Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Maxwell Demands Immunity, Other Conditions to Testify to Congress; NYC Gunman Who Killed Four, Wounded One, Had Grievances With NFL. Aired 2-2:30p ET

Aired July 29, 2025 - 14:00   ET

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

[14:00:00]

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN CO-ANCHOR OF "CNN NEWS CENTRAL": Jeffrey Epstein's accomplice, Ghislaine Maxwell, offers to testify before Congress but with major conditions. We'll talk about what she's asking for. Plus, investigators uncover possible clues to a motive and target in what is now the deadliest mass shooting in New York City in 25 years. We have details of the gunman suicide note.

BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN CO-ANCHOR OF "CNN NEWS CENTRAL": And later, goodbye gentle parenting. Hello, FAFO. We won't say the FO part on TV. Why parents are ditching soft discipline in favor of a more hardliner stance with their kids. We're following these major developing stories and many more, all coming in right here to "CNN News Central."

KEILAR: We have breaking news. Jeffrey Epstein accomplice and convicted sex trafficker, Ghislaine Maxwell, is now offering to testify before Congress, but her attorneys say she has a list of conditions that she wants in return, including immunity. CNN's Alayna Treene is at the White House for us. So Alayna, the president just spoke about Epstein while on Air Force One, a topic he can't escape now. It's been weeks. What did he say?

ALAYNA TREENE, CNN WHITE HOUSE REPORTER: Yeah, and I will -- I would just add off the top here, Brianna, that what he said yesterday, during that bilateral when he was standing next to the British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, and then today, he's answered more widely questions on Epstein than he has thus far and really going into length about some of the details, specifically over his falling out with Epstein, which has really garnered a lot of questions. Now, he was pushed on that yesterday, I would note. He said that they had a business dispute, that there was an inappropriate thing that Epstein did and stealing workers from him. But then today, he went into even more detail about that. A reporter asked him on board Air Force one, if any of those people that Epstein had poached from the president, he said it was at his Mar-a-Lago property had been young women?

The president said this. He said, essentially, that he didn't want to answer that question at first. And then he said, yes, the answer is yes. He went on to say people were taken out of the spa, hired by him, in other words, gone. So essentially, he was arguing that it was inappropriate that Epstein had poached workers, including young women, in the president's words, from his spa at his Mar-a-Lago Resort. And that's what led to this falling out. The president had said that he had first warned Epstein to knock it off, that he didn't believe that taking workers from him was the -- an appropriate move. And then later, he did it again, and that's when the president severed ties with him. But of course, all of this again, I think is so notable because the president has -- so far, really tried to move on from this.

He's really shut down and dismissed questions from reporters. He often has argued that trying to talk about Epstein is a distraction from more important issues that he believes the world is facing and specifically the United States is facing. But yesterday and today, we got a clearer picture of kind of where Trump is on this, where he thinks about this, and what is still clear from what my conversations here at the White House and from what we're hearing is that he's very frustrated that this continues to be a topic of discussion. He still very much wants to move on from it. And as you said, Brianna, finding it hard to escape.

KEILAR: Yeah. As he won't rule out a pardon for Maxwell, it's really interesting. She's actually the one, according to Julie Brown's reporting, who did poach someone from his spa was Virginia Giuffre. But I want to ask you what else we know, Alayna, about Maxwell's demands to testify because it is quite a list.

TREENE: It is. And look, I think I would frame this more as she's not offering to testify. She's been subpoenaed, Brianna, by the House Oversight Committee. James Comer had issued that subpoena saying they wanted her to testify in September. And at first, her attorneys say in this letter to the Committee that she was considering taking the Fifth Amendment, using her Fifth Amendment rights, essentially not answering questions or wanting to comply with this. But now, they're saying that she would and list a series of major conditions, the number one being that she would want a grant of formal immunity. I mean, that is a huge deal. And something we've already heard the Oversight Committee, a spokesperson for them say that that is not something they are considering at this time.

But she also had asked, they had also sent in this letter that the interview could not happen at the correctional facility where she's serving out her 20 year sentence. That also to prepare adequately for any Congressional deposition and to ensure accuracy and fairness in their words, that they would require the Committee's questions in advance, something they rarely, if ever, do. So something I know a lot of people who serve on that committee actually think is inappropriate. And then, they also said that the interview would be scheduled only after the resolution of her Supreme Court petition, where she is petitioning the court to overturn her conviction.

