Return to Transcripts main page

The Situation Room

Strangers Help Veteran Retire; Teens and A.I. Chatbots; Footage of Luigi Mangione Arrest Released; U.S. Visitors Now Required to Provide Social Media History?; Footage of Nancy Mace Airport Incident Revealed. Aired 11:30a-12p ET

Aired December 10, 2025 - 11:30   ET

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

[11:30:00]

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

TOM FOREMAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): But who have also pushed back on some of Trump's apparent wishes, for example, calling for full release of the files around sexual predator and one-time Trump friend the late Jeffrey Epstein.

It's all been enough to make at least one of her staffers quit and accuse her of turning her back on Trump, while another associate suggested she is having a breakdown. Mace rejects it all.

REP. NANCY MACE (R-SC): Being anti-corruption, anti-rape, anti- murder, anti-illegal, if that makes me crazy, sign me up.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

FOREMAN: So that's where things stood well after sundown last night, and then Mace came on CNN's Kaitlan Collins show and said this:

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MACE: I am absolutely saying that that report was falsified, 100 percent fictitious, falsified.

They were not there. They did not show up. I was very frustrated with the situation because of the number of death threats that I receive. And I expressed that frustration. But in no way, shape, or form did I call any of them idiots.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

FOREMAN: So what do you make of this? I just don't know. I mean, her office is saying it's full exoneration, this is a fine report because it exonerates us. She comes on and says, it's all made up, it's all wrong, it's all false, while she herself had said earlier, yes, if I didn't custom out, well, I should have because they were completely incompetent.

I don't think we really have any idea exactly where her head is in all of this or where this is going to wind up in the current political environment.

WOLF BLITZER, CNN HOST: Yes, excellent report.

PAMELA BROWN, CNN HOST: All right, Tom Foreman.

BLITZER: Thank you very much for doing that.

BROWN: Thanks so much, Tom.

BLITZER: And up next: new video showing the moment police found Luigi Mangione at a fast-food restaurant following the murder of the UnitedHealthcare CEO. What it could mean for his case.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[11:36:09]

BLITZER: New this morning: Some visitors to the United States may soon have to provide five years' worth of social media history in order to get into the country, even if they just want to be a tourist, that according to a new Trump administration proposal from Customs and Border Protection.

Priscilla Alvarez joins us now in this SITUATION ROOM with some more details.

So how would this work and who could be impacted?

PRISCILLA ALVAREZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, this is still a proposal, so there are a lot of details that we don't yet have, but what we do know is that it is a proposal that marks an escalation in traveler vetting.

So your question, who gets affected here? Those that are enrolled in the Electronic System for Travel Authorization. That is part of a visa waiver program for citizens from 42 countries. That includes the United Kingdom, New Zealand, Australia, Japan, as well as other European countries.

And these are people who are coming to the U.S., visiting the U.S. for under 90 days, and they don't need to have a visa. Now, previously, when they were applying to do so or enrolling in this program, they would provide their passport, their birth date, any past criminal record. Social media was optional.

Now, however, with this proposal, that would be mandatory five years' worth, as you mentioned, as well as other data that includes e-mail addresses, phone numbers over the last several years, information of close family members. So this is an expansion of the type of information they're looking for, for people who are visiting the United States.

And taken together, it's yet another example of how the administration is targeting every part of the legal immigration system, even for those people who are just coming to visit the United States. And it also is another action where they're scrutinizing social media. Of course, we have seen the administration do this over the last

several months for visas like student visas, as well as those who are here in the United States and reviewing the sentiments that they express on social media. So this appears to be an extension of that.

But we don't yet know how exactly they would go about doing this, how it affects someone's application. This is, again, a proposal for U.S. Customs and Border Protection. And they still need to go through the 60-day notice and request for comment. So there's still a process that needs to happen here before it would take effect.

But it's certainly a remarkable development for, again, those people from, again, European countries and other places who are just trying to visit the U.S.

BROWN: Yes, it shows the lengths the administration is willing to go.

