, describing a conversation Epstein's lawyers had with Trump, where he said Epstein was never a member of Mar-a-Lago, revealing the Trump lie that he kicked Epstein out of Mar-a-Lago. It is clear the DOJ illegally redacted files to prevent, best case, Donald Trump from being embarrassed.

53:17Enormous credit to Ms. Fang for revealing that. And I don't think this will be the last of the legal battle over these illegally redacted files. Absolutely. Have her come. Bring her next time. No offense, Congressman. Appreciate it. Democratic Congressman James Laughlin-Chall, the great Commonwealth of Virginia, and Brendan Ballew. Appreciate it. New details tonight about how the White House decided which companies would get to renovate the reflecting pool and how much they would be paid. That's next.

53:48Interpolitics lead a company involved with the previous renovation of the reflecting pool more than 15 years ago passed on the project this time around. due to the Trump administration's demands that the renovation be complete by July 4th and that the bottom of the pool be painted blue. That's according to two employees with the New Jersey-based SICA Corporation. I want to bring in David Ferenholt from the New York Times. And David, I don't know if I pronounced that correctly. SICA? I don't know. SICA or SICA. We read it. We don't say it. But you've been doing some reporting about this mess of renovation.

54:23So what is your response to the account by two employees of the SICA Corporation who told CNN that these demands made the project unfeasible. Well, it's good reporting. I haven't been able to match it. But it does make sense with what we've seen with this project and the project that they chose to carry out. It was done through a no-bid contract to skip the bidding process because they wanted to go as fast as they possibly could because they were trying to squeeze this really complicated thing into a few short weeks before July 4th. And I think what we're seeing now is the risk of choosing a no-bid contract to do something as important as that because you don't give yourself time to figure out if the approach you're using is right, if the contractor you've hired can actually do the job, and if you're paying the right price.

55:01So President Trump, as is his want, has had a lot of conflicting statements about the cuts, the size of the cuts that he said were committed by hooligans, vandals, leftists on the reflecting pool. Here's just a small sampling. We have a hundred and we have a I think two hundred ninety three hundred foot slit right through it probably a box cutter or a knife of some kind. I think it's three fifty not two fifty a three hundred and fifty foot slit from one end to the other. They cut a two hundred three hundred and fifty foot slip in the form of lots of little slips. They knives and they cut patches like that, 350 feet long.

55:49That's not what the government documents obtained by you in the New York Times showed. You wrote, quote, while a June 9th report by the U.S. Park Police described the cuts as razor blade slashes made along a 20-foot long stretch of the foam, the administration has yet to present evidence supporting that assertion. The documents Review by the Times described them as two 171-foot blade cuts that did not address how they were made. What do you make of how Trump describes this? It's really important to know that there's two things we're talking about here, and the president is kind of mushing them together.

56:22The things that were cut, according to the police reports, are caulk or sealant at the edge of the pool, kind of a gray weather stripping at the edge of the pool. The thing that we're seeing peel up, that we've all seen this blue stuff peel up, is a different part of the pool. It's this rubberized stuff put on the floor of the pool. So yes, the police report says that the caulking was cut. The stuff on the side. Stuff on the side, but the blue stuff wasn't, or at least the police report doesn't mention that. So Trump is saying, look, all these parts are peeling up, this embarrassing peeling of the pool, and is trying to say that these vandals caused it.

56:52But in reality, even if that other cut was vandalism, they're talking about two different things. You report that the water purification system was installed by a company called Greenwater Services, which was granted this no-bid contract you refer to. Tell us what you've learned about that process and the man behind the company who has an interesting look. Right. So the person, this company, Greenwater Services, is owned by an investment trust led by a guy named J.J. Cafaro. He's a rich person from Youngstown, Ohio. He has a house near Mar-a-Lago. He's known Trump for decades. He's a political donor of Trump's.

