Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

DOJ Looking Into Validity Of Alleged Letter From "J. Epstein" To Larry Nassar; New Documents Include 2021 Mar-a-Lago Subpoena Relating To Ghislaine Maxwell Case; Brown Univ. Puts Police Chief On Leave After Deadly Shooting; Source: Melodee Buzzard, A Nine-Year-Old Girl Who Vanished During A Road Trip With Her Mother, Is Found Dead; Record Holiday Travel Meets Lower Prices At The Pump; Supreme Court Blocks Trump From Deploying National Guard To Chicago. Aired 3-3:30p ET

Aired December 23, 2025 - 15:00   ET

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

ERICA HILL, CNN HOST: NORAD's actually been offering their services in some capacity since 1955. Back then it was known as the Continental Air Defense Command. In years past, NORAD volunteers also manned the phone lines to help families track Santa. So, be sure to follow along and have your cookies and the carrots ready as well for the big guy and his reindeers.

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: Absolutely, very important tracking there. And a new hour of CNN NEWS CENTRAL starts right now.

A new batch of Epstein files has been released and now a survivor of the convicted child sex offender tells CNN she would love to see President Trump impeached over the handling of the investigation.

Plus, a powerful storm gearing up to slam the entire coast of California. It could deliver months' worth of rain in just a matter of days.

HILL: And in case you're still on the fence about this one, we're going to help you settle the debate once and for all today about whether the 1980s action flick classic, Die Hard, is in fact a Christmas movie. The answer, yes.

KEILAR: Obviously ...

HILL: You can't really celebrate without Hans Gruber falling from Nakatomi Plaza.

KEILAR: Right?

HILL: Yes. Follow that developing story and many more, all coming in right here to CNN NEWS CENTRAL.

KEILAR: Absolutely a Christmas movie.

We begin with breaking news from the Justice Department on the latest Epstein files release. The DOJ just a short time ago putting out a statement that now directly questions the validity of one document in particular. And in all, we're talking about 30 pages being made public overnight, four days after DOJ's original 30-day deadline.

HILL: So, the document in question here is this frankly very disturbing letter when you read it. It is signed "J. Epstein." It was sent to convicted sex offender Larry Nassar in the same month that Epstein died and appears to make a lewd reference to President Trump. Now, it doesn't directly mention him by name. It simply references "the President."

It's important to note, of course, President Trump has not been accused of any criminal wrongdoing related to Jeffrey Epstein. CNN's Marshall Cohen is back with us, following all of these developments with us throughout the day.

So, now the public has seen this letter. It's been out there for, I guess, 12 hours or so at this point. We also now have this new DOJ statement. What are they following up with specifically in terms of the letter?

MARSHALL COHEN, CNN REPORTER: So, the Justice Department just in the last hour or two put out a statement saying that they are investigating the validity of this alleged letter and they are also questioning its legitimacy. You can see the tweet on your screen right now. I'll just read for you a little bit of what they said. This is from the Trump Justice Department.

Three facts stand out about this letter: The postmark on the envelope is Virginia, not New York, where Epstein was jailed. The return address listed the wrong jail where Epstein was held and did not include an inmate number.

And the envelope was processed three days after Epstein's death. He died by suicide in August of 2019. They are raising all those questions. It's not clear what the truth is here, to be honest. It's a disgusting letter, whoever wrote it, talking about how Epstein and Nassar and possibly Trump too also had this shared passion for young girls, so it's a disgusting document.

Whoever wrote it, DOJ raising some questions about it, but I will point out that it's been floating around there for several years. There were reports about it two years ago and according to documents that were released a while ago through a public records request, the FBI did years ago ask its handwriting experts to analyze this document and try to reach a conclusion to see who wrote it, maybe it really was Epstein, and the results of that analysis, we have not seen. They were not included in this morning's document drop, Friday's document drop, we'd love to see it, just hasn't come out.

KEILAR: And there were other references made about President Trump and Mar-a-Lago. What -- what was in those documents?

COHEN: Yes, these were a lot more clear cut than this letter we're talking about. There were flight logs referenced in an email from a Justice Department prosecutor sent in 2020 as they were building the case against Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein's former girlfriend, and later convicted sex trafficker. This email, you're seeing it on the screen, it's from a prosecutor in

2020, and they said, the flight records we received yesterday reflect that Donald Trump traveled on Epstein's private jet many more times than previously had been reported or that we were aware. So, they were learning new information about Trump. It was sent in 2020, Trump was the president at that time, so they knew they had kind of uncovered something potentially explosive.

And also, we learned this morning that there was a subpoena sent to Mar-a-Lago, which of course is the President's property in South Florida, sent in October 2021 during the run-up to Maxwell's criminal trial. The subpoena demanded documents about an employment record for someone who had worked at Mar-a-Lago.

