CENTCOM: U.S. Strikes Iran in 13th Consecutive Night

The Iran War gets a second front. The president says he's weighing a massive new attack. As U.S. intelligence assessors, the current bombing campaign is unlikely to get Iran to give in. John King here in for Anderson, there's all that tonight and for the 13th straight evening, more U.S. air strikes. No sign yet, they differ greatly from the first 12, but earlier today, the president telling Axios, quote, "I am considering a massive attack bigger than ever before. I'm close to making a decision. We are all set for it." The president also claims that Tehran wants to negotiate, but in his words, quote, "they haven't received enough pain yet." Here's how he put it a short time later. "We're doing very well against the Islamic Republic of Iran. We're doing extremely well. They would like to do something, but I say they're not ready yet. They need more of the same. They're not ready yet." Really though, the president's remarks to Axios suggests that more of the same as he put it, it's not been enough. And brand new CNN reporting certainly backs that up. Two sources familiar with the matter telling us, both the CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency have recently assessed that the current bombing campaign is unlikely to force Iran in its leadership to shift its negotiating position. That said, the talk is certainly getting tougher. Here's Secretary of State Rubio. "Do you rule out striking civilian interests?" "Guys, I saw Arachi, their foreign minister, who the other day say, or something about their policies in eye for an eye. The president's policy is ahead for an eye. I mean, honestly, that's what it's going to be." And late today, the president added a wrinkle to that, posting, quote, "any and all damages done to ships, cargo, or anything related there too will be paid for by Iranian money that the United States has in its possession and controls. It's unclear whether that, those tougher words, will bunch to Iran, which gained leverage of its own last night in the form of a second front, namely in the Bab al-Mandeb." That's the choke point. You see it on the map at the mouth of the Red Sea. You see traffic flowing through it now, but last night, Iranian-Bak Houthi fighters hit two Saudi oil tankers attempting passage. And that in turn, predictable, I guess, sent oil prices surging back above the $100 barrel mark. This price is rising as well. Today you see it there hitting $4.09 a gallon, up 15 cents from just a week ago. And on Capitol Hill, a house in a Senate split on whether to try to limit the war. House Democrats joined by four Republicans past a non-binding war powers resolution. Senate Republicans joined by Democrats on Federman, blocked civil legislation. We begin tonight with our CNN senior White House correspondent, Kristen Holmes. Kristen, I want to start. There's been a revision at the Pentagon, the website, about the fatalities. Can you explain that? Well, we're still learning more details here. So on Wednesday, the Pentagon had reported these casualties on the website and said what we have been reporting and know to be true that there were 18 American service members who have been killed since the start of the war. But by Thursday, the Department of Defense had changed that number to 14. So from 18 to 14. Now, according to the New York Times, one of the reasons behind the change was because the administration was not looking at these four service members as being part of the conflict. Again, this is from the New York Times reporting because their deaths occurred after President Trump had announced this ceasefire. But on the other side, we have heard, and again, this has also only been a response to the New York Times. We have reached out on our own, but it have not heard from the acting press secretary who attributed the change instead to temporary data disruptions on the website and suggested that they would be quickly fixed. Now, of course, we're going to monitor to see how quickly they are fixed. And, John, I do want to note here, we have been keeping our own tally. And 18 is the number that we have been citing regularly since this last weekend after the passing of those four additional service members. So it is unclear why this change happened, but of course, we are trying to get to the bottom of it. Well, let's get to the President's strategy here. Number one, tougher words, a massive strike. We have the will to do it. We have the material to do it. And then the tough words from the President talking about, if any, does any damage to ships or cargoes paid for out of the Iranian funds that the United States has in escrow. We've heard a lot from the President in the last four and a half months, and sometimes you get the follow through, and sometimes you don't. Talk to us, what's the big shift if one in White House strategy? Right now, there is no parent White House strategy. You had Secretary of Mercury be saying that Iran is begging to come to the table. Then your President Trump today saying they're not ready to make a deal. They're not ready to come to the table. Instead, they need more of the same. Well, at the same time, U.S. intelligence is saying in their recent assessments that this more of the same, this bombing every night, is not going to change the Iranian stance on negotiations or is unlikely to do so. So what is the President going to do? Well, we have no, and we have reported over and over and over again. The President has been looking for some kind of diplomatic offer. It is just seeming less and less likely. So now there is a decision to make. How far does the President want to go? There is a contingency of people around him, particularly in the