Return to Transcripts main page

Anderson Cooper 360 Degrees

DOJ Releases Audio, Transcripts Of Maxwell Interview; Interview With Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA); FBI Searches Home And Office Of Trump Adviser-Turned-Critic John Bolton; Any Moment: Parole Board Recommendation On Lyle Menendez; Rhode Island Judge Frank Caprio, Who Drew A Huge Online Audience With His Compassion, Dies At Age 88; "Sports Betting: America's Big Gamble" Airs Sunday At 10PM ET/PT. Aired 8-9p ET

Aired August 22, 2025 - 20:00   ET

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

ERIN BURNETT, CNN HOST: They have charged him with human smuggling, but the administration has wavered on whether they would try to again to deport him before the trial starts.

Attorneys for Abrego Garcia released a statement to "OutFront" telling us that, "While his release brings some relief, we all know that he is far from safe. ICE detention or deportation to an unknown third country still threaten to tear his family apart. A measure of justice has been done, but the government must stop pursuing actions that would once again separate this family."

Of course, we will all see what happens from here, thank you so much for joining us. AC360 begins now.

[20:00:38]

BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN HOST: Tonight on 360, the transcripts are out where Ghislaine Maxwell told the feds about the President and Jeffrey Epstein and the question of her credibility. Should we believe her?

Also tonight, federal agents searching a former National Security adviser's home. President Trump's former National Security adviser turned one of his most vocal critics.

And later, its Lyle's turn. The older Menendez brother, going before a parole board after his younger brothers request is denied.

Thank you so much for joining us tonight. I'm Boris Sanchez, sitting in for Anderson.

First up, today's two big developments in the Epstein story. One that we expected, the Justice Department turning over at least some of what it has on the case to the House Oversight Committee. The other also from DOJ, completely out of the blue. Transcripts from Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche's two days of talks with convicted Epstein accomplice, Ghislaine Maxwell. But before going further, we should underscore how remarkable this all is.

For starters, Congress doesn't typically demand the Justice Department turn over entire criminal case files, and the DOJ typically doesn't make them public. Then again, most presidents and their administrations don't ordinarily campaign on the release of said files, teasing their release like a Hollywood premiere, only to not release them.

Additionally, most Deputies Attorney General are not also the President's former criminal defense lawyer. Most never meet with convicted criminals, underlings usually handle that, and nor do they exclude the actual working prosecutors from such meetings as this one has.

As for the woman that Todd Blanche met with, most convicted sex offenders not only never get the chance that she had, they also don't end up just days later being transferred to cushier accommodations, namely a minimum security prison camp, which typically does not accept sex offenders.

We should note, she's also been accused of perjury, allegedly lying many times under oath.

Bottom line as former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe put it earlier today on CNN, nothing about this situation is normal. With that, here's some of what Maxwell said, starting with her remarks about the President, who for many years was Jeffrey Epstein's friend.

(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)

GHISLAINE MAXWELL, BRITISH FORMER SOCIALITE AND A CONVICTED SEX OFFENDER: I actually never saw the President in any type of massage setting. I never witnessed the President in any inappropriate setting in any way. The President was never inappropriate with anybody. In the times that I was with him, he was a gentleman in all respects.

(END AUDIO CLIP)

SANCHEZ: She also said that to her knowledge, former President Bill Clinton never received a massage while in her presence, nor went to Epstein's private island. Contradicting a claim made today, we should note by the President. As to her relationship with Trump, listen to this.

(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)

MAXWELL: I admire his extraordinary achievement in becoming the President now. And I like him, and I've always liked him. So that is the sum and substance of my entire relationship with him.

(END AUDIO CLIP)

SANCHEZ: Maxwell also addressed something that many have latched on to about this whole saga. Epstein's death in federal custody while he was awaiting trial, and whether it was a suicide. She said she does not believe it was, but downplayed the notion that there was a conspiracy.

(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)

MAXWELL: In prison, where I am, they will kill you or they will pay -- somebody can pay a prisoner to kill you for $25.00 worth of commissary, is about the going rate for a hit with a lock today.

(END AUDIO CLIP)

SANCHEZ: When she said that she was in a low security prison in Florida, she's now in that minimum security prison camp in Texas. One other significant headline from the transcripts, Maxwell said there was no so-called Epstein-client list that she was aware of. Shortly before these transcripts came out, the President weighed in, calling for transparency.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP (R) PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: People shouldn't be hurt, but I'm in support of keeping it totally open. I couldn't care less. You got a lot of people that it could be mentioned in those files that don't deserve to be -- people, because he knew everybody in Palm Beach. I don't know anything about that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SANCHEZ: And almost in the same breath, the President also called the whole Epstein thing, as he put it, "a Democrat hoax."

