Return to Transcripts main page

CNN This Morning

Tal Axelrod is Interviewed about Candace Owens; Trump Says to Move on Political Opponents; Avi Mayer is Interviewed about a Palestinian State; Hegseth Demands Pledge; Newsom Signs New Law. Aired 6:30-7a ET

Aired September 22, 2025 - 06:30   ET

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

[06:30:00]

AUDIE CORNISH, CNN ANCHOR: New York City where world leaders will arrive for the U.N. General Assembly. Later this week, President Trump is expected to address the assembly and meet with Ukraine's president to talk security guarantees.

And today the president is expected to announce the cause of autism. And they are expected to link autism to the use of Tylenol during pregnancy, alone with low levels of folate.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I think it's a very big factor. I think you'll see what it is tomorrow. We have various things, but you'll see what it is tomorrow. I think it's going to be a very important news conference. And we want things to take effect immediately.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CORNISH: And experts say there is no clear evidence of the direct link. Tylenol is one of the few pain relievers believed to be safe for pregnant women.

And in the wake of Charlie Kirk's killing, some corners of the internet are filling the gaps of information in the investigation with their own version of events. And that includes some of Kirk's right- wing allies. Candace Owens, a popular right-wing podcaster and conspiracy theorist, suggested Kirk was facing pressure for his questioning of how Israel was handling the war in Gaza in the weeks leading up to his death.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CANDACE OWENS, HOST, "CANDACE" PODCAST: Charlie was in the Hamptons, and he had, more than one event, but he had essentially what was staged, an intervention, because Charlie's thoughts, Charlie's rational thoughts about Israel were a no-no.

(END VIDEO CLIP) CORNISH: Owens also claimed, without evidence, that Kirk was offered money by influential right-wing donors to change his stance, which drew denials from those donors.

Joining me now to explain all this is Tal Axelrod, reporter at "Axios."

Good morning. Thanks for being here.

TAL AXELROD, REPORTER, "AXIOS": Thanks for having me.

CORNISH: I wanted to talk about this because I noticed it wasn't just Owens who was weighing in on the conversation, and it seemed to reveal a kind of division in otherwise a moment of unity. Can you talk about what you saw?

AXELROD: Yes. So, you also saw people like Megyn Kelly and Tucker Carlson, after Kirk was assassinated, say that he had expressed frustration that you couldn't criticize the way Israel was handling the war in Gaza without being accused of being an anti-Semite or being overall anti-Israel. But Candace Owens was the only one who was really going to this place of saying there was some kind of intervention or some kind of money offer.

But it does show, like you mentioned, a bigger divide within MAGA over Israel, where you have some traditionalists think that the U.S. should have a very close relationship with Israel and others, especially on the younger side of MAGA, look at Israel as another ally, like some countries in Europe or Ukraine, who just take advantage of America's largesse and that resources sent to Israel would be better spent here.

So, it's a really interesting divide. I saw it at a Turning Point event in July where especially again a lot of the younger people had a lot more skepticism, not towards Israel itself, just towards the amount of money the U.S. sends over there.

CORNISH: Now, this gets to another what I'll -- I'll just call specifically kind of conspiracy, which is somehow directly linking Israel to Kirk's death. That's something that was starting to grow online, to the point where Israel's prime minister responded in this way.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BENJAMIN NETANYAHU, ISRAELI PRIME MINISTER: Well, somebody has fabricated a monstrous big lie that Israel had something to do with Charlie Kirk's horrific murder. This is insane. It is false. It is outrageous. Now, some are peddling these disgusting rumors, perhaps out of obsession, perhaps with Qatari funding.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CORNISH: Now, Owens actually posted a reaction, and she was saying that she never made that connection on her show, but she was drawing a line under the fact that the prime minister responded to it.

Can you talk about that, just the fact that it sort of reached his ears and reached that point?

AXELROD: Right. This really shows the power of social media. And to be -- there is a sliver of MAGA that is just anti-Semitic and very anti- Israel. And it -- but social media really just takes that to a whole nother level. That, combined with the way conspiracy theories just flow so easily now to the point, like you mentioned, to the point that a foreign leader has to record a direct to camera video saying that his country did not have any involvement in this. It -- it shows that these theories, even if shared by -- in reality by a small number of people, could just bounce around the internet so quickly and just rise to such a level that we haven't really seen just a few years ago and before that.

