Return to Transcripts main page
Anderson Cooper 360 Degrees
Mangione Pleads Guilty In Federal Court, Admits Shooting CEO; Acting Navy Secy Weighs In On Conditions Aboard USS Abraham Lincoln; Interview With Rep. Elaine Luria (D-VA); President Sued Over Early Access To Truth Social Posts; Politico: Trump-Appointed Regulator Approves Banking License For Trump-Linked Crypto Firm; Trump Asks Supreme Court To Let Him Build Ballroom; NY Times: DHS Used $464M No- Bid Contract To Buy 10 Planes; Magnitude 7.7. Quake Strikes Off Coast Of Indonesia, Tsunami Warning Issued. Aired 8-9p ET
Aired August 14, 2026 - 20:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
ERIN BURNETT, CNN HOST: Incredible, just to see that in those empty streets and to hear less than 25 percent find the U.S. trustworthy of Taiwanese voters.
Well, thanks so much to all of you for being with us on this Friday night. We'll see you next week. "AC360" begins now.
[20:00:30.0]
ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST, "ANDERSON COOPER: 360": Good evening from the Newsroom. We begin tonight in the federal courthouse work today. The man accused for murdering UnitedHealthcare CEO, Brian Thompson in cold blood on a Midtown Manhattan sidewalk admitted he did it. And he described the crime in chilling detail. With Thompson's widow listening in the courtroom. Luigi Mangione said he was driven by the pain from a broken back and frustration with the country's health insurance industry.
Then he described how he e-mailed UnitedHealthcare leadership, claiming he managed $50 billion in assets in order to get information about the conference. Finally, he talked about how he used a 3-D printer to make part of a gun equipped with a silencer, then traveled to New York intending, he said, to shoot Brian Thompson, "I shot Mr. Thompson in Manhattan and he died," he said. Adding, "I knew what I was doing was illegal."
The killing in December of 2024, in the nationwide manhunt that followed, made Mangione to some kind of counterculture hero. Today's guilty plea to federal stalking charges seems to have not changed. Supporters, one of whom shouted, "America loves Luigi" ass Thompson's widow and family left the courthouse.
A short time later, the U.S. attorney in charge of the case spoke out against the notion of anyone glorifying a killer.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JAMIE MCDONALD, U.S. ATTORNEY, SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK: We live in a civilized society governed by the rule of law. We debate, we disagree, we protest, we do not commit murder.
No grievance, political belief or ideological cause can ever justify murder. There can be no celebrity in assassination.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COOPER: Mangione's guilty plea leaves him still facing state murder charges, which his lawyers today filed a motion to dismiss on double jeopardy grounds.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KAREN FRIEDMAN AGNIFILO, LUIGI MANGIONE'S DEFENSE ATTORNEY: He believed that the system had failed him and destroyed his life despite this being a single, isolated event, Mr. Mangione has been unfairly treated since the outset in every way and has successfully fought off terrorism charges and the death penalty, while also fighting at the same time two simultaneous prosecutions in two jurisdictions who are trying to punish him twice for the exact conduct. He's been treated differently from every other defendant charged with this offense in New York.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COOPER: In a moment, our legal panel weighs in on his chances of getting the state charges thrown out. But first, CNN's Kara Scannell, who's witnessed Mangione's guilty plea, joins us from outside the federal courthouse in Lower Manhattan. What was it like in the courthouse today? What new information emerged?
KARA SCANNELL, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Anderson, it was somber inside the courtroom as Luigi Mangione sat down between his lawyers and described the killing of Brian Thompson.
He began, almost speaking too quickly where the judge asked him to slow down so she could hear exactly what he was saying, and he said in a very clear, matter of fact voice, with no remorse that he had experienced severe back pain.
And what we learned for the first time, too, was that he had then reached out to UnitedHealthcare because he learned about their investor conference, but he didn't know where it was.
So, he asked executives where the conference was posing as a manager of $50 billion in assets. He said they got back to him quickly, more quickly than he's ever had an insurance company respond to him before. And it was after that when he knew where Brian Thompson was going to be that he said he traveled to New York. He had a 3-D printed gun, he added a magazine and ammunition, and that he shot Brian Thompson outside that investor conference.
It was pretty shocking how unremorseful he was in saying it. And Brian Thompson's family and friends were sitting in the front row, his widow wiping her eyes during Mangione's statements and them holding on to each other. She was clutching the arm of the woman sitting next to her, especially as Mangione had said that he shot him and he died. It was a striking moment, and Mangione did not look over to Brian Thompson's family. He was then, after the judge set the sentencing date, escorted him out of the courtroom.
So, that is how this part of the story ends with the federal case. He will be sentenced in December, but there's a lot more to come on the state case.
COOPER: So, they want the state case against him thrown out on double jeopardy grounds. What comes next in that process?
SCANNELL: So immediately after court today, Luigi Mangione's lawyers filed a motion to dismiss the murder and weapons charges in the state case. The Manhattan District Attorney's Office, which investigated this crime and brought the charges, said that they are going to continue to litigate it. So, this will now go before New York State judge to decide whether he thinks double jeopardy here applies.