political space, who say that if the President Trump goes any further than this, if he talks about putting boots on the ground or does some kind of explosive military action, there is a chance he is completely giving away the midterms here. This is looming over everything that he is doing politically. There is also still the chance that President Trump tries to take this in a different direction, but it's really unclear because the options are so limited, John. We are looking at more strikes, more of the same. It doesn't seem to be moving the needle. So what will move the needle? We still don't know. And we don't know what President Trump is willing to do. But U.S. officials have continued to tell us that he has not signed off on the most aggressive military action yet, meaning likely he is still looking for any kind of off-rampair. >> Chris and Holmes, the White House. Thank you so much. Let's continue the conversation. Now joining me, the former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for the Middle East, Dana Stroll, an retired U.S. Air Force colonel, Senator Clayton. Colonel, if my memory is correct, 25-26 years in Air Force intelligence, when the DIA and the Defense Department says the current bombing campaign is unlikely to bring the Iranians to the table in a way that is conducive to a deal. And you have the President saying he's ready to up the ante here. What happens next? >> John, a great question. And after 26 years of experience in Air Force intelligence, this is a bit of an unusual area. But when it comes to the target set that you have in question here, what you're really looking at is the realization that the things that they've done so far in terms of striking targets in Iran while causing a lot of damage have not really changed Iran's war aims or the trajectory of Iran's military moves. And they talk about decimating the Iranian military. The problem is that Iran basically works with an asymmetric force. And what that means is that they're using means other than conventional military force to achieve their goals. So what we're seeing is the fact that the Iranians can still maintain control over the straight-of-war moves. That, for the moment at least, has not changed. We're also seeing that Iran has the capability to launch long-range missiles and drones. That has not changed. And that is really one of the key things. These two areas are areas that should have been altered by a campaign that is really couched on what the other side is doing. The problem is that we're fighting a war that's more conventional. They're fighting a war where they've been able to hide a lot of their weapon systems and then brought them out into the open. And so, Dana, it brings a pretty profound moment that a profound question. You see all the words from the President and escalation in his words. You see more U.S. military assets moving into the region, which would give him the capabilities I gather to back those words up. Some say, "Oh, it's just to try to convince the Iranians. It's time to talk more seriously." Others say, "President One Center, if he's not planning to use them, how do you see it?" Well, we've seen this over and over from the Trump administration. When there's a U.S. military build-up in the region, Trump tends to order those assets to be used. We saw it last year before the 12-day war. It looked like he was using that military build-up to signal to the Iranians. He was really serious threatening that use of force to compel them to come back to the negotiating table and make commitments on their nuclear program. That didn't happen in a 12-day war started. The same thing this year, there was another military build-up starting in January all the way through February. At the same time that there was a U.S. negotiating team meeting with the Iranians in Geneva. And before those negotiations played out, the war started. The U.S. started striking Iran together with Israel. So number one, I think the Iranians look at this build-up. And at this point, it's reasonable to expect that once Trump builds up, he's boxed himself in and he's most likely going to escalate. And the challenge here is that we have no articulation from the Trump administration as to what those escalated strikes or that escalated strategy is actually going to deliver in terms of achievable objectives. This is about opening the straight-of-war moves. Is it about getting Iranian commitments on the nuclear program? We haven't heard that articulation. And so this looks like a means without an end. And colonel, as this plays out, you have a second front, at least at the moment we saw it yesterday. The hoodies getting involved in attacking tankers in the Red Sea. The theater has been Iran and the areas and the straight-of-war moves. capability standpoint, does the U.S. get spread too thin here? Does the United States need additional assets in any particular way? If that stays a persistent two front effort? Yeah, John, it depends on exactly what the goals are when it comes to Yemen and the Houthis and the opening of the Bob-El-Mandeb straight there. So the question then is if the idea is to go in and to decimate the Houthis, we would need more forces to do that. If it is just to keep things open on a more or less temporary basis, we could probably do it with the forces that are already in the Middle East, but it would be a precarious move because things can change very quickly and the Houthis could probably come in and close the Bob-El-Mandeb again if they wanted to. Overlapped the military strategy data, if that plays out, the president saying Iran will be held responsible for future Houthi attacks. With the geopolitics of the region, if you have these two fronts now