Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

House Republicans: Cheney Should Be Prosecuted Over Jan. 6 Probe; Gaetz Defends Himself Ahead Of Possible Release Of Ethics Report; House Ethics Report On Gaetz Could Be Released Within Days; Rep. Larry Bucshon (R-IN) Discusses About Ethics Committee Vote To Release Report On Matt Gaetz; GOP Senators Question RFK On His Controversial Views On Health; Luigi Mangione Expected To Waive Extradition At Hearing Tomorrow; Luigi Mangione Charged With Murder As Act Of Terrorism. Aired 3-3:30p ET

Aired December 18, 2024 - 15:00   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:01:36]

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: Republicans setting their sights on one of their own, handing President-elect Trump an opening for retribution against one of his fiercest critics.

And the CDC confirms the first severe case of bird flu in the U.S. with one person in the hospital, and health officials say how they contracted the disease is different from any cases prior to this.

BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN HOST: Plus, mass graves uncovered in Syria, and one could hold the bodies of hundreds of thousands of people. We're following these major development stories for many more, all coming in right here to CNN NEWS CENTRAL.

KEILAR: We begin this hour with what appears to be a green light for revenge. House Republicans just recommended former Congresswoman Liz Cheney be prosecuted for her role in the January 6th probe, specifically for her interactions with a witness, which they claim amount - which they say amounts to collusion or witness tampering.

Cheney has been one of President-elect Trump's most frequent targets. He's gone so far as to call for a televised military tribunal for the former Wyoming lawmaker.

SANCHEZ: And despite Trump telling NBC News earlier this month he won't direct his subordinates to prosecute his political opponents, this latest move from Republicans would mean that he's likely not going to have to. That's because, barring any new resistance, Trump's justice department and the FBI will likely be headed by allies who already have promised to seek retribution on his behalf.

CNN Congressional Correspondent Lauren Fox is live for us on Capitol Hill. Lauren, how is the former Congresswoman Liz Cheney responding?

LAUREN FOX, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: I think we're having some audio issues, but I can tell you and walk you through a little bit of what we are hearing from Liz Cheney, who is the top Republican on this committee. What she said in a statement earlier was January 6th showed Donald Trump for who he really is, a cruel and vindictive man who allowed violent attacks to continue against our Capitol and law enforcement officers while he watched television and refused for hours to instruct his supporters to stand down and leave.

You're also getting a response from the top Democrat on the January 6th Select Committee, Bennie Thompson, who said, "There's no escaping the reality that Donald Trump hears the responsibility - that Donald Trump bears the responsibility for the deadly January 6th attack no matter how much Mr. Loudermilk would love to rewrite history."

Now, this all comes just days after Donald Trump said in that interview with "Meet the Press" that he believed that some of the January 6th committee members should be jailed. It also comes as some Republicans on the Senate side who have been meeting with Kash Patel, Donald Trump's pick to lead the FBI, have been clear that they think that the Justice Department needs to be independent and that Kash Patel needs to be prepared at times to stand up to Donald Trump.

And it was just a couple of days ago that I actually asked John Cornyn, who is a top Republican on the Judiciary Committee, whether or not he was confident that Patel would be able to stand up to Donald Trump. And he said that that was an important question and something that he was going to be watching very closely.

[15:05:03]

Because he said it is really important to him and other Republicans on the Judiciary Committee that the Justice Department is not politicized against Donald Trump's enemies. So, obviously, this is a space to watch the comments coming from Donald Trump. And then just days later, this report, I think, is a really important moment as we are tracking it on Capitol Hill. Brianna?

SANCHEZ: Lauren Fox, live for us on the Hill. Thank you so much.

We're also following another developing story up there on the Hill. President-elect Trump's former pick for attorney general, Matt Gaetz, is defending himself as the House Ethics Committee is expected to release the results of a years-long investigation into his alleged misconduct by the end of the week. Sources tell CNN members voted in secret this month to release the findings of the probe after initially voting against that in November.

In a lengthy post, the former Florida congressman stressed that the Justice Department did not charge him after looking into allegations that he had sex with an underage girl, illicit drug use, and other improprieties. He writes in part, quote, "My 30s were an era of working very hard - and playing hard too. It's embarrassing, though not criminal, that I probably partied, womanized, drank and smoked more than I should have earlier in life. I live a different life now."