57:24They also got a no-bid contract to install this water purification technology. Again, they didn't try to figure out whether other people could do it more cheaply or better. And in the end, when the pool was refilled and reopened, their nanobubblers apparently couldn't keep up. Their filters couldn't keep up. And the pool filled with green algae. What a mess. All right, David Farenthold, thank you so much. Breaking news on our World Lead. Vice President J.D. Vance just weighed in on the U.S. strikes on Iran in response to Iran's attack yesterday on that ship in the state of Hormuz. CNN's Kristen Holmes is at the White House for us.

57:55Kristen, what did the vice president have to say? Well, Jake, look, J.D. Vance has become the face of these negotiations, the face of the deal, and now he is the face of this retaliation. This is what he posted on Twitter. Excuse me, I'm so used to saying true social from the White House. Iran signed a ceasefire agreement. We have honored it. If they have disagreements about how the MOU is being applied, they can pick up the phone, but violence will be met with violence. He is likely referring to here how the agreement in the 60-day deal says that Iran will help the safe passage of these various commercial vessels to the best of their capability through the Strait of Hormuz in exchange for the U.S.

58:38moving the naval blockade. But however, Iran has essentially now said that this is only if ships stick to the routes that Tehran approves. This ship that was struck was outside of the bounds of one of the routes that Tehran had approved. And then Iran launched an attack on this ship. So that's what it seems as though he means in terms of if they have disagreements over the MOU. It doesn't specifically state that the routes have to be those of Tehran. The other thing to notice here, and I think this is the larger issue for the United States moving forward, is this idea that Iran clearly feels some sense of power over the entire situation, given their control over the Strait of Hormuz.

59:21That is very clear right now. They are exercising that power through demanding that different ships take only routes they approve, through striking a ship that goes outside of those bounds. So that's something else the U.S. is going to have to contend with. Now, it does appear, based on that original CENTCOM statement, that Central Command statement that came out, that the United States is still proceeding as though that ceasefire is in place. They said that the military will remain in place to make sure Iran holds up its end of the deal. But we are unclear in terms of how Iran is now going to respond to these strikes.

59:56All right, Kristen Holmes at the White House with that breaking news for us. Thank you so much. The Texas Board of Education approved a proposal today that is sharply dividing communities in Texas. What we're learning about the government's plan in Texas to have kids study Christian Bible stories in their public school classrooms.

1:00:14In our national league from Sunday school to public school. Today, the Texas State Board of Education approved a proposal requiring more than 5 million public school students in Texas to study Christian Bible stories in their public school classrooms. Amplifying a conservative effort to weave Christian teachings into U.S. public aging. public education. The proposed curriculum requires specific Bible translations drawn from Protestant Bibles. One reason some Catholics are objecting. CNN's Ed Levandera is live in Dallas with the latest. Ed? Well, Jake, this was a very controversial vote. After hours and hours of testimony throughout the week, the Texas State Board of Education heard from hundreds of people.

1:00:59They voted largely along party lines. The State Board of Education, heavily controlled by conservative Republicans. They voted mostly along those lines to approve this new curriculum, which many education experts say no other state in the country has adopted, but it essentially requires some biblical teachings at every grade level, from kindergarten to 12th grade, for more than 5 million public school students across the state of Texas. Supporters say that this is needed to help teach the role of U.S. history in its proper context, and the role that Christianity played in all of that. Critics say that this is simply a violation of the doctrine of separation of church and state and that it also goes to great lengths to avoid and exclude the teachings of non-Protestant Christians as well as non-Christians like Jews and Muslims.

1:01:51But there was one Republican who voted with Democrats against this curriculum and this is what she had to say about the vote. teachers need to be have their autonomy they've been selecting books for decades for years this is nothing new this is not a new concept to teachers we are simply giving them a mandated list which i believe is unconstitutional but regardless of what i believe let's not take their autonomy away and jake this curriculum will not be implemented immediately it will be phased in over time, but beginning at the early grades starting in 2030 and then higher grades in the years after that.

1:02:32Jake? I wonder what the five U.S. justices on the Supreme Court who are Catholic will think of that. Ed Levin, Darren Dallas, thanks so much. Former Trump official John Bolton officially pleaded guilty today in his classified information case. What we're learning about the fine and potential jail time we now faces.