with vital shipping lanes in both, what are we looking at? Well, I think it's important to remember how many times different people in the region have gone to war against the Houthis, including the United States, and no one has achieved the subject of dislodging the Houthis from Yemen or eliminating all the ways in which they can threaten freedom of navigation in this other choke point on the other side of the Middle East, including President Trump, who went to war against the Houthis last year for 55 days, longer actually than the 40-day war this year against Iran, and all that he succeeded to do with that military effort is get the Houthis to commit not to attack U.S. military vessels. They never made any commitments with respect to anything else. To actually dislodge the Houthis would require prioritizing that over everything else, and obviously the United States can't do that at this point. And more important here is Saudi Arabia, a critical U.S. partner who hosts U.S. military forces. It's the Houthis who are attacking Saudi Arabia. The Saudis want to war against the Houthis starting in 2015, and they ultimately reach the conclusion as well that there's no military solution here. So once again, with the threats and Trump tying Houthi escalation to what happens in Iran, he risks again boxing himself in now in a two front war. We're complicated by the day it seems. Dana Stroll, Colonel Layton, thank you so much. And up next what happens now that the President has imposed a new condition on that nuclear agreement with Saudi Arabia just one day after signing the deal. And later what the administration is doing in response to a report that Vice President Vance's secret service detail is, quote, "fed up with being used for personal and family travel." Hey, I'm Felicia Day. And I'm Will Wheaton. We are your hosts for the official podcast for the HBO Max original series, Stuart fails to save the universe. Every week we're breaking it down with the people who made it. Will he succeed? We have some theories based on the title. This is just nutty. The magic. It's palpable. A hundred percent. New episodes of our podcast drop every week right alongside the show. Watch full video episodes on HBO Max, the HBO Max YouTube channel, or wherever you get your podcasts. The official, Stuart fails to save the universe podcast. He fails. We talk about it. I'm CNN tech reporter Claire Defi. This week on the podcast, Terms of Service, our virtual wallets on the way to replacing the classic billfold. And as a tech reporter, I cannot help but wonder what are the risks of storing so much personal information in one place on our phones. Thankfully, Consumer Reports investigative reporter Lisa Gill spent months trying to answer those questions. She joined me to talk about her own digital wallet journey and how to keep your financial data as secure as possible. Google wallet, Samsung wallet, and Apple wallet tell you that they do not hold funds. They merely facilitate a transaction. Your information is stored on your phone, not with them. PayPal, cash app, and Venmo actually do hold funds. And they in my mind act a lot more like a bank. Listen to CNN's Terms of Service wherever you get your podcasts. We left you last night, the United States and Saudi Arabia had just signed an agreement allowing the sale of nuclear reactors to the Saudis. Today, the president added a new condition to that deal, saying the deal is, quote, totally subject to Saudi Arabia joining the very respected and successful Abraham Accords. The Abraham Accords or the agreements normalizing relations between select Arab states and Israel. The Saudis have repeatedly said they would not join the Accords. They will not recognize Israel without first seeing progress toward establishing a Palestinian state. Joining us now to discuss Michael Ratney, former ambassador to Saudi Arabia, also Ryan Crocker, former ambassador to Lebanon, Iraq, Kuwait, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Syria. Ambassador Ratney, what do you make of this rollout? And then the president saying the next day, we have to add this and that this is pretty big. I mean, it's far for the course, the sort of incoherent policy making we've seen on this and many other issues. That agreement was negotiated over many, many months. It was announced just a day ago, to great fanfare. It was signed publicly. And then Trump, I think, started to hear criticism both domestically, but also from Israel about the agreement and concerns about it. And he thought this was a handy way to try to cover himself. Ambassador Crocker, is there any way? I mean, how does this happen? The Saudi's position on the Abraham Accords is very well known. Israel's position on this deal is very well known. Is it that it was just the president reacting to pressure or did they just kind of mess this up from the beginning? Probably a little of both. There is another important missing ingredient here, John. We haven't had an ambassador in Saudi Arabia since Michael left 18 months ago. That's what ambassadors do. They warn of perils, they smooth over hard places. They set things up so that when you roll out something big, it rolls out. It doesn't just capsize. And I think we're seeing another impact of the fact that we've not had the ambassador representation throughout this war in all the critical states. Saudi Arabia, Egypt, there's no ambassador in Iraq, the United Arab Emirates and Qatar cannot do diplomacy without diplomats. And I think this is another example of that kind of screw up. I want to stay with you for a second, Ambassador Crocker. We haven't heard anything publicly from the Saudis. Is there anything to read into that? Or do we just assume there are private