And now, lawyers I've talked to say that they think Mangione's legal team actually has a good argument, because there is one victim and the crimes are similar in the type of violent act that they were between the federal stalking with intent to kill charge and the state murder in the second-degree charge. Ultimately, though, that will be up to the judge to decide.
And whoever loses this may end up appealing. The District Attorney's Office saying that they are looking to see how the sentencing goes for Luigi Mangione in December in the federal case. But they say they are looking to get justice for Brian Thompson's family.
COOPER: Kara Scannell, appreciate it. Thank you, Kara.
Joining us now, former federal prosecutor Berit Berger, criminal defense attorney Arthur Aidala and retired FBI special agent Richard Kolko.
Berit, is this the outcome you expected?
[20:05:59]
BERIT BERGER, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR, EASTERN AND SOUTHERN DISTRICTS OF NEW YORK: Yes. When we heard that, he was anticipating the guilty plea, my first thought was there's no chance these federal prosecutors had given him any kind of a sweetheart deal. The fact that we now know he pled open, which means he pled to the whole indictment, means that exactly that they didn't give him a deal. He is still facing all of the penalties he was before. And this is the right of any criminal defendant.
They can plead not guilty; they can plead guilty. This allows the federal prosecutors to go to court and say he should be given either, you know, the extent of what the statute allows, which is life, or very close to it. It also allows Mangione to make the argument that he should get something far below, that nobody is bound by anything. The only thing we know now is he has waived his right to an appeal. So, whatever happens, whatever Judge Garnett decides -- COOPER: It's all up to the judge.
BERGER: It's final, yes.
COOPER: Arthur, if he was your client, would you have suggested he do this?
ARTHUR AIDALA, NEW YORK CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Well, Karen Agnifilo just said is true. Theres, like, 300 murders in New York City all the time. You don't hear them being charged in two different jurisdictions. So, he's definitely being treated differently.
COOPER: He was flown in by helicopter. The mayor, was there.
AIDALA: The mayor was there, this is not being handled like your typical and I hate to say that term, but murder trial, murder case. However, the state judge who will have to rule on whether it's double jeopardy or not, Judge Gregory Carro, who's been there a long time, Anderson. He's not known to lean into the defense arguments. He's known to lean into the prosecution's arguments.
So, my educated guess, knowing everyone here, and Joel Simon is the lead prosecutor who's very, 40 years he's been there, I could see the judge saying, I don't think there's double jeopardy, but then they have a right to go to the appellate court before a trial in the state court and appeal to five judges on the appellate division and say there is double jeopardy here.
And it's a close call, and that's what they're hoping for that the state, the federal judge, doesn't sentence him to life, which is what the prosecutors said. They've already said they're going to ask for life, that they sentenced him to something less than life.
They're going to rely on his bad back. She already said it, his bad, and he said it. His bad back caused him to think unclearly and that's why he did this.
COOPER: Richard, what does it say about Mangione's level of premeditation that by his own admission today he posed as this investor with $50 billion to learn the location of Brian Thompson?
RICHARD KOLKO, RETIRED FBI SPECIAL AGENT: We'll if you just read through the summary and the timeline it's clear that he was premeditated all the way from printing the gun, the travel, where he stayed. So, he was thinking about doing this the whole time and I think the strangest part is he wasn't even a customer of this insurance company. So, he was just out to get somebody.
COOPER: Berit, the double jeopardy argument, what do you make of it?
BURGER: So really, the judge has to consider two things right now, right. The first thing is he has to see we all know that double jeopardy comes from the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution. New York Statute is a little bit more protective, deliberately so for defendants. So now the judge has to see these two crimes. Do they arise from the same act or criminal transaction, the federal
charges and state charges? If so, that's not the end of the analysis. Then the judge has to see. All right, is there an argument to be made that the state and the federal laws were designed to prevent against different harms?
He's got to go through this whole analysis. I think at the end of the day, this judge probably is going to try to do everything he can to try to keep these charges in state court. Nobody likes to have a case that the District Attorney's Office has been working on now for two years, preempted by this federal plea.
COOPER: Do you think the judge will try to keep it?
BERGER: I think he will, but it is a tight analysis here. And exactly like Arthur was saying, there could be an appeal, sort of an immediate appeal here up to the appellate division if he ultimately decides that double jeopardy did not.
COOPER: How long do you think he'll be in jail for?
AIDALA: Well, this is a rare case too, Anderson, where if the judge decides on jeopardy, or doesn't, one way or the other, both sides can appeal. The prosecutor can appeal as well. If the judge says, yes, its double jeopardy, I'm dismissing it. The prosecutor very rarely can appeal. Only defendants typically can appeal.
But here the prosecutor can appeal and go to the appellate division saying, no, no, no, Judge Carro is mistaken, this doesn't fit in there.
The judge in the federal case, she was a former prosecutor for 12 years. I have a case in front of her right now. She's very pleasant. She knows her stuff inside and out. She is going to go pretty hard on him.
