Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

FBI Examines Area Around Brown University Shooting Building; Police Working Hundreds of Tips About Brown U. Person of Interest; Nick Reiner Appears in Court on 2 Murder Counts in Parents' Death; Jack Smith: Had "Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt" of Trump Crimes; Jack Smith Testifies that it was His Decision to Charge Trump. 3-3:30p ET

Aired December 17, 2025 - 15:00   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:01:29]

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: It is day five in the manhunt for the Brown University shooter. The latest on the investigation and what prompted officials to warn people about doxing.

Plus, Nick Reiner making his first appearance in court on charges that he murdered his parents, Rob and Michelle Reiner. We'll have details on that hearing just ahead.

BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN HOST: And dissent in the ranks, why some Republican lawmakers are siding with Democrats on forcing a vote to extend health care subsidies. We're following these major development stories and many more all coming in right here to CNN NEWS CENTRAL.

We start this hour with breaking news in Rhode Island where police are preparing for a news conference next hour as they continue their search for the killer in the Brown University shooting. This afternoon, police asking the public for help in finding a person who may have come into contact with a person of interest identified in this video.

Investigators do not believe this new person they're looking for was actually involved in the shooting, but they say that they may have noticed some key details about the suspect.

KEILAR: The FBI was back on campus today searching for evidence. You see these pictures here of that. They were looking for evidence from the shooting that of course killed two people and injured nine on Saturday. Right now, Brown's religious leaders are hosting a virtual interfaith prayer service as this heartbroken community is trying to make sense of this senseless tragedy.

We're joined now by the former head of Homeland Security and Intelligence for Washington, D.C., Donell Harvin. He's also a member of the faculty at Georgetown University's Emergency and Disaster Management program. You know, Donell, what is this new request for help IDing this person who may have just, you know, come into proximity to the person of interest? What does that tell you? And also, it's -- it's tricky when folks have -- when law enforcement has put out the identity of this person, sort of the side effect of that as well we should mention.

DONELL HARVIN, FORMER, WASHINGTON, D.C. HEAD OF HOMELAND SECURITY & INTELLIGENCE: Well, I'll hold off on the side effect in a second, but you know what it tells us is that, you know, this individual may have been in cahoots with somebody, so that's on the far extreme. They may have been doing this pre-operational, what we call pre-attack surveillance and had a lookout or someone else helping them, but it could have just been a random person, could have been delivering food or any packages who may have come into contact.

I'll tell you from a technical standpoint, here I'm pulling back the curtains from you, you know, sometimes your cell phone may ping with someone else's, right? You may have the ability to say, you know, this person was in close contact with you, but what it tells us at the end of the day is they still don't have any leads. We're four days into this, we're no closer than we were on Sunday, the day after this happened, and it seems like investigators are looking for any lead they can pull on.

In terms of, you know, putting out this person's name, I'll tell you, I was pretty critical of the fact that the -- the name of the person of interest they had that was detained was released to the public. You know, we don't know the side effect of that on this individual. We know a lot about who he is, but you know, we don't know about how he's coping and dealing with the aftermath of that, so it's a little unfortunate, but, you know, investigators are really doing whatever they can to try to get some leads going.

[15:05:00]

SANCHEZ: To that point, investigators have been collecting DNA swabs from people willing to provide them, which could suggest two things. One, that they're trying to match that DNA with evidence that was collected at the scene. And second, that it potentially, the DNA that they have, hasn't matched anyone in the national database, right?

HARVIN: Yes, and Boris, having done, you know, crime scene work for about a decade, before I started the job, I had to submit DNA, and the reason why is because when you -- when you do forensics, you know that any -- any scene you come across, whether it's a crime scene or not, you're leaving a part of you, and that part of you is DNA. You two in the studio right now, you're leaving DNA as you speak, all around you.

And so parsing through that, all the people that were in that building, what they're trying to do is a process of elimination, and DNA can help. But the problem is that, to your point, if this person is not in the DNA system that we use, the national database, if the DNA that they may have gotten off the shell casings, for instance, is not in there, then they still don't have a known person.

KEILAR: We're -- were waiting for this 4 P.M. news conference on this day five of the search. What are you expecting to hear or hoping to hear? HARVIN: What I'm expecting to hear and what I'm hoping to hear are two

different things. I'll tell you, I -- I give -- and we've been on before many times, I give deference to state and locals with these type of very complex investigations. These are tragic scenes. And I give them the space to be wrong, because I was in that position for many, many years.

