Return to Transcripts main page
Anderson Cooper 360 Degrees
DOJ Says Purported Epstein Letter To Larry Nassar Is Fake; Interview With Rep. James Walkinshaw (D-VA); FBI E-mails From 2019 Refer To Epstein's 10 Co-Conspirators ; Americans Are Losing Millions To Scammers At Crypto ATMs; Supreme Court Blocks Trump From Deploying National Guard To Chicago; The Divide Over Data Centers Powering The A.I. Boom. Aired 8-9p ET
Aired December 23, 2025 - 20:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
ELEX MICHAELSON, CNN ANCHOR AND CORRESPONDENT: The song comes out on Christmas day first on iHeartRadio stations. You can get more information about all of this @100billionmeals.org.
Erin, Merry Christmas.
ERIN BURNETT, CNN HOST: Merry Christmas and it's just wonderful to see people gathering and feeling that sense of purpose. Thank you so much, Elex. And Elex is going to have so much more tonight on "The Story Is" as he always does, it is 9:00 Pacific. Thanks so much to all of you for being with us. AC360 begins right now.
[20:00:32]
JOHN BERMAN, CNN HOST: Tonight on 360, thousands more documents released from the Jeffrey Epstein investigation. There are many references to President Trump and new questions about the Justice Department's handling of the files.
Also tonight, a major setback for the President. The Supreme Court blocking him from deploying National Guard troops to a major U.S. city.
And later, CNN investigates scammers using phones in the high tech crypto economy to bilk people out of old fashioned cash, thousands of dollars at a time, using ATMs at convenience stores you might know
Good evening, John Berman here in for Anderson. Some breaking news tonight on how the Justice Department is trying to speed up the release of the Epstein file, days after the deadline passed for them all to be made public, more on that in just a moment.
Today, more than 30,000 files released from the investigation of convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. One of the things we learned is that prosecutors in prosecutors in 2019 sought to investigate and potentially charge upwards of 10 possible co-conspirators. Another document purportedly showed a letter handwritten by Epstein while he was in jail in 2019, the same month he committed suicide.
It is signed by "J. Epstein" and addressed to convicted sex offender Larry Nassar. Now, it does not explicitly name President Trump, but includes a reference to our President and Trump was President at the time.
But late this afternoon, the Justice Department released this post: The FBI has confirmed this alleged letter from Jeffrey Epstein to Larry Nassar is fake.
The FBI made this conclusion based on the following facts. The writing does not appear to match Epstein's handwriting. The letter was postmarked three days after Epstein's death, postmarked out of Northern Virginia when he was jailed in New York.
The return address did not list the jail where Epstein was held and did not include his inmate number, which is required for outgoing mail. The post also says that just because a document is released by the Department of Justice, it does not mean the allegations are true. Some of the files released today do contain the President's name.
For example, one e-mail dated from 2020 from an assistant U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, noted that Trump flew on Epstein's private jet many more times than previously reported, many more times than they knew, at least eight times between 1993 and 1996.
President Trump has not been accused of any criminal wrongdoing related to Epstein. Still, the department put out a statement today that reads as if it was a letter from his personal lawyer calling some claims about the President in the documents released today, untrue and sensationalist, and went on to say if they had a shred of credibility, they certainly would have been weaponized against President Trump already.
Now, they did not say anything like this when they released photos and references to Bill Clinton on Friday, which, of course, was when the Epstein Files Transparency Act mandated that all the Epstein files be released, but only a portion were made public then. The Justice Department has come under criticism for the delay and the extensive redactions of the material. Some Democrats accused the department of attempting to cover up information unfavorable to the President and survivors. Some are outraged by the whole process.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
HALEY ROBSON, EPSTEIN SURVIVOR: I am so disgusted with this administration. I think that Pam Bondi and Kash Patel both need to resign, and I would love to see number 47 get impeached over this.
I don't trust my government. I don't trust the redactions, I don't trust the DOJ.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BERMAN: CNN senior crime and justice reporter Katelyn Polantz joins us now. Katelyn, it's literally been from dawn until dusk for you on this story today. You've got some new reporting on the lengths that the Justice Department is going to in order to go through more of these files. KATELYN POLANTZ, CNN SENIOR CRIME AND JUSTICE REPORTER: Yes, in an e- mail I just reviewed from a source showing what is going on inside the Justice Department right now to try and get these hundreds of thousands, if not more, documents redacted in the Epstein files and getting them out to the public, the Justice Department, they need volunteers, more attorneys to work on this. They're saying it's an emergency. Even after that transparency deadline passed on Friday, and they knew that that deadline was coming for a full 30 days when Congress passed the law right around Thanksgiving. And this also raises the possibility that more documents from the Epstein files will become public over the next several days, including over the Christmas Holidays, the New Year's Holiday.
