Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Trump Says He'll Know in Two Weeks Whether Putin Is Serious On Ukraine Peace; GOP. Rep. Mike Flood Faces Tough Questions Over Trump's Agenda Bill; Rep. Mike Flood (R-NE) Discusses About "Big, Beautiful Bill"; Trump Pardons Reality TV Show Couple, Ex-Virginia Sherriff; 2 Of 10 Louisiana Jailbreak Escapees Remain At Large; Orleans Parish D.A.: Must Learn How They Got Out, Who Helped. Aired 3-3:30p ET

Aired May 28, 2025 - 15:00   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:00:35]

BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN HOST: President Trump pushing forward with more controversial pardons. One of the latest is for a well-known reality TV couple, the Chrisleys, convicted of millions of dollars' worth of fraud. Minutes from now, we could hear from Todd Chrisley upon his release from prison.

Plus, the latest in the Sean "Diddy" Combs trial, an arson investigator revealing new details about rapper Kid Cudi's burned-out Porsche, and a stylist testifies about the abuse that he says he witnessed firsthand and how he tried to stop it.

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: And a blunt warning from one of the world's most powerful creators of artificial intelligence. He says A.I. could wipe out half of all entry-level white-collar jobs. We're following these major developing stories and many more, all coming in right here to CNN NEWS CENTRAL.

SANCHEZ: Today, President Donald Trump is giving a new timeline for when he says he'll know if Vladimir Putin is serious about peace in Ukraine. Watch this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Do you believe the Russians are being disrespectful when they say that your criticisms of Putin are simply an emotional response? And do you still believe that Putin actually wants to end the war?

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I can't tell you that, but I'll let you know in about two weeks. Within two weeks, we're going to find out very soon. We're going to find out whether or not he's tapping us along or not. And if he is, we'll respond a little bit differently. But it'll take about a week and a half, two weeks.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SANCHEZ: The President also softened his tone when it comes to any new sanctions on Russia, now saying he doesn't want to impose them for now in case it might jeopardize peace talks. Trump just said on Sunday that he would absolutely consider new sanctions on Russia in the aftermath of its deadly drone and missile attacks across Ukraine. Let's take you now live to the White House with CNN's Kristen Holmes.

And Kristen, turning now to more news made in the Oval Office today, Special Envoy to the Middle East Steve Witkoff expressed some optimism about a temporary ceasefire agreement in Gaza, saying that he would soon be presenting terms to both sides. What are we learning about that?

KRISTEN HOLMES, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Yes, he stood up in the Oval Office and when asked about it, said he was going to be proposing a new term deal to both sides, that Donald Trump would have to sign off on it first. But just to give a little bit of context here, we know that Steve Witkoff had put forward a deal to Hamas, asking them to take it, that essentially would return all - or, excuse me, half of the living and half of the dead hostages that were still in control of Hamas, as well as an agreement for Israel offering a temporary ceasefire.

He also offered in that first negotiation or in that first plan that he had provided, that he himself would mediate talks between Hamas and Israel. So, it's interesting to see what exactly these new terms are going to look like. One of the things to keep in mind about Witkoff is his number one priority, as he has said all along, is getting those hostages back.

However, when he was in the Oval Office, he didn't mention what the new terms would be around hostages. He still just mentioned this temporary ceasefire.

SANCHEZ: And Kristen, we understand that President Trump was also asked about comments made by Elon Musk regarding the "Big, Beautiful Bill" that recently passed the House. Musk saying that the bill could be big or it could be beautiful, but it can't be both. Tell us more about Trump's response.

HOLMES: Yes. And Musk said that he was disappointed in the bill, the bill that is a huge part of Donald Trump's legacy. Now, Trump essentially brushed off those comments. Here's what he said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: We will be negotiating that bill, and I'm not happy about certain aspects of it, but I'm thrilled by other aspects of it. That's the way they go. It's very big. It's the "Big, Beautiful Bill." But the beautiful is because of all of the things we have. The biggest thing being, I would say, the level of tax cutting that we're going to be doing. We're going to make people really be able to - we'll have one of the lowest tax rate we've ever had in the history of our country.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HOLMES: So, there he was, defending his agenda. But we should also note that part of this, he said that there were parts of the bill he liked, there were parts of the bill he didn't like. And he also noted that they expect some changes to be made in the Senate.