ALVAREZ: Yes.

BROWN: All right, Priscilla Alvarez, thank you so much -- Wolf.

BLITZER: Also new this morning, we are seeing police bodycam video of the moment officers approached Luigi Mangione inside an Altoona, Pennsylvania, McDonald's last year. Watch this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes, sir. How you doing?

Pull your mask down real quick for me.

LUIGI MANGIONE, DEFENDANT: Yes, sure.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Appreciate it.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Thank you. OK. What's your name?

MANGIONE: Mark.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What is it?

MANGIONE: Mark.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Mark?

MANGIONE: Yes, sir.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Mark what?

MANGIONE: Rosario.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Rosario?

Someone called that they thought you were suspicious.

MANGIONE: Oh, I'm sorry. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Do you have your I.D. on you?

MANGIONE: Yes, sir.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Thanks.

She thought you looked like someone.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BROWN: Wow. That video was played in a pretrial hearing which is happening right now. The officers who arrested Mangione testified about debating whether they needed a search warrant to look in his backpack, which goes to the heart of this hearing.

Joining us now to discuss is CNN legal analyst Joey Jackson.

It's really compelling basically to see that interview. What are your key takeaways? That interview. That video. What are your key takeaways from it?

JOEY JACKSON, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Yes, there's a number of them. Good to be with you, Wolf and Pam.

What's happening in this pretrial proceeding is that the defense is trying to exclude evidence from the jury. That is, when there is the jury trial -- that's not now -- this proceeding is happening in front of a judge -- the judge has to know, what was the nature of the interaction between police and Mr. Mangione.

[11:40:00]

Was it legal? Was it proper? And so the takeaway is, this provides context. They were called, that is the police, to that McDonald's in Pennsylvania, and it was because there was some suspicious person according to people there.

The police then interacted with them. The judge is going to have to determine the initial statements that were made. We know that the defense is trying to get them out in addition to the backpack. Was this part just of their mere investigation? Was it just they were asking investigatory questions? Was he free to leave at that particular time?

Or were they incriminating him? That is going to be, Pamela and Wolf, what they're parsing out. Next, as to the bag, the takeaway will be, why did they search the bag? Was it in their grabbable area such that it represented a threat to them?

Was it in a situation where, for example, it could have had a bomb or something else in it? So these are critical things here, as we're looking at that. And those are critical questions, right? Why are you searching the bag without a backpack that, the defense is going to say? Excuse me, the backpack without a warrant, the defense is going to say. And if the police did it wrong, those things become inadmissible,

meaning they cannot be seen before a jury. The judge will decide after hearing all the evidence.

BLITZER: And as you point out, Joey, Mangione's lawyers will argue that police in Pennsylvania did not have a search warrant to go ahead and search his backpack. Inside that backpack, by the way, they found a gun, a fully loaded magazine, a silencer, a cell phone, and a passport.

Could they get key evidence like that thrown out of this state murder case?

JACKSON: So they potentially could.

And let's talk about that. You saw the evidence, or you see the evidence there on the table. When you're talking about a case, and it's a murder case, not that there's not other evidence in the case, such as an actual surveillance with him allegedly engaging the killing, such as a wrapper with his fingerprints there at the time of the killing, such as other information, but that's a separate story for a separate day.

They would, that is, prosecutors, be able to use that information, but this that we're looking at, which are the contents in the bag, would be excluded. And there's a lot of evidence in there, like the manifesto, which evidence is his -- his intent, like that cartridge we're looking at, like the gun itself, like other information that would be suggestive that he engage in this.

So the critical inquiry is going to be whether the police had probable cause, as we look at the gun there, all that in the backpack. Did the police have probable cause to go into that actual backpack? Now, in a normal situation, when you engage in an arrest, anything that's next to the defendant, which they call in their grabbable area, is subject to be searched, because it could represent a threat to officers.

