Return to Transcripts main page

Anderson Cooper 360 Degrees

Trump DOJ Releases Epstein Files Including Photos And Court Documents; Interview With Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA); Official: DOJ Briefed White House On What Epstein Files Contained, New Details Emerge About Brown Univ. & MIT Shooting Suspect; Actor Kevin Pollak Remembers Rob Reiner; Kennedy Center Gets New Signage Bearing Trump's Name. Aired 8- 9p ET

Aired December 19, 2025 - 20:00   ET

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

JUHA KUJALA, RAINDEER HERDER: If we cannot fix this wolf situation quickly, some part of the area going to be without reindeers.

ISOBEL YEUNG, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: And what would that mean to you?

KUJALA: Like somebody took my life away.

YEUNG: Isobel Yeung, CNN in Northern Finland.

ERIN BURNETT, CNN HOST: Let's talk about the consequences that no one could even conceive of such important reporting. And thanks so much to Isobel and to all of you for joining us on this Friday. AC360 starts right now.

[20:00:28]

JOHN KING, CNN HOST: Tonight on 360, breaking news, the Trump DOJ releases trove of the Epstein files. But -- big but -- much of them heavily redacted and many yet to be released, which defies the law passed to get them into the public eye. I'll talk to one of that law's co-authors tonight.

And new details on that multi-day, multi-state manhunt for the suspected Brown University shooter that ended with him dead in a storage facility. What connections he had to the school and to the MIT professor, he's also believed to have murdered.

Plus the Kennedy Center, you see it there, wasting no time in getting the new name up on the building now known, now labeled anyway, the Donald J. Trump and the John F. Kennedy Memorial Center. We'll hear from a Kennedy family member who says The White House didn't have the right to change that name.

Good evening, everyone.

Thank you for joining us, John King here in tonight for Anderson. And we begin with the deadline not met, not even close. That deadline, of course, was to release the Jeffrey Epstein files, everything the Department of Justice has in its possession. We are getting some and there is some important news in those, but we are not getting anywhere near what we are supposed to be seeing. And the Trump strategy is sadly as clear as it can be. Lots of documents blacked out, but get this a few new photos of Bill Clinton that the Trump White House staff is now gleefully spreading on social media.

I should point out the former President has never been accused by law enforcement of wrongdoing at all related to Epstein and his spokesperson tonight repeatedly saying what Clinton has said repeatedly that he cut ties with Epstein well before Epstein's 2019 federal indictment.

Mr. Clinton says he was unaware of any criminal activities. Again, Trump thinks its own supporters can be fooled. Well, here's a bet against that, safe bet, I think, because the Congressman who forced the release of these documents, one a Republican and one a Democrat, agree tonight that what we've seen so far is grossly inadequate. And they promise to keep pushing until we, until you get to see it all.

Again, we are thought learning some new and very horrible things about Jeffrey Epstein and about the government's failure to bring him to justice in anything close to a timely manner. One new document in the files, you see it there, time stamped 1996. It's an FBI witness statement alleging child pornography.

Another is a shocking Justice Department tally putting at 1,200 the number of Epstein victims and their family members. We have a team here at CNN going through all of these documents as we get them, as we get any more important details tonight, we will bring them straight to you.

This story, of course, is and has been a giant headache for the Trump White House. The President, the Vice-President and a whole host of other top Trump allies spent most of the 2024 campaign promising, give us power. We'll release them all. But once in power, they did an about face and now releasing files, what we see tonight anyway, so far only because congress passed a law forcing them to do so. Tonight the White House says this, "The Trump administration is the most transparent in history."

It is, of course, not that. That statement goes on to say a few more things that aren't true. we won't waste your time. One other nugget from the administration. Again, the deadline was today and the DOJ had 30 days to get ready. But the Deputy Attorney General tells Fox News this is going to take a while.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TODD BLANCHE, U.S. DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL: And so, what we're doing is we are looking at every single piece of paper that we are going to produce, making sure that every victim, their name, their identity, their story to the extent it needs to be protected, is completely protected. And so, I expect that we're going to release more documents over the next couple of weeks.

(END VIDEO CLIP): KING: Joining us now, CNN senior crime and justice reporter Katelyn Polantz. Katelyn, what are we learning tonight? I think I'm probably best to ask you, what aren't we seeing as opposed to what we are seeing? But let's start with what we are seeing. What are we learning tonight and what is the DOJ saying to explain all these redactions?

KATELYN POLANTZ, CNN SENIOR CRIME AND JUSTICE REPORTER: Well, John, there are so many images here that the Justice Department is releasing, many of which we may never have seen before. But as far as the record of what happened inside the Justice Department in its decision not to charge Jeffrey Epstein with a felony indictment two decades ago, that seems to be missing from this.