Of course, we know there are things that Donald Trump and the administration are unwilling to move on.

[15:05:04]

So, we're pressing now on what things Donald Trump and the administration would be willing to give a little on if it means getting this bill passed.

SANCHEZ: Kristen Holmes, thank you so much. Brianna?

KEILAR: Last night, Republican Congressman Mike Flood of Nebraska faced a feisty town hall where he was questioned over voting for President Trump's self-titled "Big, Beautiful Bill." Here's part of it.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. MIKE FLOOD (R-NE): When that bill was presented to the House, I voted for it in sync with almost the entire Republican conference because at the end of the day, I have to focus on the things that matter and it celebrates the country that we love and the continent that we love.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KEILAR: And Congressman Mike Flood is with us now.

Kudos to you holding a town hall, knowing that you might get some blowback there, Congressman. But I will note, you support the bill, obviously. You also support DOGE, and they do appear to be a little bit in conflict as Elon Musk is saying, the bill undermines the work that the DOGE team is doing. How do you see it?

FLOOD: Well, perfect is the enemy of good. At the end of the day, we have to look at the big picture. This is the first time in literally generations that we've made these kinds of cuts to mandatory spending. Sure, we always trim around the edges with discretionary spending. Most of our spending is on the mandatory side. Here you have well over a trillion dollars in reductions, continued tax cuts that are extended.

If we can continue to cut the budget and grow our economy, that is the recipe for getting ourselves out of the hole that we're in. Is there always more room to cut? Yes, but we have to find where we can get 218 votes in the House. We did that. Now it's the Senate's term, and I'm confident they'll get there.

KEILAR: According to NBC, you explained at your town hall that you didn't know the bill included a provision that would limit a judge's ability to enforce contempt orders for defying the court because you hadn't read the full bill before voting on it. Do you want to see that provision taken out in the Senate version? FLOOD: Well, first of all, I will say I did review the bill, and on its face, the four sentences that were raised dealt with civil rule of civil procedure, and as it relates to the contempt powers of a court in relation to an injunction. Only after we ended up voting on the bill (INAUDIBLE) from the Bar Association reach out to me and say, hey, we need to examine this.

Right now, this bill, it's in the hands of the Senate. It's ongoing. I plan to support the tax cuts. I plan to support President Trump's "One, Big, Beautiful Bill." We need to get this tax relief done. Now that there's awareness about the section that I referenced, I think there will be a discussion about whether it remains in the bill.

KEILAR: So, on Medicaid concerns, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation, which is a nonpartisan health policy think tank, there are about a hundred thousand Medicaid enrollees in your district. Will those numbers stay the same if the House passed cuts and requirements become law?

FLOOD: Well, I think you won't see much of a change here in Nebraska, and that's because we have a state law that prohibits us from allowing illegal immigrants to receive Medicaid here in Nebraska. So, we also have very low unemployment. That's why when I look through this bill and it says, hey, work requirements, checking to make sure people still qualify, making sure that illegal immigrants aren't on there, I'm pretty confident that the impacts on Nebraskans will be minimal at best.

Obviously, waste, fraud, and abuse, that matters to a lot of people. But throughout this process, working on this bill, I've been in touch daily with the Nebraska Hospital Association, with providers of developmental disabled services, mental health providers, just to find out how it actually affects those on the ground.

And like I said, Nebraska, very low unemployment. So, work requirements aren't going to knock a lot of our folks off. We have some of the lowest unemployment in the nation. We don't allow illegal immigrants to get Medicaid. And we have a state government that runs very, very efficiently.