[15:05:00]

The identity of that person is redacted, though we were aware, we have been for several years, there's some overlap between Mar-a-Lago and Epstein's world down in Palm Beach.

And, of course, before I give it back to you guys, got to mention, of course, Donald Trump's never been accused by any law enforcement agency of any of these crimes or any involvement with Epstein or his victims.

HILL: All right, Marshall, appreciate it, thank you.

There is a new fallout from the shooting at Brown University. That shooting, of course, left two students dead, wounded nine others more than a week ago. School officials say they have placed the campus police chief, Rodney Chatman, on administrative leave, effective immediately as the school reviews the response to the attack.

Now, according to an announcement of former Providence, Rhode Island police chief will now lead a review into what happened. We've also learned that separately, the Department of Education will be conducting its own review of Brown's safety and security-related measures to determine whether they in fact meet federal requirements. The body of the suspected shooter was found last Thursday in a storage facility in New Hampshire. Authorities say he killed himself.

Joining me now is the mayor of Providence, Brett Smiley.

Mr. Mayor, it's good to have you with us.

When we look at where things stand, understandable there would be this after-action report by the school. We're also learning about the Department of Education's investigation into Brown. Do you believe that's appropriate and warranted?

MAYOR BRETT SMILEY (D-PROVIDENCE, RI): You know, Brown has been entirely open and -- and would have, without having been asked, conducted this after-action review, and the city of Providence is going to do the same as well. I mean, I'm extraordinarily proud of the work of my department through this process, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't be willing to look at what we might have done better, what tools and technology we might have wished we had, and Brown's willing to ask all those same questions as well, which is what the campus community deserves, just like it's what my residents deserve.

HILL: I understand that you've reached out to some other mayors who have unfortunately faced similar circumstances. Have they offered you any guidance you found helpful in -- in terms of what needs to be examined for these after-action reports?

SMILEY: Yes, we've -- I'm very active in the U.S. Conference of Mayors, and through that network, they have been reaching out with making sure we understand the -- the right. we're probably going to bring in a third party to make sure that it's -- it's done impartially and with fresh eyes. And so, I'm getting some recommendations on folks who do this and who do it well who have aa track record.

The other good advice that I'm getting from my colleagues around the country, because sadly, so many of -- of America's mayors have been through some version of -- of this type of violence, is to -- to make sure that we're staying on the right track in terms of helping -- helping our community both heal from what happened and providing resources in terms of trauma and PTSD and other things that the community might experience in the weeks and months ahead.

HILL: Yes, it will certainly be important to stay on top of that, understandably.

I know there's been so much talk about cameras available at Brown, where they were, what they -- what they were we're not able to see. The building where the shooting took place, the Barus & Holley Building is on the literal edge of campus. I know we've talked about that. And so as soon as the shooting suspect walked outside, then he was no longer on campus.

If we're thinking about the perimeter, right, of a -- of a college campus and where it blends into or sort of becomes the city of Providence, shouldn't those perimeters be a place where there should be, perhaps, added surveillance?

SMILEY: I'm sure that's something that Brown will look at. And you mentioned at the outset, the new acting chief at Brown is our former police chief, which is someone that I know well and have a really high degree of confidence in. He was a beloved, the city's longest serving police chief, in fact, before he went to Washington to serve as the director of the COPS office at the Department of Justice under the previous administration. So, he's a pro and we trust him.

And so, I -- I know he'll ask those questions. And -- and I have confidence in the administration at Brown that they'll implement recommendations that need to be implemented.

The thing that's -- you know, that I hope doesn't happen is -- is Brown is a -- a campus that is integrated with our community here in Providence. It's one of the things we love about it. Neighbors walk their dog through campus. I live nearby. I -- I jog through campus regularly. I did so this morning. I hope this doesn't turn into a situation where the campus is walled

off or gated off. That's not going to help the situation. We -- we want to be integrated with the -- with the campus and the campus with the community. And so, we should be using technology in a smart way that'll help make everyone safer. And so that's what I'm sure what they'll look at. And our -- our former chief, their new chief, knows what he's doing.

HILL: Mayor Brett Smiley, I appreciate your time this afternoon. Thank you.

SMILEY: Thank you.

HILL: We want to get you to some breaking news that has just come into us here at CNN. The remains of missing -- a missing nine-year-old California girl, Melodee Buzzard, have now been found, according to a law enforcement source who's familiar with the case.

[15:10:04]

Melodee was last seen on October 9th in surveillance video around the Colorado-Utah state line.

KEILAR: CNN's Josh Campbell is with us now on this.

Josh, what are you learning here?

