Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Bessent Announces Sustained Financial Operation Against Iran; Top House Democrat Jeffries and Kushner Met in Private Recently; Day 6 of Testimony in Tupac Shakur Murder Trial. Aired 2:30-3p ET

Aired August 24, 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: Back now with more on the breaking news from the Trump administration and its new plan to completely isolate Iran's economy from the rest of the world.

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: Just a short time ago, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent announcing what he called an economic D-Day against Iran and any nation or entity that helps Tehran. Bessent threatening crippling U.S. sanctions. The timeline, though, is largely unclear here.

We're joined now by Max Meizlish. He is formerly a Treasury Department official, and he's a research fellow at the Center for Defense of Democracies. You were listening to what the secretary said.

[14:35:00]

He didn't actually impose big new penalties or announce that those were going to be imposed. There isn't a timeline of when these countries have to stop doing things that aid Iran economically. Is it enough to get these countries to stop doing that?

MAX MEIZLISH, FORMER TREASURY DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: So on the one hand, you're correct that the administration is not rolling out any specific timeline for action from either our partners or some of the more problematic elements within the global financial economy that are actually supporting Iran. I do think that part of what the administration is seeking to do is actually signal to the market that some significant action could be expected, so that there is less of a disturbance to global markets and economies. But I agree it would be better if the administration actually took action right now if we are trying to signal this as being some sort of economic D-Day.

SANCHEZ: How could this potential steps that the administration takes impact trade relations between the U.S. and China? Notably, Bessent did not mention China by name, by design.

MEIZLISH: So Secretary Bessent did not mention China, but what we did see in the subsequent sanctions designations that were rolled out alongside the Secretary's press conference, signaled out Hong Kong elements within China, which continues the trend of what we've seen from the Treasury Department, identifying Hong Kong and China as major hubs for Iranian sanctions evasion and the financial enabling of Iranian malign aggression. But I do think that the administration is being a bit too hesitant ahead of talks with China. The reality here is that China's economy is incredibly weak and vulnerable to U.S. pressure. But again, to this point about market stability, the administration is trying to balance both sides of the coin here.

KEILAR: What do you mean they're being too hesitant? Because China's key. I mean, that's the big dog in this fight, right?

When you're talking about economically who you might target with secondary sanctions.

MEIZLISH: So if we go back to 2012, the U.S. took action against the Chinese bank called Bank of Kunlun for enabling Iranian aggression. We moved to cut off their access to U.S. dollars. But this was largely symbolic because the bank wasn't dealing a lot in dollars in the first place.

But over the last 14 years, what we've seen in subsequent designations is that Bank Kunlun has been repeatedly implicated as a major source of flows between Iran and China. And so in my view, what the administration could do is actually add Bank of Kunlun to the specifically designated nationals list, add it to that list, and then put upwards pressure on its ownership, which is China National Petroleum Corporation, a major Chinese state-owned entity, to divest its interests and then allow that bank to fold. That would be a measured response by the administration, significant enough to lead to some regulatory reforms, some actual impact on the ground, but I think not as severe as going after a major Chinese financial institution in a way that could threaten the global economy.

SANCHEZ: So we were speaking to an economist earlier after Bessent spoke, Justin Wolfers with the University of Michigan, and he compared this to efforts to sanction Cuba at the height of the Cold War. He made the case that JFK came out with tough talk announcing this embargo on the island, and that ultimately after 70 years, it hasn't actually yielded a change in regime, a different policy from Cuba toward the United States. How is this different?

Is that a fair comparison? Do you think that economic pressure would actually get Tehran to give up on its aspirations for a nuclear program, et cetera?

MEIZLISH: Yes, I'm glad that you bring up Cuba. It's interesting. This administration has changed the game with respect to Cuba sanctions now by actually applying a broader scope to third party entities in foreign countries that can be singled out and sanctioned for enabling the Cuban regime.

This is the first time this has ever happened in the course of the Cuban embargo. And so right now we're seeing something similar, right? This is the opening shot by the administration saying in a similar way that banks abroad could actually be sanctioned by the United States in a way that they've never been done before with respect to Iranian sanctions evasion.

SANCHEZ: So this is different and do you think it could work? MEIZLISH: It can work if we can get the buy-in of our partners. Bank Melli was specifically referenced by Treasury Secretary Bessent. It's one of the few instances of specific targets identified by him today.

There's branches of Bank Melli in France, in Germany, in other trade partners, major presence in the UAE. So that would be a first step. But again, you know, where we see a lot of Iranian sanctions evasion, it's going to require a lot of due diligence and investigative work and regulatory reform by these countries to ultimately tackle the challenge of opacity and sanctions evasion.

KEILAR: Max Meizlish, thank you so much for your expertise. We appreciate it.

MEIZLISH: Thank you.

KEILAR: So still to come, the private meeting between the top House Democrat and the president's son-in-law, Jared Kushner. What sources say they discussed behind closed doors. We'll have that next.