CORNISH: Finally, because he was such -- sort of a beloved figure in this community, I see people in very personal ways fighting over what they think his legacy actually was.

[06:35:04]

Do you think those divisions were papered over, smoothed out after this memorial? What are you going to be watching for?

AXELROD: Well, what I'm going to be watching for is how Turning Point and Charlie's show move forward. Charlie -- you heard it yesterday at the memorial and the days after he was killed, that he's irreplaceable. And we're going to find out just how true that is.

Turning Point USA is a massive machine. It was credited, I think rightly so, with helping drive the youth towards President Trump in the last election. And I think how that organization's work continues is something to watch closely.

Also, his podcast. We can look at the MAGA media ecosystem as an information army. You know, these podcasters are not journalists like you or I. We just report the news. They really kind of hone and direct attention. And you saw Charlie's ability to do this, for example, with Pete Hegseth's confirmation earlier this year, where he was able to get people focused on this and angry about it, to the point that lawmakers in Congress and senators who were considering Hegseth's confirmation got worried about primary challenges if they voted no.

So, we'll see if whoever replaces him on the show has that same ability to be a general in this information army and kind of direct the ground troops.

CORNISH: Tal Axelrod, reporter at "Axios," thank you for explaining it.

AXELROD: Thank you.

CORNISH: Now, President Trump is also, we noticed, putting pressure on Attorney General Pam Bondi to go after his political opponents.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: The Department of Justice is also investigating networks of radical left maniacs who fund, organize, fuel and perpetrate political violence. And we think we know who many of them are.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CORNISH: The list includes former FBI Director James Comey, New York Attorney General Letitia James and California Democratic Senator Adam Schiff.

This isn't actually a surprise, considering that this is what he said on the campaign trail last year.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: It is the enemy from within. And they're very dangerous. They're Marxists. They're communists and fascists. And they say, I use a guy like Adam Schiff because they made up the Russia, Russia, Russia hoax. It took two years to solve the problem. Absolutely nothing was done wrong, et cetera, et cetera. They're dangerous for our country.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CORNISH: Group chat is back.

I was a little surprised to hear this from the memorial stage on Sunday, but, you?

EDWARD-ISAAC DOVERE, CNN SENIOR REPORTER: I mean, I -- I -- no, because Donald Trump gives the same speech no matter what venue he's in, even at what was supposed to be a funeral or a celebration of Charlie Kirk's life. It was a rally speech.

I think importantly here, when we see the things that are being done in the name of Charlie Kirk's killing, and responding to it, many of them are things that the president and top aides around him have been talking about doing for a long time, including what you just played in that clip, right? And Trump here is using Kirk's assassination as a pretext for pursuing more political investigations. We see even over the weekend him firing a U.S. attorney who would not prosecute Letitia James, apparently because there was not sufficient evidence to prosecute Letitia James. And --

CORNISH: So, someone says, I can't prosecute because I don't have the evidence to do this.

DOVERE: Right.

CORNISH: And they're like, you're out of here. We'll find someone who will.

DOVERE: Right, a Trump appointed prosecutor said that, by the way, right. And -- and that is something that the United States has yet -- yet another thing the United States has not had before.

CORNISH: Yes. FRANCESCA CHAMBERS, WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, "USA TODAY": I think what was jarring over the weekend to people, though, was that in his Truth Social post he actually directed those directly at Pam Bondi, the U.S. attorney general. And typically, you know, previously, the White House has allowed the Department of Justice to act independently. And here you had a sitting U.S. president telling his attorney general, you know, you need to act fast. I was either, you know, impeached. I've been investigated. I want people to pay. I want there to be justice served. Then he backed off, by the way, in another one --

CORNISH: Yes.

CHAMBERS: And was like, look, I think that Pam Bondi is doing a good job. It was this U.S. attorney.