So look, not very much looking likely that Congress, particularly the Republicans and Democrats on this committee, are going to want to comply with any of this to get answers out of her.

[14:05:00]

But what I also found very notable, Brianna, was the last line. The letter ended with a final appeal to the president saying that, of course, Maxwell, in the alternative, if she were to be granted clemency from President Donald Trump, she would testify openly and publicly. All to say, very much unclear what the committee is going to do here, how they're going to try to get her to comply with this without agreeing to some of these very major conditions.

KEILAR: Yeah. A list of roadblocks, I guess, as you described there. Alayna Treene, thank you so much. We're joined by Ankush Khardori, a former Federal Prosecutor. OK. First, let's start with that last bit of what Maxwell's lawyer is talking about. What issues of at least perceived funny business does this raise when you have Maxwell's lawyer talking about how, Oh, she'll testify fully if there's clemency, as the president is not ruling out pardoning her?

ANKUSH KHARDORI, SENIOR WRITER, POLITICO: Yeah. Well, it looks like her lawyer is proceeding somewhat strategically and trying to facilitate a pardon, I have to say, to the folks in Congress who helped to create this, this is what happens when you give a criminal and all-around garbage human being leverage over you. They start creating lists of demands that make you look foolish if you accede to them. They should never have gone down this path. The Justice Department should not be working with her. She has no credibility.

She's in prison now for 20 years on heinous charges, and she has a whole host of incentives to lie or shade the truth. If I were still in government, I would not trust this woman and I would not touch her with a 10-foot pole.

KEILAR: OK, so let's talk about that, because a lot of that seems to be missing sometimes from the conversation. There are a lot of details in this case, right? It is complicated, but there is no Jeffrey Epstein operation without Ghislaine Maxwell not just normalizing the situation for the girls who were victimized, but recruiting them as well. So, you call her a garbage human being. Why?

KHARDORI: Because what she did was heinous and awful, and she traumatized many, many young women, and they're going to live with that trauma for the rest of their lives. And one of the particularly offensive elements of the Justice Department entertaining this, Republicans in Congress entertaining this, is that she has victims. And those victims have to watch all of this unfold and have to watch them pretending like this woman has some credibility and potentially some information that may be valuable despite all appearances, and despite the fact that she has never once cooperated with the government up until this time.

She was charged with two different counts of perjury that, fortunately for her, were dropped after a sex trafficking conviction. And she contested her guilt at the trial. The government had to go to trial to prove it. She had victims of her own who were testifying there too. So I -- you know, the fact that her victims are being put through this now sort of re-emerging trauma on a daily basis is good enough reason to stop this in its tracks immediately.

KEILAR: So, one of these stipulations that she's making as she's been subpoenaed by Congress for -- and that she would -- one of the stipulations for testimony is that it would be only after the resolution of her Supreme Court petition and her forthcoming habeas petition. Let's be clear about what this -- what she's asking the Supreme Court to do. She's asking them to see it the way she wants to see it, which is that she believes she should be protected by that very controversial deal that Jeffrey Epstein brokered in 2008. How do you think the Supreme Court is going to see it?

KHARDORI: Well, I hope that they turn that effort away. I -- this has been resolved previously by the lower courts and she is really not an appealing figure to bend over and to provide any sort of accommodations to. It is quite striking how she has gone within a matter of weeks to being, basically, a pariah and rightly so, to someone that the Justice Department and Republicans in Congress are treating like a potentially credible source of information. I'm not surprised at all that she's come up with a long list of demands and that her lawyer has supplemented them.

Honestly, her lawyer is probably doing the right thing by trying to exploit the vulnerabilities of both the president and Republicans in Congress, which are vulnerabilities that are entirely political and largely, if not entirely, self-inflicted by this administration.

KEILAR: Yeah, it is sort of a page we saw out of Epstein's book, which was when he was guilty of something, he would come up with all of the things he wanted, reject certain pleas and try to make sure that he had the upper hand. Ankush Khardori, it's great to speak with you. Thank you so much.

