Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Shooting Scene Fingerprints Match Mangione; Accuser Claims Combs Drugged and Assaulted Him; Trump's Justice Department Goes on Offense Against DEI. Aired 9-9:30a ET

Aired December 11, 2024 - 09:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

[09:00:00]

SARA SIDNER, CNN ANCHOR: Match between Mangione and prints found at the scene of Brian Thompson's shooting. Police say they have those. We will discuss.

And a CNN exclusive. For the first time you will hear from a male accuser of Sean "Diddy" Combs, who says the rapper drugged and then sexually assaulted him at one of those infamous white parties.

And sources to CNN say President-elect Donald Trump's pick to lead the DOJ's civil rights department is preparing to go on the offensive and reverse many of the Biden administration's diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives.

I'm Sara Sidner, with John Berman and Kate Bolduan. This is CNN NEWS CENTRAL.

KATE BOLDUAN, CNN ANCHOR: All right, so we are tracking the breaking news. Sara was just talking about it a moment ago. We are just learning fingerprint comparisons made between prints collected at the scene of the Brian Thompson murder, compared with prints taken in the arrest process of Luigi Mangione show a positive match. Two law enforcement officials briefed on the matter have just confirmed to CNN. We're going to have more on that in just a moment.

Also this hour, Mangione is still behind bars in Pennsylvania after a judge denied him bail. Before his court appearance, that was yesterday, he yelled and struggled against officers once he turned and saw that the media was standing outside the courthouse.

And police now say a notebook that they found on him has a so-called to-do list in it to - from before the killing, as well as a reported reference to deciding not to use a bomb to target the victim so he would not, quote/unquote, kill innocents.

Also new this morning, disturbing video of what appears to be wanted posters popping up around New York City for other health executives. All of this as the suspect's lawyer is now speaking out about offers they say they've received to pay for - from outside to pay for his legal fees.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) THOMAS DICKEY, ATTORNEY FOR LUIGI MANGIONE: Obviously, my client appreciates the support that he has. But, I don't know, I just - it - it - I'd have to look in, but it just doesn't sit right with me, really.

The Supreme Court says, you know, all these rich billionaires can give all kind of money to candidates, and that's free speech. So maybe these people are exercising their right to free speech, and saying that's the way they're supporting my client.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BOLDUAN: Joining us right now, CNN chief law enforcement and intelligence analyst John Miller. CNN law enforcement contributor Steve Moore also here with me.

John, this is your new reporting. And this is a big deal. This is the first positive forensic match that we know of. Walk us through what you've learned.

JOHN MILLER, CNN CHIEF LAW ENFORCEMENT AND INTELLIGENCE ANALYST: So, fingerprints collected at the scene of the Thompson murder from a plastic water bottle, from a discarded cell phone, the so-called burner phone, have now been compared against the arrest fingerprints taken by police in Altoona of the suspect. And yesterday they were able to make a match to the prints that they collected at the scene.

Not a surprise in some regard in that they had an individual allegedly with a gun and a silencer and a mask and - and those things. But it is the first scientific forensic match that - that joins the growing pile of circumstantial evidence that they can say, well, how else would it be someone if that fingerprint is here and he's there with that gun and so on.

Now, there is more, which is, DNA evidence still pending, ballistic tests still pending. Part of that is because the gun was recovered in Pennsylvania. To match that, to be the same gun, they would have to obtain it, fire it, test it, compare the shell casings and the - and the bullets. But this is a big deal.

BOLDUAN: It is a big deal because, you know, to this point that could have - that could be one of the things that you could hear from the suspect's attorney saying, you don't know if this is the guy. This could - this wasn't - I mean we talked about this, right? Like, you could say this isn't me, a guy with a mask and whatever, whatever. But this is scientific connection, forensic connection between the two.

Talk to me more about ballistics. Is it just a logistical kind of obstacle that needs to be overcome in order to get confirmation or not, that the ballistics match, do you think, or -

MILLER: You know, the gun is actually the charge that they are holding him on in Pennsylvania. So, that evidence needs to stay with him because, you know, they are the ones who have him in custody and he has not waived extradition, which basically says, I'm not going to New York, where they would then turn over all that evidence to New York City and then have them do those tests.

But they understand, you know, they are in it for the long game.

[09:05:01]

They don't need to know that tomorrow or the next day. And it gives them more time to do the background investigation they're still doing, which includes mundane things, but very necessary things, like completing the video canvas, tightening up that map where they can show a picture of him almost through every step of his New York journey.