Also, those grand jury records that the Justice Department had gone to three different federal judges in recent weeks to ask for permission to release. They appear to be pretty much entirely redacted as well.

Now, of course, there could be a lot more information to come in the coming weeks since the Deputy Attorney General is saying quite clearly that they couldn't get through everything to meet the deadline today. So, there will be more documents released in the future. But this is a moment where we can step back and ask, has the Justice Department done what it needed to do under the law?

[20:05:16]

And it is quite clear from the letter that Blanche wrote to Congress today explaining this release that the Justice Department is taking extreme caution not to release everything, even though the law says put it out there.

The law had specified specific things that the Justice Department could redact or could black out of these documents, these photos, things like victim information, things that could jeopardize an ongoing investigation. Although, Blanche says there is no one on the horizon who could be charged and some other categories, but he is also now telling congress that the Justice Department they are withholding additional information because it could be executive branch or attorney-client privilege, the type of thing that Congress had not intended.

That would be stuff that would be held back. There is other information here where they are being very cautious about those victims. In a letter to a federal judge, tonight after this release gets posted on their website, the Southern District of New York's U.S. Attorney Jay Clayton, he acknowledges that victims wanted every woman's face who may be appearing in photographs with Jeff Epstein, to be blacked out. So, not just potentially victims, any women. And the Justice Department says that because of the compressed time frame to get everything out here, they were going to take extreme caution. That may even be called, "over redaction." -- John.

KING: Katelyn Polantz, we know you're still looking through the documents along with the team. Come back to us if anything pops up. Appreciate the hustle and the reporting tonight. Let's bring in to continue the conversation now. Democratic Congressman Ro Khanna of California. He was, of course, the co-sponsor of the bipartisan Epstein Transparency Act, which said the administration had a deadline to release all of these documents tonight.

Congressman, both you and your Republican co-sponsor, Congressman Tom Massie of Kentucky, have said on social media already, way short, doesn't do it. Has the Justice Department given you a credible, reasonable explanation of why?

REP. RO KHANNA (D-CA): No, they have not, and I'm saddened today because I was talking to the survivors. There was so much anticipation for today. They thought finally they are being seen. They're being heard. We're going to have a release. This morning when the Deputy Attorney General went on television and said he's going to release hundreds of thousands of documents, not the whole thing.

Thomas Massie and I texted each other and we said, we'll give him the benefit of the doubt. We're not as concerned about having the full release as long as they're complying with the spirit of the law, at least they're going to release something.

But then we saw the documents filled with blanket redactions, documents that judges had ordered to be released. They had blanked out. There is no draft indictment there that actually has the names of other men who may be implicated in the abuse. There's not the prosecutions original memo that we wanted to see released. There are none of the files on Epstein's computer, and we do not know then who these other rich and powerful men were who abused these survivors. And we know from the survivors and survivors' lawyers that that information is in the files. So, this is deeply disappointing. They have not complied with the law and were going to continue to fight to make sure they do.

KING: First reflex in many situations like this is to give them some grace because it's a lot. However, we also know for months and months and months and months and months and months and months, they have resisted releasing. So my question to you on your point about, you know, you don't trust what you've seen so far, and Katelyn's reporting, this is what she does for a living. She understands the documents.

Imagine if you did have too much and you didn't have the staff to do it. All right, you could use the spirit of the law. Those witness statements Katelyn talked about, memos, Why didn't you indict Jeffrey Epstein? Or when you did indict -- when you did bring charges, why did you bring this? Not that. My point is, if you were going to say we can't do it all right away, don't you think they could have had a conversation with you about what's most important or just know, they should be pretty good lawyers know what's most important to get out in public?

KHANNA: John, they could have had a conversation with me and Thomas Massie, but if they didn't feel like they owed us that conversation, they should have at least had a conversation with the survivors or the survivors' lawyers and listen to what they know are in those files. If they have just released a prosecution memo which was prepared for the Florida trial, an 80-page document and the draft indictment, we would have a lot more information about who was part of this abuse and how Epstein made his money.

If they just released some of the files on the computers, we'd have a lot more information. And that's what Massie and I said, look, we they should have done this months ago. We understand it was rushed. We weren't there saying in the morning, okay, just because they're not releasing everything, were going to go after them. We thought, okay, they're complying with the date. Let's see what they do.

[20:10:09]

But when it came out that we have no new information about the rich and powerful men who abused these young girls and who should be held accountable, we have no information about who these people are, who were engaged in the cover up. That's and powerful men who abused these young girls and powerful men who abused these young girls and who should be held accountable, we have no information about who these people are, who were engaged in the cover up, that's when we drew the line.

