Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Alleged CEO Killer Pleads Not Guilty to NY State Charges; Magione's Atty Raises Concerns About Getting A Fair Trial; Mangione's Attorney: Dual Federal & State Charges Raise Constitutional Double Jeopardy Concerns; Report Finds Evidence Matt Gaetz Paid Thousands for Sex and Drugs Including Paying a 17-Year-Old for Sex in 2017; Trump Slams Dem Claims of Elon Musk's Growing Influence; Trump Says He'd Consider Retaking Control of Panama Canal. Aired 3-3:30p ET

Aired December 23, 2024 - 15:00   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:00:46]

ERICA HILL, CNN HOST: The man suspected of killing healthcare CEO Brian Thompson pleads not guilty in a New York courtroom, so what's next for Luigi Mangione, as his attorney now accuses officials of using him as political fodder.

DANNY FREEMAN, CNN HOST: Plus, a brand-new ethics report, years in the making, details evidence of Matt Gaetz breaking several state and federal laws by allegedly paying tens of thousands of dollars for drugs and sex with women, possibly including a 17-year-old girl. We'll tell you how the former congressman is responding.

And President-elect Trump apparently reviving his desire for the U.S. to buy Greenland and reclaim control of the Panama Canal. The incoming president's potential reasons for wanting to expand the United States' footprint. We're following all of these major developing stories and many more, all coming in, right here to CNN NEWS CENTRAL.

HILL: Luigi Mangione, the man accused of killing a healthcare executive in broad daylight, pleading not guilty. That plea happening in a New York courtroom today. You see him being escorted in in this video. He was arraigned on 11 state charges in New York, among them first-degree murder and terrorism.

The 26-year-old is potentially facing life in prison without parole. His attorney today expressing concerns in court, claiming New York City Mayor Eric Adams and law enforcement have politicized this case, potentially jeopardizing her client's chances of a fair trial.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KAREN FRIEDMAN AGNIFILO, LUIGI MANGIONE ATTORNEY: He's being prejudiced by some statements that are being made by government officials. Like every other defendant, he's entitled to a presumption of innocence. But unfortunately, the way this has been handled so far, his rights are being violated. And as you know, Your Honor, there's a wealth of case law guaranteeing his right to a fair trial, but none of the safeguards have been put in place yet here. In fact, it's just the opposite of what's been happening.

He's a young man and he is being treated like a human ping-pong ball between two warring jurisdictions.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HILL: Now, she went on to call out officials for the massive show of force, as you see here, last week. This, of course, when Mangione was extradited from Pennsylvania. She called this the, quote, "biggest staged perp walk she has ever seen."

CNN's Kara Scannell joins us now.

So walk us through, Kara, what else we heard in court today at this arraignment.

KARA SCANNELL, CNN CORRESPONDENT: So very quickly, off the bat, it only lasts about 20 minutes, but Mangione was asked to enter a plea. That was the only time he spoke, and he entered a plea of not guilty to these 11 state charges. You know, then his attorney took the opportunity to raise these concerns that she had about him, as she put it, being a human ping-pong ball, and the issue that there are warring jurisdictions.

So she raised this saying she was concerned he wouldn't have the right to a fair trial. The judge, Gregory Carro, telling her that he can only control what happens in his courtroom, but he assured her that Mangione would be able to have a fair trial and that they would have a robust jury selection process to weed out any sort of bias.

It was interesting, in the courtroom today, there were four rows of public - reserved for the public, and they were filled. They were mostly women, about two dozen women, out of a group of, say, 30 or so people there.

Now, no one spoke, of course, because the decorum in the courtroom is to keep everything locked up. As you could see, even from those images inside the courtroom, Mangione, sitting at the defense table, is surrounded by court officers. They were behind him the entire time, and then walking closely, arm-in-arm with him, in and out of the actual courtroom down the center aisle.

