Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Lawmakers Demand Answers, Action on Unexplained Drones in NJ; Three New Accusers File Lawsuits Against Sean Combs; New Court Dates Set as Suspect Fights Extradition to NY. Aired 9-9:30a ET

Aired December 13, 2024 - 09:00   ET

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

SARA SIDNER, CNN ANCHOR: Arrowhead Stadium to support her boyfriend, Chiefs' tight end, Travis Kelce. If you didn't already figure that out.

[09:00:07]

All right. Wildly popular drink where brand Stanley is recalling millions of its travel mugs due to a danger of burns. The recall applies to their switchback and trigger action models. The company says the lids on these massive mugs can loosen once exposed to heat. And the hot contents then could end up spilling out and burning you.

Already, at least 11 people needed medical attention after they were injured using the mugs, 91 people worldwide have reported lids coming off, 38 people say they have been burned. Stanley suggesting a lid replacement for free. And they've set up a Web site to help.

And they're not just contestants looking for love. They are now employees. That's how the National Labor Relations Board says those on the hit Netflix dating show Love is Blind should be classified. Landmark ruling for reality TV after two former show contestants filed separate complaints. The board says contestants should have workers protections and be paid for any lost wages while on the show. Netflix has declined to comment on the issue.

A new hour of CNN News Central starts right now.

JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: Bright lights, unexplained drones and no answers. The mystery in New Jersey sparking fear and attempts by federal officials to calm worries. They're not working.

New details on search warrants for Luigi Mangione's backpack and burner phone. What we learned overnight about the case against the suspected CEO killer.

And new lawsuits filed against Sean Combs. Three John Doe's males accusing Combs of drugging and sexually assaulting them.

I'm John Berman with Sara Sidner and Kate Bolduan. It's Friday. We made it, barely.

This is CNN News Central. KATE BOLDUAN, CNN ANCHOR: Right now, there are no real explanations as to what they are or where they are from or who is launching them or what the whole point is. But regardless, the wave of drone sightings over New Jersey has local lawmakers and people who live in New Jersey growing even more concerned and frustrated. This has been going on for weeks now.

The White House weighed in yesterday, downplaying concerns, saying there's no national security or public safety threat. But still, this morning, frustrated lawmakers have gone from really asking questions to now demanding answers. And here is what New Jersey Congressman Josh Gottheimer told us last hour.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. JOSH GOTTHEIMER (D-NJ): Here's what I know. They've been able to brief me that they're confident of what they're not. So now I think it's really important to tell the public what they are, right? And I think, listen, the public has a right to know because people are concerned. They have a responsibility to allay people's concerns, to tell the public what they know and don't know, and to make sure that people are safe and protected and that we're doing everything to protect our national security and our public security and safety.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BOLDUAN: CNN's Polo Sandoval is following this one for us. Polo, there's also now new sightings in new places?

POLO SANDOVAL, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Just north of where all these sightings had initially been reported in Rockland County, an official there telling me there were four additional sightings, and that would really make him the first sightings for that particular part of New York State. And they are certainly calling on the federal government to brief them, to investigate and try to find out if these are in any way potentially connected to what have been cited just south of Rockland County. But I think your interview, Kate, is crucial here.

It is quite telling when you hear from the New Jersey representative basically telling you what he has seen, what federal authorities have presented him with, and after being briefed, that leaving him with no doubts that this presents any sort of public security threat. It's also interesting what he's not saying, right? Is he stopped short of saying whether or not he was briefed on the fact that this may be potential approved activity? He didn't really answer that question.

But of course, in the next breath, calls on the federal government to brief the public, basically to tell people what they believe, what they have concluded that these drones are.

Now, we've also heard from New Jersey local officials who admit that it's quite possible that many of these sightings are just simply airplanes, but they're still concerned that a large number of them are not. And I think that that really is what we continue to hear from these New Jersey communities and the local representatives as well.

And now, according to information I obtained just in the last hour, in neighboring New York State as well.

BOLDUAN: Polo, great reporting. Thank you so much.

Sara?

SIDNER: All right, to discuss this, joining me now, New Jersey State Assemblyman Paul Kanitra.

Thank you so much for being here. I know this has been an issue for you because the constituents are really upset about this and they're worried about it.

You -- we were just discussing in the break. You have learned something new about this. What can you tell us now?

[09:05:05]

PAUL KANITRA, (R) NEW JERSEY STATE ASSEMBLYMAN: So literally just before I came on, Naval Weapons Station Earle, which is where some very serious machinery and ordinances based on confirmed that unmanned aerial drones were above their critical airspace recently. And that's on the heels of coming out of my district.