Look, for the overall defense team. If Luigi, who's 28, if he gets out in his 60s, I think it's a tremendous victory for them, considering all the evidence that are against him. But I'd give him some light at the end of the tunnel, that's what this is all about, so that he doesn't get sentenced in both places consecutively, so that he'll never get out. They're trying to give him some light at the end of the tunnel.
COOPER: So, if he, if the state case goes away and it's only in New York, he could get out before he dies?
[20:10:33]
AIDALA: It's up to the judge. The judge could give him 20 years, 30 years, 40 years, 50 years. They're going to lean into the mitigation that this University of Pennsylvania kid who comes from a great family, who has financial means. So, who should know better, was mentally, like not himself because of all the pain and agony he was in from the bad back. And there's plenty of medical records to support that. So, they're on
one side going to say, judge, please don't punish him for the rest of his life for what he did, because he was in such excruciating pain. The prosecution will say, that doesn't cut it, put him in jail forever.
COOPER: Richard, there was obviously a lot of attention immediately after the killing about what kind of gun he used. Authorities were trying to work backwards to kind of help identify him. Come to find out, he did this on a 3-D printed gun. What does it say about the challenges facing law enforcement in this day and age?
KOLKO: Oh, law enforcement hates this. They are very hard to track and trace. He's able to do the 3-D printer of the receiver, the lower part of the gun. That's the part that has a serial number that allows law enforcement to track them. But then once he makes that, he can go online and just order the barrel and the slide. And you don't need a federal firearms license; you don't need a background check and that just shows up in your mailbox or at your door. You put the gun together, go out and test it. Same with the suppressor.
So, he was able to put this together, fire it. And it's very, very untraceable. As a matter of fact, there's just a few of the designs for that lower receiver that people use on these 3-D printers. The person out there on social media recognized that his own design out there, and he took credit for it on social media, that the that Luigi had used his gun.
COOPER: Berit, he was apparently pretty matter of fact in the courtroom today. How much does that matter for the judge, do you think? I mean, how much does the judge kind of base it on her opinion of this person in person, the way they talk, the way they, their emotions?
BERGER: So, when he's ultimately sentenced, Judge Garnett is going to have a whole host of information, not only about what he said in court today. She's going to get a pretrial services report that talks about his entire history, his past, including all of his medical ailments, everything he wants her to know.
He will then have a chance at sentencing to come before her to, you know, say what's on his mind, to say everything that, you know, caused him to do this to express remorse and that is going to be key. If a defendant has no remorse and doesn't say any sort of an apology to the victim, to the victim's family, judges take that pretty seriously, particularly in a case like this, where the victim's family has shown up. They were there in court today for him not to express remorse today and then ultimately in sentencing, I think that could be really significant for Judge Garnett.
COOPER: There was no remorse expressed, though, from what we understand today.
AIDALA: And even, well, that's what Kara said, too. You know, when she was there, she saw it. And look, when you're in those moments, Anderson and I, you know, as the lawyers and I'm sure the family and their whole team, you know, did the best that they could. But your client, the human being, gets into this, like, catatonic state almost and you do the best you can to guide him or her through it.
But ultimately, it's up to them and every judge, when sentencing talks about remorse, either I find you genuinely remorseful and I'm crediting you, or I think you just gave me lip service. I mean, my practice is I don't write my client statements.
COOPER: If this guy wants to kind of continue being popular among, I guess, the people he's popular with, does expressing remorse hurt that and is that important to him?
AIDALA: Well, that's, listen, that's up to him then he really has a screw loose. I mean, if that's I mean, clearly, he did something horrible here. But if this is what he's doing, he's just playing to the publicity of it all. And to these nutjob people who are outside the court saying, free Luigi, then, you know, then there's only so much the lawyers can do.
You know, you can, they have to play the hand they're dealt, the judge they're dealt, the evidence they're dealt and the evidence they're dealt, and the client they're dealt and they're doing the best they can under the circumstances. At this point, it's up to Luigi to help himself more than his lawyers. They've done the best they could under the circumstances.
COOPER: Berit Berger, thank you, Arthur Aidala, as well, Richard Kolko, thank you as well.
Other news tonight, the President takes his case for a White House ballroom to the Supreme Court and reveals golden new renderings of what it would look like, which well show you ahead.
And next, the President dismisses concerns about conditions aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln, whose sailors and marines are enduring a record long stretch at sea.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REPORTER: Has the deployment gone on too long? Are you worried about the mental health concerns?
DONALD TRUMP (R) PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: No, no, no, not nearly long enough.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[20:18:58]
COOPER: The acting Navy secretary just weighed in on conditions aboard the Carrier Abraham Lincoln, which has now gone more than 200 days in the Iran war zone without making port. During that time, crew members have reportedly faced supply shortages, water contamination, plumbing issues and deteriorating mental health. Several crew members have reportedly tried to throw themselves overboard, and one person did fall overboard but was later rescued.
Yesterday, the Defense Secretary, Pete Hegseth, called the reported problems, "completely misrepresented."
Today, the acting Navy Hung Cao weighed in online. He starts by saying, "The USS Abraham Lincoln crushed their deployment and will return home soon as part of a planned rotation." And about the alleged issues, he said, "a small number of mental health cases were treated with no loss of life. Meal plans were adjusted when fresh resupply was unavailable without a single meal being missed and calls home were limited when the operational threat was too high."