Let's discuss this and more with Congressman Larry Bucshon. He's a Republican from Indiana.

Congressman, thank you so much for being with us.

When this came before the full Congress earlier this month, you voted against releasing the ethics report on Gaetz. What's your response to hearing that the Ethics Committee has now voted to release it and that that includes Republicans who changed their mind?

REP. LARRY BUCSHON (R-IN): Well, I voted against it because there's only been a couple of other cases in recent history where a former member had an Ethics Committee report released after they were no longer a member of Congress. So it was procedurally a problem for me.

You know, the Ethics Committee can change their mind. I'm not part of the Ethics Committee and if they vote to release it, that's up to them. And so we'll see what happens. I think it will be one of the few times that that has been done. And so I understand why this is a difficult issue for the Ethics Committee.

SANCHEZ: Sure. You saw there that Gaetz described his previous behavior as embarrassing but not criminal. This didn't show up on the Trump transition team's radar. It doesn't appear that they were aware of these details. They also were apparently surprised by some of the allegations brought up against Pete Hegseth, Trump's choice to lead the Pentagon. How confident are you in Trump's transition, in the Trump transition's vetting process?

BUCSHON: Well, I'm very confident in it. I think, you know, it's up to the people who are going to be vetted to tell the truth. And I think, you know, in Congressman Gaetz's situation, I think it was pretty well known he'd been under investigation and cleared criminally.

But again, House ethics is different than a criminal indictment. You can violate House ethics rules but not do things that are criminally prosecutable. So those are two separate issues. In the other case, you know, I think that it seems that the Trump transition team might have been blindsided a little bit with the DOD nominee, but I'm not privy to that conversation, so I wouldn't know.

But I'm fully confident that they can vet people. But on the other hand, you know, sometimes people have to tell them up front. One of the first questions you get asked when you run for office, is there anything that we should know? The National Party will ask you that question, and I guess they didn't answer those sufficiently.

SANCHEZ: Congressman, I do want to ask you about the agreement on a spending bill. As you know, there's a government shutdown looming at the end of the week. It was announced in the last few hours that lawmakers on both sides of the aisle had come up with a deal. It's getting a lot of anger from your side of the aisle. Some Republicans have said that this means that they would hold back their support of Republican Speaker Mike Johnson in his quest to retain the Speaker's gavel. Do you think it hurts his chances? What's your response to seeing this spending deal?

BUCSHON: No, I don't think it hurts his chances at all. Speaker Johnson's done a really tremendous job. We maintain the House majority under his watch. So I don't think it will at all. I think people recognize that he's done the best he can in very unusual and difficult circumstances. Look, the bottom line is, Congress needs to do its job ahead of this. We didn't pass any appropriations bills that were signed into law across the Congress.

Now, the House did pass a bunch of bills, but the Senate did not. So, you know, it puts the Speaker in a tough spot. And so I think his support will be there. It's a difficult situation, and I think he's done the best that he can under the circumstances.

SANCHEZ: Congressman, what about Donald Trump saying that Liz Cheney might be in trouble for investigating his actions on January 6th? He's basing that off of this report from Congressman Loudermilk, suggesting that she should be investigated for witness tampering.

[15:10:02]

This is rooted in Cassidy Hutchinson firing her Trump-backed attorney and then asking Cheney whether she could recommend one that she could afford that would put her on a payment plan. Do you think that's illegal?

BUCSHON: Well, I don't know. I'm not a lawyer. You know I was a doctor before, so I'd have to ask lawyers whether that's illegal or not. The reality is you can't tamper with witnesses that are going to testify in front of Congress or in front of the court. And whether that happened or not, I really don't know.

But, you know, Congresswoman Cheney has her views on the President- elect, and she has a right to that. So whether there was criminal activity or not, I really don't know. But I think that at this point, we should move on and look to the future, but that's not my decision.

SANCHEZ: As you know, President Trump is not necessarily looking to the future when it comes to going after Cheney. Do you think President Biden should potentially give her a pardon?