CORNISH: I couldn't tell because it's the kind of thing where you're like, shouldn't you just pick up the phone? But the whole point is, you're not supposed to have that conversation. So, do you think they were trying to have it publicly on purpose?

CHAMBERS: I mean, I don't know. But to your point --

DOVERE: And -- but it's not -- it's not the first time that Trump has tried to direct the Justice Department to do something. This is -- he sees the attorney general as his personal lawyer. That's how he's described it many times in the past. And the Justice Department should be acting on behalf of the president.

CORNISH: In some of the cases they are, actually, his ex-personal lawyers.

DOVERE: That's -- right. And now he's going to have his personal lawyer replace the prosecutor going after a top political opponent of his in -- in (INAUDIBLE).

CHAMBERS: Right, Lindsey Halligan, the lawyer that he says that he will be appointing to this position now had worked at the White House on domestic policy, but she is behind the Smithsonian changing of the language. She's specifically named in the executive order, actually, on that.

[06:40:03]

And -- but to your point, though, in the first Trump administration, remember that his falling out with the attorney general, Jeff Sessions, was over the Russia collusion investigation and problems with that. So, he is --

DOVERE: And his falling out with Bill Barr was over not -- Barr not supporting what he was saying about the 2020 election. I mean this is just the way --

CORNISH: You're saying I should have prepared a timeline of Trump falling outs with Justice Departments who don't follow --

DOVERE: Yes, look, again, it's the way that he conceives of it, right?

CHAMBERS: Well, James Comey, you know --

CORNISH: Yes.

SARA FISCHER, CNN SENIOR MEDIA ANALYST: Just one quick thing that's shifted. I've noticed with this whole Jimmy Kimmel situation that you have Republicans coming out and saying, you're weaponizing the executive office in a way that could come back to bite us down the line. And I wonder, especially given how much Pam Bondi has taken heat from her own party, I wonder if now, when Donald Trump is trying to direct Pam Bondi or the Justice Department, there starts to become more pushback from Republicans who say, wait a minute, we were OK with you taking it too far up until this point. Here's our red line. It seems like free speech is the red line.

CORNISH: Yes, but not --

FISCHER: But I wonder if this is -- yes. But I wonder if this becomes a red line just simply because you're starting to see if Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, more Republicans coming out and saying, I am worried that if we continue to weaponize this, it's going to be turned against us.

CORNISH: Yes.

DOVERE: Yes. I mean -- but the story of Donald Trump is over the last ten years he said -- he goes further than anybody thought he would go, sees if he can, finds that the Republican Party, Republicans in Congress say, go ahead. And he goes further and further and further. And so maybe this will be the red line.

CORNISH: Yes.

DOVERE: It would be a change of pace from how it -- what we've seen going on.

CORNISH: We'll see -- we'll see who says red line, who says, go ahead.

DOVERE: Yes.

CORNISH: You guys, stay with me.

Next on CNN THIS MORNING, the Palestinian statehood just got its biggest backer to date. But can this move the needle towards ending the war in Gaza?

Plus --

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GOV. GAVIN NEWSOM (D-CA): ICE, unmask. What are you afraid of?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CORNISH: California is pushing back. Their new attempt to check the president's power. And a loyalty pledge? The Pentagon has some new requirements for the press.

And we want to know what's in your group chat. Send it to us now on X. We're going to be talking about ours after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[06:46:24]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KIER STARMER, BRITISH PRIME MINISTER: We recognized the state of Israel more than 75 years ago as a homeland for the Jewish people. Today, we join over 150 countries who recognize a Palestinian state also.

ANTHONY ALBANESE, AUSTRALIAN PRIME MINISTER: One of those states is, of course, Israel. The other, of course, is Palestine.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CORNISH: Australia, the U.K., and Canada are now all officially recognizing a Palestinian state, all coming out Sunday in what appears to be a coordinated announcement.