And you know what? The survivors, I just talked to some of them today. They're ready to come back to the Capitol. People say, what are the consequences? There are only two things that have moved this bill, and that's the two press conferences of the survivors. It wasn't Massie, it wasn't me. It wasn't Marjorie Taylor Greene. I mean, Marjorie Taylor Greene showed courage. It was those survivors.

And that's when the country started paying attention. And I've talked to them. They're ready to come back in January. And so, this thing is not over until those documents get released.

KING: Appreciate the point, Congress has gone for now. So, it won't happen at least until January.

Let me ask you quickly, in closing, the Deputy Attorney General said he's received no orders from the President to redact documents to leave his name out of it and leave other names out of it. Do you trust that?

KHANNA: Well, I don't know what the President has said, but what I do know is that his production violates the spirit of the law and it violates the letter of the law, and it's a slap in the face of survivors. And so, look, they have underestimated this issue for six months. I don't get it. Just released the files, get it over with. President can talk about affordability and the economy.

They're the ones who continue to play these games that make this a bigger and bigger issue. And Congress is talking about possible impeachment. They're talking about inherent contempt for the Attorney General or Deputy Attorney General, any Justice Department official who has obstructed justice could face prosecution in this administration or a future administration. And the last word, like I said, is going to be the survivors. Americans don't trust politicians that much. They trust those women, and they are going to be back on the Hill. And the country will hear from them.

KING: Congressman, Ro Khanna, I appreciate your time tonight, sir. Thank you very much.

KHANNA: Thank you.

KING: Up next, for us more reaction to the Epstein documents released by the Trump department from an Epstein survivor.

Also tonight, how a Reddit post and details from a man who authorities say came in contact with the suspected Brown shooter helped them track him down and end the manhunt.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[20:16:41]

KING: Our breaking news: The trump DOJ releasing a trove of the Epstein files. That case, of course, the files against the late convicted sex offender and his accomplice, Ghislaine Maxwell. But much of them were redacted, including more than 1,200 victim names and their relatives and many other files have not been released at all despite that deadline that defies the Epstein Files Transparency Act.

Joining me now, Jena-Lisa Jones, an Epstein survivor who was only 14, only 14 when she first met him. First and foremost, Jena-Lisa just every day, it is the victims who say, the survivors who say we want transparency and you get dribs and drabs.

How are you dealing with this?

JENA-LISA JONES, EPSTEIN SURVIVOR: I mean, man, you know, all day we've been waiting for the release of these files and wondering if we are going to get something or we are not going to get something, and then finally we do get them, and we've been on edge all day. I am sure most of us.

And to see that a lot of the files have been heavily redacted in a sense that gives no clarity in any description way and some of these photos being completely blacked out with no rhyme or reason or any -- I would say telling signs of why they were redacted, right? Giving us an idea of a little bit of the picture of why they might be redacted.

So I feel like this was kind of another joke to string it along a little bit. I am pretty disappointed at what has been released. I am -- I definitely agree with Ro Khanna that they could have picked and chosen a lot better things to have released today if they weren't going to be able to release them all today.

I can understand the amount of documents that they have and files and all of that, but Ro Khanna said it perfectly, that there are important things, and I am very sure that the DOJ is very aware of what important things that we are asking for as survivors.

So to give us that in hopes that you guys could continue to go and continue to release the files, would probably give us a little bit more hope. But right now, I am seeing the bare minimum. And even at the bare minimum, I think the American people should be looking at these and being like, why? Why is this going on?

KING: Why not more? And why don't we see the documents that explain some of their decisions and the foot dragging. In that context, one of the documents we did see tonight is a witness statement complaining about alleged child pornography dating back to 1996. That is showing on our screen right now, years, years before Epstein was prosecuted.

Were you aware that the complaints dated back that far? And again, I can't understand this as you can. When you see something like that and you know the timeline of this and the foot dragging, and even when he was charged, nowhere near the depth of what he should have been charged with.

When you see a document like that -- just what do you think?

JONES: I knew that that document was out. I have heard and have -- I know about this document, but it was almost like that it wasn't true. So to have it out into the light, you know, a lot of people have never seen this and I know that it is truth, and for people to see it for the first time and for that survivor sister to have that clarification and to see that that was truth. She did that.

[20:20:14]

She spoke out and nobody listened to her, and she has been saying it time and time and time again. And that just -- the proof is in the pudding right there. I mean, it is horrific because if they would have even listened, every time, every time they let us fail. If they would have listened back then when they would have listened in 2008 when they --

You know, all of these things, its continuously, continuously failing us and string us along.