conversations that we'll figure it out down the road? Well, I have to assume that the phones are in full time use between Riyadh and Washington on this. I don't know if the Saudis were totally blindsided. It seems like they might have been. In which case, silence is about the best you can hope for rather than a fairly blistering denial. So I think we'll have to wait and see what telephone calls that are taking place even as we speak produce. But I would not be optimistic on the future of this deal. And Ambassador Ratney, this is a very sensitive deal in and of its own. And it comes at an incredibly sensitive and fragile time in the region. We mentioned earlier, Iranian-backed Houthi rebels now attacking vessels in the Red Sea, two Saudi tankers apparently hit overnight. Connect the two dots in terms of the tensions in the region. And where do you see this going? So the escalation of the Houthis is pretty serious. You know, they had sort of sat out the original part of this war, I think, partly because the Iranians were holding them in reserve. And partly because I think the Saudis weren't touch with them and encouraging them to stay out of the war. The fact that they're now in it is dangerous. It's dangerous for oil tankers. It means the Red Sea route to export oil from Saudi Arabia is potentially closed off with impact not just on Saudi Arabia, but on the entire global energy market. And there's no easy answer to it. And it comes in a moment where President Trump's answer is to potentially escalate even further. We're into 13 nights of additional air strikes and threats from the president for a major escalation that I don't think will end well because as we've seen from the end of February when this war started, the Iranians appear to be capable of absorbing a lot more pain than we or our partners are. Ambassador Krakow, I went through just a bit of your resume in the introduction. You've been in the middle of a lot of seemingly intractable situations over the years. You look at the parties now involved in this war, the United States, Israel, Iran, now the hoodies, obviously all the Gulf states. Where do you see this going, especially as you hear the words from the President of the United States, signaling, at least in words, that he's going to escalate from a military standpoint? Well, the president has signaled almost everything imaginable since this conflict started in February. What you need in this kind of crisis is steadiness and consistency, and that is not the president's strong suit to say the least. Our allies are confused, they're afraid, they're angry, they don't know what we're going to do next, they don't know if we're going to escalate, evacuate or something in between. What we need to do, I think, at this stage is just buckle down to the awareness that this is a very long war. It didn't start in February, it didn't start last June, it started decades ago. As long as that regime is in place in Iran, it's going to continue at one level or another. We've got to do, we show consistency of purpose that we will apply force with the end of getting back to the negotiating table, not force for force in sake, not force for regime change, that didn't work, but to apply enough pressure and pain to get Iran back to the table and then be realistic about what we can expect there. We're not going to be able to do that. to get a full-fledged peace agreement not with this regime. They get a prolonged truce. But we've got a signal to allies and adversaries alike that we are consistent. We are dependable. And we will stay the course on this. And that is what we're not doing so far. - Ambassador Crockett, Ratney, thank you both for your time, gentlemen. Appreciate it very much. Thank you. Up next, what's happening to remember the Vice President's Secret Service detail. After a new report that the team is, quote, "fed up with hastily arranged personal and family travel requests." Also, the Justice Department now with drawing subpoenas to the New York Times journalists who reported on the security shortcomings of the new Air Force One. [MUSIC PLAYING] A major new controversy at the Secret Service involving the detailed charge with protecting Vice President Vance. One member of that team now facing an internal review at a source telling CNN the agent is suspected of leaking sensitive information to a reporter. At issue, this article from MSNOW titled "Vance's Security Detail Fed Up with hastily arranged personal and family travel requests." It described the VP's planned travel, including, flying with his son on Marine 2 for a golf lesson, plans that were later canceled due to weather. The Secret Service released a statement that read in part, "A member of the Vice Presidential Protective Division is the subject of administrative investigation and potential criminal inquiry involving allegations of compromising operational and information security. For more on this, I'm joined by former Secret Service agent, Jonathan Wackrow. Jonathan, I know this for my 10 years covering the White House of Being Around the President of the Vice President. This is a big deal. But it's a very big deal, right? Yeah, John, good evening. Yes, this is a big deal. It's not simply an employee misconduct case. This is an operational security issue that literally strikes at the foundation of the Secret Service Protective Mission. I want to put a little bit of a finer point on this. Somebody assigned to one of the highest profile protective details in the country let their personal frustrations about scheduling override the judgment they were entrusted with. And one aspect of this reporting you touched on at just a moment ago really revolves around the attention within the leak on the