Now, the news comes just ahead of the U.N. General Assembly, where other U.S. allies, France, for example, are expected to recognize a state of Palestine this week. The move is aimed at piling pressure on to Israel to end the war in Gaza. Israel's prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, says the pressure won't work.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BENJAMIN NETANYAHU, ISRAELI PRIME MINISTER (through translator): You are giving a huge reward to terrorism. And I have another message for you, it will not happen. A Palestinian state will not be established west of the Jordan River. For years, I have prevented the establishment of this terrorist state despite tremendous pressure, both domestically and internationally. We did this with determination, and we did it with diplomatic wisdom.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CORNISH: OK, joining me now to discuss is Avi Mayer, founder of "The Jerusalem Journal."

Good morning. Thanks for being with us, Avi.

AVI MAYER, FOUNDER, "THE JERUSALEM JOURNAL": Good morning, Audie. Good to be with you.

CORNISH: Now, can you talk about this argument that this is something that rewards Hamas? Some of the statements from the leaders we're hearing, it says specifically that they're trying to show that they are not rewarding Hamas. For example, Mark Carney saying that this doesn't legitimize terrorism. "Furthermore, it in no way compromises Canada's support for the state of Israel."

Can you make sense of that statement, given what we're hearing from the prime minister?

MAYER: Well, the prime minister of Canada can say whatever he likes, but the proof is in the pudding. And at the end of the day it is Hamas that's saying that this is proof that terrorism works. They're referring to the string of announcements as the fruits of October 7th, essentially proof that terrorism against innocent civilians massacring 1,200 people, taking 250 hostages will result in the establishment of a Palestinian state.

Now, of course, a Palestinian state does not exist. I'm here in Jerusalem. I can tell you there is no Palestinian state anywhere in the area. But any aspirations for a Palestinian state have just been set back by a move that very clearly strengthens extremists on both sides of this conflict.

CORNISH: Can you talk about that idea of it being set back? It's -- it's not a wild idea that diplomatic recognition can lead to some shifts in dialog or conversation. I think back to South Sudan, maybe Kosovo. What do you think is different here?

MAYER: Well, dialog is, of course, critically important. And a two- state solution is the only viable end to this conflict. But that has to be negotiated between a reasonable and responsible Palestinian leadership and an equivalent leadership on the Israeli side.

That is not what we're talking about here. We're talking about putting the cart before the horse. We're talking about essentially saying, Palestinians, here, you take this Palestinian state. You don't have to do any reforms. You don't have to denounce terror. You don't have to end this war. All you have to do is continue doing what you've been doing, retain the hostages, keep the war going, and you will get this recognition nonetheless.

And so, this is at very best an act of diplomatic folly, an essentially meaningless performative gesture. And at worst, this could be something that really does set efforts to peace far back than anything we possibly could have predicted.

[06:50:07]

CORNISH: I want to ask you a question about something you just said. I do hear many countries saying that Hamas should not, would not have any role in this country that they are talking about, that they would not, in fact, be saying to the Palestinian people, no changes need to be made. Do you think that distinction is just impossible to parse or I thought everyone was sort of on the same page of the idea that Hamas would not be involved going forward.

MAYER: Well, I think that's a wonderful distinction. And I think it's one that most Israelis and most Israeli leaders share. I think this is the general consensus in Israel that Hamas can have no role in the future governance of the Gaza Strip. That, of course, would weaponize the territory and its people in its war of annihilation against Israel.

But that is not what these countries are saying. They are not predicating the recognition of this so-called Palestinian state on the removal of Hamas as a governing authority, on the release of those hostages on the end of the war. They're saying, recognition comes now. Hamas will deal with that in the future. And that is just such an unbelievably stupid position for them to take. I can't imagine what could be behind this act of diplomatic folly.

CORNISH: What do you hope to hear from the U.S. this week before the U.N. General Assembly?

MAYER: Well, what I'd like to hear from the U.S. is, first of all, a denunciation of these meaningless, if not damaging gestures. This is not something that will promote peace or an end to this conflict. And I think that's very clear. The United States has said openly that this is a performative gesture, and it's not a position that the United States holds.

But I'd also like to hear that the U.S. is pressing its allies in the region, those who have relationships with Hamas. Of course, I'm referring to Qatar and to Turkey and perhaps others as well, to apply pressure in turn on Hamas to show some flexibility, come back to the negotiating table and bring this horrific war to an end. That is what the majority of Israelis want. It's a majority of Palestinians want. It's the only thing that will bring this conflict to an end and bring those hostages back home.

