Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Trump Delivers False Claims in Address, from Crime to Tariffs; Police Looking into Potential Ties Between Brown University Shooting and Killing of MIT Professor; Interview with Rep. James Walkinshaw (D- VA): Democrats Release New Photos from Epstein Estate Ahead of Deadline; New Video From Deadly North Carolina Plane Crash. Aired 3:30-4p ET

Aired December 18, 2025 - 15:30   ET

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

[15:30:00]

CHUCK TODD, HOST, THE CHUCK TODDCAST: ... to be as effective as they were hoping it would be. I think the tone he took. I think the scattershot nature of how he sort of included his sort of typical grievances felt like he took a two-hour rally and tried to jam it into 18 minutes. Look, I understand the intent of what they were trying to do, which was, hey, look, we know you don't feel great about this economy, but he never said it that way, right?

Instead it was this, don't believe what you're seeing, don't believe what you're feeling, everything's a lot better than you think it is. But then you would get hints where he knows where there's vulnerabilities. You know, he talked about health care but simply blamed the other party.

He did seem to acknowledge that there's going to be concern about the cost of electricity and people's electric bills are going up, but he seemed to promise, oh no, they're all going to start going down, you just watch. So I understand what they were trying to do. I didn't think his execution went very well.

And because he threw so many other things in there and created the unbelievable straw man, look, all presidents do this. They want to build up a straw man argument that they are able to cut down, but his are so exaggerated that I think, you know, if the goal was to talk to voters he normally doesn't talk to, which are people outside his base, he didn't use the right language to talk to those voters, in my opinion.

BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN HOST: Notably, when he talked about increases to health care insurance plans today, the president blamed Democrats as he often does. He also talked about taking on health insurance companies and delivering money that often goes to those insurance companies to American voters. How he actually gets that done has been baffling.

There's been no actual roadmap for Republicans going back years. Is that something that voters need to see though? Will that persuade them? TODD: I don't, look, the problem that the president and Republicans have is that already voters believe Democrats are better on health care than Republicans, right? It's one of those givens. In the same way, right, Republicans are trusted more in immigration than Democrats.

There's sometimes there's some issues that are sort of already baked in as sort of unfavorable to one side and unfavorable to the other. So he's already got a public that doesn't trust the Republican Party on health care and his plan is just blame the Democrats more. You know, again, this didn't work in 2018.

They've had, what are we up to? This law passed in March of 2010. The Republican Party's had nearly 16 years to come up with an alternative.

And look, it is easy to beat up insurance companies. If I were in his position, I'd beat them up too. Except there's one problem.

What other -- our system works this way. The only way you get health care is either one of two things. You show up in an emergency room because you don't have insurance or you do have insurance and you find out what your insurance will cover.

But at the end of the day, this is the system that we all have. So you can beat up insurance companies all you want. But if, and you can say, fine, we'll give you the money directly.

Well, where's the money going to go? To buy insurance. And the only way you're going to get cheaper insurance is to create insurance that doesn't cover anything, i.e. essentially allowing insurance companies to essentially charge you more for a preexisting condition, which of course the whole point of the Affordable Care Act was to make that illegal. So, which of course voters think is really, you know, they don't want to be prejudiced against financially due to a preexisting condition.

So, the rhetoric feels good. Beat up the insurance companies. Democrats just want to give insurance companies. What's your alternative plan? And that's the problem.

And voters are really well-educated about the health care issue, right? Health care is one of those things, very personal. We're all experts about our own health care.

And so he's going to have a hard time convincing people that he's got a plan here because for how long have they been promising a plan to be a little snarky here, a concept of a plan or whatever.

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: Yes. And it's about to get real as we hit the new year and these subsidies expire.

TODD: Absolutely.

KEILAR: Chuck Todd, thank you so much. Always appreciate your insights. Thank you.

TODD: Thanks, guys.