CNN's Kara Scannell has been combing through the transcript, and Kara did the Justice Department get anything of substance out of this interview?

[20:05:25]

KARA SCANNELL, CNN CORRESPONDENT: No, Boris, there are no new investigative leads through the nine hours of questioning that Ghislaine Maxwell sat through with the Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche.

She continued to say that she did nothing wrong. She said that she recruited women for Jeffrey Epstein to be their masseuse, but she said they were all of age. No one was a minor, she said she never saw any tears or heard any complaints that anything inappropriate had gone on.

You know, she also, maintained her innocence, said she wasn't there to defend Epstein, but also denied that any of his famous friends or any politicians had done anything wrong.

As you noted, it is important to remember that Maxwell was charged with perjury for making similar denials about her involvement with recruiting girls for Epstein, and she was prosecuted and convicted by Trump's Justice Department in 2020, convicted in 2021 where there was testimony from four women who said that when they were underage, Maxwell recruited them and in some instances sexually abused them along with Jeffrey Epstein.

Now, politically, this could be helpful because she does, you know, give testimony that would go to exonerate President Bill Clinton and Donald Trump. She said of Clinton that he was her friend, not Epstein's, and that while Clinton flew on Epstein's plane multiple times, she said he never went to any properties and that he never received any massages. Here's a little bit of that exchange.

(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)

MAXWELL: So, they spent time on the plane together, and I don't believe there was ever a massage on the plane. So, that would have been the only time that I think that President Clinton could have even received a massage. And he didn't because I was there.

(END AUDIO CLIP)

SCANNELL: And as you said, she also said that she admired President Trump and that he never was involved with any massages with women. Of course, she is also expecting a pardon -- Boris.

SANCHEZ: Kara Scannell, thank you so much for that reporting.

Joining us now to discuss is California Democratic Congressman Ro Khanna, who serves on the Oversight Committee. Congressman, thanks so much for sharing part of your evening with us.

What is your reaction to the release of these transcripts? Does it match up with what you know about the case?

REP. RO KHANNA (D-CA): The last line is the most important that she's expecting a pardon. I mean, she is basically trying to flatter Donald Trump. She has no credibility in terms of having been convicted for perjury and what is most insulting is her dismissal of the victims, it was offensive.

Thomas Massie and I are having ten of the victims on September 3rd at the Capitol to tell their story. We need to center the victims. That is going to be an explosive press conference, and it's going to show how abused these women were and how reprehensible it is that Maxwell is dismissing that.

SANCHEZ: Maxwell notably denies that any wrongdoing took place on her behalf. Something that contradicts what we've heard from victims and clearly what she was convicted of.

I want to ask you about the documents that were turned over to the House Oversight Committee. We understand they'll be made public once a review process takes place, to ensure that sensitive material, like victims' names are redacted.

Can you give us a sense of what that review process looks like? How long it could take, and also what mechanisms are in place to make sure that you've actually received everything that DOJ has in its possession.

KHANNA: First of all, the DOJ is stonewalling. I mean, President Trump is saying give the files, but to put this in context, we've received 33,000 pages. That's less than one gigabyte. The FBI has said publicly that there are about 300 gigabytes of files. That means the DOJ today released, well, less than one percent.

To put that in context, I've done major investigations of big oil companies. Usually, you get about a million documents the first time, so they are not cooperating. And most of the things that have been released, based on our cursory review have been already public information.

What we need to do when we get back is pass Thomas Massie and my bill to demand the full release of the Epstein files. The Speaker shut down Congress because he did not want to vote on that bill. We are going to force a vote on that bill. All 212 Democrats are on it and you have 11 Republicans. People like Marjorie Taylor Greene, Lauren Boebert and right when we get back, we're going to have this press conference and force a vote so that DOJ actually releases all the files.

SANCHEZ: I also want to ask you, given that you are on the Oversight Committee, one of your colleagues, Congresswoman Melanie Stansbury, told Brianna Keilar earlier today that she had heard that there was hesitation among staff on the committee to subpoena Alexander Acosta for his testimony.

As you know, he was the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida. He was the one that brokered that non-prosecution agreement that Epstein received in 2008, the so-called sweetheart deal. What can you tell us about efforts to get his testimony and do you support them?