CORNISH: That's Avi Mayer, founder of "The Jerusalem Journal."

OK, we want to turn to some domestic news now. Secretary Pete Hegseth's new Pentagon policy requires journalists to sign a pledge agreeing not to report any unauthorized information, even if it's unclassified, or have their credentials yanked. He posted this on social media, quote, "the press does not run the Pentagon, the people do. The press is no longer allowed to roam the halls of a secure facility. Wear a badge and follow the rules, or go home."

I want to let you know to kind of keep in mind some of the biggest scandals that shifted public opinion came from reporters breaking stories about government deception. So, The Pentagon Papers, the My Lai Massacre, the Watergate scandal, Iran-Contra Affair, Snowden's NSA leaks all brought to you by people covering the Defense Department.

Group chat.

So, this is the kind of story where the -- I think my mom does not care whether or not someone has their press credential or not, but what is distinct about this pledge he wants everyone to sign?

CHAMBERS: But saying that you -- you know, you can't enter the Pentagon to do reporting unless you've agreed to only accept essentially press releases or authorized information, I mean, that's what makes it different. But when you mentioned the Pentagon Papers, remember that that was a landmark supreme court case that tested the issue of prior restraint, specifically when it comes to national security issues here. First Amendment advocates over the weekend have been pushing back aggressively on this move at the Pentagon. And I would imagine that if it were to continue, you could see another court -- court battle.

CORNISH: And just because you brought it up, Justice Hugo Black, in that decision you were talking about around the Pentagon Papers, basically said, "you need a free press to expose deception in the government," that quote, and I'm saying this one for a reason, "because paramount among the responsibilities of a free press is a duty to prevent any part of the government from deceiving the people and sending them off to distant lands to die for foreign fevers and foreign shot and shell."

Basically, even though Hegseth is saying this is so the government is -- the Pentagon is for the people. We have a ruling here that's like, no, no, no, we got to keep an eye on you guys because our children get sent to war.

DOVERE: Yes. And, you know, Pete Hegseth has a lot of employees who work for him at the Pentagon, who can report and put out information that he wants them to put out. That's not what reporting is. I do think it's important to see a lot of what's going on as interconnected, of the piece that it is. We have, just in this past week, the -- the FCC chairman and White House aides pressuring private companies to remove someone from the airwaves in Jimmy Kimmel, who's they don't like and they didn't like before Charlie Kirk was shot and Trump was calling for him to be removed from the air before Charlie Kirk was shot, and then found a predicate in what he said. And also people --

CORNISH: But you're seeing different departments with the same concern.

DOVERE: Yes, which is that they want only the information that they want put out there. And, of course, it connects, potentially, to what's going on with TikTok, too, and the algorithms that -- and if the United States is going to have -- the government will have a stake in the company.

[06:55:10]

Sara will know better than I will about all this.

CORNISH: Yes.

DOVERE: Or at least allied billionaires who are owning it. These -- this is about the information that everybody gets.

CORNISH: And also, it wouldn't have prevented Signal-gate. Or maybe it would have, because instead of them just adding someone to the chat they weren't supposed to, that person would now be bound not to say anything about it.

FISCHER: Correct, although the question becomes, are newsrooms going to sign this pledge? I think a lot of them are going to take such serious issue with it, and they're not going to allow their journalists to sign this pledge. You don't need to be roaming the halls of the Pentagon to still do great reporting on the Defense Department.

CORNISH: But haven't they added other news organizations and outlets that are more friendly to Hegseth and his point of view?

FISCHER: Yes, they have. They yanked out a lot of news outlets from their offices earlier this year. They added office space and access to much more friendly outlets. And I think when it comes to defense reporting, you just listed off a bunch of things. One thing that comes to mind very recently -- so, this is not distant memories Pentagon Papers.

Think about the Iraq War. The press got a lot of heat for essentially taking the government's word for what was going on with weapons of mass destruction, et cetera. And then when we came to find that what the government was saying was not exactly what was going on, there are a lot of fingers pointed at the press that you were too complicit in taking the government's message. That's a modern example of why we need a free and independent press to be probing what's happening in the government, and particularly when it does involve troops overseas, Americans should be outraged about what's going on here.