1:02:51In our Law and Justice League today, former Trump national security adviser John Bolton, a frequent site on CNN until recently, pleaded guilty to unlawfully retaining sensitive national security information. As part of his plea deal with prosecutors, Bolton will pay a fine of more than$2 million, and he still faces up to five years in prison, potentially. Bolton says he was just keeping a diary, but he admits it contained classified information. It's a move prosecutors say put national security at risk. A cyber actor believed to be associated with the Islamic Republic of Iran hacked Mr. Bolton's personal email account and gained unauthorized access to some of the classified and national defense information in that account.

1:03:36Joining me to discuss is Michael Casey, the former director of the National Counterintelligence Security Center under President Biden. Thanks so much for joining us, Michael. So Bolton's attorney, Abby Lowell, said today after the hearing, quote, President Trump thumbed his nose at the classified information laws, took actual classified documents to his Florida mansion, interfered with the investigation of that conduct and has never accepted any accountability for his conduct. Ambassador Bolton, whose offense was only keeping a diary which contained classified information, kept a record to preserve history.

1:04:06But Donald Trump kept secrets to serve himself, unquote. What's your take on that? Aby Lowell seems to be suggesting that what Trump did is far worse. Well, my take is anybody's retaining classified information, particularly if someone like the Iranian government is able to access it, is risking national security. I'm not sure saying that the president did something, therefore it's OK that I do it, too, is really the best excuse. I think it's pretty clear Ambassador Bolton put national security at risk and our sources and methods at risk by doing what he did. So we might not ever know the extent of how much information hostile actors may have gotten here based on what the prosecution said or even how many of America's enemies might have been involved, right?

1:04:58That's correct. I mean, hopefully Ambassador Bolton as part of this will agree to cooperate with a damage assessment that will follow his sentencing. And that'll help us get a better handle on what we've lost. But as a practical matter, there's been some period of time between when his account was hacked and now and whenever we can assess that damage. And the Iranians or whoever they may have given the information to, if it was in fact the Iranian government, And we just won't know what they've done in the meantime, and we will definitely suffer losses. Let's on the same subject, national security, national intelligence.

1:05:34I want to turn to the acting director of national intelligence, Bill Pulte. He has no intelligence background. He has no national security background, even though it's in the law creating this position that you have to have either of those. Earlier this week, four sources told CNN that Pulte fired six political appointees put in place by former director Tulsi Gabbard. And he also removed dozens of career intelligence officials from the roles, including from the office you used to be in charge of. What's your take on Pulte in this role? I don't I mean, my take is I have no idea why the president would consider both Bill Pulte to be qualified for this role.

1:06:14He's clearly not. There's nothing in his background that suggested he can carry this role out effectively in a way that enhances our national security. Is it damaging to our national security? Frankly, it is potentially damaging to our national security. I mean, certainly there's reporting that Bill Pulte wanted to further gut the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. That's an office that was set up in the wake of September 11th to help coordinate intelligence and make sure gaps and seams between intelligence agencies didn't emerge. And we're just not enhancing our intelligence when we're making sort of salami slice cuts.

1:06:54I don't think anybody would argue that ODNI couldn't have used some reform. I personally saw lots of things that could have used some reform. But just walking in and firing hundreds of people is not smart reform. It doesn't make us safer doing that. All right, Michael Casey, thanks so much for your time. Appreciate it. Stunning comments from the vice president today that the biggest U.S. political scandal of all time would only be a half a day story today. What might that tell us about how a Trump administration is facing an onslaught of ethics and corrupt allegations? I'm going to ask a Watergate prosecutor next.

1:07:32I think that his historical legacy is enjoying a bit of a renaissance, but I think deservedly so. As I joked with Robert backstage, if Watergate happened tomorrow, it would be like a 12-hour news story. The idea that it would have taken down a presidency is crazy. Vice President J.D. Vance with a rather hot take that President Richard Nixon was somehow unfairly taken down by the Watergate scandal. This will be clear about what a massive political scandal this was, which was once described as our long national nightmare by Nixon's vice president who became president, Gerald Ford. Watergate involved a break in of the Democratic National Committee headquarters by five men linked to President Nixon's reelection campaign.