KHARDORI: Thank you.

KEILAR: Boris?

[14:10:00]

SANCHEZ: Now, if Maxwell testifies before Congress, it would be in front of the House Oversight Committee, whom we just noted, the Republican Chairman James Comer has subpoenaed her to appear. Let's discuss with a member of the Oversight Committee, Virginia Democratic Congressman Suhas Subramanyam joins us now. Congressman, thanks so much for being here in person with us. On these conditions, formal immunity, getting the questions ahead of time, would you agree to those conditions? And also, given what she knows, what she might reveal, do you think other lawmakers should agree as well?

REP. SUHAS SUBRAMANYAM, (D-VA) HOUSE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE: Well, first, I want to hear what she has to say. With that said, I would -- I'm not here to do her any favors. In my mind, she's still a sexual predator who aided and abetted the rape of underage women. And what she did was heinous. And I agree with what was said before that really, we need to make sure that justice is served for the victims. But, I think that it's important that she testify regardless, but I'm not here to do her any favors.

SANCHEZ: What do you make of the concern that we just heard from a former federal prosecutor that forcing her to testify, that subpoenaing her, gives her leverage to now make these demands and sort of gives her an upper hand? You don't -- you wouldn't agree with that? SUBRAMANYAM I don't agree it gives her an upper hand. Obviously, she's always going to make demands, but in the end, we're not here to bail her out. I'm certainly not. And so, what I want to see though is her answer questions and answer questions truthfully. My problem though, and something I do agree with is that she's not a very truthful person, right? She has committed perjury multiple times. But I still want to hear what she has to say.

SANCHEZ: What would you ask her?

SUBRAMANYAM: I want to ask her, how is the president involved? Are there these files that exist? What was the president's relationship? Was the president involved in any of these rings, these trafficking rings? Who else was involved? Are there flight records? And if so, who's on them? I want to know everything about what's going on because this president, this administration campaigned on this last year, right? On the transparency of the whole thing. And now, we're getting silence and stonewalling from them.

I also am concerned that the president's lawyers went down and talked to her for hours and may have coached her, and that she clearly wants a pardon. That's her only get-out-of-jail-free card right now. And so, I do feel like there's concerns there.

SANCHEZ: So your view is that there may be some kind of backroom deal. I mean, you described Emil Bove as -- or rather another of the president's attorneys, as his current attorney. I mean, he's now an official with the Department of Justice, but your view is that there's some kind of backroom deal there that they're coaching, Ghislaine Maxwell?

SUBRAMANYAM: Yeah. This is, again, this is -- these are lawyers who are loyal to the president. These are some of the lawyers personal -- in the past, personal lawyers. And the fact is that he's putting people at DOJ and FBI right now, who are loyal to him, right? That's the whole point. That's what's going on all across the administration, firing qualified people, putting in loyal people. And I have deep concerns that they're basically coaching Ghislaine Maxwell to say what she needs to say in order to get a pardon and absolve the president completely. And she's not above lying as we know.

SANCHEZ: The administration, the president himself has denied any close links to Jeffrey Epstein or any wrongdoing. I wonder what you make of their argument that DOJ was in possession of these documents for four years when Joe Biden was president and none of this information was put forward. Why is that?

SUBRAMANYAM: Look, in the end, this president campaigned on releasing the information, so why hasn't he released it? Right? That's what I have to say. And we shut down Congress, Speaker shut down Congress to basically block and tackle for this president when we could be doing not just this, but also lowering costs. We could be doing things about the fact that the USDAI (ph) is being dismantled right now. And so, there's so much stuff to do in Congress right now, but we shut it down to cover up for the president and this issue. SANCHEZ: There is a bipartisan push for accountability and for answers. I do wonder what you make of concerns from some, including House Speaker Mike Johnson, that putting out all of this information unredacted, which you've said that you support, would cause harm to the victims. They would've to relive that trauma. You also run the risk of putting child pornography out there, and potentially, if there's another avenue of investigation, it could be affected by putting the information out there. You don't share those concerns?