KEILAR: Up next, an MIT professor found dead just two days after the mass shooting at Brown University. And now authorities are looking into whether the two events are possibly linked. We'll have details after a quick break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KEILAR: Now to some breaking developments in the deadly Brown University shooting. Sources say police are now looking into potential ties between Saturday's shooting inside a lecture hall at Brown and the killing of an MIT professor about an hour's drive away in Massachusetts two days later.

SANCHEZ: Nuno Loureiro was shot in his home in Brookline on Monday night. He died at a hospital the next day. Police have not said how these two attacks might be linked.

And actually, earlier this week, they said there was no apparent connection. Joining us now is criminologist Casey Jordan. She's the host of the Criminal Appeal podcast.

Casey, thanks for being with us. What is your reaction to this news?

CASEY JORDAN, CRIMINOLOGIST AND HOST, CRIMINAL APPEAL PODCAST: You know, for the first few days, they were saying that there was no connection at all. And then we're walking it back at this point and trying to figure out if this two day lag could be connected because the higher education link is the only link that we have at this point.

[15:40:00]

However, it just seems like it's too, you know, that 50 mile distance and the fact that it's just an hour's drive has people wondering. There's more that we don't know than we do know. And the link of higher ed is so far the only thing people are confirming.

But you have to understand that, you know, the professor was a PhD in physics. He headed a big lab. It was completely unrelated to an economic study group that you might have seen, you know, at Brown University with a TA teaching it and a freshman study group.

So if there is the link, you could be very sure that right about this time, they're trying to figure out if there is a student at Brown and a student at MIT who shared the same name or former students, something who might have been in some way related to these two universities and might have a beef with both of them specifically or with higher ed in general.

KEILAR: Yes, and look, these are both prominent universities in the Northeast, right? So these universities, I think, certainly stand out to people. They are places that everyone knows or a lot of people know.

And authorities are basing this information, this investigation sort of potential link on information that has emerged here in the last 24 hours. That's according to a law enforcement official close to the case, Casey.

At a news conference on Tuesday, though, on the Brown shooting, officials, including the special agent in charge of FBI Boston, had said there was no apparent connection between the crimes. What do you make of that? How should we square that?

JORDAN: Well, they're walking it back right now because they may have gotten more evidence that we don't yet know about. Now, based on what we know, there is no connection. Maybe they found out that the professor at MIT was killed with a nine millimeter gun.

Maybe they have some footage that they got from local, you know, ring and security cameras of the shooter, of the MIT professor running away. And it seems to look like it could be the same person. You know, there was a two-day lag.

And in spree shootings of this nature, that's kind of unusual. Usually, it's just hours between these kinds of shootings. And again, the shooter at Brown could have been in Boston within an hour.

So there's that. It doesn't quite jive with spree killing. But we also have to consider that, you know, sometimes it's just a spurious correlation that these two higher ed shootings happened at once.

You know, this professor at MIT was married. We don't know if he had just submitted grades. Did he have any outside enemies or domestic conflicts?

You know, had any students just lost a big award? I mean, I have to tell you, Brianna, that the thing this reminds me of most of the MIT professor, because he's a physicist, is the Gang Lu shooting at the University of Iowa in 1991. And I know that's 34 years ago.

But that's the kind of thing that we would expect. In that particular case, a young man who had just gotten his PhD but lost a big prize that would have ensured that he had a career here in the United States ended up shooting not just his dissertation mentor, but, you know, his colleague who won the award, the department chair, everyone in the building. That's more typical of what you would see as a personal beef with the professor at MIT.

It doesn't jive with the Brown shooting at all. But if this shooter has a complaint with higher ed in general, the two could be connected. I think we'll find out a lot more at the professor at 4 o'clock.

SANCHEZ: Well, actually, as you mentioned that, Casey, as you were speaking, we just got a bit of news that that news conference at 4 p.m. has now been delayed. And so it's quite possible that investigators are looking at new information or perhaps they felt the need to reschedule for some other reason. Nevertheless, we will be watching whatever comes from local officials in Rhode Island closely.

Casey Jordan, thanks so much for joining us.

