Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

FBI Director Testifies on Capitol Hill; Bernie Sanders Speaks Out on Dangers of A.I.; Trump Lashes Out at Supreme Court. Aired 1- 1:30p ET

Aired September 15, 2026 - 13:00   ET

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

[13:00:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:01:11]

BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN HOST: Political opposites, but allies against A.I., two of the most unlikely people from the left and right pairing up to call attention to the threat they see from artificial intelligence.

Plus: Step right up. White House reporters have questions, and Todd Blanche will need to supply the answers, the nation's top law enforcement officer holding a briefing, possibly facing questions about A.I., the economy, and the war in Iran. We will bring it to you live.

And space, the final frontier for war, the Pentagon confirming it has weapons deployed in space, though it is keeping quiet about what weapons are in orbit flying over our heads right now.

We're following these major developing stories and many more all coming in right here to CNN NEWS CENTRAL.

Happening now: Bernie, Bannon both fighting for a common goal, keeping humans in control and better protections against artificial intelligence, Senator Bernie Sanders and Steve Bannon just some of the odd alliances gathering in the nation's capital all day today at an event called the Pro-Human Assembly.

Other voices include conservative commentator Glenn Beck, actors Ashley Judd and Joseph Gordon-Levitt, and evangelical leader Walter Kim. They and more than a million others have endorsed what's known as the Pro-Human A.I. Declaration.

Among its demands, independent oversight of A.I. systems and no liability shields for A.I. companies. They say their call to action is as urgent as ever. We're looking at live pictures now of the event.

Remember, just yesterday, President Trump said that concerns about A.I. are a hoax. At any moment, Senator Sanders is going to be speaking, so we will bring you those remarks as they happen. Stay tuned for that. Meantime, President Trump is lashing out at the Supreme Court. He's

referring to several of the justices that he appointed as shells beholden to liberals after they rejected his plan to limit mail-in voting before the midterms.

The president posting: "The court is making decisions that have set America back at least 100 years. These are not the people I interviewed to serve," the president says.

Next hour, Attorney General Todd Blanche is likely to face questions over this and much more as he steps in to hold a press briefing on behalf of the White House.

Let's take you to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue now with CNN's Alayna Treene.

Alayna, what should we anticipate from Blanche?

ALAYNA TREENE, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, look, I think you're going to see a lot of different questions directed at him. I did talk to some people out the White House here, Boris, earlier today who said this is a general press briefing, that he's not really expected to deliver any specific sort of news.

We will see. I mean, we did see the president talk about a number of different issues that we expect Blanche to be asked today, but apparently this is going to be a pretty standard press briefing. Again, we will see if that's actually the case.

Now, one of the things, of course, is going to be the reaction that this administration has to that Supreme Court ruling. We did see the president with a very bitter reaction this morning responding to it.

In part of the post that the president had, he said:"It's not easy for me to write this criticism" Or, excuse me, I'm starting this wrong. "Certain justices are petrified of these crazed and depraved Democrats and are totally unable to show the courage necessary to save our America."

He went on to say: "It is not easy for me to write this criticism of the United States Supreme Court. It will likely cost me dearly for years to come." This was obviously in response to the majority of justices. I should say it was an unsigned opinion, but we know that Justices Alito and Thomas were the ones who dissented, so you can make up your mind about the seven people who were on the majority for this, essentially saying that his push, his administration's push to limit mail-in balling before the elections just, one, timing wise, is not going to work, and, two, it could be likely be unconstitutional.

[13:05:08]

A lot of questions, I think, about that, and specifically about his post really going after the justices he helped put on the bench, Boris. But some other things I think you can expect him to get asked about, one, we did hear the president on Tuesday coming out and alleging without specific detail or evidence that the 2024 assassination attempt on his life in Butler was a -- quote -- "Democrat plot" and that the former FBI Director Christopher Wray and his agency did not handle that investigation properly.

Again, really no context that the president provided in one of those posts. Obviously, Blanche being the attorney general, is likely going to get a lot of questions about what exactly the president is referring to there and what this could mean moving forward.