The ordinance is based on confirmed that unmanned aerial drones were above their critical airspace recently. And that's on the heels of coming out of my district. The Coast Guard cutter that was trailed by about 12 drones and was harassing their crew. And they confirmed that to us as well. So there's very real incidents of this occurring.

SIDNER: You are just getting this information now. This is -- this is new and it's news to hear that information that there were, in fact, aerial drones. Because we heard from, you know, in a statement, DHS and the FBI saying, look, not to be worried about this, that they don't think that this poses a threat.

And they were questioning whether or not people actually saw what they saw potentially or if these were manned aircraft, potentially air -- you know, airplanes. So what does that make you think when you hear that and now you have this confirmation?

KANITRA: It's contradictory. I was just in the briefing at The Rock in New Jersey with 99 other legislators across the political spectrum where we heard directly from federal DHS and the colonel of our state police that they had indeed launched aircraft up, were hovering over one of these drones. It was at least six feet long. And they confirmed it. And we were talking about it in real time with DHS and about the equipment that they sent us to identify all that.

So I don't know why the federal government on one side is also trying to diminish a lot of this. Because, yes, a lot of these are aircraft, are commercial flights, you know, probably even the vast majority when you're getting thousands of tips on a line. But a lot of them are actually drones. And that's confirmed.

SIDNER: Have you seen them yourselves? And if you have seen them, what do they look like? KANITRA: I went to do a news hit last night and I left my district. There were seven over the Manasquan Inlet right in my hometown of Point Pleasant Beach, and they just were hovering over our Lake of the Lilies. It's -- it's unbelievable that we're a month in, mind you.

The first sighting of this was November 18th, our state police and DHS have confirmed that every single night since November 18th, there have been confirmed drone sightings. And you can tell that they're drones because everybody knows what a plane looks like and how it operates. They go left. They go right. They go up. They go down. It's a very serious thing that we don't know where they're coming from.

SIDNER: Do you think at this point, I mean, there's so much speculation from people because people are concerned because people want to know the answers. Do you think there needs to be a public hearing about what is going on and some answers given? And are you surprised that you haven't heard definitively where these are from, what they are, who's behind this?

KANITRA: Well, I feel that way. And I can tell you the most bipartisan thing ever is getting a bunch of Republicans and Democrats in a room together at The Rock where they all felt the same way about those concerns. So we're all pressing for more information.

And quite frankly, there are many methods where you can take these down safely. My district has 30 miles of Jersey Shore coastline where you could take one down and not pose any risk to the public and actually get to the bottom of that. We sent a letter to DHS and to the White House the other day asking for just that. And I know a lot of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle are doing the exact same thing.

SIDNER: When you say take them down, are you talking about shooting them down? And couldn't that be done locally? Couldn't someone just say, hey, you know what, send out, you know, the National Guard or send someone out and take one of these down so we know what this is and where it's from?

KANITRA: Shooting down literally and figuratively. If you interfere with the GPS, a lot of these drones have to land, right? And so we're calling for bringing them down. And we think that that's going to be the solution to everything.

SIDNER: Ultimately, do you think that because this has gone on for so long, you have seen them, many residents have been showing videos of them. Does this put the government in a position of being distrusted even more, especially after the UFO thing where they're like, no, there's no one identified flying objects for years and years and years, decades? And then saying, actually, there are. We're not sure what they are. And now we have this incident where they're saying, there is nothing to worry about at this point that we believe. And yet we don't know anything about them.

KANITRA: The nuances of how they're saying there's nothing to worry about are what you should worry about, right? It always says no known credible threat.

SIDNER: Right.

KANITRA: Things along those lines. But they also don't know that there's any guarantee of safety either. And we're not sitting out here talking about the fact that we're going to be under attack anytime soon or anything crazy like that. But is there a very real probability that this is a foreign adversary who's testing our defense capabilities for a month, mind you, and possibly surveilling critical infrastructure, which has been confirmed. And in our briefing, they said they were over Picatinny Arsenal. They said they were over Bedminster. They said they were over Naval Weapons Station Earle.

And in my district, I have a National Guard facility that has thousands of law enforcement going through there. They need to get on the same page because clearly their institutions are confirming that these sightings are occurring. And then they're trying to come out in a public way and diminish it. And that's losing trust with the American people.

SIDNER: And you just made some news this morning again. Tell me what you learned about these drones from a very well-trusted institution.

[09:10:01]

KANITRA: Naval Weapons Station Earle confirmed this morning that there were unmanned aerial drones above their facilities, and that's a fact. And we were told in our briefing that they were over Picatinny Arsenal as well just a couple days ago.