[20:10:29]

KHANNA: Absolutely, we need his testimony and this is what's going to come out at that press conference with victims on September 3rd. Their voices have been sidelined for decades. It's not just that they've been sidelined with President Trump. They have not had their stories told. There was a papering over the first Epstein plea deal where he got a deal that no one who abused and raped young girls should have gotten, and Acosta needs to explain to the American people why that happened.

You know why this is upsetting so many people? They want to know what force is so powerful that its preventing the United States government from releasing all of these files and having transparency. What force is more powerful than the United States government? Why can't we release these files? Why can't rich and powerful men have accountability?

I believe after that testimony on September 3rd, after that press conference, the entire oversight committee is going to say, we need to vote for the Acosta subpoena.

SANCHEZ: And Congressman Ro Khanna, very much appreciate you sharing your point of view. Thanks for joining us.

KHANNA: Thank you.

SANCHEZ: Let's bring in our panel now, CNN legal analyst and former Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Elliot Williams is with us as well as well as former FBI special agent Asha Rangappa, and investigative reporter Sarah Fitzpatrick, who's been covering the Jeffrey Epstein case for nearly a decade, most recently for "The Atlantic" and therapist Randee Kogan, who had been -- who's been working with multiple victims of Jeffrey Epstein. Thank you all for being with us.

Elliot, your reaction to Ghislaine Maxwell saying that President Trump did nothing wrong?

ELLIOT WILLIAMS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: You know, I think, you know, to pick up on the Congressman's point, she appears to be conscious of the possibility of a pardon and seem to be currying favor. But, you know, she perhaps was stating a fact that she saw President Trump do nothing wrong. But let's step back here and remember, this is not a credible individual in the eyes of the law.

Anyone with the kinds of convictions that she has would have their testimony discredited in any form, in any court, anywhere. And, Boris, you gave a great tease and lead in to the segment. One fact that wasn't in there was her rebutting and fighting with the testimony of one of the young girls who testified against her. She's relitigating her trial against these minors who were sexually assaulted by her boyfriend.

So it's just not someone who -- well, let me put it another way, it is someone whose words should be taken with a grain of salt by anybody who is hearing from her.

SANCHEZ: To that point, Asha, one thing that stands out in this interview is how little Maxwell actually implicates anyone, not just President Trump, but even Jeffrey Epstein himself. At one point, she says that Epstein preferred younger people, but not because of anything sexual, rather because they were, "invigorating or up to date on music." Do you find this to be a credible interview? Was there anything that wasn't asked that you would have asked.

ASHA RANGAPPA, FORMER FBI SPECIAL AGENT: This transcript to me is very bizarre, actually. This seems like the kind of interview you would do if you were talking to this person for the first time, you know, at the beginning stages of an investigation, not years after the person has actually been convicted of the crimes.

I think its notable, Boris, that there were FBI agents present at this interview, along with Todd Blanche. It doesn't seem like they offered any kind of follow ups. In other words, it doesn't seem like he brought anyone who was deeply familiar with the case to be able to challenge her on points that are inconsistent with things that were proven at trial.

You know, for example, she says that she only went to Mar-a-Lago a couple of times for an event and by herself. I'm not deeply familiar with the contents of this case, but even I know that that conflicts with what Virginia Giuffre said, that she was recruited at Mar-a-Lago by Ghislaine Maxwell.

So, this just seems like, you know, a theater. She has her goals, she has an appeal going on. She clearly was going to get a lower security prison and as Elliot mentioned, she wants a pardon. And this was all, to me, a part of that effort.

SANCHEZ: Sarah, I imagine there were some major points regarding what Maxwell said in this interview that deviate from what you know about the case.

SARAH FITZPATRICK, INVESTIGATIVE REPORTER, "THE ATLANTIC": Look, I agree with everyone -- what everyone has said prior. It is a really bizarre document, especially if you're so familiar as I am with so many of the details of the case. Sometimes it's just hard to comprehend, and I think that was the -- what I've heard from many sources today. I think the most important one is that Maxwell was convicted of participating in the sexual abuse and taking part in the trafficking operation.

There have been many, many victims that have testified to that in court that have told the FBI that, and prosecutors, as part of their investigations. And there are multiple individuals who have obtained private settlements with some of the principals in this case and that is not by accident.

[20:15:31]

And so, I just think it is really hard to square what so many people have, have observed, even observers who may not have been aware of the criminal trafficking operation but were in Jeffrey Epstein's orbit and were well aware of young women, young women providing massages and a lot of behavior that was going noticed at the time, and that we now know was extremely problematic.