This particular backpack was not within his reach, so why did they search it? It didn't pose an immediate threat, the defense will say, so why did you search it? You should have gotten a search warrant, is the defense's claim. The prosecution says we would have inevitably discovered it anyway when we took the backpack and we did an inventory search on the backpack.

So those are the issues the judge will have to grapple with, Wolf, to determine whether this evidence should be admitted before the jury or excluded before the jury, but that's going to be a critical question, because, if it's excluded, prosecutors will not, will not be able to use this evidence in their case against Luigi Mangione at the time of trial.

BROWN: So what would that mean for the prosecutors? I know you pointed out there's other evidence, but not being able to use this crucial evidence found in the backpack, what would that mean for the prosecutors' case?

(CROSSTALK)

JACKSON: So, Pamela, it would be a big win. It would be a big win for the defense, inasmuch as, when you're prosecutors, you want to tell the jury the whole story.

You want to be able to tell the jury that, hey, by the way, this individual who's on trial was approached by the police and made statements. He handed over an I.D. that was not him, clearly a different name. He made other statements saying he was not in New York, saying he was homeless, misleading the police.

That's to the statements, if the judge throws those out. So you cannot, would not be able to use that before the jury. If the judge throws out the issues and all the information in the backpack, the manifesto, manifesto is important because it goes to his intent, his dislike of the insurance industry, why he would engage in this crime.

It has the gun in there. It has the cartridge in there. It has a map in there, all which could not then be used if the judge throws it out, Pamela and Wolf, before the jury. Now, very important, while it would hamper the prosecution's case, it would not be overwhelmingly detrimental to the prosecution's case.

You could argue any evidence that's damning against a defendant would be detrimental, yes. But there's other things like surveillance that we see the shooting. That's important. His DNA at the scene, that's important. All that would come in. This stuff would be excluded.

So if the defense wins, it's huge. And that's why there have been over a dozen witnesses to date telling the story and explaining to the judge that this was legal and proper, because at the end of the day, I will end here, the system is based on fairness.

And if you're stopping someone and arresting someone and the court thinks it's not fair, anything they have is not allowed to be shown to the jury. That's what this is all about.

[11:45:00]

BROWN: All right.

BLITZER: Joey Jackson, we always appreciate your legal analysis. Thanks so much for joining us.

JACKSON: Thank you, Wolf.

BROWN: We certainly do.

JACKSON: My pleasure.

BROWN: All right, coming up here in THE SITUATION ROOM: Alarming new findings reveal just how often teens use A.I. chatbots, raising safety concerns over mental health.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[11:50:10]

BROWN: Well, new this morning, a new study by Pew Research finds American teens are embracing artificial intelligence. In fact, nearly a third of those surveyed say they do use A.I. chatbots daily, but that's also raising critical safety concerns around mental health impacts and the potential exposure to mature content for kids.

So let's go live now to CNN tech reporter Clare Duffy in New York.

What more did the study find, Clare?

CLARE DUFFY, CNN TECH REPORTER: Yes, Pamela, this is such important research because it does shed more light on teens' use of this technology that, as you said, has raised some really serious safety concerns.

This is the first time that Pew has studied teens' use of general A.I. chatbots. They talk to around 1,500 U.S. teens from 13 to 17. And what they found is that nearly two-thirds, 64 percent of U.S. teens say that they have used an A.I. chatbot at least once.

As you said, one-third say that they're using these tools daily and around 16 percent say they're using them several times a day to almost constantly.

And the most popular A.I. chatbots among teens probably won't totally surprise people. ChatGPT is at the top of the list, followed by Google's Gemini, Meta A.I., Microsoft's Copilot and Character.AI, which, of course, we have talked about a lot this year because the company has faced a number of lawsuits from families who claim that Character.AI chatbots contributed to their children's self-harm or suicide.

Character.AI has made a number of changes to its platforms, but I think it's an important reminder to parents to pay attention to what their kids are doing with these tools. Many of them are pitched as school or homework helpers, which certainly is a use case for these tools. But then we're seeing kids form these deeper habits and in some cases relationships with these chatbots, which is where things can go wrong.

