Return to Transcripts main page
CNN News Central
Education Department Begins Offloading Work to Other Agencies; Senate Sends Bill Forcing Release of Epstein Files to Trump; Trump Speaks at U.S.-Saudi Investment Forum at Kennedy Center; DOJ Says Full Grand Jury Never Saw Final Comey Indictment; Day Two of Jury Selection in Brian Walshe Murder Trial. Aired 2-2:30p ET
Aired November 19, 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]
SUNLEN SERFATY, CNN WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT: -- chief criticism of this is that this potentially creates more bureaucracy when that's what they're trying to fight against.
ERICA HILL, CNN CO-ANCHOR OF "CNN NEWS CENTRAL": It is interesting that the policy would live in one place, but then everything else would live somewhere else. We'll see how it works out. Sunlen, really appreciate it. Thank you.
A new hour of "CNN News Central" starts right now.
BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN CO-ANCHOR OF "CNN NEWS CENTRAL": Attorney General, Pam Bondi speaking out for the first time since Congress passed that bill forcing the release of the Epstein files, her message, "We will continue to follow the law" as she reveals a timeline for when we could see those files.
Plus, a stunning admission by the prosecutor at the center of the James Comey case. Interim U.S. Attorney, Lindsey Halligan concedes the full grand jury never saw the final indictment against the former director of the FBI. Ahead, what this might mean for the defense as they push to get the case dismissed. And as cities across the country debate whether to ban fluoride from drinking water, one new study is making a case for why it should stay. We're following these major developing stories and many more, all coming in right here to "CNN News Central."
Happening right now, the bill forcing the release of the Epstein files is on President Trump's desk waiting to be signed into law. The Senate sending it there earlier this morning in a rare show of unanimous support. Still not clear exactly when the president will sign it, but once he does, doubts are already spreading on Capitol Hill about what Trump's Justice Department might do next.
Attorney General, Pam Bondi could argue that some files have to be held back during investigations that the president called for last week. CNN's Arlette Saenz has some new reporting today. Arlette, what are you hearing on Capitol Hill?
ARLETTE SAENZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Boris, Democrats and some Republicans on Capitol Hill are questioning whether the Justice Department will follow through with releasing the Epstein files in full. Democrats and Republicans are in agreement that these files need to be released and be released quickly. And this bill that President Trump is expected to sign at some point will require that the Justice Department makes available this information within 30 days.
If they do choose to withhold or redact anything, they must explain to lawmakers why they have made that decision. There are some instances where the Justice Department could decide to withhold information, information that might be sensitive or identify victims directly. But there's also a concern about pending investigations. One, a provision that's included in this is that the Justice Department could withhold information if it could jeopardize an ongoing investigation.
That has to concern some lawmakers after President Trump had directed the Justice Department to launch investigations into some high-profile Democrats like Bill Clinton and Larry Summers for their ties to Jeffrey Epstein. But already, as lawmakers are preparing for the release of this file, there are some who are preparing for the possibility that the Justice Department may not release everything. Take a listen to Senator Richard Blumenthal who said that they will simply follow the money in this investigation.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, (D-CT): The statute provides they have to highlight what they've withheld and the reasons for it. But we also have other sources of information that I've contacted, whistleblowers, former Justice Department lawyers, the Epstein Estate, the Treasury Department. My mantra will be follow the money because there are a lot of wealthy and powerful people who will be implicated in these files, including the President of the United States.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SAENZ: Now, as this bill is awaiting President Donald Trump's signature, the House Oversight Committee is still conducting their oversight and investigation into the Justice Department's investigation into the Epstein files. House Oversight Chairman, James Comer, said that he is asking JPMorgan and Deutsche Bank for the financial records relating to Epstein as they want to get more information. But the hope from Democrats and Republicans is that these files will be released in full and now, they're waiting to see whether the Justice will adhere to that standard. Boris?
SANCHEZ: Arlette Saenz on the Hill for us. Thank you so much, Arlette. Erica?