So, I find it really, you know -- the Southern District of New York did a very careful case. And the fact that this goes against so much of what was in their investigation, it's hard to understand. And I'm very -- I'm now fascinated and curious what will happen next. Because to me this just adds so much more public pressure and political pressure. There's only more unanswered questions about why this tactic was taken.

SANCHEZ: Randee, at times, as we noted, Maxwell seemed to defend Epstein. I want to play more of the interview and get your reaction to this.

(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)

MAXWELL: I think if he had been creepy, like as you would define, and you would expect someone who was living that lifestyle to be creepy. I don't think the women would have been there.

(END AUDIO CLIP)

SANCHEZ: Randee, obviously, as a therapist for several Epstein victims, what did you think when you heard that?

RANDEE KOGAN, THERAPIST FOR EPSTEIN VICTIMS: Well, the word that's missing at the end of that statement is voluntarily. They were not there. When they were groomed by Epstein, they felt that they were a part of his life. They felt like there was a friendship. So, they went under circumstances that false advertising, false circumstances. They were told that they were there to massage a man for $200.00 and they would go home.

So, everything that happened after that, the grooming, the sexual exploitation, it's just another slap in the face.

Here we go again. These victims have been dismissed. They have been called child prostitutes. They have been given hush money. What more do they need to handle? When is enough, enough?

So many victims are saying now that they don't feel safe in silence anymore. They feel that they have to speak out and use their voice because the word transparency feels like it's getting lost in translation.

So, many survivors feel that it's time to really have transparency, and the only individuals that can do that right now are the survivors.

SANCHEZ: And, Elliot, what does the Department of Justice get by releasing this transcript, not just on a legal front, but also optically.

WILLIAMS: Well, it's all optics. There's nothing legal here, Boris. There's no charges that are going to come out of this. There's no further investigation. I think they could come out of this. It's really just a public relations campaign at this point.

And to the Congressman's point, prior to our segment here, Congress doesn't even have the complete case file here. So, as virtually everybody on our panel has said in unanimity, there are only more questions and infinitely more documents out there that people are going to continue to have questions about.

So, I just think this was a way of feeding the beast somewhat, that the internet is clamoring for more information about this case. But Boris, this ain't it and we haven't seen the end of seen the end of this case.

SANCHEZ: Yes, Asha, if Maxwell's goal here is to earn a pardon, I wonder on what grounds would the President pardon her?

RANGAPPA: He doesn't need grounds. I mean, he has plenary power under Article II to pardon so he can, he can just do it. He's done that before for so many other people. He did it for the January 6th defendants. You know, I think that there might be a political blowback, to doing that and he might need to change the narrative that somehow she's the victim and maybe that is part of what this interview was trying to do.

You know, her proclaiming her innocence and minimizing her role in this so that that can be justified. But as far as the legal matter, constitutional matter, he doesn't need a basis.

SANCHEZ: And Sarah, what would that mean for this case and for victims, if Ghislaine Maxwell is pardoned?

FITZPATRICK: Look, I think it would be an outrage, but I think we would have -- there would be even more kind of ramifications for all victims and kind of for how the public views the justice system right now. This is someone who was convicted, and there is such an incredible

amount of on the record, off the record, you name it. This is a well- documented case that has gone on for decades.

And so, I think it would really have a chilling effect for victims, also for members of law enforcement. Think about all the people that worked for decades to try and put this very difficult case together.

If those types of people can walk free just based on the whim of a President, I think that just throws everyone's belief in the system just really up for grabs, and our whole justice system is dependent on people believing that there is one system of justice for all.

[20:20:47]

SANCHEZ: Yes, Randee, what is all of this renewed attention today do to the victims?

KOGAN: There's anger, there's confusion. Everybody's talking about a new narrative. How many narratives are there? Because to the survivors, there's one narrative and there's one story. They were sexually exploited and trafficked and groomed by Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell.

So, it's very confusing to hear that people, you know, are wanting to speak, to change the narrative or they want to use these documents to change the narrative, but the narrative still stands, and the outcome will still be the same for the survivors.

They were sexually abused, trafficked, groomed and exploited by Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein. It's devastating that they cannot put this to rest. When is it going to end for them?

SANCHEZ: Everyone, thank you so much for the perspective. Appreciate you.