I want to read for you a little bit of what is in this e-mail. So, this is an e-mail from a top prosecutor in the Southern District of Florida's U.S. Attorney's Office writing to everybody in that office and the e-mail says it is an emergency request from the Deputy Attorney General's Office that the SDFL, the attorney's office in Florida must assist with.
We need AUSAs, so career prosecutors, line attorneys to do more, to do remote document review and redactions related to the Epstein files. I am aware that the timing could not be worse. For some, the holidays are about to begin, but I know that for others, the holidays are coming to an end. That's the end of the quote from this e-mail. But this really highlights, John, the situation the Justice Department is in blowing past that deadline, still having documents to redact and needing more people to get it done.
[20:05:54]
Remember, there's another deadline coming up for the Justice Department to tell Congress what all they have redacted, explaining it. And just now, several days heading after the deadline that Congress set for transparency heading into the Christmas Holiday, they are trying to get more people to volunteer their time to go through these files, redact them and get them online for the public to look at.
BERMAN: This is not what the law said. I mean, the law said they were supposed to all be out last Friday. The fact that they're acting for people now doesn't seem to comport with that at all. As I mentioned, Katelyn, there was an e-mail exchange about ten potential Epstein co- conspirators. What's going on there?
POLANTZ: Yes, this is an internal FBI e-mail. It['s detectives essentially talking the day after Epstein was arrested in 2019. In that e-mail, they're talking about what they call co-conspirators, ten co-conspirators. And they're talking about the status of them. Are they going to maybe cut grand jury subpoenas to those people? Those people aren't named, nor are the detectives on these e-mails. You can see those blackout to and from lines.
But this does raise some questions about what the FBI was thinking at this time as they were investigating and charging Epstein before they had charged his co-conspirator now convicted, Ghislaine Maxwell. But this is also not prosecutors talking. And the word co-conspirators could be used very loosely. Here, it doesn't necessarily mean people who may have potentially taken steps that would have resulted in federal crimes, but it is a notable document among this release, again, without context.
BERMAN: We don't know if it's the legal definition of coconspirator or not, still, significant. Katelyn Polantz, thank you for your reporting all day on this.
I want to bring you to Julie K. Brown, award winning investigative reporter for "The Miami Herald", whose work was instrumental in exposing the extent of Jeffrey Epstein's crime. She's also the author of "Perversion of Justice: The Jeffrey Epstein Story", and Sarah Fitzpatrick, staff writer for "The Atlantic" who covers National Security and the Department of Justice.
And Julie, I just want to start with you. And the fact that these files today made this reference to ten coconspirators a file from 2019, but the names are all redacted, as are the names of the various attorneys involved. So, Julie, what do you think of that?
JULIE K. BROWN, "THE MIAMI HERALD", INVESTIGATIVE REPORTER: Well, some of the names are in there. Maxwell, we know, was one co-conspirator they mentioned, Jean-Luc Brunel, who was one of the modeling scouts that they used who was also accused of raping some of these women and young girls, and he died, of course, in prison of suicide, in 2022.
And then, there's another name of interest, which is Les Wexner, who's listed as a co-conspirator. He was the billionaire former owner of Victoria's Secret. And Epstein sort of used his affiliation with Victoria's Secret to recruit girls and to lure them by asking them to provide him with auditions, so to speak, and essentially, that was a ruse to abuse them.
So there are three people, then the other people, we believe that are redacted from there could be a couple of his assistants who helped recruit and also schedule his calendars, and possibly a pilot who transported some of these girls and young women. So, we suspect who they are but nevertheless, there are an awful lot of redactions still in here, and it makes the victims very, you know, suspect that this is really still being covered up and the powerful men that they know are involved are still somehow being protected.
BERMAN: We should note that Les Wexner himself has never been accused of any wrongdoing or charged with any wrongdoing, and is said to have cooperated with the investigation all along. It is worth noting the Epstein Transparency Act, the law says that no one's name is supposed to be redacted on the basis of embarrassment, reputational harm or political sensitivity, including to any government official, public figure or foreign dignitary. And every time you see those black marks over those names, it doesn't appear to comport with the law, Julie, does it?
[20:10:13] BROWN: No and certainly there's an awful lot of them, as was mentioned earlier, the DOJ is rushing now to get volunteers to become this redaction police with these documents. And so far, what we've seen is that they're redacting the wrong things, that the victim's names, you know, I had one victim call me yesterday in tears, that her name is in there, something like, you know, dozens and dozens of times what they worry about isn't necessarily even themselves. It's their families. You know, she has elderly parents. And so, it affects them. They have children, so they're redacting the names of all the prosecutors, for example, who dealt with this case back in 2006. But yet they're not careful enough to redact some of the names of these victims.
BERMAN: Sarah, what stood out to you today in all of these documents that have been released and you've had a chance to look at?