The President today was asked about the Lincoln, and even as he said his deployment would be ending soon, he said he wasn't concerned about conditions on board or mental health concerns.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REPORTER: The family members of U.S. servicemembers are concerned about the conditions onboard the USS Lincoln --
TRUMP: That ship is moving, no they're not. That ship is moving right now or very shortly, and it's being replaced with another very similar ship.
REPORTER: Has the deployment gone on too long? Are you worried about the mental health concerns?
TRUMP: No, no, no, not nearly long enough. Thank you everybody.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[20:20:25]
COOPER: Not nearly long enough, he said. Whatever he meant by that, what he said just a short time later certainly is just that American warships of one kind or another would be in the region indefinitely.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: And after we finish defeating Iran, which is being very badly defeated. Pretty soon I'll be declaring the Hormuz Strait a territory of the United States.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COOPER: As you know, many of the President's promises and statements about what will happen and how long the war will go on so far have not been accurate.
Yesterday on Fox, Vice-President Vance seemed to demote what the President has stated is his number one war aim to second place.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
J.D. VANCE (R), VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: I know that oil is down today and its way down from the highs in the early days of the conflict. That's goal number one. Keep oil and gas cheap for Americans all over our country. And then obviously goal number two is ensure that Iran never gets a nuclear weapon. I feel confident were accomplishing both of those goals.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COOPER: Today, the President just said higher gas prices were actually just fine as long as Iran doesn't get nukes.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: For you to pay a tiny little bit more for your gasoline. Just remember you're doing it so that a very evil country cannot have a country. Really, it's the number one state sponsor of terror in the world. We don't want to have them have a nuclear weapon. So, remember that when you have to pay a little bit more, you're at $4.00 it's okay, I mean, I'm not, I'll never apologize. I did the right thing.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COOPER: A lot to discuss on the war tonight. Joining us is former Virginia Democratic Congresswoman Elaine Luria. She's a 20-year-Navy veteran, all of it aboard warships who retired with the rank of commander.
So, Congresswoman, you had six deployments to the Middle East in the Pacific. I'm wondering what goes through your mind when you hear the President say the USS Lincoln's record-breaking deployment is, "not nearly long enough" And dismissing concerns that family members have said.
FORMER REP. ELAINE LURIA (D-VA): Well, I think from a leadership perspective, I mean, the President of the United States started this war. He sent these sailors into harm's way. And the absolute lack of compassion and understanding for those sailors and their family members. And the fact that there is no end in sight. These sailors on the deployment on Lincoln, just like those right before them on board, it has extended and extended and extended forward, just returned home to its home port here in Hampton Roads in Virginia.
And it was the longest carrier deployment since Vietnam, nearly 11 months, serving in three different theaters. And that strain on our carrier force is just continuing to deepen, as we have two carriers present now in the Gulf region. And it has such far reaching concerns for our National Security that we really are not being touched on the fact that we've, you know, heard about the horrible conditions on Lincoln. And it seems that, you know, their deployment, you know, is approaching an end and they'll be replaced by the George Washington.
But that carrier, the George Washington, that is our deterrent in the pacific. And it is very rare. I mean, it signals that, you know, only when really the Navy and the fleet deployment schedule is at a breaking point will they take our main deterrent force out of the Western Pacific and shift it to the Middle East to leave, you know, that entire area of the world without a significant U.S. Presence? COOPER: There are obviously these reports of bad conditions on the Lincoln, which, again, the military is either downplaying or outright denying. Given that there's still a lot. We don't know. What specific questions, as a Navy veteran, would you want to ask to find out what exactly is going on aboard the aircraft carrier?
LURIA: Well, you know, I think that, you know, there's a significant difference in the operations that are happening today in the Gulf region. Normally, carriers can pull into port. We've heard that the Lincoln has been underway for over 200 days. I heard a quote from a sailor that he has not touched land in 2026. If you think about that.
And so, ships would normally pull into Bahrain, they would pull into Jebel Ali in the UAE. And that's not just for the sailors to have a little, you know, R&R, rest and relaxation time, but for some maintenance, for parts, for mail, for critical supplies. And, you know, they cannot pull into port today, because of the Iranian missile and drone threat. And that's the same Iranian missile and drone threat that were being told over and over again by this administration that has been obliterated and destroyed and no longer exists. But it is absolutely clear that it does.
It's impacting those operations and the sailors, you know, have been at sea for over 200 days because of this situation in the gulf.
COOPER: But you now hear the President saying he's going to declare the Strait of Hormuz to be a U.S. territory. That doesn't even make sense.
[20:25:20]
LURIA: It does not make sense for a, you know, waterway that is between two countries, Iran and Oman and, it's just absolutely not realistic. And he just keeps declaring things that, you know, he absolutely has no ability to declare, all of his attempts to, you know, come to an MOU, Memorandum of Understanding to end this conflict. He can't just declare things without the other parties involved. You know, coming to the table and agreeing to those things and all of his blustering is really not getting us any closer to an end to this conflict.