Up next, the search today in the investigation of John Bolton, the man that President Trump once trusted as a top adviser. Not anymore.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP (R), PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: I'm not a fan of John Bolton. I thought he was a sleazebag actually and he suffers major Trump derangement syndrome.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SANCHEZ: Also ahead, at any moment now, a parole board is expected to issue its recommendation on Lyle Menendez serving life along with his brother for murdering their parents some 36 years ago this week.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[20:26:40]

SANCHEZ: Federal agents spent hours today first searching the home and then the office of President Trumps first term National Security adviser, John Bolton.

After he was forced out in late 2019, Bolton became a frequent critic of the President. In 2020, he wrote a book in which the administration tried to block, also launching an investigation into whether he disclosed classified information. An investigation that had been outwardly dormant until now.

Today's search is apparently part of that probe. Meantime, the President, who campaigned in part on a promise of retribution against perceived enemies, said that he was not involved in the decision to search Bolton's premises.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: I don't want to know about it. It's not necessary. I could know about it. I could be the one starting it. I'm actually the chief law enforcement officer, but I feel that its better this way.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SANCHEZ: We should add that whether or not the President was involved, the searches were done in accordance with warrants approved by a court acting on evidence presented by federal authorities. Joining us now to discuss former counsel to the assistant attorney general for National Security, Carrie Cordero also, former Republican Congressman Adam Kinzinger, and back with us, former FBI Special Agent Asha Rangappa.

Carrie, first to you, what would prompt DOJ to reopen this case into Bolton? And what bar would need to be met for a judge to sign off on a search warrant?

CARRIE CORDERO, CNN LEGAL AND NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: Yes, Boris, I think that's the big question is what's the new piece of information that would have prompted either the reopening or if this investigation never was formally closed, which I haven't yet seen which way it was, whether it was -- whether it was formally closed to reopen it in this way.

So, obviously, a search is a pretty significant step in an investigation. I think normally it would come later in the investigation, and my sense of it is, given that the prior investigation was based on information that he put in a book he published that was several years ago.

So, I'm inclined to think that there was some new piece of information that then would have prompted this new, really, really significant investigative activity, and the FBI would have had to present with the Justice Department facts demonstrating probable cause that a crime was being committed or was about to be committed.

And so, that would have gone to a judge. A judge would have found probable cause. And so, unless normal procedures were not followed in this particular incident, the FBI would have had to get court approval to be able to engage in this search of his residence and his office.

SANCHEZ: Asha, on the question of timing, what is the fact that they executed the search warrant now tell you about the stage that the investigation is currently in.

RANGAPPA: Well, as Carrie said, normally a search warrant would be executed in the later stages of an investigation because in your affidavit that you present showing probable cause, you're showing all of the evidence that you've gathered so far and you're saying, listen, we have something that we know we can find in this specific place.

So, you know, that, to me tells me that this is towards the end. I think that the judicial check here, on the one hand, gives us maybe some confidence that there was, you know, an impartial branch that's making sure due process is followed.

I think the tough part here is that despite the sound that you showed that Trump said, you know, he doesn't know anything about this, and that's what we would ordinarily want to hear from a President, that's really not the way this FBI and DOJ has operated with this administration, there's been a lot of coordination.

And so, it creates at least the appearance that this is, you know, that there is some political motivation and I think that that is what makes this more concerning and complicated.

[20:30:33]

SANCHEZ: Congressman Kinzinger, whether intended to punish Bolton or based on actual evidence that a crime was committed, I imagine you think this is going to have a chilling effect on the President's critics, yourself possibly included.

ADAM KINZINGER, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well it's not going to on me, it makes me want to double down. But, yes, some do and that's the point of it. Is, look, here's the thing, will John Bolton be convicted of a crime? I would wager everything no.

But simply having his house searched -- and by the way, we don't know who the judge is, we don't know where the judge -- we don't know what they presented of course -- simply having his house searched actually makes him, you know, in the news makes him look guilty. And this is the goal here, it's to try to -- so people are just like, I'm going to back out from this. I'm not going to speak out against the president.

You see this in other, you know, news networks when they kind of tamp down their story. So, yes, I think that's the intention here. And look, people need -- this is the time when people need to not be intimidated. Because when you're intimidated, how many law firms have settled with Trump? How many universities have settled with Trump?

The very bulwarks of the thing that are supposed to defend us, this is when it's important to double down. And I also want to mention, I saw that soundbite with Trump where he has a Trump was right about everything hat, like how tacky is that. It's just tacky. And by the way, the fact that they say this is an issue and they're going after John Bolton, assuming it's real, which I don't think so, they're admitting then that Donald Trump's mishandling of classified information was not a witch hunt. It, in fact, was worthy of the FBI and DOJ's attention. SANCHEZ: I want to play for you something else that President Trump said about this. Let's watch.