SARAH FITZPATRICK, STAFF WRITER, "THE ATLANTIC": Look, I think today, you know, I've covered this story for a very long time, as has Julie. Today was explosive, and the thing that caught my attention, I think, most importantly, were those discussions from SDNY prosecutors discussing the fact that Donald Trump had been on Epstein's plane many more times than they had ever realized, and in fact, that Donald Trump had been on the plane with witnesses that were -- could be witnesses in Maxwell's trial, as well as one flight in which Donald Trump, Jeffrey Epstein and a 20-year-old are described as being on the plane.
This is critical because we know that this investigation was supposedly, you know, Bondi came in all sorts of multiple administrations have said that they have tried to fully report this out. And yet here we are seeing the sitting President, who is in proximity to a possible crime, or at least could have information about Epstein's patterns, behavior, et cetera. He was on the plane with critical people that were witnesses to a crime.
And I think this draws the question, what exactly? You know, we've had so many years under both a Trump Justice Department and then a Biden Justice Department and now a Trump Justice Department, and yet we still don't have the person at the top of our government is a person who may have information that would be valuable to investigators, that I think just is so crucial and cannot be overstated.
BERMAN: You know, in the last line of that document, which was a note from a career prosecutor said, we've just finished reviewing these records and didn't want any of this to be a surprise the road. So, they were revealing this information about the plane trips from President Trump. But the reason they were revealing it was because they didn't want the fact that then President Trump's name was in it to be a surprise. So where does that tell you about who they were thinking of? Was it the victims? Was it the survivors?
FITZPATRICK: Look, I think there, it has been crystal clear among all of the information that I've ever reviewed, both in public and that still is to be released, that the victims were never or very rarely at the center of decisions here, and that they were often an afterthought, in part because the people that you know, whose names have been mentioned, who may appear in these documents, they were people with extremely, highly paid, aggressive lawyers. And the Justice Department under Donald Trump, under Joe Biden, now, again, they are fearful of that kind of litigation, of those kind of pressure.
The victims, many of these women today, I was speaking to some of them. They work, this is their -- they work retail jobs, you know, for hourly wages. They are not able to have that kind of pressure on a Justice Department. But many of these powerful individuals absolutely have and continue to assert that pressure.
BERMAN: Sarah Fitzpatrick, Julie K. Brown, thank you so much for your work on this over the last several years, and also being with us tonight. It does sound like you may have more work to do in the next few days, because these documents may very well keep coming over the Christmas Holiday.
Next, reaction to this latest release of documents from Epstein survivor. And also tonight, the ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court that will impact the President's push to deploy the National Guard to a major U.S. city.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[20:18:42]
BERMAN: More on the breaking news tonight, the top Democrat on the House Oversight Committee has asked the Department of Justice's Inspector General to examine a 1996 complaint made to the FBI accusing Jeffrey Epstein of abusing minors and producing child sexual abuse material.
Again, 1996, in the complaint made by Epstein survivor, Maria Farmer. She alleged that Epstein stole photos of her 12 and 16-year-old sisters and is, "Now, threatening that if she tells anyone about the photos, he will burn her house down."
The allegations contained in the complaint would be among the earliest made to law enforcement about Epstein, and showed he was on their radar a decade before his 2006 indictment in the Southern District of Florida.
I'm joined now by a Democratic lawmaker on the House Oversight Committee, Virginia Congressman James Walkinshaw. Congressman, thank you so much for being with us. So what outstanding questions do you have about how the FBI handled that 1996 complaint.
REP. JAMES WALKINSHAW (D-VA): Well, we need to find out why they didn't handle it, quite frankly. And, you know, this is the earliest documented incidents we have of the institutions that were sworn to protect women and girls, like Maria Farmer failing them. So, we need to find out why the FBI didn't act on her report in 1996. Had they acted? The trauma and victimization of hundreds of girls and women that came after 1996 at the hands of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell and their coconspirators could have been avoided. So, we need to find out what didn't happen and why didn't it happen?
[20:20:21] BERMAN: Is it possible they did look into it and just didn't find any evidence at the time of any wrongdoing at the time?
WALKINSHAW: Well, I'd say that's inconsistent with the statements that Miss Farmer has made, right? From her reports her contact to the FBI was essentially ignored. So, that's what needs to be investigated. Obviously, investigating an incident from 1996 will present some challenges, I suspect. But we need to run down every possible angle here to find out why the FBI and the Department of Justice and institution after institution failed women like Maria Farmer.
BERMAN: What other options are available to the committee, if the inspector general doesn't take up the request?
WALKINSHAW: Well, the committee has a subpoena to the Department of Justice that requires them to turn over all of the Epstein files without the redactions that the Transparency Act allows for.