KING: To that point and I am very hesitant here. I do not want to violate your space, but in the sense that document is dated 1996, am I correct? You met Jeffrey Epstein seven years later? Seven years later?

And so if that document had been taken seriously at the time, if he had been investigated at the time, how many -- how many -- how many people could have been spared the horror?

JONES: Hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of girls and I am speaking just from what I know as Florida girls and finding out more and coming together, you know, you start to see the pattern and how many girls that haven't come forward.

I mean, they could have protected hundreds and hundreds of young girls and women. And it is very sad that they didn't take that seriously and there is documentation where there reporters tried to report on that back then or a little bit later on, and it was shut down by different news networks or magazines and stuff.

So he changed -- Jeffrey changed that narrative and didn't want that out there. So that's also a reminder and there is documentation to that, too. So it is like, release all of it. There is so much more behind this than what people know. And it is just -- it is really scary that it keeps dragging out more and more.

KING: Well put. Release all of it.

Jena-Lisa Jones, grateful for your time. Thank you.

JONES: Thank you so much.

KING: No, thank you.

I am joined now by Helene Weiss, an attorney representing one of Jeffrey Epstein's accusers, and Julie K. Brown, the award-winning investigative reporter for "The Miami Herald." Her work was beyond vital in exposing the extent of Epstein's sex trafficking ring. She is also the author of "Perversion of Justice: The Jeffrey Epstein Story."

Helene, we just heard one survivor there. One of your clients, Maria Farmer, we believe filed the document we were just talking about right there. The names are redacted, but it goes back to 1996. The dates and the details match up to Maria's story.

She has also provided a statement tonight to us saying: "This is amazing. Thank you for believing me. I feel redeemed. This is one of the best days of my life. Of course, its mixed with the fact," she says, "I am devastated about all the other little girls like Virginia who were harmed because the FBI didn't do their job. I am crying for two reasons. I want everyone to know that I am shedding tears of joy for myself, but also tears of sorrow for all the other victims that the FBI failed."

What more can you tell us about the details of this complaint? And again, when you see that date, 1996 and then you hear other survivors who met Jeffrey Epstein, two, five, six, eight, ten years later.

HELENE WEISS, ATTORNEY: Right.

KING: What?

WEISS: I mean, John, let's be very clear here. Maria Farmer has been saying from the very beginning that she was sexually abused by Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell in 1996. She immediately made that report to the FBI and told the FBI that Jeffrey Epstein had child sex abuse materials, that he was sexually abusing young girls.

And in fact, John, we can see on this report, it is labeled as a report of child pornography. It says, "Jeffrey Epstein: Child Pornography." This complaint could not be any clearer. And our firm who represents Maria Farmer, we could not be more certain that this is her report from 1996. There are specific details in here, like the nature of what she did for a living, that she was an artist, the exact ages of her sisters.

And most importantly, we see the threat at the bottom that Epstein said he would burn her house down if she told anyone about these photographs, which Maria has been reporting for decades. In fact, it is in our lawsuit that she claimed that to the FBI.

So how much more credible do you get than someone who has been claiming this for years? And now, for the very first time, we have the first piece of corroborating documentary evidence that says Maria Farmer, has been telling the truth this entire time.

[20:25:01]

And to your point, John, how many young women, how many girls, how many survivors' lives could have been spared if the FBI did anything at all? We are talking about thousands of lives, and we are talking about decades of trauma that could have been spared if the FBI did literally anything.

KING: Julie, you've covered this story for a long time. The country, it has been said to you before, but I am going to say it again, the country owes you a debt for the breathtaking nature of your reporting and the persistence of sticking through it with all the barriers you faced.

On this night, when we see some documents nowhere near what we were promised, I guess I will ask you two ways. As a fellow reporter, you know, we always ask, what did we learn? But often because you know so much about this, its. What didn't you learn? What are you missing? What were you looking for that you haven't been able to find yet?

JULIE K. BROWN, INVESTIGATIVE REPORTER FOR "THE MIAMI HERALD": Well, let me just say, first of all that Maria, and excuse me and Jena-Lisa really are the heroes here because they were among the first victims to go public with this, and they were critical to my story, especially Jena, because until then, people had never really understood exactly how serious this crime was and how many women it affected.

I also wanted to mention, yes, the FBI didn't do its job, but here is what's even more important. The prosecutors in the Southern District of Florida, it was their job to make sure that the FBI investigated it. And if anything, they sought, or I should say, they allowed Epstein's lawyers to minimize his crimes.