(BEGIN VIDEOCLIP)

DONALD TRUMP (R), PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: My house was raided also, called Mar-a-Lago. They went through everything they could including my young son, Drew and my wife's area. They went through her drawers as the expression goes. They went through everything you can imagine.

And when she came back, she look. She said, she's very neat, you know? She's meticulous and she looked and said, whoa. This was in the way that she had it. So, you know, so I know the feeling. It's a not a good feeling.

(END VIDEOCLIP)

SANCHEZ: The President brought up the comparison to the search at Mar- a-Lago unprompted. How much of this do you think is just payback?

KINZINGER: I mean, I personally think all of its payback. Again, I mean, I think it's obvious. Kash Patel statement, you know, nobody's above the law, mimicking exactly what was said about Donald Trump. You know, Pam Bondi, by the way, called herself Trump's lawyer. So, yes, I think this is all payback. I think in time we'll see that.

SANCHEZ: And Carrie, if there is a legitimate case to be brought against Bolton, do you think that Trump may have undermined it because he's promised retribution against those who've crossed him?

CORDERO: Certainly, if John Bolton were actually prosecuted for something, he would raise that in the course of his own defense. But at this stage, you know, just seeing the search warrant, I just have so many factual questions about the nature of what would lead to this pretty dramatic event. I mean, John Bolton was National Security Adviser to President Trump.

He also hasn't had a security clearance since President Trump revoked it in January of this year. And it seems very unlikely to me that he would actually be so unsophisticated as to keep classified documents in his house. So I just have a lot of questions about what type of access to information he would have had at this point, not having a clearance anymore. Why that would be in documents potentially in his house, such that a judge would authorize the search of his house.

And I have a lot of questions about, you know, then what is it that they were really after, did they seize devices. So I think at this stage there's just so many factual questions about how they got to this point in the investigation.

SANCHEZ: Carrie Cordero, Adam Kinzinger, Asha Rangappa, thank you so much.

Up next, Lyle Menendez gets his turn before a parole board and we expect their decision at any moment. Also tonight, remembering Rhode Island Judge Frank Caprio, known for his viral court videos, he passed away this week at the age of 88.

(BEGIN VIDEOCLIP)

JUDGE FRANK CAPRIO, RHODE ISLAND: We're talking about your father, right? Now you're going to say guilty or not guilty. What do you say?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Guilty.

CAPRIO: Guilty.

(LAUGHTER)

CAPRIO: An honest boy.

(END VIDEOCLIP)

[20:39:50]

SANCHEZ: More breaking news tonight. Any moment now, a California parole board is expected to announce their decision on whether or not to recommend parole for Lyle Menendez. He was convicted alongside his brother Erik of murdering their parents in 1989. Erik Menendez, last night, was denied parole.

[20:40:06]

CNN's Nick Watt joins us with the latest. Nick, what do we know about the hearing?

NICK WATT, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, we know nothing about the hearing because they are keeping a very tight lid on it until a decision is made. Listen, this case has been a media circus from the beginning. They are keeping this as under wraps as they can. No decision yet.

Last night, you mentioned on Erik, we heard about 645 West Coast, 945 East Coast, so we're standing by. You know, we tend to lump these two brothers together. They are, of course, individuals. They had different behavior before the crime, they had different roles in the crime, and they've had different prison records.

So, listen, it was bad news for Lyle, of course, that Erik was denied parole yesterday, but that doesn't mean that today's hearing is a foregone conclusion. Boris?

SANCHEZ: Yes. And Erik Menendez was denied parole last night. As we noted, part of it had to do with his record while behind bars --

WATT: Yes.

SANCHEZ: -- a number of allegations of illicit activity. What more can you tell us about that and the reaction to the decision?

WATT: Well, you know, the reaction from the family was disappointment. You know, 18 family members spoke in support of Erik yesterday. Interesting in this case, of course, the family are the family of the victims and of the murderers, so they're disappointed.

You know, it was interesting. The commissioners yesterday talked about the crime itself and said particularly the murder of Kitty, of the mother, was, quote, "devoid of human emotion." But the commissioners made it very clear, it was the behavior in prison that led to the denial.

Now, if they're both denied, it's not the end of the road. It's up to Governor Gavin Newsom in the end to decide whether they get out or not. They're also trying to get a retrial. They could also get clemency. So not the end of the road, but we're standing by and we'll bring you the decision when we get it. Boris?