1:08:18It was later revealed that the operation was funded and coordinated by White House staffers, a fact which Nixon repeatedly denied. And the illegal scheme was only finally confirmed because of Nixon's own secret White House taping system. His own attorney general went to jail. It's not a blithe and glib thing to just dismiss. Here to discuss former Watergate prosecutor Nick Ackerman. Nick, you know Watergate and so many of the scandals facing the Trump administration. What did you make of this comment? I think it was a total fairy tale. I can't tell you where he got this from. I mean, the only time that it may have been a 12-hour news cycle was immediately after the break-in when the White House, the Nixon White House, tried to portray it as a third-rate burglary.

1:09:07And that worked for a while because Nixon won an amazing re-election. I mean, he won in a landslide. But then after his election, there was this drip, drip, drip of information over almost a two year period where Judge Sirica, who was the judge presiding over the Watergate burglars, forced them, told them that if someone didn't cooperate, they'd be serving really long sentences. And one individual, James McCord, a former CIA operative, came forward and basically gave the White House up. There was the Senate Judiciary Committee looking at the confirmation hearing for Al Patrick Gray, who was the acting FBI director to be named as director.

1:09:57Turns out, we learned, that he had burned in his fireplace a number of significant documents. documents. And this continued on and on right up until the time that Nixon was forced to resign in August of 1973. And it wasn't just related to the break-in at the Watergate complex and the Democratic National Committees. So it's possible to be charitable to the vice president that what he meant was that in today's environment, with a more obedient Republican Party and a massive echo chamber of right wing media like Fox, maybe Nixon would survive with that support. And in that light, I want to play some clips in that vein from several people involved in Watergate.

1:10:50First, you're going to hear me asking a question of Carl Bernstein, who helped break the story. Then you're going to hear John Dean. And then you're going to hear Geraldo Rivera talking to Sean Hannity. Take a listen. Nixon ultimately resigned before he could be impeached. And among those counseling him to resign were senior Republicans on Capitol Hill. And first of all, the Watergate investigation by the Senate was enacted by a 77 to nothing unanimous vote of the Senate, including Republicans, to create the investigation. The key votes in the Judiciary Committee to impeach articles of impeachment were cast by courageous Republicans.

1:11:35There's more likelihood he might have survived if there had been a Fox News. Nixon never would have been forced to resign if you existed in your current state back in 1972, 73, 74. It's too bad for Nixon because nobody like you existed then. So it is possible that he's not saying the crime was lesser, just that the support system for Republican presidents who break the law is stronger. Well, keep in mind, Jake, that in the beginning, when they had the Watergate hearings over which Sam Irvine presided, the Republicans were strongly defending Richard Nixon. They were all out there basically taking his position with witnesses, with statements.

1:12:28And it was really the evidence that turned them around, which in the end were the tape recordings. And the most important one was the smoking gun tape where Nixon is overheard ordering his chief aide to call the FBI and to have the CIA tell the CIA that this or actually to call the CIA to have them call the FBI to turn off the investigation because of national security. I mean, the evidence was so damning that no matter how fervent of a Nixon supporter you were, there was no way you could hide from that evidence. So, yes, there's some truth to this, the sense that things might have gone a little bit differently at first if you had Fox News, if you had the climate today.

1:13:21But that's not what J.D. Vance was referring to, not in the least. He was talking about Nixon being buried by the, you know, the government, the secret state that was out there trying to bury him. Right. The deep state. Right. The deep state. This was not some cabal. In fact, it was just the opposite. Richard Nixon was trying to use the deep state, the FBI and the CIA to try and cover up this whole matter. Nick Ackerman, thanks. So it was really a completely different situation. Go ahead, make your last point. I'm so sorry. Nick Ackerman, make your last point. I'm sorry. I'm just saying it was a completely different situation where the evidence was on tape and it was overwhelming.