COOPER: Congresswoman Luria, I appreciate your time, Thank you.
Coming up next, the latest on the President's new scheme for selling early access to his social media posts, which he's doing charging up to $100,000 a month for the sneak peek. We'll talk to the lawmaker who's now investigating.
And later, following the taxpayer money and no bid contract. Another one, this time, the department of homeland security, using it to purchase a fleet of airliners for deportation flights. That and why those planes have largely been grounded.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[20:30:10] (COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[20:30:34]
COOPER: There are growing legal concerns tonight over President Trump selling early access to his Truth Social posts. This week, we reported on a joint lawsuit by the Intercept and the Freedom of the Press Foundation against the President and his White House social media team alleging the instant access to his posts is unconstitutional and violates their First and Fifth Amendment rights.
The President regularly uses Truth Social to announce policy decisions, executive orders, personnel changes, even war declarations. Trump Media said it signed more than 10 customer agreements so far with mostly high frequency trading companies that are willing to pay between $60,000 and $100,000 per month for access early looks at those tweets or those posts.
That means anywhere from $7 million to $12 million a year from just those 10 customers. Now this instant access could give Wall Street a leg up over retail traders by delivering the post-split seconds faster than the public sees them. Podcaster Joe Rogan, who endorsed President Trump right before the 2024 election, has questions.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOE ROGAN, HOST, THE JOE ROGAN EXPERIENCE: You get access to a tweet before he makes it and then you get bet on that tweet? How is that legal?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We'll see.
ROGAN: Wait a minute, what is this? Trump sued over Truth Social advance access sale.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I'm online in the Oval Office.
ROGAN: Who's telling him this is a good idea? I feel like I need to be closer to him. You have up to $100,000 each month. Oh my God, not even just $100,000 a year, each month.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That's a patron (ph).
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It was (INAUDIBLE).
ROGAN: For early access to market moving posts from Trump and other people who use the platform.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Market moving.
ROGAN: You imagine you charge $1.2 million a year? He's just on a grab.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COOPER: Joining us now is Maryland Congressman Jamie Raskin. He is the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee. He launched his own investigation into early access to the President's posts. Congressman, do you agree with Joe Rogan this is a money grab? I mean, it's hard to see if there's anything but.
REP. JAMIE RASKIN (D-MD), RANKING MEMBER, JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: I agree 1,000 percent with Joe Rogan. It's a smash and grab, get rich quick scheme. And they're turning the White House into one large insider trading conspiracy. And I think it does violate the 2012 Stock Act, which prohibits either members of Congress or the President from using non-public information for purposes of financial gain.
Either to execute stock trade, which is his basic plan. He buys the stock and then he goes on TV 45 minutes later or the next day and pumps up the stock. That in itself is illegal. And then it's illegal again to gain financially through a tip-off by saying I'm going to be executing this insider trading scheme. Do you want to get in on it by paying me $100,000 a month?
So, you know, there are both criminal and civil sanctions available for violations of the Stock Act. Obviously, nobody in the President's office has ever come anywhere near doing something like this. And I'm glad that Mr. Rogan is blowing the whistle like so many other people were saying, how can this be in 2026?
COOPER: So what -- I mean, it's -- you know, we know there's 10 -- according to the statement, there's 10 companies that have signed contracts for this. I assume there could be more down the road. We mentioned you're investigating this as a ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee. You wrote a letter to the CEO of Trump Media. Have you gotten any response?
RASKIN: No response yet. So, you know, 10 is obviously a very early and conservative estimate. We've also heard that 20, but say it's just 10. That's $1 million a month that they're pulling in. If it's 20, that's $2 million a month. And the President owns almost half of the company that's getting that money. That's going directly into the President's pocket.
So it's a direct conflict of interest. And we believe, we have great reason to believe that this is a violation of the Stock Act of 2012, which was designed in order to stop the President and other public officials from using their government office for purposes of filling their pockets. And so, it's really no different than people doing it from Wall Street.
COOPER: I mean, it's really -- it is just incredible, given that, you know, they've got the crypto company that they were paid hundreds of millions of dollars for, I think, a 50 percent stake by, you know, Middle Eastern regime.
[20:35:03]
I mean, there's so many ways that they are grabbing money to do this. It's so blatant. I mean, it is just -- it is a -- it's incredible. I mean, it's kind of -- I mean, I know there's no shame before, but it is shameful. RASKIN: Yes. I mean, it reminds me of those games they used to have where you had 10 minutes to take everything you can out of the supermarket. And it just seems like before the election comes, they're trying to steal everything they can from the taxpayers and from the U.S. government and to engage in every possible scam.
And right now, it's like watching the Sopranos. You turn the TV on to see, well, what is the new grift of the week they're going to come up with? And this is just unbelievable.
COOPER: Politico is reporting tonight that the Trump administration has granted preliminary approval for a cryptocurrency venture backed by the President's family to operate a federally chartered trust bank, which would give new powers and federal credibility to this venture in which they clearly have a considerable financial interest. What's your reaction to that?