And I think you'll see us probing this 1996 report and trying to get any documents that might exist. We absolutely could subpoena and depose any individuals who might have been involved in receiving or reviewing that report or acting on it, or not acting on it if those folks are still alive and reachable.
So, I think we would have tools to try to run this down among the many, many things that need to be run down.
BERMAN: This latest dump of files contains all kinds of unverified claims. Some of them salacious claims, and also tips to the FBI. President Trump has been named, himself in some of them, again, unverified and what the Justice Department says in some cases are untrue. What do you make of the way, the nature that this information is being released to the public with some of the key contacts not there?
WALKINSHAW: Well, the Department of Justice and the Trump administration are in violation of the law. The transparency act that President Trump signed into law required them to release the full files on Friday. The only redactions allowed were redactions of information that could identify a survivor or victim or child sexual abuse material. They don't have any legal authority to include other redactions, and they have done that. We've seen page after page after page of redactions.
So, clearly they're continuing to hide something or cover something up. They're doing it with their typical incompetence, right? Redacting, lines from pages that are able to be, you know, where the redactions can be removed. But clearly they're continuing to cover something up. We don't know exactly what that is.
BERMAN: Congressman Walkinshaw, we appreciate your time tonight. Have a wonderful holiday, thank you.
WALKINSHAW: Thanks for having me.
BERMAN: With us now is Epstein survivor, Jess Michaels. Jess, were so glad to see you tonight. What stood out to you in the latest release of documents? Anything that you have found or wanted to see that wasn't included?
JESS MICHAELS, EPSTEIN SURVIVOR: Yes, thank you so much for having me. That's a big question because a lot got released and it's a lot to go through. There are there are a couple things that stood out to me and I'm really glad that you asked the Congressman about Maria's complaint back in 1996, because one of the things I hope sticks with people listening right now is that back in 1996, Jeffrey Epstein was not an unknown Wall Street finance guy.
In 1996, Jeffrey Epstein was very much a fixture in elite society. And so, when she put that complaint in, they would have had to know exactly who she was talking about. And I think that that has to be noted because if there is no other documentation showing that they actually pursued this investigation, to me, that's highly suspect for negligence, cover up, corruption.
The other thing that really stands out to me is the ten co- conspirators. Because now if we look back that the only person that was ever brought to trial was Ghislaine Maxwell, and she was likely one of those co-conspirators. But nine other people were never brought to trial. And so, we have three times clear three times in history where this case and this investigation was just bungled. We have 1996, we have the sweetheart deal than in 2019.
And now, what we're seeing with the release or lack of release of the files, the very, very sloppy, inconsistent release of the files, were actually seeing a fourth opportunity for cover up here happening right in plain sight. So, it's frustrating actually. Really, really frustrating.
BERMAN: Yes, the 10 co-conspirators, and again, some of those names were redacted. Again, we don't know if co-conspirators is a legal term here or if it maybe was used in a sloppy fashion, but the names were some of them were redacted on the document and doesn't seem to comport with the law.
Our Katelyn Polantz is reporting new information that just came out a few minutes ago, that the Justice Department is actually asking for volunteers to come in over the next few days to help process and redact things in these documents. What does that tell you that they're asking for this days after the legal deadline for the release of this information?
MICHAELS: That is extremely concerning because I am a very -- I'm very black and white about what happened last week, and I believe that it's not even my opinion. The Department of Justice broke the law at 11:59 on Friday, December 19th. The Department of Justice broke the law. That wasn't the day the rollout of information was supposed to begin. That was the day it was supposed to end. And so this is telling me that as far as leadership goes, it is like the Keystone cops over there. And there's such a lack of communication that the continued disrespect and lack of care for survivors is evident at every single step that were seeing of this release. BERMAN: Jess Michaels, we do appreciate you talking to us about this and everything you're feeling and seeing tonight. We hope you have a nice New Year, thank you.
Next, CNN investigates how convenience stores across the country have become a hub for scams involving crypto ATMs, and later, the water worries linked to the A.I. boom, yes, water. We're going to take you to Texas, where all of this is playing out.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ED LAVANDERA, CNN SENIOR NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: You're concerned that the data center is going to pull so much water out of the aquifer that you depend on?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes, exactly.
LAVANDERA: That this well is going to be left dry.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[20:31:49]
BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN HOST: Thousands of Americans, many of them retirees, have fallen victim to scams involving crypto ATMs. So far this year, more than a quarter of a billion dollars has been stolen. Scammers trick Americans into dumping millions into ATMs. That cash is then turned into cryptocurrency, which ends up in the hands of scammers overseas. And the ATMs are easy to access. They're in convenience stores across the country. But one of the largest crypto ATM corporate deals involves Circle K. More tonight from CNN's Kyung Lah.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
STEVE BECKETT, SCAM VICTIM: I'm holding several hundred dollar bills in my hand.