So, when you look at states like mine that are exceptionally well run, the impact on my constituents will be minimal. And those that are affected, there's going to be a reason that it doesn't work for them, most likely because they are able-bodied and they refuse to work.

KEILAR: As you mentioned, you voted for those work requirements which currently do not exist. And experts are expecting that people who actually are working, including caregivers and maybe students, will lose Medicaid because they get caught up in the red tape of the process. Are you concerned about that?

FLOOD: Well, the Nebraska legislature has recently done really good things for caregivers with certain types of tax exemptions. These are things that we can figure out. I was the speaker of the legislature for six years. Every single day, the federal government made changes, and we reacted to them, and we made adjustments, and they were fiscally responsible, and they helped the people.

[15:10:03]

Listen, at the end of the day, we protected Medicaid. We protected Medicaid. That should be the story here. The Republican House majority protected Medicaid, accepting cases of waste, fraud, and abuse. And Medicaid will always be available to the most vulnerable, the folks that are not able-bodied, the mentally ill or those that have developmental disabilities. Those are the people that will get these services.

And if we don't protect our system from waste, fraud, and abuse, we compromise it and its future for those that actually need it and rely on it. And those are the folks that I'm focused on.

KEILAR: You mentioned you're talking to hospitals in Nebraska, in your district. The President of the Nebraska Hospital Association told KETV in Omaha that 44 percent of the rural hospitals in the state, in your state, are losing money on operations right now, and warned that these proposed cuts, specifically in the bill that you voted for, would mean shutting down programs or even closing hospitals in your state. How concerned are you about that?

FLOOD: Well, I'm communicating with the head of the Hospital Association all the time. I don't know when that statement was made. I know that when this bill passed, that the Hospital Association in my state said they could live with it. A lot of our hospitals, before this bill was even talked about, are on the red line through a variety of different reasons. A lot of times, it's the compliance burdens and the challenges that a lot of our providers have with health insurance companies, and PBMs, and pharmaceutical companies.

So, there's a lot of things in the mix in rural healthcare. I can tell you that Nebraska hospitals are going to benefit from the critical access system that continues to remain in place, which is single- handedly keeping a lot of critical access hospitals open. Otherwise, we'd have large areas of my state without an emergency room.

And so, I work every single day with Nebraska hospitals, healthcare providers, nurses, the university, and we have a very good system of care in our state. There are hospitals in this nation that are close to the red line, but that has been going on for a long time, and it's far more complicated than anything that's in this bill.

KEILAR: Yes, these are concerns about the ones in your state.

Congressman Flood, thank you so much for being with us.

FLOOD: Thank you very much.

KEILAR: Boris.

FLOOD: Have a good day.

KEILAR: You too. SANCHEZ: President Trump is drawing scrutiny for a number of questionable pardons that he's issued in recent days, and this afternoon at the White House, he was asked if one notorious set of convicts might also receive one.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Will you pardon the people who are accused of conspiring to kidnap Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer?

TRUMP: I'm going to look at it. I will take a look at it. It's been brought to my attention. I did watch the trial. It looked to me like somewhat of a railroad job. I'll be honest with you, it looked to me like some people said some stupid things, you know, they were drinking, and I think they said stupid things, but I'll take a look at that, and a lot of people are asking me that question from both sides, actually.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SANCHEZ: That question coming just hours after Trump issued full pardons to reality TV couple Todd and Julie Chrisley, who were convicted of conspiracy to defraud banks out of more than $30 million. Todd Chrisley could be released from prison in Florida at any moment. And this week, the President also pardoned a former Virginia sheriff sentenced to 10 years in federal prison as part of a $75,000 bribes- for-badges scheme.

Former Justice Department pardon attorney Liz Oyer joins us now live. She also has a Substack at lawyeroyer.com. I love that name. It's very creative.

LIZ OYER, FORMER JUSTICE DEPT. PARDON ATTORNEY: Thank you.

SANCHEZ: What do you make of all these pardons, Liz?

