Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Trump Posts Fake Image of Him with Jesus, Amid Tensions with Pope; Interview with Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-TX): White House, No Ceasefire Extension with Iran, But Optimistic of a Deal; DOJ Moves to Dismiss Sedition Charges on January 6 Defendants. Aired 2:30-3p ET

Aired April 15, 2026 - 14:30   ET

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

[14:30:00]

BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN HOST: Just days after the backlash President Trump received, posting a picture of himself depicted as Jesus and then taking it down and saying that he thought it made him look like a doctor, President Trump is now sharing an image of himself with Jesus. And just like the first one, it's been generated by AI. Part of the post in it, he writes, quote, "The radical left lunatics might not like this, but I think it's quite nice."

Here's the other image. As we noted, the president denied that it showed him as Jesus despite the robes and the light emitting palms.

[14:35:00]

JESSICA DEAN, CNN HOST: In the meantime, we're hearing more from the Pope after the president last shouted him for days. Here's the pontiff today speaking from the Papal Plain over Africa.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

POPE LEO XIV, HEAD OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH: Although we have different beliefs, we have different ways of worshipping, we have different ways of living, we can live together in peace. And so I think that to promote that kind of image is something which the world needs to hear today.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

DEAN: So let's talk about this more with CNN religion contributor Father Edward Beck. Thanks so much for being here with us. It's nice to see you.

We interviewed -- CNN, interviewed students at the University of Notre Dame, one of the best known Catholic institutions of higher learning in the country. One student told us that that image that Trump posted of himself as a Christ light figure could be considered textbook blasphemy. That's what they thought.

I'm curious what you think. If you think this was blasphemous.

REV. EDWARD BECK, CNN RELIGION CONTRIBUTOR: Well, I don't think I want to give that moral designation to it, but it certainly seemed to promote a certain idolatry as if President Trump, whether unwittingly or not, was comparing himself to God or that he was on equal plane with God. Now that is blasphemous technically. If that's what he was intending, if that's what he was doing, he claims he wasn't.

So I'll give him the benefit of the doubt, but it certainly appeared that way. And I understand why the pushback has continued to say that's what it was.

SANCHEZ: Father, the Pew Research Center found that in the 2024 presidential election, Trump won the majority of Catholic voters. I wonder if you think these images and his skirmishes with Pope Leo are going to hurt Trump's support among Catholics.

BECK: I do think so, Boris. I think we've seen opposition from Catholics, even conservative Catholics. We've seen opposition from President Trump's own political party.

This is not a good argument for him. And it's one he should have just apologized for and gotten over. But he hasn't.

He's doubled down, and I think people are resenting it. And there are kind of open mistruths being said about this war, about theology, justifying it, saying really that Vice President Vance, President Trump knows more about theology than the Pope. And that's obviously not true, because they've gotten the theology about just war all wrong, and they've misspoken about what Pope Leo has actually said.

DEAN: So I want to stay on that for a second, because there's that video, we played it as we were going to that commercial break, of the Vice President saying, essentially, that the Pope needs to be really careful when he's speaking about theology. Father, it would seem to me that as the Pope, he is the authority for the Church on a lot of theology, if not all of it, but help people understand just kind of the idea that a Vice President of the United States would be telling the Pope that.

BECK: And one who's new to Catholicism, by the way, and has a book coming out about his own Catholicism and his journey soon. But I'm surprised that for an intelligent man, he's getting it all wrong. I mean, he's basically saying that this is a just war.

And the just war theory developed by St. Augustine, who's the founder of the order that the Pope belongs to, and then later developed by St. Thomas Aquinas, it has six prerequisites by which you can claim it's a just war. None of those, and I can go through them if you want, but none of those apply here to this war. And so it's certainly not a just war.

It's not at all morally justified, which the Pope has been pushing. And yet, from a Catholic perspective, at least Vice President Vance seemed to double down on this, and I'm not really sure why. He has to know what the just war theory says.

And again, none of the prerequisites are met by this war.

DEAN: All right, Father Beck, thank you. It's good to have some context around this discussion. We really appreciate it. Thanks so much.

And still to come, in his latest interview, President Trump says the war with Iran is, quote, close to over, but says the U.S. isn't finished quite yet. We're going to discuss with a Republican lawmaker right after this.

[14:40:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SANCHEZ: Back to the breaking news on the war with Iran. A short time ago, the White House said that talks with Iranian officials are productive and ongoing. We're now just six days away from the expiration of the current ceasefire, and while the White House says they've not yet requested a formal extension, they say they feel good about the prospects of a deal.

Let's discuss those prospects with Republican Congressman Dan Crenshaw of Texas. He sits on the House Intelligence Committee. Congressman, thanks so much for being with us.

Do you anticipate we'll be seeing the ceasefire extended beyond next week?