JOSH CAMPBELL, CNN SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: Well, look, authorities always hope that whenever they launch these missing person cases, they're able to safely bring them home. That is not the case here. I'm hearing from a law enforcement source that the remains of Melodee Buzzard were indeed found in Utah. We're also learning that her mother, Ashlee Buzzard, has been taken into police custody, placed under arrest. And according to a law enforcement source and an official at a Northern California jail, it's worth pointing out that they are not releasing information about why she was arrested at this point. We are expecting to hear from authorities here just in a few hours on this case and what they're calling major developments in this investigation.

Now, folks will recall, this was somewhat of a bizarre case because she was reported missing back in October, not by her mother, but by the child's school, who said that they hadn't heard from her in a couple of months. That then caused authorities to launch this investigation. They determined that over the course of several days that both the mother and daughter had engaged in a road trip for nearly 1,000 miles going from California east as far as Nebraska.

Now, authorities, as you can see on that map, they were checking in different locations where they actually saw the mother and daughter on CCTV footage at various businesses. In one -- at least one instance, it appears that they were wearing wigs, disguises. Authorities also believe that a rental car that they were in had its license plate swapped out.

Now, the vehicle returned to California, but the child was not with the mother. Authorities searched the home. They say that the mother was not cooperative, did not have a plausible explanation about where her daughter was. Authorities were then, you know, fanning out across this route of travel, trying to determine if they can actually find the remains.

We're learning again, sadly, they have been recovered. We are waiting to see what type of charge that the mother may be held on right now. Of course, we've heard over the course of covering this case from other family members, including the grandparents who were expressing their sadness obviously at the disappearance. We're now finally hearing from Buzzard's paternal grandmother saying that she was contacted by authorities who did actually confirm that her granddaughter's remains were found and that the mother was taken into custody. Just a really, really sad, tragic case. Of course, it's not over. We're waiting to see what the charges are here.

KEILAR: Yes, so sad. Josh, thank you for the latest on that. A lot of people have been tracking it.

Still ahead, this holiday travel season is expected to be the busiest ever, but there's good news for those who are hitting the road.

HILL: Plus, you know what else is traveling this holiday season? The flu. Picking up speed across the country. We're going to do our very best to arm you with everything you need to know so that you don't welcome the flu into your holiday celebration.

Plus, the state of Illinois revealing this year's naughty list. The naughty list of rejected vanity license plates. We have some laughs for you here because we care. This is CNN NEWS CENTRAL.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:17:12]

HILL: We promised you holiday cheer and we are going to deliver. There is good news at the fuel pump just in time for your holiday travel.

KEILAR: AAA says gas prices are under $3 for the first time in four years, and just as a record number of drivers are expected to hit the roads this week. So, that's the good news. CNN's Matt Egan is here to fill us in on what's happening. So, now what do, we just -- we get the gas cans, we fill them up. Merry Christmas, Erica.

HILL: There you go, yes.

KEILAR: Merry Christmas, Matt.

HILL: Right.

KEILAR: Yes.

MATT EGAN, CNN SENIOR REPORTER: I don't know about that, Brianna. You don't want to drive up prices by doing that. But look, this has really been one of the feel-good stories. For the economy and on the affordability front, gas prices, they've been under control basically all year and they're ending the year at especially low levels.

So, look, this is the gas price as of today, $2.86 a gallon. Not only is that $0.21 cheaper than a month ago, but this is the lowest price since April of 2021. And yes, look, gas prices, they were low at this point last year as well, but they're even cheaper today.

Now, this is especially true in the middle part of the country, right? There's about 10 states where the average price is below $2.50 a gallon, including Texas, Louisiana, Wisconsin, Iowa, the lowest gas price in the country is Oklahoma, where the average is just $2.29 a gallon.

And look, this trend could continue for a bit. GasBuddy is projecting the average on Christmas Day will be $2.79 a gallon. That would be significantly cheaper than at this point last year. It would also save Americans about half a billion dollars collectively versus a year earlier.

Now, why is this happening? Well, as usual, a lot of this has to go back to the price of crude oil, right? If you look at this point in the calendar three years ago, you're looking at about $79 oil. 2023, 2024 is around $70. But look where we are now, just $58 a barrel. And that's because there's a lot of supply out there, right? U.S. oil production hit record highs last year, continues to shatter records this year. OPEC and Saudi Arabia, they continue to ramp up production. So, all of that has driven oil prices down.

But I would just note that we have to keep a close eye on the price of oil. Oil prices have started to creep higher in recent days as the U.S.-Venezuela standoff continues. If they really start to heat up, that could change things when it comes to gas prices. But hopefully that's not the case, right? Hopefully oil prices stay low and gas prices, they start the new year in a very, very low price. Back to you guys.