[14:40:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KEILAR: House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries is getting some high- profile support amid backlash over a meeting that he agreed to with President Trump's son-in-law, Jared Kushner.

SANCHEZ: The two reportedly talked about ways they could work together on some of the issues facing the country, including immigration, housing, the cost of living. And while some Democrats on the left are reportedly upset that Jeffries would sit down with Kushner, he's getting support from at least one high-profile progressive. Here's how New York Mayor Zoran Mamdani responded today when asked about it.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MAYOR ZOHRAN MAMDANI, (D) NEW YORK: I continue to support Congressman Jeffries and his bid to become the leader.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SANCHEZ: Joining us now, Democratic Strategist Jonae Wartel and Republican Strategist Lauren Tomlinson. Jonae, first to you. Kushner suggested that Jeffries should also meet with White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles.

[14:45:00]

If Democrats take the House and Jeffries is elected speaker, are there issues you can expect them to work together on?

JONAE WARTEL, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: Well, we are weeks away from the midterm elections. And what we know that American voters have been concerned about is the cost of living, is this affordability crisis. And for weeks, Leader Jeffries, House Democrats, Senate Democrats have been urging bipartisan work on these issues.

And so what we see is that he stepped forward to have these critically important conversations. And I think that's going to create a bridge, now that Republicans see the writing on the wall, to them creating some bipartisan solutions where there has been tremendous gridlock. So I think this is a tremendous step forward.

And I think it shows strength on the part of Democrats.

KEILAR: And Lauren, the Speaker really downplayed this idea that this meeting was an acknowledgement by the president that, yes, Democrats may take over control of the House. How do you see it?

LAUREN TOMLINSON, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: Yes, I think that this meeting was simply risk management on the White House's part. It's prudent on them and comes from a position of strength, really, to meet with the opposition and ensure that there is a path forward, regardless of what happens in the midterm. So I think Republicans are still feeling very strongly about their chances on the midterm, particularly in the Senate, with some acknowledgement that it's going to be very close with the House.

But this meeting does not necessarily indicate that the White House automatically thinks that the Democrats are going to win in the midterms. I think what it does signify, though, is that they do want to work with the opposition and they want to head off any sort of subpoenas and distraction from the execution of their agenda, should the Democrats take over the House, because they have indicated that they really just want to investigate Trump for the last two years of his administration. And that means that no work would be done on behalf of the American people.

SANCHEZ: Lauren, I wonder, as Jeffries has not yet ruled out a potential impeachment of President Trump, were Democrats to take the House, President Trump at a rally in South Carolina acknowledged that that was potentially going to happen. He said, quote, I'm going to be impeached. They're going to impeach me.

They have no idea why. Is that a factor that may motivate some Republican voters?

TOMLINSON: Absolutely, because I think at the end of the day, the American people are stressed about the cost of living. They are stressed about crime in their communities. There's real pocketbook issues here that they want the administration and the Democrats to continue to execute on.

And so if there is any chance that the Democrats are going to come in and just simply make this a political game and subpoena everyone in the Trump administration's family, Garcia, the possible oversight chairman, has already indicated that he would probably go after even companies that have worked with the government. They would investigate Trump family members, Kushner in particular, which makes this meeting interesting. If that's the case, and that's their true agenda, even though they're running on affordability, then voters should take notice of that and understand that for two years, that the Democrats would simply be making a case for the presidency, not actually trying to solve the problems of their lives.

KEILAR: Janae, switching gears a bit here. Hunter Biden, he was actually on Bill Maher over the weekend. He was asked about taking advantage of the privileges that come with being the son of a president, like his time on the board of the Ukrainian energy company, Burisma, for example.

He defended his qualifications and then he said this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HUNTER BIDEN: It wasn't about whether or not I had experience. My judgment, however, was absolutely, completely, ridiculously off. I didn't realize the snake pit, and I was naive in that sense.

And I gave them something -- I gave them something on a silver platter.

BILL MAHER: I'm going to ask you about it.

BIDEN: And by the way, let me also say this. I did it for the money. And that's what other people won't say. I absolutely 100 percent did do it because it gave me a sense of freedom, particularly when Beau was diagnosed with cancer.

But all for me.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KEILAR: What do you think about what you heard there?

WARTEL: Well, I think this transparency is really refreshing. I think what he has really come out in this press tour that he's done and in this particular appearance is really show the American people that, listen, there were opportunities that I took advantage of. There was a tremendous legacy in my last name.

And I made opportunity, I took advantage of those opportunities to create some income, some wealth. And I did it at a very vulnerable time in the life of my family. I mean, we've had a front row seat to the Biden family for so long now.

And we've understood the challenges that that family has faced, the challenges that they're currently facing. And I think that people can respect and appreciate that someone in a position that has a father who is president, but also a sick brother and has been had the family tragedy that they've had would, you know, would do some things to advance their career. And I don't think anyone could be moan or begrudge him for that.