BOLDUAN: I want to get to more of that. But let me - let me - Steve, let me bring you in on this, just the importance of what John Miller has learned about this fingerprint match.

STEVE MOORE, CNN LAW ENFORCEMENT CONTRIBUTOR: Yes, as we've learned, something can look like a slam dunk case, but a lawyer can find just niches or cracks in the - in any kind of strong case. And what they're doing now is filling up the cracks there. They're eliminating any doubt before they go to trial that this is the person who committed this crime.

He's already fighting - he's already shown what he's going to do. He's going to fight every single motion. Even - even a perfunctory extradition motion. So, he - he isn't going to go quietly on this. So, the police are, obviously, dotting their i's and crossing their t's.

BOLDUAN: For sure.

And, John, something that we've talked about, and I guess it still remains, you know, there are so many questions that remain. And I'm wondering if this notebook that we're learning more about kind of adds to this picture is, how did this - this guy know that the CEO was going to be where he was going to be when he was?

MILLER: So -

BOLDUAN: Is that what - is there - is that where the line of thinking is in investigating how - how we learn more about that?

MILLER: There are clues. I mean, you know it because you've been by there, but that New York Hilton Hotel takes up, you know, half of a full city block.

BOLDUAN: Yes.

MILLER: It has doors all the way down 53rd Street and all the way down 54th Street and a front door and a rear driveway. That's like 20 entrances you would have to cover to know, where is this guy going to enter the hotel.

BOLDUAN: It's true.

MILLER: But you would also have to know, what if he is going to enter from this side, because I have learned he's staying at the hotel across the street. How would you know that? He gives us an oblique reference in the three page note that - that we've loosely called the manifesto, where he says, you know, this wasn't that difficult. It was a combination of social engineering and computer assisted design, and engineer term, CAD, he referred to it as.

But I think what he's telling us there on the social engineering side is, this is what people do when they create an email, you know, a spoof email or a phone call saying, you know, I have a delivery, which, you know, where do I bring that? Posing as somebody else. He's suggesting that he learned intelligence information on his target by doing that kind of thing.

But then when you get out of the note, and into the spiral notebook, and he acknowledges this in the note as well, he said, you know, my electronics, you're going to find, are pretty locked down, but in the spiral notebook you'll see to-do lists and other notes. Some of those notes are theoretical notes about targeting and, you know, what is the just way to commit such a crime? He talks about Ted Kaczynski, the Unabomber, and how if he modeled after him a bomb in a - in a - in a shareholders conference could kill, you know, innocent people. Same on the street. But he talks about, you know, shooting being the more precise way to take on his target. And in one line he says, and what better way to take out the CEO than to - to - to shoot him at his own, quote, "bean counters conference."

BOLDUAN: Yes, an investor conference is exactly what you could say that is.

MILLER: Right.

BOLDUAN: And, Steve, what do you think - there's so much that is coming out. I mean this reporting from John is most significant about the forensic that they're now positively ID-ing. What question would you - what questions do you have that remain now, Steve, and where you would say, leaning on your experience with the FBI, where you think this investigation focuses a lot of its energy now?

MOORE: Well, you've got a lot of the basic building blocks of this case already being nailed down. What I want to do is - is shore up the areas where you don't have direct knowledge yet, or at least they don't - haven't said they have direct knowledge of the shooter's actions.

For instance, you know, before a shareholder's conference like this, they're going to be setting up for about a week. They're going to do rehearsals and speeches and stuff. I would want to know where he was. You know, we have cameras and everything on the day of shooting, but I'd like to see cameras around the entrances and find out whether Thompson did the same thing for several mornings or whether maybe somebody in the hotel actually provided him information.

[09:10:09]

I suspect he was - he went a week early, and I suspect he was doing canvasing and surveillance that entire time.

BOLDUAN: Steve -

MILLER: You know, it's interesting when you talk about that because that's the - the backward building of this video canvass. He comes in on the 24th. That's like ten days before the actual shooting.

BOLDUAN: Yes.

MILLER: And where they have tracked him is, he comes out of the Port Authority bus terminal and does not go to check into the hostel where he's going to stay. He goes straight, with all of his bags, to the Hilton Hotel. And he starts doing those walk arounds. But they also have him in a McDonald's.

BOLDUAN: Yes.

MILLER: Which we now know, I guess, was his preference for hanging out.

BOLDUAN: I was going to say, his preferred - his preferred stop along the way, for sure.

John, thanks for running up and giving us the new reporting.

Steve, thank you, as always. It's good to see you.

John.

JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: All right, for the first time, a man accused - accusing Sean Combs of sexual assault is speaking out. What he exclusively told CNN.

And this morning, an emergency warning from explosive wildfires. Nearly 20,000 people evacuating their homes.

And a father who faked his own death and fled to Europe is now behind bars. We've got new details on his capture and arrest.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:15:39]

BERMAN: All right, this morning, exclusive CNN reporting. For the first time we are hearing from a man who says Sean Combs sexually assaulted him. The accuser says the attack happened 17 years ago. One of the so-called white parties. And the man says he was drugged.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The first drink started to have some effect on me. And I just thought, wow, these are really strong drinks. It wasn't until the second drink, and it was already too late, that I realized that there was something wrong with the drinks.

Sean Combs was waiting in the wings. He was watching from some sort of vantage point. And once I was in a helpless position, and he was sure that he was in a position of power, then he took advantage of the situation.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BERMAN: All right, CNN's Elizabeth Wagmeister has been doing really amazing reporting on this subject, is here with your exclusive. What was it like to sit down with this man?

ELIZABETH WAGMEISTER, CNN ENTERTAINMENT CORRESPONDENT: You know, John, this was the first time that he has told anyone, other than his attorneys, this story. He, as you see, we concealed his identity. He filed his lawsuit back in October as a John Doe. He says that he wants to keep his anonymity because he wants to keep some semblance of his life private. But that's a difficult thing to do, to sit down and tell your story to a stranger as a journalist.

So, I asked him, why now? Why are you coming forward now? And he said that he did not know that there were other accusers of Sean Combs out there. He only found out from seeing news reports.

And there was one report he saw that there is somebody who alleges that they were nine years old when they say that they were abused by Sean Combs. And this John Doe that I sat down with, he said, if a nine year old could do it, then I could do it. And it made him feel like he wished that he spoke out before because he could have prevented children from allegedly being abused.

Now, as I said, this lawsuit was initially filed back in October of this year. So, these claims are not new. But this is the first time that he sat down. In fact, John, this is the first time that any accuser of Sean Combs has sat down with the media for an interview.

Now, I want to play you a bit more of what he told me about these allegations, what he says happened that night in 2007. But I do want to warn our viewers that what he says is graphic and disturbing.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I was screaming. I was telling him to stop. It was incredibly painful. And he was acting like it was nothing. And he seemed to be disconnected from it. It was abusive beyond belief.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WAGMEISTER: Now, he says that not a day has gone by where he hasn't thought about this. He said that when something like this happens to you, which is, of course, his allegation, that he was drugged and sodomized by Sean Combs back in 2007, he says that it impacts every part of your life. He says that he has not been able to carry on with relationships. He says that he did not tell his wife at the time, who he was married to when this allegedly happened to him. He hasn't told family members or coworkers. And again, that is one of the big reasons why he wants to remain anonymous.

BERMAN: Incredible to hear him tell this story.

All right, Elizabeth Wagmeister, thank you very much. Sara.

SIDNER: All right, joining us now, CNN legal analyst and criminal defense attorney Joey Jackson, to discuss more about this.

All right, first of all, this is a civil lawsuit. It is not part of the criminal prosecution. But in hearing this, and now that he is coming out to speak, could it be?

JOEY JACKSON, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: So, we'll see. There's a lot that has to be unpacked, right? The first thing is, is remember, Sara, that this was an amended complaint. Why do I say that? Why is that significant? It's significant because initially when it was filed in October, there was the indication that it happened in 2007, right, learning, however, that P. Diddy was in Saint Tropez then, so it could not have happened then. So, it was amended to include, right, the year after, OK. That's a problem.

There was also the indication initially that, right, he wasn't married and now we're learning he is. Why do I say that? Because every case turns on its facts. So, if you're going to determine, right, civil, it's a civil case. It involves monetary damages, not - not criminal, you're going to assess the credibility of it.

[09:20:03]

Now, attorneys for, of course, P. Diddy are going to have a field day with that, of course.

SIDNER: Going to want to talk about - right.

JACKSON: Because when you sit down with your lawyer, you verify - your lawyer doesn't say, oh, that's what happened, OK. You verify it You vet it. You ensure that it's factually accurate. And so, therefore, I think those two distinctions are going to be very important. Would you have not known that you were married at this time? Would you have not known - should you have shared it with your spouse? Potentially not. It's embarrassing. But did you know you were married at all? Did you know where you were, when you were, et cetera? So, it's a question of fact. And I think it will be vetted certainly by criminal investigators to determine whether or not it's useful. And then it'll be up to the judge to determine whether it is admissible.