Vice President's minor child. From a protective standpoint, children are intentionally kept outside of the public spotlight whenever possible. We've seen that administration after administration. But publicly connecting the child of the Vice President to specific activities or family routines increases their visibility. And when their visibility increases individuals with malicious intent will take notice. Protective structures really are designed to reduce the predictability and exposure that this leak caused, not amplify it. So if I'm to summarize this leak in just a couple words, this is protective negligence. And if an agent has believed to be legitimate concerns about being overworked or being underbreed or things changing too quickly, what's the process? Well, John, long hour short notice, family activities canceled. That's all real. And it's a genuine source of frustration within any protective detail. It was when I was an agent on the detail. But there's a way to raise that up internally and not go to the press. The reason being is going to the press isn't going to solve anything. It's not going to solve that frustration. What it actually does is it worsens the situation. And it deteriorates the trust and confidence of the protectees. In this case, the Vice President that they have with the women and men that are around them. So it causes more of a problem. It solves nothing. Yeah. And I assume the Vice President is having some tough conversations with the leaders of his detail, trying to rebuild that trust if he can. Another subject. Tomorrow night, they have rescheduled the White House Correspondence dinner. As we all know, sadly had to be canceled after it would be a assassin, rushed through security checkpoint. What do you expect will be different if that's the right word in terms of security? Yeah. Well, listen, again, this is not just another dinner that the president is going to. This is another dinner where you have the highest concentrations of congressional-- I'm sorry, of constitutional leadership gathered in one place. And what makes this different, even from the dinner in April, is that this is being done against the backdrop of what the secret service is describing as one of the most volatile threat environments in decades and put a finer point on that. They've revealed just the other day in a press conference that this year alone have opened up over 10,000 protective investigation cases. That is unprecedented. And what this number really underscores is in today's environment, they're not just worried about organized plots. They're increasingly worried about these unpredictable loan actors that we saw, even on the first dinner, who can mobilize with very little warning. So for tomorrow night's dinner, there is zero room for error. And you will see a show of force. You'll see a lot of different mitigation and control measures in place to make sure that this event goes off successfully. God, the work room. Thanks for your insights. Moving on to another big leak investigation. This one involving the president's new Cattari gifted Air Force 1, upgraded with hundreds of millions of American tax dollars. It goes back to Trump's trip to the NATO summit in Turkey, where he arrived, you probably recall, on the new Air Force 1, but departed on the old one, claiming he wanted to allow US troops stationed at a base in England a chance to tour the new plane. It turned out that was nowhere near the full story. The New York Times published an article titled Security Procoscid, led Trump to use old Air Force 1 in leaving Turkey. On the byline, four times reporters, all of whom received subpoenas from the Justice Department. Today in a New York courtroom, lawyers for the DOJ Southern District of New York withdrew those subpoenas. For more on why and what next? I'm joined by Eli Honek from a federal prosecutor with the Southern District of New York and our CNN chief media analyst, Brian Stelter. Eli, walk us through what happened in the courtroom today. Why? Why they dropped the subpoenas? Well, John, so the New York Times issued its article on July 8th. And two days later, subpoemed wielding teams of federal agents showed up at the private homes of those four reporters. The Times challenged those subpoenas. Today there was a hearing in federal court in Manhattan in front of Judge Arun Subramanian, 2023 nominee of Joe Biden. Today's hearing went quite poorly for DOJ for the administration. The judge called out DOJ, first of all, for using these subpoenas on journalists as a first resort when they're supposed to be used as a last resort. The judge excoriated DOJ because they simply screwed up some of the basics. For example, DOJ actually requested information about one of the reporter's mothers and another of the reporter's spouses. And ultimately, John, at the end of this hour-long hearing, the judge said to the DOJ prosecutors, either you withdraw this subpoena or I'm going to quash it. Now, that's not much of a choice for DOJ. They had to back off. They agreed to withdraw the subpoenas. And one more thing I should note, John, the judge asked the DOJ prosecutor specifically did Todd Blanche, the acting attorney general, know of and sign off on these subpoenas as he's supposed to do under DOJ policy. And the prosecutor confirmed that yes, this did go all the way to the top. And Todd Blanche blessed this. So Brian, what is the time saying this? The newspaper view this as a win-win or a win for now? It's a win for now with a concern about what comes in the future. Today's hearing shows part of the system working because the times was able to seek relief from a judge and get it within two weeks. So in this case, first amendment rights upheld. I