HILL: Well, it is now the White House has turned to live up, of course, to its side of the deal. President Trump has yet to sign that bill to release the Epstein files. It is now of course on his desk. CNN's Alayna Treene joining us from the White House. So, do we have any indication at this hour of when this will happen?
ALAYNA TREENE, CNN WHITE HOUSE REPORTER: Well, from my conversations, Erica, with White House officials, they said that they expect the president to sign it today. And part of that, part of the swiftness we've seen, I mean, it was remarkable looking at how quickly this went to the Senate last night and got unanimous consent. A lot of that is because the president just frankly wants to move on from this conversation, and he has been complaining behind closed doors and even publicly that he believes that this is distracting from the things that he wants to talk about.
[14:05:00]
He just last night was saying he wants Republicans to be more focused on their accomplishments. And so, from everything I'm hearing, all indications is that he wants to sign this and hopefully have the attention move away from Epstein. But of course, before that can actually happen, the key question is what the Justice Department is going to do, and Arlette laid that out really well. And to the point of these ongoing investigations, I would just emphasize again that one of the investigations that could potentially alter what maybe the Justice Department is actually going to turn over is that investigation that President Donald Trump himself asked his Justice Department to launch last week, actually just days ago on Friday.
And that's the investigation into Democrats, specifically the former President Bill Clinton and the former Treasury Secretary, Larry Summers among others. And so, that is a potential hiccup. And I will say, I mean, I think it's very clear from basically seeing all of Congress, except for one person, House Republican Clay Higgins vote for this bill. Now Americans, including many of the president's supporters and fiercest MAGA allies, for years have been fixated on this and wanting to see these materials.
And so there is going to continue to be, I think, kind of a struggle depending on how quickly the Justice Department actually releases these and how much they actually turn over.
HILL: Yeah, it it's an excellent point to see. It'll be interesting to see how that plays out. Alayna, I also wanted to talk to you about, of course, we've been hearing a lot from the president over the last 24 hours about the United States' relationship with Saudi Arabia. He's touting those strong ties again today. What more did we hear from the president?
TREENE: Yeah, so the president was speaking at a Saudi investment conference at the Kennedy Center, and it was a wide-ranging speech, but as it relates to Saudi Arabia, I mean he used very flowery language, talked about the great relationship that he has with Saudi Arabia, specifically with the Crown Prince, who of course was here yesterday for a series of meetings. That state visit that wasn't really a state visit because the Crown Prince is not the head of state. But, pulling out all the stops really for the Saudi Arabians yesterday, who were here at the White House.
One of the key things is about the deals that they discussed, specifically the sale of F-35 fighter jets. Now, initially, it was expected that that would only be accomplished. He would only agree to that sale if Saudi Arabia had normalized relationships with Israel, bringing them into the Abraham Accords. That did not happen. And so, there's a lot of questions about what this could mean for the future peace in the Middle East because, of course, Israel has been very invested as well in this relationship between Saudi Arabia and the United States, and what it could mean for them as they look toward a longer peace deal.
HILL: Yeah, absolutely. Alayna, appreciate it. Thank you.
Still ahead here, Justice Department lawyers defending the prosecution of former FBI Director, James Comey, make a stunning admission in court today. Could it actually upend the case? Plus, the Trump administration reportedly hammering out a new peace plan with Russia. Where is Ukraine and all of this? That new reporting is ahead. And later, new research undermining Health Secretary Kennedy's attacks on fluoride. Stay with us. That and much more ahead on "CNN News Central."
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:12:39]
HILL: A major revelation in federal court today as former FBI Director, James Comey, is fighting to get his criminal case dismissed. President Trump's handpicked U.S. Attorney, Lindsey Halligan, admitting to the judge, the full grand jury never reviewed the final indictment handed up against Comey. So the judge has now ordered the Justice Department to address this bombshell by 5 p.m. today. Comey is accused of lying during a 2020 congressional hearing about whether he authorized leaks to the press.