1:14:10All right, Nick, thanks so much. Good to see you. Let's discuss it with our panel. Ashley, how did you interpret the vice president's comments? Was he saying there would be a more supportive Republican Party and Republican media establishment if it happened today? or was he saying it wasn't that big a deal of the crime that Nixon committed? Well, I took it a little bit differently. However, I do have to say I'm sure he's not, like, loving what he said, and he was being flip, and I think it's going to come back and bite him a little bit. I actually took it more of this is, like, our time of what we live in right now more than anything.

1:14:41I mean, we have Bill Clinton that was impeached. We have President Trump that had 34 convictions on a felony case. I mean, I took it as as do people have more of an ability just to deal with some of this stuff more than that he thought Nixon was right. Ashley, a Reuters Ipsos poll last month found 61 percent of the American people disapprove of Trump's handling of corruption issues. That's certainly 61 percent of Americans. But that's that I mean, if we broke it down to Republicans, it would be much smaller. And if we broke it down to Republican officeholders, it would be much smaller. No, and I think that's really the point that I took away from J.D.

1:15:19Vance's comments, which is it's really emblematic of how far the Republican Party has fallen into the swamp. You know, at that time, the difference then and now is that then Republicans put the Constitution ahead of their party. They put the Constitution ahead of their president. Now it's the very opposite. They're sitting back silently watching as Trump violates the Constitution. He's made more than a billion dollars between him and his family in violations of the Emoluments Act, utilizing the Department of Justice for his own political purposes. I mean, I can go on and on and on about the degree of Donald Trump's corruption.

1:15:56It's reflected right there in that poll. And Republicans, meanwhile, are silent. Even J.D. Vance, instead of talking about how they made a promise to the American people to clean up the swamp, to drain the swamp, I should say, instead of focusing on that, what he does is double down and really elevates this issue that Trump is by far the most corrupt president in American history. And it's primarily because the Republican Party is sitting back violently watching. I'm part of the swamp, so I hope he doesn't clean it up. How are you part of the swamp? Well, I'm a lobbyist. He doesn't mean you. Ashley, you have a new op-ed in the Houston Chronicle titled Five Ways Texas Democrats Can Shore Up the Black Vote.

1:16:34You write the Democrats are facing a crisis of black disillusionment and disengagement, one that could jeopardize success for Democrats in Texas and far beyond. You argue Texas is the ideal place to start turning it around. Why? Primarily because Texas is the largest number of black voters that are registered. And in the last race, Aldred lost Aldred lost that seat by a little less than a million votes. There are a million black voters that did not vote in that particular race. So if you do the math, there is a possibility. If Tallarico can invest early, break with Democratic convention, invest early in black voters and make and do some of the things I suggested in my op-ed, which is move beyond this sort of monolithic myth that people seem to ascribe to black voters, to go outside of the four walls of the church and start to reach voters where they actually are, build a new modern information narrative ecosystem that's driven by trusted messengers.

1:17:34This is an opportunity for Tallarico, for the Democratic Party to do this thing differently and to demonstrate, again, the lessons that we learned in Georgia. What are the lessons we learned in Georgia? Why is Georgia now a swing state? Because investments were made early. They were made across in between elections and they were made in a way that met voters where they actually were. I'll tell you who's not supporting your your your plan as of right now. Earlier this week, Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett, Tallarico's former opponent in the Democratic primary. She's a Democrat from Texas, is African-American.

1:18:08She told the Dallas Morning News she has no idea whether she's going to actively campaign for Tallarico. She also posted this to Instagram last week. I am not currently running for U.S. Senate, and therefore you will not see me on the trail as if I am running for U.S. Senate. Y 'all are still so focused on me. So, like, focus on the people that are in the race. Because last time I checked, there is one person that is guaranteed not to become the next senator in the state of Texas, and that's Jasmine Felicia Crockett. Ashley? Yeah. Oh, sorry, we're both Ashley. I'll let the other Ashley. No, I just, I mean, you'll have good response on this as well, but I would actually think if, Tallarica needs at the end of the day to go after moderate Republicans, and I don't think she would help.