think Bruce Brown said it well. He's the head of the reporters committee. He said targeting reporters to appease the White House has reached a dead end once again in the federal courts. The judge saw the DOJ's effort clearly for what it was, a brazen and careless government overreach. It was notable today that the prosecutors admitted that those reporters' spouses and moms records were sought after as an error. It was a consequence of moving too quickly, they said. But why were they moving quickly? Because President Trump wanted them to. This is very personal for the president. He was excited about the plane. He wanted to start riding on it. He was outraged when reporters revealed there were security sore comings. He was outraged that sources inside the government were contradicting him. He told a story that was a cover story that nobody believed about the plane going to England in order to get tours for service members. Nobody believed that. Pretty quickly, reporters learned through sources what was really going on with the security problems of the plane. So now the full story is out there. And that's a good thing. The public knows what happened with the plane. And by the way, a couple days ago, Trump basically admitted it and said that the plane has to be taken out of service to be, quote, "maxed out." So the truth got out there. The system's working. But it's important that people know that they can go to reporters that government officials can go ahead and blow the whistle in this way. And I think the big point here, John, is the administration's probably going to keep trying. We know this year, the Washington Post has been subpoenaed, the Washington Post has been subpoenaed, and now the New York Times. There might be others out there secretly that we don't know about. The administration's going to keep trying these maneuvers. And it's important the courts step in in this way and quash it. So, Ellie, that is part of the question. Is it message received? They confirmed that the acting attorney general, the president's nominee, to be the full-time attorney general, signed off on this. Is it message received in the Justice Department retreats? Or do you think it's likely they'll try to reissue the subpoena? Is it-- and what are the stakes if a subpoena like this wherever I've held it a court? So this is not necessarily over. The judge actually said in the hearing today, "Dio J, you can try again if you can do it right, if you can show oppressing national security need, if you can exhaust all your other avenues before you do this." And Dio J already has issued a public statement saying, we are not going to let this drop. We are going to continue to try to do this. And John, the stakes here can be very serious. If this subpoena or any other subpoena on a media organization is ever upheld, then that's going to put the journalist, reporters in a remarkable bind where they're either going to have to go into a grand jury and reveal their inside government sources or risk of finding of contempt and imprisonment. And this does happen in John. I know you'll remember this Brian too. But in 2005, a New York Times reporter named Judy Miller was subpoenaed by DOJ and the judge upheld the subpoena and she refused to testify and she went to prison for 85 days. So we hope it never comes to that. But that's possible here. Now we'll watch and see what the next round is. Ellie Honeck, Brian Stelter. Thank you, gentlemen. Up next, more breaking news. New reporting on what was in both of the chilling Nancy Guthrie, ransom notes. And a former top banker with ties to late Jeffrey Epstein testifies on Capitol Hill what he told lawmakers that has one of them saying he is. And these are the lawmakers words, quote, flat out line. More breaking news tonight. It concerns what was written in the first Nancy Guthrie, ransom note. According to journalist Brianna Whitney, who read it out loud on the podcast crime junkie, it says quote, hello Savannah, 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'll be holding her for a maximum of seven days. Once payment is received at the Bitcoin address below, she will be released within 12 hours of deposit to a safe drop off location back in Tucson. If the payment is not received by the last deadline on Monday, the 9th and 5 p.m. 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. CNN recently reported on the second note, which was sent just a few days later. That one said Miss Guthrie died shortly after the kidnapping. Brianna Whitney, the journalist we just mentioned also revealed that this second note said her death was "heart related" and said the message was that "we did not fully grasp the seriousness of her physical conditions." Joining us now the former FBI director Andrew McCabe, and who based on the reporting the details in that first note, which is chilling and sad, does it sound legitimate to you? You know, that's very hard to tell, John, and clearly the FBI through their own recent public announcements have said that there are notes that they believe to be legitimate. We have, I think, logically identified that note and what's been referred to as the second note as the notes that they are seriously considering. You also know that they have received a number of other notes that they know are not legitimate. I think one individual already has been arrested for engaging in an extortion with a fake note. The first note, probably the two points that stand out most notably in that note, bolstering its "legitimacy" are the facts that they identified and described Miss Guthrie's watch and exactly where it was left on the floor inside her residence and the fact that there was a non-functioning flood light in the backyard. So