RASKIN: Well, I think Elizabeth Warren said this is an historic scandal. I mean, it is surpassing even on the debate standards of the Trump corruption, basically to say we are going to get you a special license to Donald Trump's own family. And that obviously should not be allowed. That's massive self-dealing again.
And that has become the norm in a White House where everything is for sale. I mean, presidential pardons are for sale. We're about to come out with a report on that in the Judiciary Committee about how so many of these white collar fraudsters have been pumping money into the Trump ecosphere and are getting away with some very serious crimes, just like the former president of Honduras.
So everything's for sale. And you think they would be a little more careful than engaging in such blatant family self-dealing. But I think Trump feels because of the Supreme Court's decision in the presidential immunity case that he's totally impervious and above the law.
COOPER: Yes.
RASKIN: And we at least want to get the message out -- that he'll try to pardon everybody else. But we at least want to get the message out that other people do not have the same kind of immunity that the Supreme Court has dealt to the President. There are also civil damages available and there are also actions at the state level.
So, you know, they shouldn't be considering this, the Mardi Gras of corruption before the congressional elections happen. There will be accountability.
COOPER: Congressman Jamie Raskin, I appreciate your time. Thanks.
Up next, the President brings his ballroom fight to the Supreme Court. He's asking the justices to allow the construction to continue. I'll talk about it with a former federal prosecutor.
Plus, another no-bid contract by the Trump administration. This one reportedly for nearly $500,000 million for deportation planes for Homeland Security that have, as you see, they're sitting there, they've hardly been used. We're following the money.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[20:42:19]
COOPER: President Trump has taken the fight over his White House ballroom project to the Supreme Court. The planned $400 million, 90,000 square foot ballroom has been shrouded in litigation after an appeals court backed lower court rulings, saying that Trump needed congressional approval to move forward. The lower courts did, however, greenlight continued construction on the security bunker being built underneath or beneath the ballroom.
In the filing to the Supreme Court, the administration argued that carve-out was not enough and also said, quote, "The entire ballroom structure is designed to shield the military installation beneath it. Halting the project will stall this vital construction, making this President -- the subject of recurrent assassination attempts -- much less safe and risking future presidents' safety."
Now, the filing also included new renderings of the ballroom, showing the addition of two large gold presidential seals.
Joining me now is Former Federal Prosecutor Ankush Khardori. Ankush, before we get to the merits of the case, do you think the Supreme Court will even agree to take it up?
ANKUSH KHARDORI, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: You know, it's possible that they will. They really shouldn't because there's no reason that this case shouldn't proceed along the normal litigation track. You know, this is a Supreme Court that has granted a lot of emergency relief to this administration when it shouldn't have, and has granted the President a lot of authority that he shouldn't have gotten. They haven't ruled against him in every single case, but they have largely given Trump what he's wanted.
COOPER: So as a matter of law, how strong or not is the President's argument that he should be able to build the ballroom? Because it seems like almost like the administration is now trying to argue that this is primarily a national security project to protect him and future presidents.
KHARDORI: Yes, and I don't think that's an accident. I mean, remember, this started out as sort of a vanity project of sorts. Trump wanted it so that he could entertain foreign dignitaries. And I think what's happened is, as a result of building that out, they had to build in various, you know, serious security sorts of protections, and they're now using those protections to claim that that's what the whole thing is about.
And that if you stop it or make any attempt to sort of insert some sort of process into the project, that then it's going to put the President's life in danger. It's not the first time that this administration has gone to the Supreme Court with very aggressive claims that aren't entirely backed up by the evidence. COOPER: Also, as we mentioned, the renderings submitted to the Supreme Court also include these kind of stylistic, I guess, updates or just gaudy updates, including the addition of at least two large presidential seals in gold on the outside of the building. Does that undermine at all the argument that it's first and foremost about national security, or does the kind of decoration of it not matter at all?
[20:45:01]
KHARDORI: No, I think it does matter. I mean, these things are -- all of those sort of particulars are going to be things that should matter to the justices. And, you know, they're being asked to take the government's word that this is really about security. And so anything that undermines that is going to be something that the justices ought to pay attention to.
The question, again, is whether the court, and in particular the six Republican appointees, are going to be fully attentive to these things. I mean, I just think in particular, most significantly, you know, when the administration ended temporary protected status for Haitians and Syrians, they managed to persuade the six Republican appointees that they should just ignore all of the vile, racist statements that the President, the Vice President, and their allies have made about the Haitian community, including in Ohio.
Alito -- Justice Alito just sort of waved it away and said, well, they've got a different rationale. So this is definitely a group of justices who, when the circumstances are amenable to them, will indulge pretext and give the President what he wants.
COOPER: Yes. Ankush Khardori, I appreciate it. Thank you.
We previously mentioned the White House's habit of using no-bid contracts to quickly get work done. The ballroom is just one example. DHS reportedly also uses hundreds of millions in no-bid contracts from major ICE detention centers in places like Kansas and Texas.