The problem for me is, though, how does this keep on happening, right? How do you have, you know, maybe not for Brown, if you're a college campus security or -- or -- or -- and you're listening to this, or you're a president, you know, if you're able to walk into any building on your campus and don't have cameras looking at people who are coming in, then you really need to evaluate that. We're really back to where we were on the day that this happened.

And so, as every day goes by, that search net needs to get wider and wider and wider, and I think they're making a lot of assumptions. The first assumption is that that person may still be in the state. Brianna, that person may be in a whole other state across the country watching this show saying, why hasn't the FBI knocked the door down yet? They're probably just as surprised as we are that no one's come and find them, and so really I'm looking for more answers and a little bit less adversarial kind of response for some of the officials. I think they've been getting a little bit more adversarial as these press conferences going along, and they have to understand that the public's really, really worried.

KEILAR: Yes, that dynamic has certainly been noticeable. We'll see what happens today.

Donell Harvin, thank you so much.

And now to the brutal murders of Director Rob Reiner and his wife Michelle. Moments ago, CNN obtained new videos of their son, Nick Reiner, moments before and during his arrest. The surveillance footage taken at a gas station just hours after his parents' bodies were discovered.

SANCHEZ: Earlier today, Nick made his first court appearance as he faces first-degree murder charges related to his parents' stabbing deaths. Notably, no video footage was allowed of him in the courtroom, but we do have these sketches. CNN's Stephanie Elam was also inside the courtroom.

Stephanie, what was it like?

STEPHANIE ELAM, CNN CORRESPONDENT: It was very quick, Boris and Brianna. The whole proceedings, I would say, was probably under five minutes. It was a very calm proceeding. We only heard Nick Reiner speak one time. This is after his attorney, Alan Jackson, was asking that his arraignment be delayed until January 7th, and the judge then directly asked Nick Reiner if he was okay, since he has a right to a speedy arraignment with this delay.

And to that question, his response was: "Yes, Your Honor." He seemed very calm. His voice didn't seem overly excited or overly down. It just seemed like a nice, normal timbre. But he was seated. He was in a glass enclosure inside of the courtroom, which is where they normally hold people who are in custody. His lawyers were standing in front of him there while he was there. He was seated, and he was wearing a blue smock. And when I walked by on the way out, I could see that his wrists were shackled. I couldn't see his ankles, but he looked very calm while he was sitting there at that time.

And then afterwards, we heard from his lawyer saying that this is a complex case and that they need more time to work through it. And obviously, noting how difficult this is for the family, specifically Nick Reiner's brother and sister, who are now dealing with the loss of their parents and the fact that their brother is now in custody for their deaths.

KEILAR: Yes, it's horrific. And walk us through this new video, Stephanie. What does this show?

ELAM: Right. So, what we have gotten into our hands here at CNN is video from a gas station. And you can see Nick Reiner walking into this convenience store at the gas station, buying something and leaving.

[15:10:01]

Now, what's noteworthy about this is this video is after his parents were killed. And then, we have another video that shows him outside on the street, and you can see law enforcement coming around him. You see their sirens are blaring, and you can see he puts his hands up right away, and he was taken into custody without incident. But again, all of these little pieces of video, all of these data points are what investigators are going to continue to look at, what the district attorney is going to build into a timeline as we compare that along with the fact that there was that Conan O'Brien party on Saturday night, people seeing father Reiner and son Reiner getting into an argument at that party. And now investigators believing that the Reiners were killed in the early morning hours of Sunday morning, and then they weren't discovered until three o'clock in the afternoon by their daughter in their house. So, just looking at this timeline and just thinking about how difficult it is for the Reiner family.

SANCHEZ: Stephanie Elam live in Los Angeles for us outside the courthouse, thank you.

Still to come, former Special Counsel Jack Smith defending his criminal investigation into President Donald Trump. What we're learning about his closed door deposition next.