JORDAN: Great to be here. Thanks. SANCHEZ: Ahead, as the deadline approaches for the Justice Department to release its Jeffrey Epstein files, Democrats on House Oversight are releasing more photos from his estate. One of the lawmakers on that committee joins us live in just moments.

[15:45:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SANCHEZ: We're following developing news coming in about the Jeffrey Epstein files. Democrats on the House Oversight Committee just released new photos from his estate 24 hours before the deadline for DOJ to publicly release all of its investigative files. The photographs released without additional context include a screenshot of text messages in which a person is discussing sending girls. There's also a picture of Bill Gates posing for a photograph with a woman whose face has been redacted by the committee.

Another picture shows Epstein talking to philosopher Noam Chomsky on a plane. There's also this snapshot of a Ukrainian passport with a female notation.

Joining us now is Virginia Democratic Congressman James Walkinshaw. He's a member of the House Oversight Committee. Congressman, thank you so much for being with us. What do you see as the significance of these images?

REP. JAMES WALKINSHAW (D-VA), OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE MEMBER: Well, I think the images display, once again, the disturbing behavior of Jeffrey Epstein and his accomplices. And they display the need for the American people and Congress to have the context for these images. And the context for these images is in the Department of Justice files.

And that's why tomorrow is such an important day, the legal deadline for the Department of Justice to release the full files. And it's important to know, Donald Trump could have released those files voluntarily at any time. But tomorrow is the legal deadline, and they're going to have to do it.

SANCHEZ: If the committee has like 95,000 photos in its possession, and as of last week, Ranking Member Garcia said they reviewed about a quarter of them, only releasing roughly 70. I wonder how you decide which ones to make public.

[15:50:00]

WALKINSHAW: Well, as Ranking Member Garcia has articulated, there's an exhaustive process to review the photos and ensure that we don't unwittingly release anything that could identify a victim or a survivor. As he's also noted, there are a number of photos that are graphic in nature, and we're working to determine how best to responsibly release those photos and be as transparent as possible while protecting the survivors and the victims. So you'll see more releases of photos in the coming weeks.

SANCHEZ: So how do you respond to accusations that you're cherry- picking these images to create a narrative, that you're trying to paint President Trump and others as somehow guilty by association, even though in these releases, there's no actual proof that the president did anything illegal or that he continued to associate with Epstein after his conviction?

WALKINSHAW: Well, we as Democrats and oversight Democrats want to follow and are following the investigation wherever it leads. And we've released photos that include prominent Democrats and photos that include prominent Republicans like President Trump. But it's important to remember, we have e-mails from Jeffrey Epstein saying that Donald Trump, quote, knew about the girls.

E-mails from Jeffrey Epstein saying that Donald Trump, quote, spent several hours with one of the girls. Now, Epstein could have been lying in those photos, but that's why we need the full files to determine the full truth and so that the American people can see it for themselves.

SANCHEZ: The full context around the statement regarding Trump knowing about the girls was related to a conversation that Epstein was having with Michael Wolff and Ghislaine Maxwell in those two separate instances. It's believed that he was talking about Virginia Giuffre, who died by suicide recently. And she personally had never accused the president of wrongdoing.

She denied that he was ever involved in anything inappropriate to her recollection. I just want to note that for context. Earlier this week, Chair Comer offered Bill and Hillary Clinton new deposition dates in January as part of the committee's Epstein investigation, threatening them with contempt.

Importantly, neither have been accused by law enforcement of any wrongdoing related to Epstein. Do you think both Clintons should report for in-person depositions?

WALKINSHAW: Well, we want to talk to anybody who has information that hasn't been released publicly about the investigation. And as has been reported, Chairman Comer has been in contact with the Clintons and their attorneys for months about the terms of their cooperation in the investigation. They've offered to provide sworn statements to the committee, I'm aware, based on reporting.

But anyone who has information should come in and talk to the committee.

SANCHEZ: Lastly, Congressman, Trump's chief of staff, Susie Wiles, told Vanity Fair that neither she nor the president were consulted with the recent transfer of Ghislaine Maxwell to a lower security prison, though she says that Trump was mighty unhappy about the move. Has Oversight gotten any information about why she was transferred? Who would know that information?