SUBRAMANYAM: This isn't the first time we've put out information about these types of trafficking rings. I think you can do it in a way that's respectful to the victims. You can do it in a lot of different ways. In the end, what people want to know is the names and what the president's involvement is. The way he's reacting to this right now really screams of guilt right now. And so there's clearly something going on in these files that's making the president react the way he's reacting. Otherwise, he'd release the files a long time ago.

SANCHEZ: Do you have e evidence beyond what's out there in public, something that you've seen that makes you convinced that there's something that President Trump is hiding?

SUBRAMANYAM: I wish I did. I mean, I'm in the dark just as much as the American people, and I'm a member of Congress. I wish -- I mean, I wrote to the FBI and DOJ months ago asking for answers because Elon Musk tweeted that he had some personal knowledge that the president was in the files.

[14:15:00]

Why does Elon Musk get to see the files, but not the American people, or at least members of Congress on the Oversight Committee?

SANCHEZ: It's unclear if Musk has actually seen those files. He's made a lot -- I just say that because he is made a lot of claims on social media, a lot of them untethered from reality. House Democrats on Oversight requested a copy of this reported album of letters compiled to Jeffrey Epstein for his 50th birthday. The president has denied that he took part in any of that, that he wrote a letter or drew a picture that's reportedly included in that book. Has any progress been made on that request?

SUBRAMANYAM: No. There's been a lot of silence when we ask for stuff and in the end, this is an administration that said they'd be very transparent on this specific issue and they've been anything but transparent.

SANCHEZ: Congressman Suhas Subramanyam, we have to leave the conversation there. Appreciate you joining us.

SUBRAMANYAM: Thank you.

SANCHEZ: Thanks so much. Still plenty more news to come this afternoon on "CNN News Central." A potential motive emerging in Monday's deadly mass shooting in Midtown Manhattan. We have new details about the gunman's suicide note, including who it named. And later, a new study offering hope for those at risk of developing Alzheimer's. That and much more coming your way in just moments. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[14:20:26]

SANCHEZ: A multi-state investigation is now underway as police today dig deeper for a motive in New York's deadliest mass shooting in 25 years. A gunman carrying out his rampage after officials say he drove from Las Vegas to Manhattan, entered a building, and then opened fire, killing four people and critically injuring another. An NYPD officer, a security guard, and a mom who was executive at Blackstone Investment Firm are among those being remembered today. A male NFL employee was also shot, but survived. He's now said to be in critical but stable condition.

Today, new details are emerging about the shooter's motivation and how it may be linked to the NFL and its handling of CTE, a brain trauma disease. CNN learning moments ago, the handwritten suicide note found on the gunman after he shot himself in the chest, included a list of neuroscientists. And New York's mayor saying it will be up to a medical examiner to decide if the gunman's brain will be tested for CTE. We're also now seeing the first images of what was found inside the killer's car. There's a handgun, ammunition, medication, two cell phones, and cannabis as well. Brianna?

KEILAR: And we're joined now by former Secret Service Agent and CNN Law enforcement Analyst, and Daniel Brunner, retired FBI Special Agent and President of The Brunner Sierra Group. Dan, New York City Mayor Eric Adams said that investigators believed he was actually headed to the fifth floor where the NFL headquarter offices were. Instead, he took the wrong elevator, he went to the 33rd floor, which was preselected as we understand it, by the person who'd been in that elevator before him. What questions do you have about the motive and also, really the way the shooter ended up carrying out this attack?

DANIEL BRUNNER, RETIRED FBI SPECIAL AGENT: Thanks, Brianna. The investigation really is going to reveal all of this, and they're going to be working with the Las Vegas division of the FBI and all law enforcement agencies that he took his pathway from, from west to east. And they're going to look at every single piece of the equation to determine exactly where his motivation started, where his pathway to violence started, and what research he has done.

I mean, did he just get on the elevator thinking that he was going to end up on a floor with the NFL? They're going to look at his computer back at home, they're going to look at what investigation, what advanced work he did to obtain the weapon, to determine the building. And I know that building very well. My wife worked directly across the street from that building for 16 years. I can tell you exactly how you walk around that area in Park Avenue. So, for him to know exactly the building, if he was targeting the NFL, you figure he would've looked it up on the internet or used research on his phone or his home computer, and to determine exactly how his pathway to get into that building was. And fortunately, he made a mistake to get up there. KEILAR: Yeah, and Jonathan, I mean, thank goodness, the woman who ran out of that elevator, he did not shoot her. It seems like for someone though, who went in there kind of indiscriminately shooting four people in the lobby, is that a detail that surprises you?