1:18:51So I would think it's actually better if she stays. Well, the reality is there's not enough moderate Republicans for him to win. If you just do the simple math, he's got to build a broad coalition. I don't disagree with that, but it's not enough voters there. If you cannot, you cannot go after moderate white voters at the expense of your base. And that's the pattern that's been developing in the Democratic Party. And that's why someone like Jasmine Crockett is withholding her endorsement. That's why black women voters are saying in the Houston Chronicle. Because she's withholding her endorsement because he hasn't laid out a plan to engage with the black community.

1:19:20He said four months ago that he cannot win this race without black voters. He said it as soon as he sealed the deal on the primary, during the primary. Now we're four months later, there's not any real demonstration of putting action behind those particular words. And that's really the frustration that you see among Jasmine Crockett, but also black leaders across the country, I mean, across the state. They're meeting on Monday or next week, I should say, to talk about the way forward, given all of this frustration and the lack of sort of effort on the part of the campaign. Do you think she'd be helpful?

1:19:49I definitely think she'd be helpful with black voters. I have to say, covering the 2026 election, it's like watching which party is going to blow this worse for themselves. Like, it's not a competition to win. It seems like they're in a competition to lose. Do you know And I think Teller Rico is a really good candidate. Yeah, he really is. But thanks to both of you. Appreciate it. A big weekend coming up on CNN. We'll be right back.

1:20:17In our pop culture lead, Craig Ferguson's out with another episode of American on Purpose. This week, as we approach the country's 250th anniversary, Craig is looking at what patriotism really means in what seems like a very divided country right now. When it comes to patriotism, you explored a lot of different people's views of what that means, what patriotism means. Tell us about that episode. Most people that I talked to thought that dissent and having the right to express dissent was one of the most patriotic things they could do, which I kind of love that because I think sometimes when you're expressing dissent and when you're expressing when the heat is in your argument, you might forget or it sometimes gets left behind that you're arguing because you care.

1:21:01You're arguing because you want it to be better. The point of this country is to argue. I think that that's what creates the freedom, is the arguments. In your naturalization of, right? Right. You said, I'm going to support and protect the Constitution of the United States and the laws therein. Yeah, and defend it against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Because patriotism at a surface level, which, like, this is awesome, but patriotism could be, I really don't like the government. I really don't like what they're saying. I really don't like the way things are going, but I love this country and so I'm going to speak up.

1:21:36Right. Which sounds like on face the most un-American thing you could say, but it's that most pro-American. Right. Pro-America because you're saying I participate in the giant f*** off experiment that is the United States of America. The CNN original series, Craig Ferguson, American on Purpose, airs Saturday at 9 p.m. Eastern and next day on the CNN app. Big show coming up Sunday on State of the Union. My guests include Homeland Security Secretary Mark Wayne Mullen, Ohio's Republican Governor Mike DeWine, Democratic Senator Raphael Warnock of Georgia and Republican Senator Tom Tillis of North Carolina.

1:22:12Maryland's Governor, Democratic Governor Wes Moore, Republican Congressman Don Bacon of Nebraska and author Rye Barkat will also join us at Sunday at 9 a.m. and noon Eastern only on CNN. If you ever miss an episode of the lead, you can watch the show on the CNN app. Aaron Burnett at Front starts now. See you Sunday morning. Hey there, it's Wayfair here, where delivery and setup are as easy as a few taps on your phone. You're relaxing in an old hammock, scrolling Wayfair's app when you spot it, a brand new patio set. Next thing you know, Wayfair delivers it right to your patio and sets it up. Oh, you need a new grill too?

1:22:48All right, Wayfair's got you covered. With Wayfair's Room of Choice delivery and fast experts set up on qualifying orders, life gets a little easier. Visit Wayfair.com or the Wayfair app.