knowing, having an understanding about those details in the backyard and then also the detail of the watch, which investigators were able, I'm sure, to confirm was true when they did their crime scene evaluation. Those are probably the factors that are leading the bureau to put some stock in that note. And if time's sight now, but if you remember, Savannah Guthrie, I'm centrally on camera in a simply heart-wrenching message. She and her siblings were prepared to pay ransom for their mother. That said at the time, now you have this note. How do you square the idea that if this was viewed as legitimate at the time, that we don't, at least we don't know of any effort to do that? Yeah, you know, it seems that the second note came so quickly that it may have derailed that process, that hope that they would be able to engage in some sort of a negotiation, not necessarily a negotiation over the amount of the ransom, but at least to interact with whoever sent the first note to build some confidence in the fact that they were actually prepared to engage in an effort to get Miss Guthrie returned. So before really they had a chance to do that, they received the second note, which as you know, Savannah and her family made that heart-wrenching video after the second note, which seemed to kind of acknowledge that they had gotten a message that Miss Guthrie Nancy was no longer alive. So that, and after that, we really have had no progress whatsoever on this front. I think it's regretful that the note, particularly the first one, have been shared so publicly now. It's got to be just absolutely excruciating on the family to have to have those details shared publicly and my heart goes out to them. I agree. I agree very much. Edwin McCabe, thank you so much. Now let's move on to another high profile investigation. Today a former top banker came under fire from Democrats on the House Oversight Committee. Over testimony he gave about the late Jeffrey Epstein. Jess Staley was once a top executive of JP Morgan Chase. He went on to become the CEO of Barclays. Today, Democrats said Staley claimed he had no friendship with Epstein, but that's not what the Epstein files show, which brought this from Democratic Congressman Robert Garcia. Mr. Staley is clearly an our opinion, just not being truthful. And flat out lying. Three years ago, Staley was banned from holding senior roles in UK financial services for misleading regulators about his relationship with Epstein. They cited more than a thousand emails between Mr. Staley and Epstein in them. Staley described their friendship as "perfowned" and referred to Epstein as "family." The Epstein files also include sexual abuse allegations against Staley. Staley said he had sex with a member of Epstein's staff but claims it was consensual. Joining us now Julie K. Brown, the award-winning investigative reporter for the Miami Herald. Her work was absolutely vital in exposing the extent of Epstein's sex trafficking ring. Julie's also the author of "Proversion of Justice," the Jeffrey Epstein story. Julie, grateful for your time. I know you've been talking to your sources about this Staley interview, which was behind closed doors with the Oversight Committee. What more can you tell us? Well, the work really surprises in the sense that Staley is doing the same thing that they unwrap and others have done before the committee, which is he did answer these questions and the ones that he did answer. He also denied that he knew that Epstein was involved in sex trafficking. He did admit that Epstein was a convicted sex funder and then he had gone to jail for having sex with a minor, but he seemed to believe that Epstein's crimes were behind him and that he was no longer trafficking of women. But again, the files over the years he had been corresponding with Epstein, there's a lot of talk and communication between him and Epstein about young women and girls than he referred to in Disney names like Snow White and Tinkerback. So the, as I understand it, a couple of the members of the Oversight Committee, rather, brought up these emails and said, "Well, who is this Snow White and why are you know, how is it that you're saying you don't know anything about this?" When in fact, you know, you have these emails and he really couldn't get the answer to those questions. This is a Congressional Oversight Committee. What about law enforcement? Has Staley ever been properly and deeply investigated by law enforcement that just the Department anywhere for his Thai steps? Well, this is particularly interesting because, as we know, Todd Lange and the FBI have said that there's nothing to investigate any longer that basically indicates it's closed. And yet we see all this evidence that suggests that that Staley may be involved, there were two women that had used some sexual abuse. Yet he said in his testimony as I understand it that he's never been questioned by authorities about left-wing or about that as well. So it's quite curious that the FBI and the DOJ don't seem to think that there's anything more to investigate. Yet we can see in the files that there was a lot of communication about young women between left-wing and Staley. And by the way, you know Staley is being with left-wing and first-wing people, namely with JP Morgan. We know that he was withdrawing with large sums of cash that were raising red flags with JP Morgan. And if nothing else one would think that the FBI and the DOJ would follow the money so to speak and try to at least determine where that money was going to and who he's being paid. One would think, but unfortunately one would think comes up time and time again based on your reporting and other developments in this tragic case. Separately another