Another big story was also this big story that was broken by ProPublica yesterday about the wedding of the president's eldest son, Donald Trump Jr., and his new wife, Bettina Anderson, a socialite, deep reporting they had about how much of the wedding party throughout that wedding weekend was paid for by a Russian oligarch close to Putin with the name Umar Kremlev.

We actually heard Bettina Anderson and Donald Trump Jr. basically confirm that he did pay for a lot of different parts of that wedding weekend in an Instagram post, so questions about that and the conflicts of interest that poses.

We also just got this new ruling, Boris, from the Kennedy Center and expected to hear likely questions about that as well, the Kennedy Center again saying that the president cannot be putting his name back on that arts institution.

So, lots to expect here, Boris.

SANCHEZ: Yes, no shortage of questions for the head of the Department of Justice.

Alayna Treene at the White House, thank you so much.

We're continuing to monitor the Pro-Human Assembly in our nation's capital.

Here's Senator Bernie Sanders making remarks at this gathering of different voices to talk about artificial intelligence.

Let's listen.

(JOINED IN PROGRESS)

SEN. BERNIE SANDERS (I-VT): ... for his work over the years. All of you know that he has been involved on this issue before it was fashionable. And I want to thank him for bringing people of different political perspectives together to address the growing threat posed by artificial intelligence.

This afternoon, I want to say a few words on what I consider to be the very most important aspect of this crisis that we are facing, and how we can best go forward.

Let us be clear. Artificial intelligence and robotics are the most transformational technologies in the history of humanity, and they will impact the lives of every man, woman, and child in our country. A.I. experts have told us that, within a few years, A.I. may be able

to do anything that we can do better than we can do it. The economic impact of that is that A.I. has the potential to eliminate tens of millions of jobs, wiping out entire professions, and making it harder for our young people to enter the work force.

But it's not just the economy that A.I. is impacting. Psychologists have warned us about the increased isolation and mental health challenges young people are experiencing as they become more and more dependent upon an A.I. chatbot for their emotional support.

Educators are worried about a decline in our kids' reading scores, writing abilities, and cognitive capabilities as A.I. is used more and more in our schools. Civil libertarians warn us that A.I. is in the process of eviscerating our privacy rights by making it easier to collect and analyze every e-mail that we send, every text, every Web site visit, and every trip that we make in our car, resulting in the creation of a mass surveillance state.

[13:10:00]

Political scientists warn that A.I. could threaten the integrity of our elections and political institutions. Go to the Internet right now and, with sophisticated deepfakes, you will find it increasingly difficult to determine truth.

SANCHEZ: We're going to continue listening to Senator Bernie Sanders at this Pro-Humanity Assembly -- Pro-Human Assembly, talking about the future of artificial intelligence, what Sanders says is the most transformational technology in the history of humanity, one that he is concerned will lead to civilizational transformation to disrupt political institutions, privacy, and not the least of which the mental health challenges that young people will face.

Let's discuss with Cory Weinberg. He's a senior reporter covering A.I. for The Information.

Cory, thanks so much for sharing part of your afternoon with us.

You wrote in a recent A.I. -- rather, in a recent post, that these A.I. companies who are calling for a slowdown in the progress of innovation, you're saying that the pacing is not quite as problematic as the product itself and the bigger question of whether A.I. is even good for us.

Is it possible, do you think, at this point to regulate a force like A.I., when we can't yet imagine its full capacity?

CORY WEINBERG, SENIOR REPORTER, THE INFORMATION: I think, if politicians in Washington really want to get their arms wrapped around this issue, they're going to sort of have to buck some trends of the last few decades of how we regulate technology.

People in Silicon Valley see A.I. as far more transformational than the Internet. This is the largest sort of business boom that I have been covering in my years covering the tech industry. The difference here is that the conversation around actually

regulating the technology is -- seems to be growing in a direction that the industry is going to have to grapple with much more than early Internet companies had to, when there was a distinct liability shield from their products.

And in A.I., the momentum seems to be going in the direction of, who's going to be actually held accountable for things that go wrong?