So, I think important research here in terms of letting people understand how and how often teens are using these tools Pamela.

BROWN: Yes, it's really important to understand those parasocial relationships with teens.

Clare Duffy, thank you so much -- Wolf.

BLITZER: And coming up, the very touching story of how strangers came together through social media to help an 88-year-old veteran retire.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[11:56:56]

BLITZER: A simple question led to a life-changing moment.

Social media influencer Samuel Weidenhofer asked 88-year-old store clerk Ed Bambas why he's still working at his age, and the exchange was posted online.

BROWN: I love this story.

Weidenhofer was so moved by the conversation that he started a GoFundMe for Bambas. Well, more than 15,000 people pitched in enough money for the Army veteran to finally retire.

Samantha Lindell has their story.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

ED BAMBAS, FORMER GENERAL MOTORS EMPLOYEE: Five days a week, eight hours a day.

SAMUEL WEIDENHOFER, SOCIAL MEDIA INFLUENCER: And you do that because you have to or...

BAMBAS: Yes, I don't have enough income.

SAMANTHA LINDELL, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Veteran Ed Bambas is still working at a Meijer's supermarket in Detroit at 88 years old.

WEIDENHOFER: You have a wife?

BAMBAS: She passed away seven years ago.

LINDELL: Bambas says, after losing his pension, he had to sell his House to pay for his wife's medical bills when she was sick, which is why he's still working.

BAMBAS: I try very hard to go to a grave site every day and say hi.

LINDELL: Samuel Weidenhofer is an Australian content creator who travels the world and posts acts of kindness on his TikTok page. He teamed up with a Detroit-based influencer to find Ed.

Weidenhofer does call-outs on his social media asking people to nominate others who might need some help.

WEIDENHOFER: If you know anyone, e-mail me here.

LINDELL: He says these acts of kindness make him feel closer to his aunt, who died by suicide when he was 10.

WEIDENHOFER: I got a comment on my Facebook post saying, hey, there's a guy who is called Ed who works at Meijer.

Something just came over me. Like, there's a lot of 80-year-olds working, but something just felt like, OK, I have to go there. I have to go to Meijer and see what this is about.

I would like to share your story and try and get people to help you retire.

BAMBAS: Oh, thank you.

WEIDENHOFER: Of course.

LINDELL: Weidenhofer started to GoFundMe for Ed to give him a chance to retire, which has turned the heads of many big names such as singer Charlie Puth. He plans to surprise Ed with the money soon and the GoFundMe has already raised more than $1.5 million.

WEIDENHOFER: I am blown away. I -- yes, never did I think losing my auntie to suicide would amount to this. I know my auntie is looking down proud. I just want to say thank you to the community that I and we have together. This isn't possible without every one of you supporting.

And from the bottom of my heart, I am truly so grateful and I know that this is just a start of what's to come.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BLITZER: And that influencer, Samuel Weidenhofer, spoke with CNN earlier this morning. Here's what he had to say about the viral exchange.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

WEIDENHOFER: I just had this feeling come over me. I honestly think it was godsend. Now, looking at the situation, how it's all come about, I just had a feeling, I have to go to Meijer that day. I have to ask him about his story.

And that's what came out of it. And it just -- it shocked me. To be honest, it still doesn't feel real, having a community as strong as that. You put a video out online and it can change someone's life.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BROWN: Bambas wants to travel to see his brother and pick up golf again. As for work, he said he is not quitting his cashier post just yet.

And just that moment, it was so touching when he asked him, tell your story. And he started to cry and he felt seen. He felt seen in that moment. You imagine how lonely he's been since he lost his wife and how...

BLITZER: He deserves so much credit for doing what he did.

BROWN: Yes, absolutely.

BLITZER: Yes.

And, to our viewers, thanks very much for joining us this morning.

BROWN: "INSIDE POLITICS" with our friend and colleague Manu Raju starts right now.