Now, another issue that came up, his lawyers asked for expedited discovery, and the prosecutor on the case said, in his 30 years of being a prosecutor, he said he hadn't seen ever this much evidence. He said they have thousands of hours of video of Mangione, because this was a multi-day manhunt. They had been able to piece together the steps that he is the alleged shooter of the UnitedHealthcare CEO by looking at all of this video, at surveillance evidence, both at the alleged crime scene, and then also tracking his travels throughout Manhattan, so that is some of the evidence. He also said they have the evidence from the Pennsylvania case, where he was arrested there in Altoona at that McDonald's, as well as what the federal officials have.

[15:05:08] So a lot of evidence that they said they will have to amass and give to them, so the judge is saying the next time they'll be in court will be in late February to kind of have an update of where they are on this investigation as this begins to move forward.

But another wrinkle here was, where was Mangione going next and that's because he was charged initially and indicted in the state, but then last Thursday, there were federal charges that came the day that Mangione was expected to be in the court he was in today for this arraignment. So the judge asking who has primary jurisdiction over him, the feds or the state? And the prosecutor in court today saying that it's the state authorities that have jurisdiction of him. They're the primary case. And the judge saying, well, I think you guys need to work this out and figure out where he's going to stay, if it will be in the federal jail in Brooklyn or if he might get shipped to Rikers Island in New York. Erica?

HILL: We'll be watching to see if they figure that out, when they figure it out. Kara, I appreciate it. Thank you.

Also joining me this hour, law enforcement and legal experts, Michael Alcazar is a retired New York police detective and also an adjunct professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice. CNN Legal Analyst, Joey Jackson is a defense attorney and a former prosecutor, I should point out.

Good to see both of you.

When we look at where things stand here, as we wait to see who in fact gets jurisdiction, Joey, what's your gut here?

JOEY JACKSON, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: You know, I think Erica, good to be with you, that the federal government certainly could move forward first. And here's why I say that, I know that there's been public pronouncements to the contrary, but the federal government is very well resourced and things in federal court move a lot swifter than they do in state court. It can take much more than a year to have any generalized murder case move forward, even, and especially in Manhattan, my former office, and boroughs around New York City.

Whereas in federal court, it's just much more expeditious. There's less litigants, there's the motion practice in terms of the discovery being exchanged and attorneys filing various motions, the defense, usually, Erica, to suppress certain evidence, to make these arguments about unfair trials.

And when you're ready to move forward, I'm not sure, as we look there at the federal counts, that a judge is going to say, oh, really, prosecutors, you made an agreement with New York City and Manhattan? No problem, I'll hold it in abeyance.

And so my gut would indicate that that would move forward first. And final point, Erica, and that's this, it has a death penalty potential in federal court. And so with the stakes that high, with the consequences that high, it may very well be, despite what the official's saying, that when a federal judge says, hey, discovery's been exchanged, motion's been done, we're ready, let's go, and not stand and wait for whatever state proceeding is upcoming.

HILL: I was struck by these - the comments from the defense attorney today talking about this perp walk, calling it utterly political, alleging it was unconstitutional because there was no legitimate law enforcement objective when it came to that moment. Michael, how do you see that?

MICHAEL ALCAZAR, RETIRED NYPD DETECTIVE: Well, you know, perp walks are done all the time in the New York City Police Department. I've done it when I made a good arrest, when I was in the detective squad. I'm not sure if it was political, but I think, you know, Mayor Adams being there surely looked political. We've never seen a mayor in a perp walk, so I can see why they're thinking that.

But it's nothing new, it's something that we do when we make an arrest or we make an apprehension. It's just to show the people that we collared this perp and here's your perp walk.

HILL: How does that - Joey, how does it come, the fact that Mayor Adams was there, clearly wanted to be there, as you point out, Michael, that is not something that you typically see, even though you may see a show of force, you don't see the mayor there. Joey, when you look at this, there are some concerns about whether or not this is a fair trial. Oftentimes you hear that concern coming from the defense. Is that a concern you think for the prosecution?