big development. I want to ask you about Daniel C. Add, the model recruiter who introduced young women to Epstein found dead out in his home outside of Paris this week. How significant is that and your quest has been to find the truth to something like this make it harder. I think it does to some degree but again part of the problem is that the US government anyway doesn't seem to be interested in getting to the truth or finding. They're not releasing the rest of the files. There's certainly more information in there that we know about that we have to see. I think Cyan, Cyan, Cyan, that I can find in houses. his name correctly, sorry. He was involved in an Epstein sex trafficking born, did it say, yes, he was an agent for his modeling company. But he also was sending all these photographs and all these emails that have seen indicating that he had women for Epstein, not for the modeling agents. So he is just among some of the associates that we're helping Epstein with his sex trafficking organization. Julie K. Brown, as always, thank you so much. Coming up for us, how President Trump's proposed 250-foot tall arch could make flying into Washington a bit more complicated. The approach to Reagan Washington National Airport, especially from the north, is one of the trickiest for pilots to navigate due to the complex airspace. There's the White House restricted airspace there, the Washington Monument. Abandoned the Potomac River, and then the Pentagon off to the right. And now perhaps another complication. President Trump's proposed 250-foot tall triumphal arch. Silent Surphati reports. This airspace above me is among the most complex for planes taking off and landing. And President Trump is about to make it even more complicated with this, a 250-foot triumphal arch in the middle of this very congested airspace less than two miles from the final approach of Washington's Reagan National Airport. The size and location is sparking concern in the aviation community. Ever since 9/11, commercial airspace is restricted, so planes have to use this flight path to come in from the north. Pilots tell us this is already one of the most difficult landings in the country. It's challenging, especially that last term. Now, the arch is going to be something we come across near the end of this arrival, when we're already at low altitude. Ben Berman, a former airline pilot, took us into a simulator to show us exactly what pilots see when they make this landing. So right now, we're flying by the arch. So you're talking about only 300 of clearance between you and the top of the arch? Yeah, approximately. So right now-- How does that make you feel? Oh, if it's a clear visual day, I feel good. But if I was flying that RNAB approach to 1/9, I can do this in the clouds. You can't go to the left because there's the restricted airspace of downtown Washington and all the capital and White House and everything. And then you can't go to the right because-- well, there may be an arch there. So then at the very last bit, make about a 30 degree right turn to line up with the runway. It all has to be judged by eye. I am standing where the arch will ultimately go. I'm nearly six feet tall. You can see how tall the arch would be. The flight path is just 350 feet above the highest point of the arch. While that seems like a small distance, experts say it's enough space because the horizontal clearance is so wide between 1,400 to 2,000 feet. Even so, for years, pilots have complained about landing at runway 1/9, the one that is closest to the arch. According to government reports, pilots have said there is not enough room to make the descent, flying too low in the area, receiving caution obstacle alerts from their warning systems, and struggling to avoid flying into the prohibited airspace. The FAA says the arch is safe, saying it would have no significant adverse effect, but called for red lights to be added to the arch to help pilots navigate around it. And so, Sallan, tell us, where do things stand right now tonight in terms of whether this arch actually gets built? Well, it's pretty close, John. One of two key federal commissions that needs to review the arch will be taken up in September, other September third meeting. It has to go through these two key committees. One has already passed it through, so we're ultimately just waiting on the second one, the National Capital Planning Commission. And a reminder, these are commissions that the president fired the previous members replace with this hand selected loyalist, so it's likely that that will get passed when they take it up for final vote. But it does still face this lawsuit, a lawsuit from Vietnam Veterans Groups, also from historians, preservationists who argue about the location of the arch so close to Arlington National Cemetery, it's making its way through the courts, of course. Now, when they win, and if the arch is approved, if it clears the legal hurdles, the Department of Interior, John, they have been very clear that they are going to work very quickly, very field-seed. They have already laid out a very aggressive timeline. The plan will be to work 20 hours a day, two shifts, 10 hours each on those shifts, seven days a week, 20 hour work days, year round to get this done before the president leaves office, John. Fascinating piece, something good, I'll show the graphics team, and thank you very much. And this quick programming note, after being derailed at April by a gunman, the White House correspondent, Stinner, back on tomorrow night, join host John Berman and Laura Coates for CNN Special Coverage. That's Friday night 8 p.m. Eastern, here on CNN, or you can stream it on the CNN app. The news continues, the source starts now.