KYUNG LAH, CNN SENIOR INVESTIGATIVE CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Steve Beckett was being robbed. And it was happening in a familiar safe place.
BECKETT: I'm thinking, OK, why the Circle K? And then he told me that's where the Bitcoin machine is located.
LAH (voice-over): A scammer on the phone made Steve believe he was in legal trouble.
BECKETT: I got a call and they said he was with the Federal Reserve Board. I was scared to death of what's going on. I'm thinking I'm going to jail.
LAH (voice-over): And there was only one way out.
BECKETT: Gave me instructions and told me what to do.
LAH: You put $7,000 into this machine.
LAH (voice-over): The scammer told Steve to put his cash into the machine. It was instantly converted to crypto and the scammer, likely based overseas, disappeared. The owner of this is Bitcoin Depot, the largest crypto ATM operator in the U.S. But the host of the machine at the center of the scam is Circle K.
BECKETT: Because it's in a convenience store, you think everything in a convenience store is for your convenience.
LAH (voice-over): Crypto ATMs let people buy Bitcoin using cash. But the machines can charge high fees on transactions.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: No, it's a scam.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You're all talking at once. Just wait one second..
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: If that's somebody telling you not to hang up, hang up. Don't put any more money. They are scamming you. I promise you.
LAH (voice-over): Scammers are ripping people off using crypto ATMs across the U.S. But Circle K is Bitcoin Depot's largest corporate partner. CNN and ICIJ reviewed more than 150 cases of scams using crypto ATMs inside Circle K's. Thirty Circle K employees tell us they know about the problem of crypto scams. And some even alerted their management. The retailer has kept the machines in its stores and even renewed a deal with Bitcoin Depot earlier this year. Bitcoin Depot founder Brandon Mintz explained at a 2019 conference why having crypto machines in stores is key to earning trust.
BRANDON MINTZ, FOUNDER, BITCOIN DEPOT: Once you have a physical machine sitting somewhere next to an ATM that you've used all the time, a store you always go to, you're going to think that this is -- this is a real service and you're going to feel a lot more comfortable using it.
LAH (voice-over): And it has paid off. Bitcoin Depot earned half a billion dollars in revenue last year. Bitcoin Depot tells CNN it includes multiple warnings on their machines and bad actors are to blame for scams.
BECKETT: I'm a sucker because I'm a senior citizen. That's sad.
LAH (voice-over): Steve Beckett says he fell for the con because the scammers sent him to his local Circle K.
[20:35:01]
LAH: What is the responsibility of these convenience stores like Circle K?
BECKETT: These stores that these machines are in need to be held responsible. Shame on you. Why? Because you're not making enough?
LAH (voice-over): Circle K tells CNN the crime starts outside of their stores. And it works with Bitcoin Depot to meet its standards and customer expectations. But Circle K also makes money. The company has earned millions of dollars by hosting the Bitcoin ATMs, while its own customers get scammed inside their stores. One Circle K employee at a city council hearing in Florida said her company turns a blind eye.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I see this way too much. And Circle K policy is it's not a machine, it's not a problem. But I see it all too often.
LAH (voice-over): Scams inside Circle K stores are so common that their own employees have fallen for them. Take a look at this sign behind the counter ordering workers to never drop money from the register into a Bitcoin ATM. And listen to what a Circle K district manager told police after a scam was interrupted in Niceville, Florida.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I hate these machines. I'd like to get them out of the stores.
SGT. NATHAN VANCLEAVE, EVANSVILLE, INDIANA POLICE: You can only imagine how much scam victims money is going through those machines.
LAH (voice-over): Sergeant Nathan VanCleave works in financial crimes for the Evansville, Indiana Police Department, his hometown.
VANCLEAVE: We really desperately at this moment need to get the plug pulled on these Bitcoin ATMs to make the scams harder. The roadblock is the big corporations, gas stations that are hosting these Bitcoin ATMs. They need to give up the profit that they are making off of scam victims.
LAH: You're asking a corporation to take a moral choice here.
VANCLEAVE: The right thing to do is to lose that profit and not cause harm to other people. We had a local store in town. Once we told them, hey, these machines are only for scams. They just pulled the plug on it.
LAH: The machine was just right over there, right?
KATE REDMAN, MANAGER, HAYNIE'S CORNER MART: They're in the back. And we pulled it. I pulled the cord.
LAH: You pulled the cord out of the wall?
REDMAN: Yes.
LAH: Doesn't the store need money?
REDMAN: We need money, but we didn't like carrying these plates and we don't like to watch them get ripped off.