SIDNER: I am curious about something he told our Elizabeth Wagmeister there that he had not told anyone about this until he spoke, I think, to his attorneys. How difficult will it be to prove this?

JACKSON: So, what ends up happening is, is that, you know, there's a lot of embarrassment and a lot of shame, right? And there's a lot of sensitivity as it relates to victims. And sometimes you have a victim and it's called recent outcry information, where they'll say something to a friend, I can't believe it. That's powerful evidence. In some circumstances, there's humiliation, and they don't. And there are experts who will testify to that.

On the issue of proof, however, there's the indication that a celebrity was present. That's according to this particular victim, Elizabeth doing an excellent job in that interview. But there was the issue of, hey, there's celebrity present. Does that celebrity come forward? There's the indication that he told his supervisor, he being the victim who worked for a private security company, telling his supervisor, will the supervisor come forward? Did anybody else know? So, these are all questions of proof. And to the extent that you have corroboration, meaning it's not just you, there's other people, it's easier to establish your claim.

SIDNER: Right. And speaking of this idea of shame that victims often feel. This victim has not wanted to be named. He's not named in the suit. He is still a John Doe. How long can that last? Because at some point, right, that has to change, correct?

JACKSON: So - yes. So, Sara, it's up to the discretion of the judge. And what the judge does is a balancing test between your right to privacy, intimidation, humiliation, a number of other factors, right? To what extent could you be retaliated against, et cetera., versus the public interest. And also, right, the party you're suing certainly has an interest. And so a judge will assess various factors, weigh those factors, and make an assessment as to whether not the John Doe continues or it ends.

SIDNER: Joey Jackson, it is always a pleasure. You always get through all of the hard details with us, and I really appreciate it.

JACKSON: The pleasure's mine.

SIDNER: OK.

JACKSON: Good to see you, Sara.

SIDNER: Good to see you as well.

JACKSON: Thank you.

SIDNER: Kate.

BOLDUAN: There is new reporting on how the Justice Department and the Trump administration is preparing to go on an anti-woke offensive against diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives. We'll be bringing that new detail to you.

And an arrest made on Capitol Hill after a man allegedly assaulted Congresswoman Nancy Mace. What we know about what happened.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:27:32]

BOLDUAN: This morning we have new reporting about a shift in focus, if you will, coming to the Justice Department once Donald Trump takes office. Sources telling CNN how the incoming new leadership at DOJ preparing to go on an anti-woke offensive against diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives. Sources pointing to Trump's pick to lead the Justice Department's Civil Right's Division as who could be taking the lead to reverse many moves made by the Biden administration to this point.

CNN's Paula Reid has this reporting for us. She's joining us right now.

And, Paula, tell us more about your reporting and more about the incoming Civil Rights Division.

PAULA REID, CNN CHIEF LEGAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Well, President- elect Trump has made it clear the Justice Department is going to be a key component of his administration. But even within the Justice Department there are different divisions. There's a division that handles attacks, one that handles anti-trust, criminal law, and then there's, of course, a civil rights division. And under Democratic administration, it's been quite active. For example, under Obama and Biden they were quite aggressive about pursuing investigations into police use of force, pursuing police reform, pursuing voting rights issues, also support for transgender rights.

Now, under Republican administrations, including the last Trump administration, the division kind of laid dormant. They didn't do a lot. But I'm told that's going to change this time around. Instead, they want the Civil Rights Division to be one of their most active divisions to help them implement President-elect Trump's policies. Specifically they are going to be looking at DEI policies and reversing those policies that have been put in place under Obama and Biden and previous administrations. That is a key priority for them.

Again, they also won't probably be doing a lot of investigations into police use of force. That's usually not a priority. And it is not expected that they will support trans rights in the same way that the Biden administration has, though they haven't explicitly said what stance they will take, for example, on a case related to minors that's before the Supreme Court.

But, Kate, the big question was, who would they get to oversee this division because they needed someone who is ideologically aligned with Trump, but who also had enough experience to run a division like this successfully, especially if they wanted to be active. So, he has tapped Harmeet Dhillon, one of his lawyers, as she has represented Trump in several cases. She is among several of his attorneys who have been tapped for these key legal positions in his administration.

But we've spoken with many people close to her, who have worked with her, and learned a lot about her experience. She's an Indian born immigrant. She's been active in Republican politics since early 2000. But she has a lot of legal experience.

[09:30:01]

People describe her as someone who, quote, advocates for the little guy. Of course, aside from her - her client, the president-elect. But she worked on cases of migrants seeking.