And it goes back to the point I was saying before, Audie, which is, you know, if we are going to restrict press in our -- in a Republican administration right now, who's to say that if the cards and the table isn't flipped, that they wouldn't be doing this in a -- a Democrat would not be enforcing these types of rules? This is why I think Republicans, at some point, are going to look at all of these efforts to restrict the press and say, wait a minute, this might not be good for us long term.

CORNISH: It will be -- to me it will be interesting if it's something that, again, the court, the high court has to look at in some context, right?

FISCHER: Yes. Yes.

CHAMBERS: Yes, that's what I was going to say.

CORNISH: Yes.

CHAMBERS: But to your point about the Signal-gate chat, though, I mean, that wasn't because a reporter was roaming around the halls of the Pentagon.

CORNISH: Exactly.

FISCHER: Yes.

CORNISH: Yes.

CHAMBERS: I think you make an excellent point, Sara, about the ability to build sources outside of the -- of the White House or the Pentagon or anywhere else and do fantastic reporting as a result.

FISCHER: Yes.

CORNISH: Well, people may have to test that now. So, we're going to see if people develop some --

CHAMBERS: Well, give us a call.

CORNISH: Yes.

All right, one more thing. Resistance in action. California Governor Gavin Newsom dropped the mask months ago, and now he signed several bills into law in order for federal immigration officials to do the same. So, there are some new laws that would enforce ICE agents, telling them they would not be allowed to wear masks. It would require officers to identify themselves, ban them from entering schools and hospitals without warrants, and require schools to notify the community when ICE is present.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GOV. GAVIN NEWSOM (D-CA): This is not America. And so we are pushing back firmly. We're pushing back using not just our formal authority, but perhaps the most important authority, and that's our moral authority.

MAYOR KAREN BASS (D), LOS ANGELES: All of this legislative resistance is to protect Angelenos from our own federal government.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CORNISH: OK. We know that Newsom has spent time kind of trolling the Trump folks on Twitter and things like that, but this is a very specific, targeted response to something we know we've heard in other quarters, not just the Californias of the world, people are unhappy with, masked ICE agents doing things that are perceived as warrantless or just not on the up and up for American law enforcement.

DOVERE: Yes, look, as you point out, Newsom has done really well in appealing to the Democratic id (ph) and the base online. But this is a question of governing, and it's something that has a political resonance, but it has a real policy resonance, right? There have been, in various places around the country, including in Washington and in California, masked men showing up in unmarked vehicles without identifying themselves, grabbing people off the street and not saying where they're taking them from. Newsom is saying, at a very basic level, they should at least be identified, which is where -- how law enforcement has tended to act until now.

CORNISH: And I want to note -- exactly. So, Homeland Security assistant secretary for public affairs criticized it, saying, quote, "while our federal law enforcement officials are being assaulted by rioters and having rocks and Molotov cocktails thrown at them, a sanctuary politician is trying to outlaw officers wearing masks to protect themselves from being doxed and targeted by known and suspected terrorist sympathizers."

Is this a moment that California will nudge a greater conversation just because of its size?

FISCHER: Absolutely. And especially because you have all these other cities, whether it be Memphis or Washington, that Donald Trump has vowed to go after. They're trying to watch Gavin Newsom and see how he's implementing policies to see what they should be doing. If Gavin Newsom faces fierce pushback from this administration and from just sort of the MAGA movement, then maybe they're going to think twice about calling out the fact that there's maskless officers and National Guard in their city.

[07:00:03]

So, this is a litmus test for how this goes for the rest of the country.

CORNISH: Yes, if any other cities try and -- or states try and pass similar laws.

CHAMBERS: And this is what Karen Bass has been trying to say for months. They did it in Los Angeles. They can definitely come and do it where you live, too.

CORNISH: All right, you guys, thank you so much. Today we covered a lot of ground. You helped set me up for the week. I really appreciate it.

I want to thank you for waking up with us. I'm Audie Cornish. And "CNN NEWS CENTRAL" starts now.