And the electric shot gloves that ICE wants to use to de-escalate encounters also expected to be a no-bid contract with DHS for as much as $20 million. Some no-bid contracts, like the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool, don't turn out as planned. The latest new reporting from The New York Times, the Department of Homeland Security spent more than $460 million taxpayer on a no-bid contract for 10 airplanes, claiming they were urgently needed for deportations. But the planes have mostly sat idle for months now.
CNN first reported on the planes in May, a source tells CNN the planes have still not been used for any deportations. The no-bid contract is also raising questions because the chairman of the aviation group that supplied the planes has previously donated to the political committee or apolitical committee linked to Kristi Noem before she became Homeland Security Secretary. She, as you know, was fired in March.
Investigator Reporter David Fahrenthold is on the byline for The New York Times. He joins me now. So, how unusual is it for the DHS to buy its own planes? And is it clear why they haven't been really much used?
DAVID FAHRENTHOLD, INVESTIGATIVE REPORTER, THE NEW YORK TIMES: Well, it's sort of the same answer. It is really unusual for DHS to buy its own planes. It obviously flies lots and lots of deportation flights and flies detainees around the country, but it outsources that work to either the military or a network of chartered planes. It doesn't have its own planes.
And the reason is, if you buy your own planes, you've got to pay money up front, and you also have to pay money to maintain them, to store them, to provide crews for them. So why do that when you have somebody else doing all the work for you in sort of a turnkey fashion? That's what puzzled everyone when they did this, and that's the reason why they're not flying now is because they bought these planes and never had the people necessary to actually make them fly.
COOPER: And there have been claims that DHS has loaned or leased the planes to other departments in the federal government, particularly the FBI. Is that true? Do you know?
FAHRENTHOLD: Well, it's a sign of how little rationale there was that they had these planes. Just after they got them, they began looking for somebody else to take them. So in one case, they did give a Gulfstream luxury jet. Again, they said these were deportation planes, but they bought three luxury planes. Three of the 10 are luxury planes.
One of them they've given to the FBI. One of them, this luxury 737, so like a huge luxury plane, they want to give to the Pentagon, but so far the Pentagon says they haven't agreed to take it yet. And the other one, the other luxury plane they're keeping for DHS officials to fly around in.
COOPER: Now, was any of this, the plane that Kristi Noem was -- or one of these the plane that Kristi Noem was jetting around with, with Corey Lewandowski?
FAHRENTHOLD: The luxury Boeing 737 that I was talking about earlier, yes. That was a plane that had -- it's a model that comes with a bar and a bedroom. It's not a deportation plane.
COOPER: I kind of guess it was the luxury one. Yes.
FAHRENTHOLD: And that is a plane that was used previously, yes.
COOPER: Yes. It had the blanket and everything. So this obviously fits a pattern of the Trump administration awarding no-bid contracts. Is there a precedent for this? I mean, how is the administration trying to justify it, or do they care to try?
FAHRENTHOLD: Well, this is something that's supposed to be rare, right? The law says you're supposed to take competing offers, because not only does that get the lowest cost for taxpayers, it helps you get the best service. It helps you find the best, you know, value for your money. And so, but the Trump administration has repeatedly used no-bid contracts to just bypass all that and give the contracts out to whoever they want. You mentioned the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool. It's a great example. There's been other contracts for like event planning, for park renovations, for fountain renovations, things that don't seem like emergencies that are dressed up as emergencies.
And this sort of shows you the problem with that, not just for taxpayers, because they spend a lot of money, but also even for the administration. They rush through these contracts without really thinking about it, seemingly, and end up with things that don't work or that they don't need.
[20:50:04]
COOPER: This -- and this company was chosen, why? I mean, the person who owns this company had a link to Kristi Noem?
FAHRENTHOLD: So this -- the person who is the chairman of this company had given a $10,000 donation to Kristi Noem's PAC in October 2024. And basically, she was, you know, it was not a real -- not a very active PAC, but she was somebody who then obviously went on to have this very prominent role in the Trump administration.
And this is not his first contract. Before this, the DHS, under Noem, gave another company that he runs an even bigger contract, more than $600 million to facilitate self-deportation. So we asked Department of Homeland Security, you know, why these people? This company that they sold them the planes had never had any federal contract before. Why these people?
And they basically said, oh, it wasn't us, it was Kristi Noem. Kristi Noem pointed the finger right back at them and said it was the new regime's responsibility. So we're not getting a lot of accountability from them.
COOPER: David Fahrenthold, appreciate it as always. Thank you, David.
Coming up, breaking news overseas, a major earthquake in Indonesia. We'll have a live report from the region.
And nearly 30 years after the crime, a jury has been selected in the trial of a man accused of orchestrating Tupac Shakur's murder. We'll bring you an update on that.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COOPER: At a 7.7 magnitude earthquake, turning a building into rubble just part of the destruction tonight in the -- in Indonesia's Flores region, a tsunami warning is now in effect following the quake and several powerful aftershocks.
CNN's Gage Goulding is following late developments tonight from Hong Kong. What do we know?
GAGE GOULDING, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes, right now we know this quake struck just before 6:00 a.m. local time, just off the Northern coast of Indonesia. And this is an interesting quake because it did strike in the ocean, but rather shallow.