His attorneys argue he was targeted on orders from President Trump. The president, of course, has long history of public attacks against the former FBI director, including this social media post coming just days before Comey's indictment. You see it there. Trump in this message to Attorney General, Pam Bondi, declaring Comey is "guilty as hell" and also saying justice must be served now!!!
Jeff Swartz joins us now. He's a former county court judge in Miami- Dade County, Florida. Jeff, good to see you again. So when we look at this revelation from Lindsey Halligan and the judge of course has the questions, wants these answers by five o'clock, just put in perspective for us, how serious is this?
JEFF SWARTZ, FORMER MIAMI-DADE COUNTY COURT JUDGE: OK, this is -- I think this all started when the judge asked a question about a declination memo and the Assistant Attorney General refused to answer the question because he had been instructed by Todd Blanche's office not to answer that question. That's when I think the judge decided to dig in with the question he had been waiting all morning to ask. And that was based upon the order that was entered a few days ago, that in fact there was this long two hours where they were doing things and there were two different indictments, he wants to know how did you get the jurors back in the jury room to look at this second indictment with only two counts in seven minutes. How did you do this?
And all that turned out was -- all that happened was that Lindsey Halligan took it to the foreperson and one other person and had them sign it. Those jurors never voted on the second indictment. So therefore, there was no indictment. And if there was no indictment, Comey wasn't charged. He wasn't charged. The statute of limitations ran and the case is over.
HILL: And this is over. I do want to -- I wanted to ask you about something you just brought up.
[14:15:00]
The other moment in court, which as you said sort of maybe allowed the judge to then open himself to this line of questioning, to ask Lindsey Halligan about that specifically. But the fact that the lawyer for the DOJ, so Tyler Lemons had declined to say whether prosecutors submitted this memo that recommended Comey not be prosecuted. So he eventually told the judge that it was someone in the Deputy AG's office, as you noted, Todd Blanche's office who had instructed him not to say anything.
SWARTZ: Right.
HILL: When it comes to a direction like that, Is that type of direction to not testify about something, is that standard operating procedure? Would that normally happen?
SWARTZ: No, that really wouldn't happen because the essence of what's happening and the motion itself is that in fact, the DOJ through the other representatives that handled this case said no charges here. And it was in those last few days that the rush took place to get Halligan in place. What we saw was the crossroads between arrogance and ignorance, and they both crossed. Halligan being the ignorance, arrogance coming out of Pam Bondi and Todd Blanche. And they crossed at a very crucial point and there's no cure for it.
HILL: And you point out too, which is important to note, the statute of limitations was running out, has since right? But did not when it was first handed down. I'm curious, this is not the only issue of course that we are following in terms of James Comey's indictment. Just a couple of days ago, a federal magistrate judge, this is in the Eastern District, said that the indictment may actually be tainted by "profound investigative missteps." That finding was focused on the evidence of the case.
SWARTZ: Right.
HILL: How does this reflect on Halligan's prosecution of the case?
SWARTZ: Well, first of all, Halligan had no business handling this case. She worked for an insurance defense firm in Miami called Cole, Scott and Kissane. And Mr. Scott is a former U.S. attorney and he's a former district judge, and she had a source to find out information if she didn't know what she was doing. She didn't know what she was doing and the big key to that is when she told the grand jurors that Mr. Comey had no right not to testify at the trial. I mean, I don't know who taught her criminal procedures, but I think the Fifth Amendment is still in place in the federal system that says you can't be forced to testify. HILL: It is a -- it is an important note.
SWARTZ: I don't know where she was going with it. Yes.
HILL: When we look at all of this, the Fifth Amendment kind of important to Americans -- when we look at all of this as it's playing out, there are also questions about whether the findings here could in any way impact the case of another political adversary of President Trump, the New York Attorney General, Letitia James, also being tried in the Eastern District of Virginia. Any overlap?