So really, some of the blame -- it doesn't all fall on the FBI. In fact, some of the FBI agents in Florida wanted to pursue this case further, but it was the prosecutors in the Southern District of Florida who decided to make that sweetheart deal with him.

KING: And do you believe, Julie, that to your point that we will see the rest of this -- that is in the documents, the more details? You know it to be true because of breathtaking reporting. But there are prosecutor memos, there is back and forth. There is --

BROWN: Yes.

KING: You know, if there was a fight -- if there was a fight or a disagreement about this, if somebody was saying, hey, we are dropping the ball, it would be in those documents. Instead, we got some photographs of Bill Clinton and a lot of redacted pages. BROWN: Yes, and it is in the documents because that's what I formed my investigation on. I obtained all of those documents. I have hundreds and hundreds of pages of communications between the FBI, the prosecutors and Epstein's attorneys that showed how they worked together to minimize this case, minimize the crimes of this case.

So hopefully they will release some of those documents. They essentially were all part of a civil court case that Brad Edwards brought against the Justice Department in 2008 and some of those documents are public already.

So it seems a little you know, ridiculous that they are holding back so much material that we already know exists. And certainly the victims know a lot of material, such as Maria mentioned, she knew that she had filed that FBI report. So there is going to be more of that, and if they don't release it, it will just, you know, reflect poorly on -- you know, on the administration.

KING: This conversation obviously will continue because of the minimalist amount we got tonight.

Helene Weiss, Julie K. Brown, grateful for your time tonight. Thank you so much.

WEISS: Thank you.

KING: Up next for us, the big breaks authorities say led them to that suspect in the deadly shooting at Brown University and the murder of an MIT professor, including the crucial clues they say they got from one man.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PETER NERONHA, RHODE ISLAND ATTORNEY GENERAL: I remember last night watching his interview, and he blew this case right open. He blew it open.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: And later, remembering the legendary director and actor, Rob Reiner. Anderson's conversation with actor, Kevin Pollak, who starred in Reiner's hit movie, "A Few Good Men." That's ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[20:33:14]

KING: Tonight, we're also following breaking news on the man suspected of carrying out the mass shooting at Brown University and the murder of an MIT professor just days later. The suspect's body was found last night inside a storage facility in Salem, New Hampshire. Today, authorities in that state said they believe he died by suicide on Tuesday, a day after the MIT professor was killed near Boston.

More now on the investigation from CNN's Danny Freeman.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

MAYOR BRETT SMILEY, PROVIDENCE, RHODE ISLAND: Our Providence neighbors can finally breathe a little easier.

DANNY FREEMAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Tonight, relief across New England as two manhunts come to a dramatic close. The man suspected of opening fire on a Brown University classroom and killing an MIT professor, identified as 48-year-old Claudio Neves Valente, found dead Thursday evening in a storage facility in New Hampshire with a self-inflicted gunshot wound.

CHIEF OSCAR PEREZ JR., PROVIDENCE POLICE: It was all about groundwork, public assistance, interviews of individuals, and good old-fashioned policing.

FREEMAN (voice-over): After hundreds of tips and several leads, police got two big breaks. First, a Reddit post flagged to investigators, which read in part, "I'm being dead serious. The police need to look into a gray Nissan with Florida plates, possibly a rental. That was the car he was driving."

Then this person, who investigators said was in proximity to their suspect on the day of the shooting, came forward with key details, including information about the suspect's voice, his appearance, his car, and even a confrontation where the man asked the suspect, "Your car is back there, why are you circling the block?" According to a police affidavit.

PETER NERONHA, RHODE ISLAND ATTORNEY GENERAL: I remember last night watching his interview and he blew this case right open. He blew it open.

FREEMAN (voice-over): Once they had the description of the man and the rental car, pieces started to fall into place, including a connection to the murder of MIT professor Nuno Loureiro outside of Boston.

[20:35:05]

LEAH B. FOLEY, U.S. ATTORNEY FOR DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS: There is a video footage of him entering an apartment building in the location of the professor's apartment.

FREEMAN (voice-over): The car was eventually found abandoned in New Hampshire, a storage facility where the suspected shooter rented multiple units.

NERONHA: There was evidence that was observed from outside the car that matched our crime scenes, meaning mask, clothing, satchel, which you can see on that video.

FREEMAN (voice-over): Inside one of the units, authorities recovered two 9 millimeter glocks, high capacity magazines and a bulletproof vest. The suspected shooter was a Portuguese national who once went to Brown more than two decades ago, but didn't graduate and who studied at the same Portuguese university when the slain MIT professor was there. But it's unclear if the two knew each other. Law enforcement officials tell CNN they do believe, though, the suspected shooter targeted Loureiro, but do not believe he specifically targeted any of the victims of the Brown University shooting. But Providence's mayor telling CNN Friday they're not done searching for a motive.