REP. DAN CRENSHAW (R-TX), HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE: I don't know. I'm not involved in the ceasefire talks at all, so my guess is as good as yours. As far as the parameters of the deal, as long as our position doesn't change, that's where we need to be.

Our position is pretty clear. There's no path to enrichment, there's no path to a nuclear program, and you also have to involve in those parameters Iran's activity with proxy networks throughout the region and their ballistic missile program. So, you know, there's a lot that Iran needs to come to the table on.

If it's productive, then maybe they're coming to the table on that, but I guess we'll see.

[14:45:00]

SANCHEZ: One of the first things you mentioned was uranium enrichment, which has been a consistent sticking point with Tehran going back about a decade plus. The U.S. has reportedly asked for a 20-year moratorium from Tehran on enrichment. Iran is apparently wanting it to last only five years.

Do you trust that any moratorium is one the regime would keep and prevent them from pursuing nuclear weapons?

CRENSHAW: Yes, look, they're always looking to buy time. You know, five years sounds a lot like the JCPOA, the Iran nuclear deal under Obama. There was a five-year sunset, and they could enrich more.

Iran's always looking for these time extensions because what they're most concerned about is a power hold over their own people and survivability. And so we need to be cognizant of that as we go in. That's why we're saying a number like 20, because 20 is an actual runway.

Five years is nothing. Five years is just -- you're just scrambling again to figure out how you're going to deter them in five years again. And what are the costs are going to be over the next five years as they rebuild their conventional capacity and hide all their stuff underground again?

So what the president has done recently is say, look, enough is enough. Enough is enough. We're going to destroy your conventional capability, that shield that is shielding you so that you can have this nuclear capability.

We're going to destroy that. We're going to severely push back your nuclear ambitions. And then we can talk.

That's always been the right way to go about it, frankly, because that's the language the Iranian regime understands is force. And so you're in a stronger position now because they also know what you're willing to do if they break those conditions.

SANCHEZ: Does this deal need to address the near weapons-grade uranium that's believed to be buried hundreds of feet under Iranian soil? What should happen with that? What would be the best case scenario for the United States, one that Tehran would live with?

CRENSHAW: I don't know what Tehran will live with. I mean, we're always trying to assess what they'll live with, but that's trying to put a Western mindset onto a regime that has a martyrdom philosophy behind it. And so they're just willing to die and absorb more pain than our brains can even understand.

So that's what's first. It's hard to predict what they'll accept. But, of course, we would need enriched uranium.

That has to be part of the deal. I think that's in those talks. Maybe you're referring to stuff that's buried currently under a bunch of rubble.

SANCHEZ: That's specifically what I'm talking about, the near weapons- grade uranium that's buried hundreds of feet underground.

CRENSHAW: Yes, that's a complicated subject, but it would need to be part of it. Now, of course, we would know if somebody was going near there. It's not like we don't have good collection right over in the skies there, but it does need to be part of the deal.

SANCHEZ: After CNN reported that U.S. intelligence indicated China was preparing to deliver air defense systems to Iran over the course of the next few weeks, President Trump said that he exchanged letters with Xi Jinping, and the Chinese leader told him that his country is not doing that. Those are Trump's words. Separately, the Financial Times is reporting that Iran acquired a Chinese satellite to help target U.S. military installations in the region. What do you make of China's role in all of this? Are threats of tariffs enough to deter Beijing from helping Iran? CRENSHAW: I think there's some nuance here. I think the president's communication with Xi Jinping has actually been effective. There's a difference between a private company in China selling it and the Chinese government actively promoting that.

I'm not so sure they are. Actually, our reporting says they haven't, because the Chinese are actually much more concerned about their relationship with Gulf states. You know, that's where all the money is.

So on this particular subject, there is some nuance to it, which is why the president has been communicating directly with the Chinese on this.

SANCHEZ: So would you say that you trust Xi Jinping that China would not be lending material support to Tehran?

CRENSHAW: We don't have to trust it. We just know who's actually -- we know which companies are actually sending that over and whether those are state-owned enterprises or not.

Those are facts we can verify. It's not necessarily -- it's not a trust. It's not a trust issue at all.

SANCHEZ: Understood.

CRENSHAW: We never trust them.

SANCHEZ: Congressman, given your work on the Intelligence Committee, I did want to ask you about FISA, the powerful surveillance law, which is about to expire. The president wants a clean 18-month extension of that law. House Republicans canceled a procedural vote that was scheduled for today over some disagreements.

I wonder what you would want to see happen.

CRENSHAW: I want to see us vote that into law. Of course, I would rather see a longer extension.

But, you know, this is the same vote we took two years ago. And so it's really strange to see a lot of the Democrats who supported it then now changing their minds.