(END VIDEOTAPE) LAH: Circle K and Bitcoin Depot declined to be interviewed on camera for our story. Circle K did send us a statement saying, "As a responsible retailer, we work closely with business partners like Bitcoin Depot to ensure their services consistently meet our standards, regulatory requirements and customers' needs and expectations." Bitcoin Depot said, "we provide our retail partners with clear information about the safeguards built into our kiosks like scam warnings. And that, unfortunately, bad actors attempt to misuse many types of financial self-service terminals. This issue," the company adds, "is not unique to any one retailer." John?
SANCHEZ: Wow. Kyung Lah, that is something. Thank you very much.
Right next, a major decision from the Supreme Court on the President's bid to deploy the National Guard in one major city.
Plus, the data center explosion linked to the rise of artificial intelligence and the not-in-my-backyard push in some locations over worries that they use too much water and electricity.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
[20:38:28]
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I wasn't aware that it took this much resources. I was naive. I was ignorant on it. And now I'm not.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SANCHEZ: The Supreme Court has dealt a significant blow to the Trump administration, blocking the President from deploying the National Guard to Chicago. In the 6-3 ruling, the court's three liberal justices were joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Amy Coney Barrett, and Justice Brett Kavanaugh. And today's decision could jeopardize guard deployments in other cities.
With us now, CNN senior legal analyst Elie Honig, he's a former federal prosecutor. Walk us through the reasoning here from the Supreme Court, which I have to say is truly interesting.
ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: It really is. It's an unusual decision and a major setback for the Trump administration, not just in Chicago, but more broadly. The law that Donald Trump used to deploy the National Guard in the first place says that the President can call out the National Guard if he is unable with regular forces. We're going to come back to that, OK? Regular forces to execute the laws of the United States.
Now, the Trump administration argued that means if he's unable with regular cops, with FBI, DEA, ICE, to enforce the laws, then you can call on the National Guard. What the Supreme Court said is, no, no, no. That phrase, regular forces, that means the regular military, army, navy, air force, marines, and only those very narrow areas where the military is even allowed to come in and execute the laws in the first place.
So basically, the Supreme Court has put the bar very high to deploy the National Guard in the future and has limited it to an almost minuscule slice of all conduct on the streets. It's going to make it very difficult for the President to justify the National Guard in Portland, New York, anywhere else.
SANCHEZ: Explain why this mattered in Chicago but doesn't play -- didn't play in Los Angeles or in Portland, Oregon, where the Guard was also deployed.
HONIG: So I think you and I discussed Los Angeles and D.C. were different. D.C. was different. Trump was allowed, generally, to deploy there because the President is in charge of the D.C. National Guard, OK? Put that to the side.
L.A. was different, Los Angeles, because there were protests that at times turned violent happening there. The rationale in Chicago is much more generalized. Just, well, crime rates are high and it's very dangerous, and the Supreme Court has said that's not enough for this specific statute.
SANCHEZ: Yes, and again, for it to be allowed in cities like Chicago in these circumstances, it would have to get past posse comitatus, right?
HONIG: Right.
SANCHEZ: Which means what?
HONIG: You with your Latin phrases. Which means that the military traditionally cannot conduct regular law enforcement activities. They can't make traffic stops. They can't do searches. They can really only provide a very basic security function. So it's very, very narrow.
So this decision really leaves very limited room for Trump to deploy the National Guard elsewhere. They can try to argue circumstances are different, but if the argument's just going to be, well, it's dangerous, that's not going to cut it.
[20:45:01]
SANCHEZ: Where they're not invited is also important.
HONIG: Yes. Well, it's a big difference if the governor requests aid.
SANCHEZ: Right.
HONIG: That changes the whole legal calculus. Interesting coalition here, right? We're so used to these 6-3 decisions, six conservatives versus three liberals. Here you had Chief Justice Roberts, Amy Coney Barrett, and Brett Kavanaugh joining with the liberals, leaving the three conservatives complaining about this. This was an emergency docket case, meaning there was not full briefing, there was no oral argument, and there's been criticism of the emergency docket. The way this plays is whoever loses hates the emergency docket. SANCHEZ: All right. Again, very interesting reasoning. Could have a vast impact depending on where else the president wanted to deploy the Guard in the next coming months. Elie Honig, great to see you. Have a great holiday.
HONIG: All right, you too.
SANCHEZ: All right. Now, artificial intelligence is changing our world in ways you may not expect. There is a surge in the building of data centers to store all that digital information that helps run A.I. But the rapid construction is taxing communities. Supporters say it helps local economics, but critics say they use too much electricity and too much water. Here's Ed Lavandera.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Shame. Shame.
LAVANDERA (voice-over): When a company called CloudBurst broke ground on the construction of a new data center in central Texas, angry neighbors disrupted the event. The protests were led by sisters Abigail and Jennifer Lindsey.
JENNIFER LINDSEY, LOCAL RESIDENT: This is a map of our area, so this is our neighborhood right here.
LAVANDERA (voice-over): Who live across the street in this remote patch of Hays County south of Austin.