KEILAR: And later, four Republican lawmakers crossing the aisle, decide with Democrats on the health care subsidy debate. We'll have that a much more coming up on CNN NEWS CENTRAL.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:15:41]

KEILAR: Remarkable testimony today on Capitol Hill. Former Special Counsel Jack Smith forcefully defending his criminal investigation of President Trump behind closed doors before the House Judiciary Committee. In portions of his opening statement obtained by CNN, Smith said that his team, quote, "developed proof beyond a reasonable doubt that President Trump engaged in a criminal scheme to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election and to prevent the lawful transfer of power."

SANCHEZ: The career prosecutor also saying, quote, "the decision to bring charges against President Trump was mine, but the basis for those charges rests entirely with President Trump and his actions."

Let's get some perspective from CNN Senior Legal Analyst Elie Honig.

Elie, great to see you as always.

The Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan has accused Smith of running a partisan and politically motivated probe of President Trump and -- and also conducting abusive surveillance of lawmakers and -- and others. Your view of whether there's any substance to those claims?

ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Well, I don't think it's fair to say that Jack Smith ran a partisan operation here. I think Jack Smith by and large went by the book, but I also think it's entirely fair to say that Jack Smith did handle this prosecution with an eye towards the 2024 election. There's really no reasonable dispute that Jack Smith was trying to accelerate this trial that he took various steps you would not normally take as a prosecutor in order to get Donald Trump to trial before the 2024 election and I think there's a fair argument that that in itself there's a debate about whether that's a good idea or a bad idea.

But if you're treating a criminal defendant differently than others in order to rush his trial because of an election, that's inherently political so I think there's a fair point to be made there.

KEILAR: What restrictions does Smith have on what he can tell the committee?

HONIG: Well, he certainly cannot tell them anything that would be a grand jury material. You'll hear the phrase Rule 6(e). So, if there's something that he learned through a subpoena or through a witness who testified in the grand jury he cannot disclose that. And that's why Jack Smith is being and needs to be very careful here because he's under investigation now by DOJ.

Now, as much as I've criticized certain moves Jack Smith made, I've seen zero to indicate that he committed a crime. And if I'm his lawyer, I would tell him well you need to be really careful when you go in there because one misstep and they're looking to get you. And so, that's why Jack Smith has asked for permission before this hearing to review those grand jury materials so he can be clear about what is and is not subject to those confidentiality rules.

SANCHEZ: What could he potentially be prosecuted for?

HONIG: I don't know. It's a great question, but we do know that Jack Smith has been referred over to DOJ. We do know that DOJ is looking at him. We do know that Donald Trump many, many times has called publicly for Jack Smith to be prosecuted and jailed. But Boris, I mean, as I said I've written pieces I've spoken on air on CNN criticizing some of the things Jack Smith did as I said earlier I think there was a political element to his case. But look, I was a prosecutor for a long time, I know what a crime looks like when I see one and based on everything we know about Jack Smith in his investigation and that's a lot I don't see anything that even approaches the level of a crime.

SANCHEZ: Elie Honig, appreciate the expertise.

HONIG: Thanks, guys.

SANCHEZ: Ahead, a stunning blow to House Speaker Mike Johnson, four Republican lawmakers agreeing to back Democrats' push to extend Obamacare subsidies or at least have a vote on it. Details ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:23:46]

SANCHEZ: We have breaking news in the investigation into the Brown University shooting, specifically the events that led up to the detention and eventual release of the first person of interest in this case.

KEILAR: Yes. CNN Senior Justice Correspondent Evan Perez is here with this new reporting. And Evan, you learned that when the FBI Director Kash Patel ]posted on X about this original person of interest, investigators already had evidence he likely wasn't their guy.

EVAN PEREZ, CNN SENIOR JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Yes, that's right. The -- the FBI Director, this is about 11:30 in the morning on Sunday, he posted this post where he said that the FBI had used what is known as cell phone tower data, essentially it's analysis that pinpoints where cell phones are located and he said that that had helped geolocate the -- this -- this person and had led to the person of interest detention.

Well, at that time, investigators already knew that his phone was not placed at a location at the shooting, at the -- where the shooting occurred in Brown University. So, there were already a lot of doubts as to whether this was the actual person that carried out the shooting. Now, there was additional work that was being done. There were two guns that were found in this hotel room that led to additional suspicions. But then there was an analysis that was done.