JONATHAN WACKROW, CNN LAW ENFORCEMENT ANALYST AND FORMER SECRET SERVICE AGENT: Well, it does and it doesn't. And here's what I think happened, and this is what I assess. This really was a grievance- driven attacker. Came to 345, Park Avenue with the intent to engage in, targeted acts of violence. And now, we're seeing that most likely his focus was the NFL and going to that location. However, when you look at how focused this attacker was, as he crosses the plaza and enters into the building, he really had these blinders on. He had tunnel vision as he walked into that main lobby and started his attack.

Because of that, I am, assessing that he probably had some confusion as to where he was. Unlike other acts of violence that we have seen in the past, I wouldn't assess that this attacker had any type of -- conducted any type of pre-attack surveillance or knew the location whatsoever, just by the fact that he entered into an elevator bank that was significantly farther away than the NFL elevator bank. So, he traveled deep into the building.

Now, a couple things could also be happening. There's a level of access control at all of these commercial buildings in Manhattan. Getting through turnstiles and then into elevators can be very difficult. He may have seen an opportunity to get into where this woman had exited and just took that moment of opportunity to get up into the building, not continuing his attack.

[14:25:00]

So there's a lot of things that are going on at the same time, and that's what makes this investigation by both the NYPD and their law enforcement partners across the country so difficult is actually to pinpoint exactly those motivational factors that led to this attack.

KEILAR: Dan, as these NYPD teams have been dispatched to Nevada, where the gunman was living, what are they looking for?

BRUNNER: They're looking for everything, anything and everything. They're not going to leave anything off the table. They're going to look at digital evidence. They're going to talk to his neighbors. They'll talk to his friends, his coworkers. They're going to pull all the applications for his concealed carry license there in the state of Nevada. They're going to look at the private investigator license. That -- his application there for the state of Nevada, they're going to look at every shred of evidence that is possible to understand where he became determined to conduct this attack.

Whether he had CTE or not, that's a question. He may have self- diagnosed. So, or did he talk to a doctor? Was this -- was a doctor actually diagnosed with CTE? They'll show -- they'll talk to those doctors. They'll obtain medical records. They are going to leave no stone unturned in cooperation with Las Vegas PD, FBI, and all agencies in between from -- because they're going to also want to look at every single place that he stopped along his drive. Starting there in Las Vegas -- in Nevada, excuse me, they're going to really look at everything in his home, digital computer, cell phone evidence, everything that he's been doing, and determine where this pathway to violence really started.

KEILAR: Yeah. And Jonathan, why does that matter? Is they're looking for this motive, these mental health claims, and he's claiming CTE, that was part of his grievance with the NFL, how they'd handled it, at least how he put it in his note. How does that factor into this?

WACKROW: Well, listen, these are really important facts. One, for the investigation, but also to help law enforcement broadly really identify what are those warning signs? What should we be looking for? Now, unfortunately, a lot of what we're seeing emerge right now is almost textbook to what both the FBI and the Secret Service have assessed through the National Threat Assessment Center, where they're -- all of these acts of targeted violence starts with a grievance, but they also are coupled with a level of stressor by the attacker that has happened within the previous five years.

So, we're starting to see this model emerge of these violent attacks, but more information is still needed. And all the evidence that we garner now will help law enforcement and public safety officials in the future really identify pre-attack behavior or those individuals that are at risk from moving along, as Dan said, that pathway to violence, to launching these attacks. The quicker that we can identify and then, stop that -- that pathway down to violence is really important for law enforcement in the future.

KEILAR: Yeah, let's hope. This was -- this was horrific, what we saw in New York. Jonathan Wackrow, Dan Brunner, thank you to you both.

WACKROW: Thank you.

KEILAR: Still to come, some new reporting about the Environmental Protection Agency and its plans to change a finding that's seen as critical to regulating air pollution.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)