SMILEY: We won't give up in trying to answer those questions. I think the Providence community, the Brown community really needs to know that in order to get true closure.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

FREEMAN (on-camera): And, John, we have new information that we just learned in the past hour. The Rhode Island attorney general telling CNN that ballistics evidence that was found with the suspect matches both ballistics evidence left behind here at Brown University and in the MIT killing of that professor. John?

KING: Critical details there. Danny Freeman, thank you so much. Appreciate the great reporting.

Joining me now for more on the investigation is our CNN Chief Law Enforcement and Intelligence Analyst, John Miller. John, closure to a degree, but what did authorities recover when they searched those two storage areas and anything that ties them directly?

JOHN MILLER, CNN CHIEF LAW ENFORCEMENT AND INTELLIGENCE ANALYST: They basically got what investigators refer to as the murder kit. As Danny said, the two 9 millimeter glocks key here, one of them had a green laser sight attachment to it, which witnesses described him using a laser for targeting a bulletproof vest. That's interesting because when we look at those pictures, you have to wonder, was he wearing a bulletproof vest as he came to do that shooting in case he was confronted by law enforcement?

They also found that jacket that he wears in those videos recovered in the storage area. And the DNA and the ballistics have matched. So while they aren't headed to trial and they don't need evidence, they are going to have to put these facts together to develop any kind of closure for the victims, especially when it comes to motive.

KING: One of the questions there is what do we know about the last hours, the suspected shooters last hour? There appears to be a disconnect, am I right, between the autopsy results and what the prosecutors have said so far?

MILLER: So there is. And this is the kind of thing that fuels conspiracy theories, so we've got to get it resolved. But yesterday, police investigators, the FBI, they believe they were tracking this individual who was in their mind, switching out SIM cards, trying to avoid sending cell signals, looking to find him on license plate readers.

They thought he had a flight booked out of Boston to return home. He called a renter car company, according to the affidavit filed by prosecutors, called a renter car company yesterday and changed the drop off location. When you measure that against the medical examiner's finding that -- the medical examiner says he believed he had been dead for two days at that point, we've got to resolve that time difference because he couldn't have been both.

KING: John Miller, appreciate your time tonight. Very busy week for you. Grateful for all that reporting. Thank you.

Up next for us, remembering the Hollywood legend, Rob Reiner. Anderson's interview with Kevin Pollak, who worked with Reiner on the iconic movie, "A Few Good Men." That's ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[20:43:00]

KING: Hollywood continues to grapple with the tragic killing of the iconic filmmaker Rob Reiner and his wife, Michele. Tonight, we want to focus on Mr. Reiner's incredible output as an artist.

Anderson spoke with Kevin Pollak, who played a JAG officer in the Reiner-directed blockbuster, "A Few Good Men."

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ANDERSON COOPER, CNN ANCHOR: How did you first get to know Rob?

KEVIN POLLAK, WORKED WITH ROB REINER ON "A FEW GOOD MEN": He and Christopher Guest created a little-known short-lived TV summer replacement series called "Morton & Hayes," and it was a massive nationwide search for a comedy team supposedly from the 30s. Anyways, I was somehow landed a co-starring part in this. And so I was introduced to him through that in terms of working and getting to know this nutty genius.

COOPER: And it was while doing that that he told you about a part in "A Few Good Men," is that right?

POLLAK: Yes. Well, he was kind to invite me to lunch on a daily basis while shooting. And one day, he waved his loving finger in my face and said, you know, you're right for a part in this movie I'm going to direct next. It was a 500-performance smash hit on Broadway called "A Few Good Men."

I've got Tom Cruise, I think I'm going to get Jack Nicholson. But there's this part of Tom's co-counsel that you're perfect for. I've got an offer out to Jason Alexander, but if Seinfeld gets picked up for a second season, which is doubtful at this point, but if it does, you're a perfect sight. I went home and started praying for Jason Alexander's success.

COOPER: Well, it's nice that Jason Alexander probably had somebody -- it had someone else praying for his success in a movie. Maybe he didn't even know about it.

POLLAK: Yes, no, we've been longtime friends and have talked and laughed about this. I mean, it worked out quite well for both of us in (INAUDIBLE).

COOPER: It sure did, yes.

POLLAK: Yes.

COOPER: You, I mean, you have a number of stories from the making of "A Few Good Men." I mean, what was he like -- what was Rob Reiner like to work with? Because I -- first of all, I want to play a clip of Rob discussing a moment he had with Jack Nicholson while filming the famous "You Can't Handle the Truth" scene.