BUCSHON: Well, that's up to him. I think giving pardons to people who haven't been charged with anything or convicted with anything is probably a bad idea. It won't help the situation. And I just don't think he'll do that. I think, you know, other people, like Adam Schiff has said, they don't want a pardon, for example. And I would agree with that, because if you don't think you've done anything wrong, why would you get a pardon. I think it just would cloud the situation. I don't think President Biden will do that.

I think we'll see what happens once the new president is in office. I think he's going to focus on the future. I really do. I think that's what he's said for the most part. And look, there's longstanding problems between Congresswoman Cheney and others and the President- elect, but I'm hopeful we'll move forward.

SANCHEZ: Do you think that prosecuting Cheney could potentially discourage inquiries into future administrations by lawmakers? Do you see a scenario in which Republicans in the future, if there's a Democratic president that's threatening lawmakers, may be concerned about their own fates if they launched an investigation? BUCSHON: No, I don't think so at all. And the reason is because constitutionally, we're protected from legal challenges if we're performing our professional duties as a member of Congress. So there's really no risk involved. You can do or say what you want, basically, if you're performing your official duties as a member of Congress. And we've seen that in the past, where people have come to the House floor or the Senate floor on both sides and said things that were blatantly untrue, but there's no possibility of prosecution, so I think they're separate issues.

Now, if a member of Congress in their own private time acting in a non-official capacity interferes with a criminal investigation, whether that's Congress or the courts or the DOJ, well, then that's another story. But I'm not concerned about it at all.

SANCHEZ: And again, you have pointed out that you have not yet seen or cannot yet opine on whether what Cheney did in contacting and speaking with Cassidy Hutchinson was actually illegal. I do have one more question for you, Congressman.

BUCSHON: Sure.

SANCHEZ: You mentioned that you are a physician. Donald Trump's pick to lead Health and Human Services, RFK Jr., has made a number of comments in the past expressing skepticism over vaccines, alluding to a potential link between vaccines and autism.

In your professional opinion, are any of those comments he's made in the past valid? Do you have concerns that a vaccine skeptic is going to lead HHS?

BUCSHON: First of all, I don't have any concerns. You know, he needs to make his case in front of the U.S. Senate. You know, his past comments and what he might do in the future are two separate things. But the reality is a statement that autism is linked to vaccines has been widely debunked for a long time. In fact, the physician, I think from Great Britain, that put that in a paper and tried to make the connection was actually - had his license taken away from him, because his research was found to be inaccurate.

So those statements are not true. They've been debunked from a medical standpoint for a long time. But I think it's - you know, on the nominees to make their case in front of the U.S. Senate and answer those questions in a public forum and see where it goes.

SANCHEZ: Do you think senators should support someone that has said - that have said things like that in the past, falsehoods about vaccines, to promote them to the top post, overseeing the nation's health system?

BUCSHON: Well, let me tell you, if the U.S. Senate didn't approve of anyone who had made statements in the past that were either factually incorrect or people didn't have knowledge of the subject they were talking about, you wouldn't have cabinet secretaries or anybody else confirmed. So I think that it's on the candidate and the nominee to make their case and explain themselves and explain what they've done. I don't have any concerns at all about the nominee until he explains himself and you don't want to litigate this, you know, publicly in the media. You want to see what they have to say in a public forum. So I don't have any concerns depending on the actions of the nominee once they're HHS secretary.

[15:15:02]

But I think it'll be fine. I think that some of the things that are out there that he has said are widely debunked and I think most people know that.

SANCHEZ: Congressman Larry Bucshon, we have to leave the conversation there. Appreciate the time and congratulations on your retirement, sir.

BUCSHON: Thank you for having me, appreciate it.

SANCHEZ: Still to come, Luigi Mangione could be in New York as soon as tomorrow where he's now facing upgraded murder and terrorism charges. But legal experts say those could be hard to prove. We'll discuss.

And we're learning more about the Madison, Wisconsin school shooter's personal life as police reveal her parents are now cooperating with investigators.

KEILAR: Plus, in Syria, the magnitude of the atrocities committed by the Assad regime are still coming to light less than two weeks after its collapse. Mass graves now being discovered and one may contain more than 100,000 bodies.