SIDNER: All right, Assemblyman Paul Kanitra, thank you so much for bringing that to us. And hopefully you get some, and we all do.

KANITRA: Thanks for looking into it, Sara.

SIDNER: Appreciate it.

John?

BERMAN: All right, this morning, new details about the multiple search warrants carried out against the suspected CEO killer as prosecutors in New York began laying out their case to a grand jury.

New warnings from colleges around the country about possible travel bans in Donald Trump's new term. Their advice to international students ahead of the inauguration.

And this morning, a stunning admission, the woman who falsely accused Duke lacrosse players of rape speaking out for the first time about her lie.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:15:28]

BOLDUAN: Sean "Diddy" Combs is facing three new lawsuits today. He's being accused of sexual assault by three men in separate civil suits just filed. In all three, the accusers allege that Combs drugged and raped them and that these sexual assaults took place between 2019 and 2022.

One of the men is a former employee of Combs who says that Combs attacked him in a hotel. Combs' defense team released a statement in the face of this saying that these lawsuits were full of lies. These latest accusations, though, bring the total number of sexual assault claims against Sean "Diddy" Combs to more than 30.

Joining me right now is CNN Legal Analyst and Criminal Defense Attorney Joey Jackson.

So these new allegations are similar to the dozens of others that we have already seen that have been filed. How do these add up or add into kind of what you see in what could be with all of these civil suits?

JOEY JACKSON, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: So, Kate, always depends, right? And any suit turns on its facts. And what we're starting to see are facts that are very similar. So it begs the question as to whether or not one or two things is permissible or possible.

Number one, that this was simply, right, these allegations represented his modus operandi. That's one way of looking at it. Item number two, in looking at it, is saying that, hey, maybe these are copycats who are really creating fiction. And that is the narrative of Diddy, right? His people are saying these are pure lies.

And so when you get other lawsuits, which evidence a pattern of spiking drinks, of approaching, of drugging, of raping, and you've seen that. Well, you have something to base it against.

Now, an attorney has an obligation to vet, evaluate, review these before doing it. You have a due diligence obligation. So it's going to be a question of fact in the event, Kate, that they are factually accurate, right? They'll be investigated. And then the issue will be how, if at all, could they be used in the criminal prosecution?

Ways away from that, and again, different attorney here. There's a New York based attorney, not Buzbee. And, you know, his crew, Buzbee, of course, is an attorney who's filed several other lawsuits against Combs. And so we'll see factually whether these are accurate or whether they're fiction that remains to be seen.

BOLDUAN: One other thing about this that stuck out to me is that these allegations are relatively recent, that they say the sexual assaults took place between 2019 and 2022. Is that significant?

JACKSON: Very significant. And here's why, right? Obviously, any allegation of abuse needs to be investigated, right? It should be to determine whether or not it's factually accurate.

But if it's more of recent vintage, there should be more of a basis to have witnesses memories who potentially you remember more now in 2019, 2022 than you would 20 years ago. The evidence in terms of whether it be available, being able to approach someone. There's one indication that it was filmed. But where is that, right? Where's the camera that was done, so. BOLDUAN: Yeah.

JACKSON: You said you weren't employed. Did you really work there or did you make that up? And so because they're more recent, you would expect the evidence to be more recent and more available to really in the lawsuit itself, in addition to federal authorities, they decide to look at these victims -- alleged victims to see whether they have any value.

BOLDUAN: Many, if not most of the civil suits that have been filed are Jane and John Doe's.

JACKSON: Yes.

BOLDUAN: As this continues and these continue to be vetted, can that -- can that stay that way? Can they stay anonymous?

JACKSON: So, OK, great question. And it may not be the case. The judge, at least the federal judge, these are state claims, right? The federal judge has signaled that, you know what, maybe it's time for witnesses to be revealed. Why? There was a dismissal of a federal case based on this very reason. Someone filed anonymously. And what a judge does, Kate, is they balance the person's privacy interest. Will you be intimidated? Will you be threatened? Will you be retaliated against -- against the public? There's a presumption of openness.

There's a presumption that the courts belong to the people. And certainly if you're going against someone, should they not have the right to know who you are? But the courts like transparency. And so unless you have a compelling basis to demonstrate that you do feel threatened, coerced or anything else, then it may be time for who it is to be made public. We'll see moving forward.

BOLDUAN: To reinforce what you do each time, which is, this is -- these are civil lawsuits, and these are separate from the reason that Sean Combs is currently behind bars. The criminal charges he's facing for sex trafficking, racketeering. You know, it all is -- it all is similarly wrapped up, if you will. But these are separate. How does one impact the other?