SANCHEZ: Nick Watt, thank you so much for keeping an eye on that. Stick around, though. We're coming back to you in just a bit.

With us now to discuss the Menendez case, CNN Legal Analyst and Former Federal Prosecutor Elliot Williams rejoins us. Elliot, what do you imagine the board's decision is going to be?

WILLIAMS: I have a hard time, Boris, seeing how they separate the two brothers for the reasons that Nick laid out. Yes, they are different people. Yes, they behave differently in their time behind bars, but, you know, people regard them as a unit. And quite frankly, I think the different members of the parole board that are judging Lyle's case read the same newspapers as everybody else and are aware of what happened last night.

So, look, it could happen because, again, they are distinct entities in the legal system, but I just have a hard time seeing it.

SANCHEZ: Yes, there were allegations that Erik Menendez had illicit cell phones, that he had narcotics behind bars, that he was involved in altercations with other prisoners. I wonder if Lyle Menendez has a different track record than that. It doesn't seem like you think he's going to be treated differently. But in a few years, if they're up for parole again, I believe it's three years, would that --

WILLIAMS: Yes.

SANCHEZ: -- criteria soften from the parole board's perspective?

WILLIAMS: Yes, of course, good behavior would soften things from the parole board's perspective. And to be clear, three years in California is not a long time. They could have given up to, I believe, 15. And so that was a bit of a signal from the parole board last night.

One thing, though, is that they did seem to delve back into the details of the killing with Erik Menendez, as we know well, Lyle was regarded as the mastermind of it and certainly had a vicious role in the killing of his parents, particularly his mother. And so if they revisit some of that in there tonight, that may count against him.

SANCHEZ: Elliot Williams, appreciate the point of view. WILLIAMS: Take care, Boris.

SANCHEZ: Up next, honoring the compassion of judge and viral video star Frank Caprio, known as the nicest jurist in the world.

(BEGIN VIDEOCLIP)

CAPRIO: Is your mother guilty or not guilty?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Not.

CAPRIO: Not.

(LAUGHTER)

CAPRIO: Take your hat back.

(LAUGHTER)

(END VIDEOCLIP)

SANCHEZ: Also ahead, the booming multibillion dollar world of sports gambling in America and its pitfalls.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[20:48:54]

SANCHEZ: Caring and compassionate, words that seem seldom used to describe public officials these days. But tonight, we remember Retired Municipal Judge Frank Caprio from Providence, Rhode Island, who proved for decades that justice could be administered with kindness and understanding.

Danny Freeman has more.

(BEGIN VIDEO TAPE)

CAPRIO: Is your mother guilty or not guilty?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Not.

CAPRIO: Not.

(LAUGHTER)

CAPRIO: Take your hat back.

(LAUGHTER)

DANNY FREEMAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): It's hard not to like Judge Frank Caprio.

CAPRIO: We're talking about your father, right? Now, you're going to say guilty or not guilty. What do you say?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Guilty.

CAPRIO: Guilty.

(LAUGHTER)

CAPRIO: An honest boy.

FREEMAN (voice-over): But the more people watched, they couldn't help but love the man known as the nicest judge in the world.

CAPRIO: You are charged with a school zone violation. You were taking your son to the doctor's office?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes. I take him for blood work every two weeks because he's got cancer.

[20:50:00]

CAPRIO: You are a good man. You are a good man. And you're still taking care of your family. I wish the best for your son. And I wish you good health. And your case is dismissed.

FREEMAN (voice-over): A municipal court judge, Caprio served on the bench for nearly four decades.

CAPRIO: I think 09:59 is close enough to 10:00. Matters dismissed.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Thank you.

FREEMAN (voice-over): Eventually, social media found his show caught in Providence and everyone met the empathetic grandfather and great grandfather his Rhode Island community knew for years.

CAPRIO: Unfortunately, I've had a setback. I'm back in the hospital.

FREEMAN (voice-over): After a lengthy battle with cancer, Caprio passed away this week. His family said in a statement, "In his honor, may we each strive to bring a little more compassion into the world -- just as he did every day."

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Can I give you a hug?

CAPRIO: Come on up here.

FREEMAN (voice-over): Judge Caprio leaves a legacy of kindness in a world where that often seems rare.

CAPRIO: Actually, you feel better now?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I wanted to say, never have I met a judge like you. And I've been in many courtrooms.

CAPRIO: I'm not going to comment on that, except to say this. I don't do anything different than what I was taught to do by my parents. And that is treat everyone with dignity and respect and have some compassion to people. FREEMAN (voice-over): Judge Frank Caprio was 88 years old.