OYER: Well, Boris, honestly, I don't usually use a lot of hyperbole, but I will say that President Trump and his pardon attorney Ed Martin are making a complete mockery out of the pardon power. This is a solemn presidential power that is intended to benefit people who have truly earned second chances through clemency by demonstrating good conduct, remorse for their offensive conviction, and rehabilitation. There are many deserving Americans who are waiting for pardons, and those folks are all being overlooked and bypassed in favor of friends, political loyalists, and allies of the President, which really makes a mockery of our system of justice, as well as the pardon power with which the President is entrusted.

SANCHEZ: Now, I understand that you were fired after you refused to recommend that gun rights of actor Mel Gibson be restored. Gibson, of course, is a supporter of President Trump's. Do you think that showing your support for the President, whether, you know, vocally, coming out and speaking at political conventions or attending fundraisers and that sort of thing, is now a prerequisite for folks to get a pardon?

OYER: Well, this, Boris, is a White House where everything that is not bolted down is for sale, and that includes pardons. That includes benefits that are construed by the Department of Justice. Things like restoration of gun rights are being doled out to folks who are friends and loyalists of the President, allies who have demonstrated political loyalty or made financial contributions to the President.

[15:15:07]

Everything appears to be for sale, and that is effectively demolishing the rules that have always governed our nation.

SANCHEZ: The administration is pushing back on that reasoning, and many point to President Biden pardoning not only his son Hunter, his brother as well, and issuing preemptive pardons for a number of prominent Trump critics. What do you make of that comparison?

OYER: There are some legitimate criticisms of the way that President Biden used his pardon power, but what is happening now is taking it to another whole level. One thing that is different between what President Trump is doing and what President Biden did is that he is using the pardon power to erase millions, and frankly, it totals over a billion dollars of debts that are owed by these wealthy individuals who are getting pardons. He's using pardons to wipe out restitution judgments, which is money that is owed to victims of crime. People like the victims of the Chrisleys who were defrauded are now not going to be paid back because the pardon wipes out the debt.

And I've looked at these closely and added it all up, and the President has effectively erased over $1 billion in debts that are owed mostly to victims of crimes by doling out pardons to friends and supporters.

SANCHEZ: The pardon power comes with being the President, being in the executive branch.

OYER: It does.

SANCHEZ: I wonder if you see any recourse perhaps through Congress to limit pardon power because there has been historically bipartisan calls for some kind of reform.

OYER: It's a very tricky issue because the Constitution does grant this broad plenary power to the President, and it seems like where we are now is that we need to be having a constitutional conversation, a conversation about whether the Constitution should be amended to rein in this unfettered power in some way. The pardon power relies on the person who is entrusted with it exercising it in good faith and with good intentions, and that is not what we're seeing here.

SANCHEZ: Liz Oyer, fascinating to get your perspective. Thanks for joining us.

OYER: Thanks for having me.

SANCHEZ: Appreciate it.

Still to come, we have new details from the Sean "Diddy" Combs' trial as a witness testifies about what he says Combs did to his ex- girlfriend and what he threatened to do to others.

Plus, is the trial going cold? Rather, the trail going cold for two remaining escapees who broke out of a New Orleans jail, what officials are now revealing about their ongoing search.

And Donald Trump tying more of his business interests to Bitcoin. We'll explain why in just moments. Don't go anywhere.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:22:00]

SANCHEZ: Right now, officials are chasing new leads as the manhunt for two inmates who escaped a Louisiana jail approaches its second week. Antoine Massey is a repeat escapee. Derrick Groves is a convicted double murderer. Hundreds of officers and multiple agencies are now working to find these two.