ABIGAIL LINDSEY, LOCAL RESIDENT: This is kind of our sanctuary, and, you know, this is home. This is where we've always come back.
LAVANDERA (voice-over): The Lindsey family moved here more than 30 years ago, long before anyone fathomed A.I. data centers.
LAVANDERA: And the data center will be where?
A. LINDSEY: Right there. Right there.
LAVANDERA (voice-over): Abigail and Jennifer took us on a tour of the family's 16-acre spread.
LAVANDERA: What we're looking at here in a few months, all of this will look totally different.
J. LINDSEY: Yes.
A. LINDSEY: Yes. I wasn't aware that it took this much resources. I was naive. I was ignorant on it, and now I'm not. This is happening to people all across the country. I mean, people are really struggling with this.
LAVANDERA: One of the executives from CloudBurst said at a public meeting.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Your bank, your hospital, your doctors, all the governments, they couldn't survive without a data center. So I understand that maybe you don't want it next door to you, but it has to go somewhere.
LAVANDERA: When you hear that, what do you think?
A. LINDSEY: F you. It's a rush to market, and just to hell with the little people, you know. You don't have the power, so screw you.
LAVANDERA (voice-over): CloudBurst tells CNN the company is, "committed to being a good neighbor and steward of the local environment." This site will include three different buildings totaling nearly 700,000 square feet in just phase one of its build- out.
LAVANDERA: CloudBurst says that they're going to have a closed-loop water system, which will help them use far less water. They also say that their facility will essentially be self-sufficient in terms of energy.
J. LINDSEY: I don't think it's possible. You just got to think everything is operating 24 hours a day, seven days a week. I mean, it's constant.
CROWD: No data center in Dunn County.
LAVANDERA (voice-over): The rapid construction of data centers are triggering fights across the country. The processing chips in data centers need constant cooling, which requires massive amounts of power and water.
A 2024 Department of Energy report estimated data centers are expected to consume between 6 and 12 percent of the country's electricity in about two years. So the race is on to develop technology that will save the power grid and conserve water.
BRAXTON SMITH, RESEARCH SCIENTIST, UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT ARLINGTON: So we have an actual server rack here.
LAVANDERA (voice-over): Which brings us to this room on the University of Texas at Arlington campus and two Gen Z graduate engineering wizards, Sai Pundla and Braxton Smith have developed a cooling system that could soon be deployed into data centers.
SAI PUNDLA, RESEARCH SCIENTIST, UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT ARLINGTON: It's just going to sit on top of the chip and cool it, and this is how it sits.
LAVANDERA (voice-over): The engineers say this could dramatically cut water and electrical usage.
LAVANDERA: That's why you feel the urgency of getting this stuff deployed quickly, right?
PUNDLA: Yes. By minimizing the energy that goes into the cooling, you then minimize the energy that goes into the entire data center by a lot. PERRIN HATCHER, LOCAL RESIDENT: This is from this morning. This is actually her egg.
LAVANDERA (voice-over): Perrin Hatcher bought this secluded 10-acre property east of San Antonio this year. The Marine veteran and his wife say this was supposed to be their forever home. But then they found out a company called Maasai Investments bought 2,700 acres to build a data center.
LAVANDERA: So the data center is going to be just along that long tree line over there?
HATCHER: Yes, just past these trees, about 1,000 yards that way is what I was told. This is the well. This is the only way I get my water.
LAVANDERA (voice-over): Hatcher depends on a well that pulls water from an aquifer. The proposed data center could use 1 to 2 million gallons of water per day.
LAVANDERA: You're concerned that the data center is going to pull so much water out of the aquifer that you depend on.
HATCHER: Yes, exactly.
LAVANDERA (voice-over): The owner of the data center says the facility could use up to 25 million gallons of water per year, which is far less, he says, than they're allowed to extract from the aquifer. Hatcher shows us the neighborhood next-door app is flooded with posts from neighbors worried about the water source if the data center opens in three years.
[20:50:13]
HATCHER: Here's one right here. I mean, I literally just opened that. I mean, it's everywhere. I mean, I've even seen petitions on here that people are posting to try to sign to save the aquifer.
LAVANDERA (voice-over): Perrin Hatcher moved here to what he calls a diamond in the rough. But A.I. has found him in the woods.
HATCHER: I know. Come on. Come on, come on, come on.
I don't want to leave having that kind of life. And I just, I don't know, I can't see that me in the future if I have no water.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
LAVANDERA: And the owner of that last company I spoke with this week, John, says that they are going to implement efforts there to use vastly less water than has traditionally been used. So that is something that they will continue to monitor. And many residents continue to be very concerned about that.