[09:20:03]

JACKSON: So great point, right? What happens is, is that in a civil lawsuit, it's based on monetary damages.

BOLDUAN: Right.

JACKSON: That's the way our system only way it has to really compensate someone in the event that there's truth to allegations separate and apart from the federal's -- federal, not lawsuit, but criminal allegation, right, that's pending in terms of his indictment.

The question of how it impacts it really is an open question. Here's why. They will, the civil accusers, be vetted. The civil claims will be vetted. Is there any value to prosecutors either, A, amending the charges if the claims are accurate to include additional victims, additional instances? That's number one.

Number two, if you don't amend the charges, could you still use these alleged victims as what we call prior bad act witnesses? And that's up to a judge.

BOLDUAN: That's -- that's -- that happens in court, right?

JACKSON: Absolutely.

BOLDUAN: I guess, yeah.

JACKSON: And what they do, Kate, is they determine either, A, it goes to motive, it goes to intent. It goes to a common plan, a scheme, and this way a judge will allow it. But some judges say it may go to that. But it's so prejudicial because cases have to be about what you're accused about, not what you did allegedly yesterday, the day before, the week before. What are you accused about now?

So when you start piling on witnesses, jurors sometimes are misled to, hey, if he's done it before, potentially he's done it now. That's very what we call prejudicial and it's unfair to a defendant. So it'll be up to a judge to see how we're going to use these witnesses, if at all.

BOLDUAN: All separate, but all very clear. Very important is how things are going to proceed going forward.

Thank you, Joey. Good to see you.

JACKSON: Thank you.

BOLDUAN: Coming up for us still, the woman who set off a national firestorm in 2006 by falsely accusing Duke lacrosse players of rape. She is now speaking out.

And why some universities are warning international students to return and get back to campus for the spring semester before Donald Trump's inauguration.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:26:33]

SIDNER: Nearly 20 years after an alleged rape that rocked the lives of Duke male lacrosse players, the accuser admits she lied and is making a plea for forgiveness. Crystal Mangum, who accused three Duke men's lacrosse players of rape back in 2006, igniting a national firestorm at the time, now admitting on a Web show that she lied.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CRYSTAL MANGUM, ACCUSER: I testified falsely against them by saying that they raped me when they didn't. And that was wrong. And I betrayed the trust of a lot of other people who believed in me. I hope that they can forgive me and I want them to know that I love them. And they didn't deserve that. (END VIDEO CLIP)

SIDNER: All three of the lacrosse players, by the way, were exonerated of all charges in 2007. Mangum was never prosecuted for perjury because the statute of limitations had run out years ago and because of her mental state. She is now, by the way, in prison serving time for the second-degree murder of her boyfriend in 2013.

John?

BERMAN: Yeah, I covered that 20 years ago. The D.A. who brought the charges against the Duke lacrosse players was also disbarred. So really, so much went wrong in that case over now such a long period of time.

All right. This morning, two new court dates set for the man accused of killing UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson. New developments overnight. We now know neither the suspect, Luigi Mangione, nor his mother had insurance through UnitedHealth. And "ABC News" reports that prosecutors in New York have begun showing evidence to a grand jury. Police say as many as three search warrants have been executed.

CNN Chief Law Enforcement and Intelligence Analyst John Miller, who's been way out ahead on so much of the story, is with us. So what does this all mean, John, about what happens now and next?

JOHN MILLER, CNN CHIEF LAW ENFORCEMENT AND INTELLIGENCE ANALYST: Well, the fact that he's not a customer of United, nor was his mother, is something that they've been kind of digging through to determine motive. Was there some interaction between him and the company that set him off? And apparently not.

But if you go to the three-page claim of responsibility, as police are calling it, that was found allegedly on his person, he does write this. United is the fifth largest company in the U.S. by market cap, behind only Apple, Google and Walmart. It has grown and grown.

What he seems to be imparting here is his targeting was based on start with the biggest. The question about the search warrants would probably relate to that computer that he was -- a laptop, he was sitting with at that back table in McDonald's when he was arrested to get inside it, to read its contents. Not only do they have to get past whatever the security is for the machine, but they also need a search warrant to get in there.

They're going to want to know when police were approaching him, what was he looking at? Flight schedules, lists of countries with no extradition treaty with the United States. Was he reading CNN.com to see if police are getting closer to his trail or was he perhaps doing searches for another potential victim? Without that search warrant, they'll never know.

They're also interested, of course, always in what he denies. He says he was working alone. Is was he in contact with anyone else about the -- about this plot? And on the -- the -- what was it? It was the grand jury, the search warrants -- [09:30:08]

BERMAN: The jury --

MILLER: -- and the extradition.