These stories and many more coming up on CNN NEWS CENTRAL.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:20:23]

KEILAR: The man indicted for the murder of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson could be back in New York tomorrow. Luigi Mangione is expected to waive extradition during one of two hearings tomorrow in Pennsylvania.

SANCHEZ: The 26-year-old is charged in an 11-count indictment that includes first-degree murder with an intent to commit terrorism.

CNN Chief Law Enforcement and Intelligence Analyst, John Miller, is here with the latest on this case against Mangione.

John, what's behind the DA's decision to upgrade these charges?

JOHN MILLER, CNN CHIEF LAW ENFORCEMENT AND INTELLIGENCE ANALYST: I think it's a unique case and very unusual because first-degree with intent to commit terrorism, he's also got second-degree murder in furtherance of terrorism, but they've also charged a regular intentional murder underneath that. So what they're doing is they're giving the jury a chance to buy the theory that this was terrorism. And if they don't buy it, they're still giving them a chance to convict him of kind of a more conventional homicide followed by a bunch of weapons charges.

But the key to it is he was arrested with, allegedly, a letter - a claim of responsibility where he talks about taking out the head of the biggest health insurance company to send a message to these "parasites," quote-unquote, and to intimidate the industry, which, if you flip that to say, what if the target had been the Israeli ambassador instead of the president of UnitedHealthcare? It would have been to intimidate them about policy. So the DA's saying terrorism is terrorism regardless of what the terrorism is about.

KEILAR: And he has these two back-to-back hearings tomorrow, John. He's got the one on the charges that he's facing in Pennsylvania, and then he's got the second one on his extradition to New York. What are the possible outcomes? And could we really be seeing him coming back to New York City as soon as tomorrow?

MILLER: Well, we could. The first hearing is a pro forma status conference, if you will, between him, his Pennsylvania lawyer, and the Pennsylvania judge on the charges he's being held there on, which is possession of the semi-automatic pistol and the silencer, the false identification and other things. Legally speaking, they may be the least of his problems.

The second hearing is about the extradition where we are told he is no longer going to oppose extradition, which means the Pennsylvania case could go on hold. He could be on his way to New York sometime tomorrow or as late as Monday, but it appears like the case is going to shift to the New York courts where they have chosen a judge for this trial, and his lawyer here wants to get to work with her client.

KEILAR: John Miller, thank you so much for that.

Let's talk a little bit more about what is ahead with CNN Legal Analyst and criminal defense attorney, Joey Jackson.

Joey, some legal experts believe that New York prosecutors could have trouble proving a first-degree murder charge against Mangione. Tell us about that, and tell us about whether you agree with it.

JOEY JACKSON, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: So any case is challenging, it's good to be with both of you, but the reality is, is that I think from a legal and practical perspective, it was the right call. Why? From a legal perspective, what this allows you to do, Brianna and Boris, is it allows you to introduce mindset.

Generally speaking, you don't have to establish a motive in a case. You just have to establish that it occurred. If you introduce the notion of terrorism, this is going to allow prosecutors to go all in on the basis for which he committed this, talking about the manifesto, speaking about his hate of the healthcare process, potentially his operation, what he had against healthcare in general, right? Maybe UnitedHealthcare in particular, because it was the face of what he thought was all - that was all wrong with America and its healthcare system. So I think from that perspective, it allows for the introduction of that evidence. And ultimately, if a jury doesn't buy that you were coercing a civilian population by engaging in terrorism, they still could buy and should buy with all the evidence we've learned that it was intentional murder, which still gets you second-degree murder, which still can get you a life sentence. So I think from a legal perspective, it's proper. And from a practical perspective, Brianna and Boris, prosecutors want to prove, or at least try to prove, number one, the nature of the conduct, and number two, what they think they could establish beyond the reasonable doubt.

And so I think it was the right call, but I think based upon the way he's a public hero, it may not be a slam dunk by any stretch of the imagination.