[14:50:00]

I've been consistent on this. It doesn't matter who's president. The safety of the American people comes first.

FISA is one of the most important intelligence collection tools. All the lies told about it that it's used to spot Americans. It's just not how it works at all.

SANCHEZ: The reason I ask partly is because there are Republicans who have espoused all sorts of concerns bordering on the conspiratorial regarding FISA. They're demanding all sorts of reforms. What's your message to them? CRENSHAW: We did about 50-something reforms two years ago that addressed all those concerns. And I think you'll see in the vote tallies later tonight that they've learned. People can take in and absorb new facts and make better decisions based upon those facts.

I think a lot of members are doing that. Again, it's really strange to see people go the opposite direction, though. That doesn't make a lot of sense.

If Democrats are voting against it now, then what reforms are you looking for exactly? I'm on the Intelligence Committee. I don't know. They've never proposed any reforms.

And I'm pretty sure pretty much all the Democrats on the Intelligence Committee will probably vote for it. I'm not talking about the Intelligence Committee Democrats.

I'm talking about the rest of them. I don't know what's going through their heads. They're making it very politicized.

SANCHEZ: Sure. Congressman, before we go, I wanted to ask about whether you agreed with President Trump's assessment that your party is going to do good in the midterms, given where we are with not only the price of things, including fuel, but also historically the fact that the incumbent party doesn't do well during midterm elections. They usually go the opposite direction of the White House's party.

CRENSHAW: Look, we just got to make the case. The election is years away in political terms. It feels like a lifetime away.

Here's what Americans need to know today. Today's tax day. And if Republicans hadn't done the Big, Beautiful Bill, the Working Families Tax Cut Act, then, say, an average family of four with two kids making about $73,000 a year, you haven't been paying functional taxes on that over the last decade because of the tax cuts of 2017.

If Democrats had had their way, you'd pay an extra $10,000 today on tax day. That's important for people to know. Your taxes would have increased wildly if we hadn't taken action.

So I think Republicans have earned the American people's support and deserve to keep the House. Of course, I can't predict the elections.

SANCHEZ: I think Democrats would refute those stats. They wanted higher taxes on higher earners, but to keep the tax cuts for lower earners nevertheless, Congressman Dan Crenshaw, we do appreciate your time.

CRENSHAW: The stats cannot be refuted. You can refute the policy, but you can't refute the stats.

SANCHEZ: Well, I'm just pointing out the nuance. Thank you so much, Congressman.

Coming up, critics call it a slap in the face to American democracy, why the Justice Department wants to dismiss January 6th-related convictions of two far-right groups.

Stay with us. We'll be right back.

[14:55:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

DEAN: The Justice Department is working to dismiss January 6th-related convictions of Proud Boys and Oath Keepers members. That move would erase the most serious convictions stemming from the deadly 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol. And it would mean that when paired with President Trump's previous pardons and commutations for January 6th rioters, very few defendants, if any, would be held criminally responsible for that violence on January 6th.

Let's bring in CNN's Paula Reid. This is very shocking. What I just said is that very few people might be held responsible for this.

What more are you learning?

PAULA REID, CNN CHIEF LEGAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Yes, and the majority of that is, of course, because President Trump, one of the first things he did after taking office for the second time, was issue pardons to the overwhelming majority of people involved in January 6th. But there were 14 people whose sentences were commuted. Now, for people who don't know, a pardon wipes the entire conviction off your record.

You're no longer a convicted felon. You no longer have that sentence. Where a commutation, for example, if you're in jail, you no longer have to serve the rest of your sentence.

Your sentence is commuted. You no longer have to endure that time in jail. But 14 people only got commutations.

They didn't get full pardons. And in the interim, another one of those people was pardoned. Someone else got their conviction dismissed.

Now the issue is about those remaining 12. And here the Justice Department wants to have their convictions dismissed. And if a judge approves this, this is really significant because it would be really erasing the most significant conviction from that sprawling investigation into January 6th.

Now, we do have some footage from January 6th. I want to remind people when we talk about the Proud Boys or the Oath Keepers, the kind of conduct that was a question here. Let's take a look.

You can see some of the photos there. I mean, these were some of the most serious cases that were brought. Now, their attorneys are arguing.

One of the attorneys for the Proud Boys tells CNN he's grateful to the Justice Department, saying that it's good for everyone, if all political persuasions, that sedition charges are not used for protests that turn into riots. But of course, under the Biden administration, the Justice Department argued that this was not just free speech. These were not protests, that this was a violent attempt to undermine democracy and keep President Biden out of office at all costs.

We also got a statement today from Representative Jamie Raskin. He was, of course, on the January 6th committee. And he described this as, quote, "... an insult to the jurors who heard the evidence and did their civic duty to the judges who presided over these cases ...

END