HILL: Fingers crossed.

KEILAR: Yes.

HILL: And toes.

KEILAR: And toes.

All right, Matt, thank you so much for those numbers. We do have some breaking news into CNN. It's a decision from the Supreme Court on the National Guard deployment in Chicago. We'll have that after a quick break.

[15:20:01]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:24:25]

KEILAR: We have breaking news. The Supreme Court has just barred President Trump from deploying the National Guard to Chicago to protect ICE agents.

HILL: CNN's Joan Biskupic -- Biskupic -- sorry, Joan -- following this for us. So, what are the justices saying in this decision?

JOAN BISKUPIC, CNN SENIOR SUPREME COURT ANALYST: Yes, just in, Erica. This is a rare ruling against the Trump administration. And I'm going to give you the narrow grounds that it's on, but they're very important grounds here, Erica and Brianna. You remember this all starts in Illinois when the Trump administration has tried to deploy the National Guard to assist ICE agents at its Broadview facility where there had been a lot of controversy and a lot of protesters.

[15:25:03]

And the Trump administration had said, you know, the lives and the facility of the ICE people were at risk and it needed the guard there. Whereas the challengers said, no, these were -- these were mostly peaceful protests and there was no grounds to send in the National Guard as Donald Trump has done -- tried to do in several cities.

In this case, the justices said the grounds that the Trump administration had asserted, the Trump administration lawyers just simply did not back up. Let me read you the provision of the law that President Trump had invoked.

It empowers him to federalize members of the guard if he is quote, unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States.

So, there became a very important issue of what does regular forces mean? And what the justices said, it has to mean the regular military, not -- not people on the ground, not ICE, but the regular military. The Trump administration has to be able to say that with its -- with its regular forces, it was not able to enforce the law. And this is what the majority opinion said.

We do have three dissenters that I'll mention in a second. But what the majority opinion said, at this preliminary stage, the government has failed to identify a source of authority that would allow the military to execute the laws in Illinois. The President has not invoked a statute that provides any kind of exception in the law for this. Instead, he has relied on inherent constitutional authority that he says would allow it, but the government hasn't made its case.

Now, the justices in the majority wanted to stress that the -- that the -- the Trump administration had not carried its burden here. It sort of left the door open for the administration to make further claims, but this is really significant at this point, given how much the Trump administration has prevailed at the Supreme Court.

Now, three justices dissented. Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and Neil Gorsuch. They're the three that are on the far-right. Justice Kavanaugh concurred in the judgment, stressing that -- the kind of preliminary narrow nature of the ruling here. But this does mean that for now, the National Guard cannot be deployed in Illinois, and we have several other cases kicking around out there, from Portland, from Los Angeles, you know, different places where Donald Trump has said that he needs to bring in the National Guard, and this now brings to light another ground that the challengers can invoke.

I should say that the challengers originally, the lower court judges involved in some of these cases had questioned the idea of whether Donald Trump and his lawyers had made the case for -- regarding the regular forces being unable to provide safety at the scene. But in this case, as the dissenters said, the challengers had not kind of premiered that argument, and the dissenters said, you know, the court shouldn't have gone to it, but -- but what happened, actually, when this case was first brought in the Supreme Court in October from the Trump administration, the justices kind of bided their time behind the scenes, and then a few weeks later, they issued an order that said, we would like some clarity on what regular forces means, and whether Donald Trump really actually had grounds to try to deploy the Guard here.

And after looking at the arguments from both sides and from outside special -- special interests that also became involved in the case, clearly, that sticking point remained a sticking point to the very end, and for now, the Trump administration cannot deploy the Guard to the Broadview section of Chicago in Illinois. Brianna, Erica.

KEILAR: What about other -- what about other cities, Joan?

BISKUPIC: Yes. No, I think this -- I think just -- will give challengers elsewhere more confidence to go forward. And -- and as you know, on the ground, the Trump administration has been losing, so the Trump administration has been losing in lower courts on this, as it did here in this Illinois case, but it also signals new scrutiny from the Supreme Court, because I have to say, across the board on this issue, and several others, the lower courts have been acting as a backstop against the Trump administration positions, but the Supreme Court has reversed so many lower court rulings out there on these -- on these issues over executive authority and executive authority over state officials who are trying to keep out the federal involvement at the scene, especially when it comes to the President's very aggressive anti-immigrant agenda. So, this could -- this could reorient the arguments throughout the country, but especially as the Supreme Court gets more cases coming to it.

[15:30:01]

KEILAR: Yes, it'll be interesting. All right, Joan Biskupic, thank you so much.

BISKUPIC: Thank you.

KEILAR: Still to come, the flooding in California has already proven deadly.