[15:25:00]

SANCHEZ: Joey, Mangione has hired someone that you and our viewers may be very familiar with, Karen Agnifilo, a CNN legal analyst, former CNN legal analyst. I want you to listen to what she said on our network just days before taking on Mangione's case.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KAREN FRIEDMAN AGNIFILO, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: It looks to me like this - there might be an - a not guilty by reason of insanity defense that they're going to be thinking about, because the evidence is going to be so overwhelming that he did what he did. And I hear what you're saying about being radicalized. I hear what you guys are saying, but as a former prosecutor in that office, I would be concerned that you have someone who's a valedictorian of his class. He was brilliant his whole life. He comes from this great family. I mean, something changed, right? Significantly, something changed.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SANCHEZ: How do you think, Joey, the prosecution may be taking those words into account?

JACKSON: Well, I mean, listen, it's good that he has a very talented lawyer. He will need one. The evidence certainly is compelling and it will need to be evaluated and scrutinized and appropriate defenses will need to be leveled.

However, having said that, I think it's a hard stretch to argue that there was some insanity involved here. This seemed like a pre-planned, premeditated, well thought out, carefully orchestrated attack, right? Knowing exactly what he's doing, exactly what this person, meaning the CEO, where he would be, calling him a bean counter, talking about it, sending a message. But that very moment of the crime, he had a mental break? I just don't know that you buy that or jurors will buy that.

What I am concerned about though, Boris and Brianna, is whether there will be jury nullification in this case. What does that mean?

Now, many people may think, what are you talking about, jury nullification? He did it, it's clear, right? The evidence is compelling. Not so fast. This person is being called, the defendant I'm speaking of, Luigi Mangione, he's being called saint, right? Saint Nick, saint, you know, the - he's being given sainthood, right?

It's unbelievable. Saint Luigi is what they're calling him. They're selling trinkets about him. People are buying into his narrative. If you went through - if you see social media, they're like, well, hey, you know, maybe I should have done it instead. It's about time.

So there is a concern that the jurors, given the problems we're having with the healthcare system, the extent of the cost, the fact that, you know, many people are denied, right? As we look there, right, 157 deposits in his commissary, many people in custody would be very glad to have commissaries, right? To be able to buy anything. He's getting emails. He's getting, you know, pieces of mail. This all buys into the notion of him being a little different, the times being a little different, this case being a little different.

And if ever there was a case that a juror, right, may hang up on this case, meaning they may either hang the jury as a mistrial or potentially say, you know what, nothing to see here. I hate to tell you, but this may be that case. I would buy that more than I would that he became insane overnight. That just is not something I think is practical.

KEILAR: It's very interesting. We heard the police commissioner, Jessica Tisch, yesterday at the press conference, condemning what she called - what you're describing, a shocking and appalling celebration of cold-blooded murder. Social media has erupted with praise for this cowardly attack.

So that's already been identified by police. And I wonder what you think about them focusing on that and if that might reveal that they have some concern and also concerns about copycats, obviously.

JACKSON: Yes, Brianna, I have all of those concerns. I think you always worry about copycats because there are people who see the attention that he's getting, the love he's getting, the support he's getting. I mean, being elevated to a deity for engaging in murder, really? It's just shocking. And so, yes, it's a concern. And I think prosecutors will address that concern as they put the case before a jury, if it gets that far and there's not plea discussions or negotiations.

But there's a real worry. Why? We're in different times. We're in times that there's a lot of distrust against government, where there's a feeling that society's not working for everyone, where people are not living in the manner in which they believe they should be living. We saw that in the last election. And so the issue is, is there any carryover with respect to people's feelings, their emotions, their ability to support their families, their ability to believe that corporate America is corporately responsible and cares about them. Is there a carryover onto that jury?

If I'm a prosecutor, I'm concerned about that, but I'm going to make every argument I can to say this case is about this case, these facts, these circumstances and his guilt. And that's what they have to say. We'll see if a jury buys it, if or when it comes to that point in time.

SANCHEZ: Joey Jackson, thanks so much.

JACKSON: Always. Thanks, Boris. Thanks (INAUDIBLE) ...

SANCHEZ: We're also getting new details in another case making headlines. The 15-year-old girl who opened fire at her school in Madison, Wisconsin. This photo from her dad's Facebook page shows the shooter at a gun range in August.

KEILAR: And court records obtained by CNN showed that she had been enrolled in therapy.

[15:30:03]

CNN's Brian Todd has more on just how rare it is for females to carry out mass shootings like this one.