SANCHEZ: What do you think of what Congress has proposed so far, for example, Senator Sanders' proposed ban on superintelligence? Also, there's a kill switch bill out there that would allow the government to shut down models that it deems too dangerous.

Are those effective and are they enough?

WEINBERG: I think they potentially are sort of aligned with what a lot of A.I. leaders themselves are asking for from government.

I think what people in Silicon Valley are skeptical of is that there's actually going to be sort of a real political will with a split party in Washington this time around. I think what's interesting about this event happening today is, you do have a bit of a scrambled ideological sort of line here, where you have Steve Bannon and you have Bernie Sanders sort of speaking together about the potential ills of A.I.

And that's where this whole policy debate becomes a little bit more unpredictable. You have these sort of scrambled party lines, that I think people in Silicon Valley are trying to figure out, how do we influence this and where are the chips really going to land?

SANCHEZ: I wonder, as you're describing that, you write in the piece I read about President Trump's laissez-faire approach to A.I., especially in his second term, and how much that has benefited these A.I. companies.

Do you think that, if Democrats win control of Congress in November, much is going to change?

WEINBERG: Yes, I think everyone expects -- everyone in Silicon Valley expects the temperature on this topic politically to be turned up, particularly if Democrats win definitely the House and particularly Congress more broadly.

I think one sort of illustration of this is, all of this conversation around the potential ills of A.I. is happening as the main big A.I. companies are trying to go public, and in some of the largest IPOs of all time. Anthropic is trying to go public specifically before the midterm elections in November, in part to avoid complicating the story to Wall Street and to investors about just how much commercial potential there is with this technology.

SANCHEZ: Cory Weinberg, appreciate you sharing your perspective. Thanks for joining us.

WEINBERG: Thank you. SANCHEZ: Just a quick reminder for our viewers -- you can see it on

the screen right now -- Senator Sanders is going to join CNN's Jake Tapper today at 5:00 p.m. on "THE LEAD," so you will want to tune in for that.

[13:15:00]

We're going to continue monitoring the senator's remarks, as well as remarks from Steve Bannon coming later this hour.

Meantime, these are live images coming from Capitol Hill, FBI Director Kash Patel getting grilled by senators on everything from the Epstein files to Donald Trump Jr.'s wedding. It's notably a fiery line of questioning from a Republican that is making headlines today. We will bring you those highlights.

Plus, President Trump's immigration crackdown facing one of its biggest legal challenges yet. More than 300 South Korean workers swept up in a raid at a Hyundai plant now begin laying the groundwork for a lawsuit.

And, later, the Trump administration erasing pollution limits on power plants. We're going to talk about the impact on both your health and your bottom line, that and much more, on CNN NEWS CENTRAL.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SANCHEZ: Happening right now on Capitol Hill, FBI Director Kash Patel is facing lawmakers on the Senate Judiciary Committee. Patel has been grilled on a host of issues, but a specific line of questioning about changes to FBI hiring standards is grabbing headlines.

[13:20:09]

A short time ago, Patel was asked why the bureau no longer automatically disqualifies job applicants who allegedly committed certain crimes, including -- I'm quoting -- "engaging in bestiality."

Patel said that change only applies if they were -- quote -- "victims of bestiality." And Republican Senator John Kennedy asked him to explain more. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. JOHN KENNEDY (R-LA): So you disqualified the animal.

(LAUGHTER)

KASH PATEL, FBI DIRECTOR: Well, I don't think we -- we have great canines, but we're not going to disqualify.

KENNEDY: I understand.

I'm trying to understand why you did this.

PATEL: In a lot of these cases, when human traffickers, who are some of the worst individuals on planet Earth, they don't just traffic you for prostitution. They traffic you for degrading acts of all kinds, and they force you into that type of conduct.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SANCHEZ: We're joined now by former FBI senior intelligence adviser Phil Mudd.

Phil, great to see you, as always.

Just wondering what you make of Patel saying that these rules were changed for victims of these crimes. Walk us through the rationale here.