[20:45:06]

POLLAK: Yes, sure.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ROB REINER, FILMMAKER & ACTOR: We have a big courtroom and, you know, Jack has this long, long monologue, and I said to him before, I said, look, I'll give you a choice. Either I can shoot -- if you want to shoot ready now, I'll shoot you right now. If you want some time to work on it, rehearse it, I will shoot all the reaction shots first, and then we turn the camera around on you, and, you know, whatever.

He said, why don't you, you know, shoot the reaction shots, and that will get me. So, you know, I got Tom Cruise cut away, Demi Moore, Kevin Bacon, you know, I got, you know, Kevin Pollak. I mean, you know, the judge, the jury, I'm doing all the reaction shots.

And every time he's off camera, he gives exactly the same performance that you see that's on camera. After two or three, I said -- I go up to him, and I said, Jack, you know, maybe you want to save a little because, I mean, he's full out in every one, and he's off camera.

And he says, Rob, you don't understand. I love to act. He says, I don't get that much of a chance to do a great part. And then we turned the camera around on him, and it was the same.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COOPER: You know what, let's just take a look at part of Nicholson's performance on the stand there.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You want answers?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I think I'm entitled.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You want answers.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I want the truth.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You can't handle the truth. You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties. You want me on that wall. You need me on that wall. (END VIDEO CLIP)

POLLAK: Rob has a very special relationship with all the actors. I think starting as an actor himself, multi-award winning on "All in the Family," you know, so when he directs, he directs, in my experience, as an actor to an actor. He gets so caught up. He's -- he -- you know, bigger than life in terms of storytelling, but also his physicality.

And he ended up -- we had rehearsals, so he ended up giving what actors dread, this term line reading. Actors dread it because it sounds like the director's saying, well, don't do it your way, do it this way. And then they act it out for you. Well, with Rob, it was not like that at all.

But as an actor first, he -- in articulating what he'd like from you, ends up sort of acting out the scene a little bit. He can't help it. And so Tom Cruise and Demi Moore and I, the first week of rehearsal, and you get used to this, as we would talk about.

But then Jack rolled in, yes, for the second week of rehearsal. And I do remember Jack sitting on the stand -- you know, in the chair that would be the stand. And the first time he gave that soliloquy in rehearsal, he was there. It was startling.

And he finishes, and Rob is effusive and so happy and insisting upon this very physically. And then gets to a certain point of his compliments, and he says, but you know that part where you say, and then he starts acting it out a little bit. And if you had a camera over us looking down, you would see Tom, Demi, and I take one step back as Rob and Jack are having this moment.

COOPER: Instinctively?

POLLAK: Yes. Not knowing what's coming. And so Rob finishes, in essence, acting out the last part of the soliloquy. And Jack looks up at him and says, yes, well, I guess I'm not there yet.

Rob provides these magical moments for all of us. You know, I was talking with Carrie, I was crying on the phone. And who had given us not just metaphorically and in Carrie's case with "The Princess Bride". And so many others, you know.

The amount of actors that I've talked to over the years, not just in this incredibly painful part of our lives, who loved him madly. But over the years, their lives that he touched and enriched and made better. It's just remarkable, truly.

And I've worked -- I've been very, very fortunate to work with a lot of great filmmakers over the years. And Rob stands honestly and not just physically, but taller than all because of his compassion and love of his fellow artists. And, you know, it just came through. Yes.

COOPER: I had a great pleasure to interview him in September when he -- when the new sequel to "Spinal Tap" came out.

POLLAK: Yes. COOPER: And we were sitting on set together and I'd met him a couple of times over the years, but I mean, I certainly didn't know him personally, really. And -- but I admired "Stand By Me" and so many of his films.

[20:50:07]

And I got to at the end of it -- the interview just -- I just was regaling him with limes from "Spinal Tap," which I'm sure was annoying for him because everybody probably does that. But I got to tell him to his face how much his movies meant to me and how much delight and joy they brought to my life.

And I'm so glad, I feel so blessed that I had that opportunity just to, you know, say it to him eye to eye. You know, my friend Andy Cohen uses this phrase that every friend was once a stranger. And I had that sense with Rob Reiner that like --

POLLAK: Yes.

COOPER: -- that he would just meet people and they would become friends.

POLLAK: Yes. Yes. And Michele, too. They both welcomed me into their lives from the moment I started working with Rob. They were incredibly protective and loving of everyone in their circle. I wasn't in their lives on a daily or weekly basis, but over these many, many years since "A Few Good Men" '92.