SWARTZ: I'm not sure because I don't know if they considered both indictments in the same day, but let's assume for the moment that they didn't, then you'd have to look independently at the charges involving (inaudible). And the truth of the matter is that I think that even if that fails, it would be a technical flaw on her part -- on her indictment. Her statute of limitations is nowhere near running. They can go back to the grand jury and try to do it again. That's the difference between the two of them. Comey was three days from the statute of limitations running and they don't really get a second bite at the apple if they lose this indictment.
HILL: Jeff Swartz, appreciate it. Thank you.
SWARTZ: My pleasure.
HILL: Just ahead here, the latest on the trial of Brian Walshe. She's the Massachusetts man who now admits to disposing of his wife body, but insists he didn't murder her. Stay with "CNN News Central."
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:23:32]
SANCHEZ: Happening right now, jurors are being selected in the murder trial of a Massachusetts man accused of killing and dismembering his wife. Ana Walshe was reported missing back in 2023. Her remains still have not been found. And while her husband, Brian Walshe has now pleaded guilty to misleading police and improper conveyance of a human body related to her death, he is fighting the murder charge. CNN Correspondent Jean Casarez is following this case for us. So Jean, what is jury selection looking like?
JEAN CASAREZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, they're getting closer and closer to a jury. Our affiliate who is right in that courtroom in Massachusetts, WCVB, is saying that they now have 11 jurors and they need 12 plus four alternates. So, they're getting very close and they could have a jury by the end of today, at least tomorrow. Now, opening statements will not happen until the Monday after Thanksgiving. So, this jury is going to have a whole week plus family get-togethers before the trial actually begins with opening statements and testimony.
But the action continues because the defendant in this case, yesterday, out of the blue actually pleaded guilty to two of the three charges. Charge number two, which was willfully misleading a police investigation. Brian Walshe pleaded guilty to it. Now here are the facts. After Ana Walshe went missing, the police went to Brian Walshe's home and actually conducted four different interviews. One was at his attorney's house, but he talked and talked.
[14:25:00]
And one thing that remained consistent was that Ana Walshe on the early morning hours of January 1st said that she had to go back to Washington, D.C. to her work. It was an emergency at work. So she got dressed her, her youngest son waved goodbye to her and she got in an Uber or a Lyft, went to Logan Airport and flew back to D.C. She was never seen again. She was never. After New Year's Eve and they had a guest that night, she was never seen again by someone other than her family.
And so Brian Walshe kept saying this and they got the police out, they got other agencies out. They did a huge search to find this missing person. And the prosecution went into that because there were so many resources that were used and time and money and emotions. The next thing he pleaded guilty to was willfully conveying away a body or willfully dismembering a body. And I want you to listen to what the prosecution had to say because they were not in favor of him pleading guilty to any of this. Listen to this and listen to Brian Walshe in his own words.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GREG CONNOR, ASSISTANT NORFOLK DISTRICT ATTORNEY: The defendant's actions were willful. Ana Walshe was not a stranger to the defendant. She was the defendant's wife and mother of his three young children. Defendant conducted internet searches into disposal of body, researched locations of dumpsters, and then traveled to those locations. In disposing of the body of Ana Walshe, the defendant did not comply with the law.
JUDGE DIANE FRENIERE, NORFOLK SUPERIOR COURT: Mr. Walshe, did you in fact willfully remove or convey the body of Ana Walshe or her remains not being lawfully authorized to do so?
BRIAN WALSHE, ACCUSED OF KILLING WIFE, ANA WALSHE: Yes, your honor.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CASAREZ: So this jury selection that's going on right now is on one count, first degree murder, and that's how this case will proceed. And so, the jurors are being told that it is a first degree murder case. The question is, Boris, what will the defense allege?
SANCHEZ: That is a huge question. Jean Casarez, thank you so much for the update.
Still ahead, does the vote on the Epstein file suggest a weakening in the president's grip over the Republican Party. We'll discuss with Vice President, Mike Pence's former Chief of Staff, next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