PHILIP MUDD, FORMER COUNTERTERRORISM OFFICIAL: Boy, Boris, when I heard this story break, I -- my initial reaction was, no way. When I heard Patel's answer, my reaction was, this is worth looking at.

Let me explain you why. If you're 16 years old in California, New York, Chicago, et cetera, and you're trafficked by a gang and forced into prostitution, maybe with an animal -- that's bestiality, obviously -- somebody's going to pay a lot of money for that.

Is that your fault? If his argument -- my point is, if his argument is there's a juvenile whose trafficked into a situation they can't escape, should that person be by definition disqualified from employment? I'm not sure. I mean, we have spent just now an hour thinking about this, but the answer, I thought, was far more interesting than I expected.

It's worth a debate, Boris.

SANCHEZ: Yes, it certainly went a direction that you would not expect, right?

I do want to ask you about...

(LAUGHTER)

SANCHEZ: Yes.

I want to ask you about Patel and his response to the ProPublica reporting around Donald Trump Jr.'s wedding being partially paid for by a Russian oligarch. Let's listen to the FBI director.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL (D-CT): I would like to know from you whether you have begun an investigation of potential intelligence compromises. This individual, Umar Kremlev, has direct ties to Vladimir Putin. It would seem an effort to carry favor with the president's family.

It may involve some intelligence degradation. And I would like to know what steps you are taking to investigate.

PATEL: I'm not sure what public reporting you're referring to. BLUMENTHAL: You're unaware of those reports?

PATEL: I don't track public reporting from yesterday for preparation in this hearing.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SANCHEZ: Should the FBI be taking any action based on this reporting?

MUDD: Not unless they have information suggesting a crime was committed.

Look, I'm not in the business of defending Director Patel, but I think, again, his answer is appropriate. The questioning came in with, could this be potentially something you would investigate? Well, the president's son is an American citizen. An American citizen that has rights.

You can violate those rights. You can conduct an investigation, for example, running informants, reading somebody's e-mails, if you have evidence that suggests a crime was committed. An oligarch paying for somebody's wedding celebrations, to me, isn't necessarily a crime.

And I don't know if that would lead me to say you have to violate American citizens' rights. I -- that line of questioning to me was not very persuasive, Boris.

SANCHEZ: There was an interesting moment as Patel was testifying, because President Trump posted online that the assassination plot that took place a few years ago in Butler, Pennsylvania was a Democratic plot.

He said that the FBI's evidence in that case was missing, altered, corrupted, or gone, adding that the former FBI Director Christopher Wray should -- quote -- "pay a price."

Patel was asked about that shooting, and he again reiterated there was no evidence that the man who tried to shoot President Trump, then- candidate Trump, was working with anyone. I wonder what you make not only of the president's post, but specifically what message you think that might send the FBI director now, if he's saying that the former FBI director, without evidence, should pay a price.

MUDD: Well, I think the FBI director is walking a fine line.

I assume the president is watching at least some of this testimony, looking for evidence that the FBI director is not repeating what the president has said.

But there's a simple story here, Boris, and that is, a lot of people worked on that investigation. That is not only investigators, agents. That is a lot of analysts. That is a lot of state and local police officers. There's other agencies, for example, Homeland Security. Secret Service is involved.

[13:25:02] You multiply that investigation out by hundreds of people. If Patel gets out there and starts to say things that that investigation didn't uncover, he's going to get undercut by the organization. So, when he's talking about what the facts say, that's not only the facts.

That's the people who worked on it will -- who will speak if he says something that violates what they know about the facts. The president says one thing, but Patel has to pay attention to what the work force is saying, Boris.

SANCHEZ: Phil Mudd, appreciate your perspective. Thanks for joining us.

MUDD: Thanks.

SANCHEZ: Of course.

Still to come: For the first time ever, the U.S. military confirms it has sent weapons into space. So, what is out there exactly?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SANCHEZ: Now to a CNN exclusive. More than 300 Korean workers who were swept up in an immigration raid in Georgia last year are now challenging the Trump administration.