You know, and even -- especially for me during the shooting of the film, it was a very family affair. Very much.

COOPER: Yes. Kevin Pollak, thank you so much for talking to us under these circumstances. I really appreciate it.

POLLAK: Thank you. Yes.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: Coming up, the Kennedy Center sign now reads the Donald J. Trump and the John F. Kennedy Memorial Center for the Performing Arts. We'll hear from a member of the Kennedy family, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[20:55:33]

KING: Turns out Washington can do some things quickly. Take a look. Less than 24 hours after the announcement was made that it was getting renamed, the Kennedy Center in Washington got its new signage outside, The Donald J. Trump and the John F. Kennedy Memorial Center for the Performing Arts.

Just yesterday, the Kennedy Center board, largely handpicked by the President, and which he is the chairman, voted to name -- make that change. And the President was asked about it. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP (R), PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I was honored by it. We saved the Kennedy Center and I was really -- this was brought up by one of the very distinguished board members and they voted on it. And there's a lot of board members and they voted unanimously.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: He didn't save the Kennedy Center. It was doing just fine. And there is this one snag. By law, the Kennedy Center cannot be renamed without an act of Congress. Then again, neither can the Department of Defense, which the administration now calls the War Department.

Perspective now from someone whose family name is on that building by law. Anderson spoke with the former congressman Joe Kennedy III last night.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

COOPER: Congressman, thanks for being with us. What's your reaction to this, both as a member of the Kennedy family, obviously, and as a former public servant?

JOE KENNEDY III (D), FORMER MASSACHUSETTS CONGRESSMAN: The Kennedy Center belongs to America and it is a living memorial to a fallen president who admired the arts because of what it could do to bring people together across division and to put a smile on our faces and to reach out and touch our humanity and lift us all up.

And Congress recognized his support for the arts and how much it mattered to him that after he died, they created this center as a place to recognize his legacy and to celebrate that coming together. So the fact that anybody would think to put their name on a monument to a fallen president is, you know, bizarre enough.

The fact is, is that he can say what he wants. He can't do it. But, Anderson, what's really about is, you know, the fact that this is what he's focused on at a time when Americans are hurting and struggling and the same week that Republicans have just voted essentially to jack up health care costs and take health care away from millions of people.

COOPER: He's hinted at this for a while, as he often does with things. He sort of, I don't know, trial runs, trial balloons up. And, you know, people at first are like, oh, this is appalling and it's a joke. And then, of course, it's gradually the third time he mentions it. You start to think, oh, he's actually going to do this.

But as you say, renaming the center, that would require an act of Congress, right? And Congress doesn't really have an enforcement arm, but it's Congress who did this. Congress would have to rename it, wouldn't they?

KENNEDY: I mean, Congress would. Look, I think he -- a couple of points, right. First, the fact that he likes the Kennedy Center is a good thing. The fact that he likes the arts and he's like many Americans are like, that's a good thing. And recognizes that we should continue to celebrate. That's a good thing.

So all of that is great. The fact that for some reason he decided to put his name on a monument to a fallen president is just bizarre. And the fact that he's been fixated on this is also bizarre rather than trying to meet the real needs of the American public.

COOPER: Yes, I think they've already changed the name on the website. There's a question of who, if anyone, I guess, would have standing to stop the name change in federal court. And whether -- I mean, have you given any thought to that? Do you think anyone in your family would, would be staffers at the Kennedy Center if there's any left?

KENNEDY: I haven't even thought -- I haven't given thought to that today. I would say that it is named this way under federal law. So it would be somewhat akin to if somebody or President Trump wanted to put his name on the Lincoln Memorial because he liked Lincoln, right? Like you can.

Just because you say you did doesn't mean you can and doesn't mean you can actually go out there and start choosing a name in the stone. I would hope that, you know, some modicum of decorum would would rule the day here. I think, you know, look, from my perspective anyway, we've got a big family here, obviously, as you know, it's a -- but from one guy's perspective, this is a space that belongs to the American public to celebrate things that unite us and bring us together and lift us up.

The fact that you tried to -- he's trying to to degrade it somehow by praising it, but by putting a name of a living president on a monument to a fallen one is, again, bizarre.

COOPER: I'm just going to leave it with what the White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt wrote online. In part, she said, "Congratulations to President Donald J. Trump, and likewise, congratulations to President Kennedy, because this will be a truly great team long into the future. The building will no doubt attain new levels of success and grandeur."

Rather odd statement there.

Congressman Kennedy, I really appreciate your time tonight.

KENNEDY: Anderson, thank you.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: That's it for us. Hope you have a good weekend.

The news continues. The Source with Kaitlan Collins starts right now.