KEILAR: But today, the U.S. Marshal's Office told CNN it is currently at an impasse on figuring out where these two are. They can be anywhere in the United States at this point. The Orleans Parish district attorney stressed the importance of finding the two fugitives.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JASON WILLIAMS, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ORLEANS PARISH: It's vitally important that we catch these fugitives, whether it's Arkansas, whether it's Louisiana. But it's also critically important that we know how they got out and who helped them get out. And we can't wait until they're in custody to do that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KEILAR: Let's talk about this now with Charles Ramsey. He's a CNN Senior Law Enforcement Analyst who served as the former police chief of Washington, D.C. He's also the former Philadelphia police commissioner.

Chief, how are you seeing this now that we're going quite, I think, a couple weeks out now? How tough is this going to be to find these guys?

CHIEF CHARLES RAMSEY, CNN SENIOR LAW ENFORCEMENT ANALYST: Well, the longer it goes, the more challenging it becomes. And even the marshal service had to admit that it is becoming very, very difficult. But fortunately, there are still a lot of tips coming in and all it takes is one. And it can lead to the apprehension of at least one of the individuals, hopefully both of them before too long.

SANCHEZ: Talk to us about that process of discerning useful tips from just fodder, because we imagine the majority of calls that they get are just going to be folks who maybe think they saw something, but it wouldn't lead to much.

RAMSEY: Yes, but they'll still follow up on those. There's a task force that is working this particular case. Whatever local department that the tip came from, they'll follow up as well. I mean, you know, you never know which tip is going to be good. You can't afford to discard any of them, especially if you have absolutely no idea where this individual is. I mean, you could - you could get a tip in California and he winds up he's in California. I mean, it's been two weeks. Obviously, they've had some help on the inside. And I would argue they had some help on the outside as well. So, there's no telling where they are, but eventually they will be caught and hopefully pretty soon.

KEILAR: And in the case of Antoine Massey, who has this history of escaping jail already, how much tougher does that make it?

RAMSEY: Well, I mean, it's tough. You know, you have to ask the question, you know, why was he in that particular facility on the first-floor history of escapes? But we now know he had a lot of help from the inside. So that probably was not by accident that he was in a position to escape as far as he goes. He also, as my understanding, has some pretty significant facial tattoos that might help as well as people begin to see people who don't look familiar to him at all and call in a tip.

[15:25:06]

Again, it only takes one in order to be successful.

SANCHEZ: I'm curious about the other fugitive, Derrick Groves, because he's a convicted double murderer. And officials were holding him in a local jail on the first floor, which was minimum security. Why was he not held in a higher security state prison?

RAMSEY: Well, you would - need to answer that question at some point in time because you would think, I mean, a double homicide offender, that there would be extra steps taken to safeguard him and the public for that matter, so he couldn't escape. The same goes with others that were part of that group of 10.

So, these are all questions that need to be answered why they were held there, especially in a situation where it was so easy for him to escape. I believe you have several people now that have already been charged in aiding with the escape. I wouldn't be surprised if there are a few more before this is over.

KEILAR: And Chief, just broadly, how big of a problem are jailbreaks? You know, we've seen the big ones, right? The dramatic ones always get attention. There's another one outstanding at this point with a former police official. But how big of a problem are they and what fuels them? Is it a funding issue?

RAMSEY: Well, losing one prisoner is one too many, but it doesn't happen as often as it seems now because these events are being covered. And it all depends. You have regular jails that people get when they're first arrested by a police department. Let's say in Philadelphia, we have lockups here. You have minimum security jails. You have maximum security jails. It all depends on the history of the individual. And certainly, the security should always be tight enough where an individual cannot escape. That's the whole point of being in jail. That's the one responsibility they have is to make sure that those inmates, one, stay inside, are well treated and so forth, but they do not escape.

KEILAR: Chief, great to speak with you. Charles Ramsey, thank you so much.

RAMSEY: Thank you.

KEILAR: And still to come, we're going to have the latest on today's testimony in the sex trafficking and racketeering trial of Sean "Diddy" Combs and why the defense asked for a mistrial.

Also ahead, could your job be eliminated by AI? The dire warning of skyrocketing unemployment in the not-too-distant future. We'll have that and much more coming up on CNN NEWS CENTRAL.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)