WALKINSHAW: I think that that is a great question. The answer is we don't know how or why she was transferred to a lower security, frankly, very cushy prison situation where, based on a whistleblower's report, even there she got the kid glove cushy treatment. And I think it's absolutely outrageous that a convicted sex offender like Ghislaine Maxwell would be treated that way. And we need to find out why it is.

I'll also note Susie Wiles was, as was reported this week, described Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein as, quote, you know, single playboys. Jeffrey Epstein is not was not a playboy. He's a convicted sex predator, a child sex predator. And for this White House to describe him as just a single playboy, I think, is outrageous and demonstrates the kind of moral rot that has surrounded Donald Trump and his White House with respect to this issue.

SANCHEZ: Congressman James Walkinshaw, we have to leave the conversation there. We appreciate your time and perspective. Thanks for joining us.

WALKINSHAW: Thank you.

SANCHEZ: Coming up, we have a new video showing the moment of impact in that plane crash that's killed at least six people in North Carolina. You're watching CNN NEWS CENTRAL. We'll show you that video when we come back.

[15:55:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KEILAR: Now, back to our breaking news, new video from that fatal private jet crash in North Carolina. A source telling CNN six people were killed. And we've learned that a news conference is expected here in the next few minutes.

SANCHEZ: The video shows a different angle of the crash, the clearest we've seen so far. Let's bring back CNN's Pete Muntean. Pete, it's hard to watch this video in the context that six people were killed.

PETE MUNTEAN, CNN AVIATION CORRESPONDENT: Yes, and our Dianne Gallagher, who's on the scene there, obtained this video from the homeowner Brevin Renwick, who is just in a house on the southeast side of the airport near runway 28. He said he heard the boom, a loud boom that shook the entire house, then went outside and saw the flames of this apparent crash there at the Statesville Regional Airport.

I'm going to show you the video now because this is what he was able to capture from his camera on his house. You can see the flames going right to left there. This is just southeast of the airport.

The runway goes east-west. It's pointed west right now. And this lines up with the flight path that we have shown earlier, where it seems that this plane was troubled from the start. Took off about 10:06 Eastern time from the Statesville Municipal Airport, made a turn to the southwest and then came back pretty imminently. You can see some of the flames and fire in the very top right of your screen if it's not cropped off.

This was quite a large boom, apparently, according to the neighbors there on the ground. And the flight path shows really this troubled airplane that got up to about 4,000 feet and then tried to make it back to the Statesville Airport after getting only about six miles away.

But the video also details what we're able to corroborate from other videos that this plane initially made impact with the ground away from the airport, off of the airport property, not on the runway, and then crossed East Airport Drive that goes north-south next to the airport perimeter there, and then the flaming hulk of wreckage there on Runway 28. So a very sad state of affairs.

We know that somebody associated with NASCAR, a source tells me, was on board this plane. It's a very tight-knit community that has been hit over and over again by fatal plane crashes involving private jets like this one, the Cessna Citation jet, which is not a small airplane, by the way. It seats between six and eight people, weighs about 15,000 pounds, and clearly was filled with a lot of fuel, which fueled this horrible fire that we see at the very end here.

KEILAR: And just really quickly, we have about 20 seconds. Take us through this flight path that we see.

MUNTEAN: The flight path essentially shows this plane tried to get off the ground and did successfully get off the ground. It was flying out to the southeast, so it took off to the east, left to right on your screen in the top right corner there, made this southwesterly turn.

[16:00:00]

Climbed up to about 4,000 feet, and then clearly something was wrong. Tried to make it back for the airport, beelined back, turned parallel to the runway, and then made a left turn back into the runway, landing to the west there, although clearly something went wrong and didn't quite make it.

SANCHEZ: Pete Muntean, thank you so much for the reporting. We'll stay on top of this story and all the latest news on CNN. THE ARENA with Kasie Hunt starts right now.

END