Danny Freeman, CNN.

(END VIDEO TAPE)

SANCHEZ: Our thanks to Danny for that report.

Just ahead, sports betting. America's growing big gamble with billions of dollars at stake.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[20:56:16]

SANCHEZ: Sunday night on CNN, The Whole Story with Anderson Cooper presents "Sports Betting: America's Big Gamble," a deep look into the booming sports gambling industry in the United States. Nick Watt reports that last year, Americans bet around $150 billion on sports. And experts say the allure of gambling is no accident.

(BEGIN VIDEOCLIP)

AMIT PATEL, RECOVERING GAMBLING ADDICT: When I was deep into addiction, even if I won a large sum of money on a bet, I really didn't seem that excited.

ISAAC ROSE-BERMAN, PROFESSIONAL GAMBLER: There's a feeling when you place a bet before the bet settles, where there's that level of uncertainty that makes your heart flutter. Some people get that from drugs. And obviously, as I'm talking about this, it sounds kind of like you're talking about addiction, but it is.

ANDREW DOUGLAS, RECOVERING GAMBLING ADDICT: I bought a waterproof case for my phone. For the sole reason of being able to not miss anything, taking a shower and live gamble on things.

DR. HARRY LEVANT, DIRECTOR OF GAMBLING POLICY, PUBLIC HEALTH ADVOCACY INSTITUTE: There's no off switch. There's no stop. The model isn't designed to stop. And through VIP programs, the gambling industry through its marketing, its cultivating of people is keeping them in constant action.

(END VIDEO TAPE)

SANCHEZ: Back again now with CNN's Nick Watt. Nick, obviously, sports betting can be extremely fun, but also obviously, habit forming. And there's a lot of concern specifically about young men becoming addicted.

WATT: You know, that's right. If you speak to high schoolers, college boys, I would say 95 percent of them are going to be gambling. And we don't actually know how addictive it is because it's pretty recent that we've been doing it at this scale in this country only since 2018. And Harry Levant, that guy you just saw there, he's a -- fascinating case, he was a lawyer. He was a casino gambling, stole a couple of million dollars of his client's money, did his time. And now he is a counselor. He treats people with gambling addiction.

Listen, it's not something I was ever -- I'm a tightfisted Scotsman. I'm way too cheap to actually gamble. So I didn't even understand the appeal. And understanding the appeal was actually fascinating for me. I thought the appeal was winning money.

But for most of these people who I spoke to, the appeal is that feeling after you've put the money down, that rush of excitement, anticipation, the unknown, that's what people like. That's what people can get addicted to. And, you know, I spoke to some people who do get addicted. One guy who's now in federal prison because he got addicted and stole 20 million bucks to fund his habit.

Another guy who said when he ran out of money, he was in his home actually punching his fists through the drywall. He was so frustrated that he couldn't place a bet. And, you know, gambling's been around for millennia, right? But what's different now is you can get that little dopamine hit every 10 seconds.

You can be sitting in your dorm room 2:00 a.m. betting on every single serve in a Taiwanese pingpong match. So that is what got -- that's what gets people worried. It's not betting whether, you know, the Jets or the Rams are going to win in the three-hour game. It's betting on every single event in a tennis match, in a pingpong match.

It's that constant adrenaline. That's the concern. And the damage, frankly, Boris, we don't know yet.

SANCHEZ: Yes. We noted just how much has been spent on it in the last year, some $150 billion.

WATT: Yes.

SANCHEZ: Is it clear just how big it's become in the United States and how much bigger it can get?

WATT: Oh, it is going to get bigger. Look at the commercials. Look at the chat's pitch side during games. People are talking about gambling so much, to the point where some people tell me they can't enjoy a game unless they've got money on it. And other people tell me, I'm getting turned off by the whole idea of sports because all I'm hearing about is gambling and I want to get back to the purity.

Listen, it's going to be fascinating over the next couple of years to see where this goes. So what we try and do in this documentary is lay out all the facts and then leave it to our viewers to decide whether they think this is a good thing or a bad thing. Boris?

SANCHEZ: Yes. And we are excited to watch.

Nick Watt, thank you so much for that. Again, the all new episode of The Whole Story with Anderson Cooper, "Sports Betting: America's Big Gamble" airs Sunday at 10:00 p.m. Eastern and Pacific right here on CNN.

That's all for us. We hope you have a good weekend. The news continues with the Source and my good friend, Brianna Keilar starting right now.