[20:55:04]
And there's about a half a million people, 500,000 folks that are in what the USGS categorizes as the very strong to severe category for feeling those shakes. We've already seen damage to buildings from social media videos. There is a tsunami warning issued by the local agency there in Indonesia.
But I want to compare this to the Columbia earthquake. There was 6 million people in that severe shaking category. So there is a significant, you know, fewer people that are in this region, if you will. But I don't want to downplay that whatsoever because this is a very strong 7.7 magnitude earthquake followed by a number of other aftershocks that are sizable and considerably strong themselves. A 5.9, 5.6 and 6.1 magnitude aftershocks.
But, Anderson, it's really important to understand here that it's still very early on. You know, the sun is really just rising in this region. The day is just getting started on their Saturday as it is here in Hong Kong. And it's really going to take a little bit of time to understand --
COOPER: Yes.
GOULDING: -- the gravity of this. But those videos there, Anderson, you can see the damage already being visualized.
COOPER: Yes. Gage Goulding, thanks very much. Appreciate it.
Here in the U.S., almost 30 years after rap legend Tupac Shakur was shot and killed in Las Vegas, a jury is now seated in the trial of a man accused of orchestrating his killing. Opening statements begin Monday.
The 1996 murder was a bloody moment in what was then known as the East Coast-West Coast hip-hop rivalry. Duane "Keffe D" Davis is the first and only person ever charged in connection with Shakur's killing. He says he's innocent, but it was his own words in a self-published book and his media appearances that rekindled the case.
CNN's Nick Watt has more on how he got to this moment.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Hey, Keffe, Metro Police. Come over here.
NICK WATT, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Keffe D was arrested three years ago.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So what they got you for, man?
DUANE "KEFFE D" DAVIS: Biggest case in Las Vegas history.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Oh yes?
WATT (voice-over): The shooting, the killing of Tupac Shakur at a stoplight in Vegas late one night after a Mike Tyson fight nearly 30 years ago. Here's what prosecutors will argue, detailed by a homicide detective just after Duane Davis "Keffe D's arrest.
LT. JASON JOHANSSON, LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT: As we all know, Tupac Shakur was a artist who was signed with Death Row Records, and that Death Row Records and its CEO, Marion "Suge" Knight, were closely affiliated with the Mob Piru criminal street gangs, and that they had an ongoing feud with the South Side Compton Crips. Duane Davis was the leader and shot caller of the South Side Compton Crips.
Members of both gangs were, say, police, at the Tyson fight in the MGM Grand that night, and afterwards, in the lobby, Tupac, Knight, and others spotted Keffe D's nephew, Orlando Anderson, and beat him up.
JOHANSSON: Duane Davis began to devise a plan to obtain a firearm and retaliate against Suge Knight and Mr. Shakur.
WATT (voice-over): Anderson, his uncle Keffe D, and two other men allegedly got into a white Cadillac and followed Knight and Tupac, who were in a black BMW en route to a club. Unclear exactly who pulled the trigger, some have said it was Anderson.
Keffe D is the only man who was in that white Cadillac who is still alive. He's now 63. He was, they say, the shot caller. And under Nevada law, he can still be charged with murder.
JOHANSSON: Within the first few months of the investigation, our detectives knew most of the information I just briefed you on. However, we never had the necessary evidence to bring this case forward.
WATT (voice-over): His own words, say investigators, were Keffe D's undoing.
JOHANSSON: Specifically, Duane Davis's own admissions to his involvement in this homicide investigation that he provided to numerous different media outlets.
WATT (voice-over): "Them jumping on my nephew gave us the ultimate green light to do something to their (INAUDIBLE)." And in the documentary," Murder Rap: Inside the Biggie and Tupac Murders," Keffe D describes the moment he says he handed Anderson, whom he calls Lane, a gun while riding in that Cadillac.
DAVIS: I gave it to Dre, and Dre was like, "No, no, no. And Lane was like, popped the dudes.
WATT (voice-over): But in July, Keffe D denied being involved in the killing, telling a Las Vegas news station he wasn't even in Nevada when Tupac was shot.
DAVIS: I ain't worried though, I didn't do (INAUDIBLE) so.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well, I mean, that's what court's for, right?
(END VIDEOTAPE)
COOPER: Nick, how long is this trial expected to last?
WATT (on-camera): Four or five weeks, we're told, kicks off Monday. As we discussed, Keffe D's own words are key here and how that started, Anderson. Back in 2008, he cut a deal with the FBI that he'd give them information about some gangs and drugs and they wouldn't use his words against him.
Apparently, he told those investigators that he got the gun that night, they got in the car, they were looking for Tupac. They heard two women on the side of the street yelling, "Tupac! Tupac!" They pulled a U-turn, followed the car. Keffe D says he gave the gun into the back seat and he says it was his nephew who actually pulled the trigger.
So, we've got 12 jurors, four alternates, 10 women, four men, kicks off --
COOPER: Yes.
WATT (on-camera): -- Monday. Anderson?
COOPER: Nick Watt, thanks very much.
The news continues, The Source starts now.