But politically, this is also kind of setting off all sorts of confusion across the country as well. You see really like local governments, county commissioners, on the front lines of having to deal with concerned and angry residents, whereas you might have some governors here in Texas who welcome this development and this investment in these areas. So this is actually, you know, a very confusing time. And many people say it's a little bit like they're feeling like a Wild West out there right now. John?
SANCHEZ: Yes, you hear this tension all over the country. Ed Lavandera, great to see you. Merry Christmas to you, my friend. Thank you. We're just days away from Anderson and Andy Cohen ringing in the New Year, and they're going to look back at their past celebrations, even some questionable drink choices. That's next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[20:55:35]
SANCHEZ: New Year's Eve just around the corner, Anderson and Andy Cohen sat down to chat about some of their favorite moments from New Year's Eve's past. Watch.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
ANDY COHEN, T.V. SHOW HOST: I know what a teetotaler you are. And you really, you will at dinner occasionally have a glass of red wine.
ANDERSON COOPER, CNN ACNHOR: Yes, hardly.
COHEN: You're good for a glass of red, maybe. Usually a diet cola.
COOPER: Although now, but there's no -- there's no point in having any alcohol at all. Like, the studies are clear. It's just not good for you.
COHEN: All right. Thank you, Mr. Happiness. Anyway, I thought it would be fun if we did some shots together. Well, that's really turned into something. And not only --
COOPER: Did you know you were on to something?
COHEN: Well, yes, I did. It's the backbone of Watch What Happens Live. But I have to say, what I didn't realize I was on to is all of the peculiar sounds that you make. I've never heard.
COOPER: I don't think you've ever seen me do a shot. I don't think I have, really.
COHEN: I don't think that I have, but I've never, more importantly, heard you do a shot. The cacophonous chorus of oddities that have emanated from the Vanderbilt boy are, it's something. And I'm begging you, CNN, to roll a montage, because it's really something.
That felt good. That felt good.
COOPER: I didn't want to explode in front of him, he said.
COHEN: Very good. We just did a shot, but I just want you to continue. You didn't totally finish.
COOPER: My glasses fogged up.
COHEN: But I have to say, usually around 10:30 at night is when I become the straight guy of the two of us. And I start --
COOPER: Wait a minute, how is that possible?
COHEN: Well, I start, metaphorically, I start driving the bus.
COOPER: Oh, really? You think so?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Because -- oh, without question.
COOPER: You think you're -- you think you're the one driving the bus on New Year's Eve?
COHEN: After 10:30.
COOPER: Really?
COHEN: Yes, I do.
COOPER: Wow.
COHEN: Yes.
COOPER: OK.
COHEN: Because the alcohol takes you away a little bit, and I suddenly, you can ask our longtime producer, Eric Hall, I think he will agree that at some point in the 10 o'clock hour, maybe early in 11:00.
COOPER: You feel you're in control.
COHEN: I feel that I am.
COOPER: You feel you are in control in those hours, I mean?
COHEN: I know where you're going with this. No, but I feel like I'm doing the time cues. You're off with the fairies, and I'm deferring.
COOPER: I don't recall exactly when your diatribes against, you know, poor Nicole Kidman or --
COHEN: I didn't have a diatribe against her, I just asked her about the clapping.
COOPER: Bringing up in politic things with our guests, or -- or yelling at Ryan Seacrest, or yelling at Journey.
COHEN: I've had some --
COOPER: Let's roll the clip of you yelling at Journey.
COHEN: OK.
I just got doused with confetti from the fake Journey appearing on ABC. If it's not Steve Perry, it doesn't count.
COOPER: Why are they fake Journey? Bands can evolve. They can change, can't they?
COHEN: You know what? You're right. What I didn't bargain for was Journey's own Neil Schoen tweeted me for about a year after that.
COOPER: Is that true, really?
COHEN: Yes. And you know what? He was right. He was right.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
SANCHEZ: You can watch this entire conversation right now at CNN.com/NewYear'sEvelive, NYE live. And after the actual New Year's Eve with Anderson and Andy, be sure to tune in on New Year's Day for CNN Films' new documentary, I'm Chevy Chase and You're Not. I sat down with Chevy Chase to talk about this and why he believes comedy is so important.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
SANCHEZ: What do you like about making people laugh?
CHEVY CHASE, COMEDIAN: The laughter. I just think it's such a release for everyone that what I do is important for other people. I know that I can really make people laugh, either standing up or falling down. And it's the laugh that means everything to them and to me because it's as if I'm being told I'm loved, you know, as a child. You know, and for them, it's releasing. It's a nice thing to have them release through laughter.
[21:00:23]
SANCHEZ: When did you know that you loved making people laugh?
CHASE: Last week.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
SANCHEZ: Sorry for asking. I'm Chevy Chase and You're Not premieres New Year's Day at 8:00 p.m. right here on CNN.
The news continues, The Source with Kaitlan Collins. It starts now.