SANCHEZ: Lauren, Hunter Biden has been something of a punching bag for Republicans for years.

[14:50:00]

But I wonder if attacks on him still land, especially given the entire Trump family's economic activity during the second Trump administration. For example, the president himself has netted more than a half a billion dollars from crypto token sales tied to World Liberty Financial LLC, a firm that is managed in part by his sons. Do these claims about nepotism and corruption still have any weight?

TOMLINSON: I think what people are going to remember about the Biden administration was the fact that they kept his incompetence such a secret for so long from the American people. So the distrust there that was seeded during those last years of his presidency are going to be what people remember the most. It's really hard to listen to Hunter Biden say that he wanted to just take advantage of his position as the son of a president.

I understand the family tragedies, but that doesn't necessarily mean that you can trade off the family name the way that he did. And he was also complicit in keeping Biden in the White House and played a very important role in those last years, where it was very clear that Biden didn't necessarily know what was going on. So I think that is going to be what lands with the American people when you remind them of that and how frustrated they were and how they want to change after the Biden administration because they felt so taken.

I don't know necessarily though that Republicans are going to spend a ton of time beating up on this dead horse because what they are looking for is new direction and fresh direction into the future. And going back to Biden and this message time and time again is not necessarily going to make the case for how Republicans are truly going to fix the lives of Americans going forward.

KEILAR: You know, when you speak -- when we talk about all of these things, the making money off of the name, right? I mean, that speaks to what a lot of voters, they don't like that. They don't like that, OK?

Especially if they do not support the party who the person is a member of, right? Who is doing that. So you're going to have Republicans who take aim at Hunter Biden.

They're even going to say what he did was illegal. You're going to have Democrats who look at what Trump is doing. They're questioning the legality of that.

They're certainly questioning whether he should be doing something like that and making that kind of money, whether his family members should be. Janae, the Senator-elect Jon Ossoff, who you were instrumental in actually getting elected along with Senator Warnock, he's really grabbing eyeballs when it comes to highlighting ideas about the corruption narrative and public view. How much does that work?

WARTEL: Well, it's no secret that Senator Ossoff has been holding Donald Trump accountable. And when we talk about some of these issues of legality, when we talk about some of these dealings that we don't have transparency into from this administration, I think he's done a tremendous job of really highlighting that. And so I think that what he's really doing is bringing to center stage a conversation that many are going to be having going into November, which is what don't we know about Donald Trump and this administration's dealings?

And what more do we need to learn?

SANCHEZ: Janae, Lauren, unfortunately we're out of time, but we appreciate yours. Thanks so much for joining us.

Still to come, testimony underway in the Tupac Shakur murder trial. A filmmaker who helped bring new attention to the decades-old case returns to the stand in Vegas. We'll take you to the courtroom.

[14:55:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SANCHEZ: More key testimony is underway in the trial of the man accused of setting up the 1996 murder of Tupac Shakur. Duane Davis faces one count of first degree murder in Las Vegas for his alleged role in Shakur's fatal shooting. Earlier, filmmaker Mike Dorsey, whose work drew renewed interest in the decades-old case, returned to the stand.

CNN's Nick Watt has been following the case and he joins us now. So, Nick, what's the latest from inside the courtroom?

NICK WATT, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, we have been hearing a recording of Keffe D speaking back in 2017 to those filmmakers, in which he says he wishes the murder, the killing, the death of Tupac never happened. But he did call Tupac an ignorant kid and he also said -- so, what prosecutors say happened, Boris, is that there was a little scuffle in the MGM Grand earlier.

Keffe D's nephew got attacked by Tupac, Suge Knight, and a few other people. In this recording, Keffe D says if that scuffle had never happened, he would probably have left it alone and Tupac would not have been killed. So, let's just take a little listen to some of that recording from back in 2017.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DUANE "KEFFE D" DAVIS: My nephew that I have down with, shit, or something like that, and I am down and out. I'm his uncle first. I'm here to protect him, you know what I'm saying, and all that.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Was there ever a time when you felt bad about Tupac?

DAVIS: Was it every time I felt bad about him?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes.

DAVIS: I wish it had never happened.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WATT: So, what prosecutors say happened is that Keffe D orchestrated this, but it was his nephew who actually pulled the trigger. Keffe D is now 63 years old. He's a grandfather.

He's the only person in that Cadillac that night that tailed Tupac, the only person still alive. We've seen on the stand FBI agents, former local homicide detectives, a lot of them getting on in years, maybe struggling with some memories. So, what the prosecution has boiled this case down to are Keffe D's own words.

First, in a proffer agreement he made in 2008, where he would give some information in return for a lighter sentence. During that proffer meeting, by the way, and this was played in court, you hear the police officer saying, what you say today will not be used against you. It is now being ...

END