[00:04:59]

There was DNA analysis done of the shell casings from the scene of the shooting and those came back as negative. They did not match the person of interest. Additionally, they did a -- they an analysis of like a -- like a -- like a check of any -- any gunshot residue -- residue on his hands. Same thing, nothing -- nothing matched. They also did a ballistics test to see whether those guns that were in the hotel room matched the ballistics of the weapons -- of the -- of the shell casings. Again, no match.

Again, behind the scenes there was a lot of consternation as to why the -- the FBI director went so big publicly about this when they were still doing a lot of work and they were not sure whether this was the person they actually were looking for.

SANCHEZ: The obvious question then becomes, how did this person become a person of interest? How did they get detained if he's saying that cell phone data matched the location of the shooting? His cell phone wasn't even there.

PEREZ: Was not even there, and so look, it's not just Patel. There was the Providence mayor that goes out publicly and says that the community can breathe a sigh of relief. Everyone wanted this to be true. It's clear, right? It is also true that what the FBI Director was referring to is that the analysis, the cell phone analysis, actually pinpointed his location at his hotel room, which is where he was found. And -- and so, that's what his reference - what's his - what his tweet or his post on -- on -- on X referred to.

But it does really point to the fact that perhaps, you know, the -- that the FBI Director is a little too quick in going public with this -- with information that -- that investigators are still wrestling with at that point and that it is certainly too quick to -- to go public with that stuff.

KEILAR: So, how much did this set back the investigation, because we're five days out and -- and still there's a lot of video, but it's kind of blurry. You can't really see ...

PEREZ: Yes.

KEILAR: ... this person's face and they're trying to get in touch with someone who crossed paths with them at this point.

PEREZ: Right, exactly. And -- and that, you know, it's -- obviously, we can never know whether -- whether this is the thing that has set things back. The local investigators are still in charge of this investigation. This is their investigation. The FBI is playing an assisting role. And -- and it's clear that they wanted that to be true on Sunday. They wanted this to be the -- the resolution. And so what I'm told is that investigators absolutely were delayed by this because then they started focusing a lot of this.

They also say, though, that other investigative work was still going on. There were other people of interest who were still being looked at, were still being investigated. Hundreds of people who have been working this investigation tirelessly behind the scenes.

So, despite some of the tensions that we're seeing, you know, certainly there's criticism from the Rhode Island Attorney General who said that the FBI was getting over their skis. You can see some of those tensions boil up. However, you know, I -- I think in the last couple of days, the FBI has surged additional resources and they believe that they're certainly working a lot better together now than they were perhaps a couple of days ago -- a couple days ago. SANCHEZ: Evan Perez, thank you so much for the update.

So, tensions are flaring within the House Republican conference over health care. Several moderate Republicans siding with Democrats in a last minute push to force a vote to renew expiring Affordable Care Act subsidies.

KEILAR: In the meantime, the House is expected to vote today on a separate health care proposal backed by Republican leadership, this legislation that does not address these expiring subsidies, however. CNN Chief Congressional Correspondent, Manu Raju, is on Capitol Hill.

Manu, this is a -- a revolt. It's a significant blow to the speaker. What's the latest that you're hearing?

MANU RAJU, CNN CHIEF CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes, it'll a third time in the last several weeks the Speaker has seen the rank and file rest control away from him. Remember, it is the leadership of the United States House that sets the agenda, that sets the floor schedule that decides what bills can come to the floor. And the Speaker has made clear he is opposed to extending these expiring subsidies under the Affordable Care Act. He says that that law is flawed and needs changes. He does not believe that those subsidies that were beefed up during the COVID era need to be extended. But he is facing a revolt among swing district Republicans who sided with Democrats to move ahead with a vote. A procedure that's known on Capitol Hill as a discharge petition, which requires signatures of 218 members, a majority of the House, to call for a vote. And four Republicans sided with 214 Democrats.

And now with 218 signatures, this bill to extend those Obamacare subsidies for three years is set to come to the House floor. The timing is still uncertain.

Now, in talking to members, there is enormous tension, including from some more conservative members who are warning the House moderates not to move ahead and who are saying that they made a significant mistake by siding with Democrats.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RAJU: What do you make of the fact that these swing district members, you know, are forcing this vote?

[15:30:01]

REP. ERIC BURLISON (R-MO): To me, they're stabbing the rest of the party in the back. We took a bold stand. And I think the President is absolutely right. Like, throwing money, insurance companies ...