JACKSON: Yes, that's a great question, Erica, and here's why, I mean, with respect to the perp walk and what everyone's saying and the mayor there, I think it's an unprecedented case. I think you look at social media and people on social media really siding with, as the person we're looking at there, Luigi Mangione, he's a hero, right? They've got these St. Luigi t-shirts and other things that they're sending out there.

And I think the mayor - remember, he's former law enforcement as well, very tied into that community based upon his roots. He's going to be there and he wants to ensure New Yorkers that I don't care what the public says. And alleged crimes are alleged crimes, so we're going to ferret it out and see what happens.

But the real concern, Erica, briefly, is this whole issue of jury nullification. I think, if anything, the defense and all of the social media thing that's coming onto, it looks as if the prosecutor might have an issue as it relates to a fair trial. People love this guy and we could debate whether it's appropriate, it's not appropriate. I've never seen anything like this.

And so she was right, his attorney, that is, Ms. Agnifilo, to make that record. But I just don't know you can argue the lack of a fair trial when the social media has been so kind to him and some of the comments are outrageously centered towards him.

[15:10:02]

And if you saw that "Saturday Night Live" skit, people were cheering at the mention of his name. So this is very different and I wonder whether a jury, whether they get impaneled, really buys his message, hates healthcare so much that they say, hey, look, we saw what you did, we know what you did, but we'll excuse it, you never can tell.

HILL: There is a lot we still don't know, but some of the evidence, obviously, has been shared with the public. Prosecutors are saying there's just a volume of evidence that they have to go through, Michael. When you look at that in terms of preparing for that case, to Joey's point, perhaps a federal case can get done quicker. When you're dealing with that much evidence, how does it change things?

ALCAZAR: Well, I think it - this was a wealth of evidence. So it's a gift to the prosecution. They just have to make sure that they process all the evidence, they link it to the weapons, the DNA's properly processed, make sure everything is done and buttoned up correctly, because it's up to them to mess up this case. You know, you have so much information, so much DNA evidence, fingerprints, the gun, the bullets, you know, I think they just have to be methodical and present it properly, and it's for them to lose.

HILL: Michael Alcazar, Joey Jackson, appreciate you both joining us. We're not letting you go anywhere, though. We're going to make you pull double duty today. As I know you know, I'll hand it over to Danny.

FREEMAN: Erica, thank you.

All right. New today, the House Ethics Committee releasing its scathing report on former Florida congressman, Matt Gaetz, finding, quote, "substantial evidence that Gaetz paid thousands of dollars to women for sex and drugs on multiple occasions," including allegedly paying a 17-year-old for sex back in 2017. Gaetz has repeatedly denied any wrongdoing.

For more on this, we have CNN's Katelyn Polantz. She's joining me now.

Katelyn, what more are we learning from this report today?

KATELYN POLANTZ, CNN CRIME AND JUSTICE REPORTER: Well, Danny, the House here - the Ethics Committee in their work, they are documenting that they believe there is evidence - substantial evidence, they say, to show that Matt Gaetz at least 20 times between the years of 2017 and 2020 time when he was in Congress, was meeting with women who were being paid to have sex with him and/or provide him drugs.

Some of those women were telling the committee in testimony they were given that there was a general expectation that they would be having sex with him. One was paid more than $5,000. There were adult women traveling with him on a trip to the Bahamas. And then there's that allegation about the 17-year-old girl, an allegation that the committee takes a step further to say they believe Matt Gaetz was committing, allegedly, statutory rape, a violation of Florida state law.

Now, he has not been charged with any crime. He had previously been investigated by the federal authorities and not charged. They declined to bring any charges there. But the House Ethics Committee details what happened with that woman, who was an underage girl at the time, who spoke to them.

They wrote: "The committee received testimony that Victim A and Representative Gaetz had sex twice during the party," that's a party in July of 2017, "including at least once in the presence of other party attendees. Victim A recalled receiving $400 in cash from Rep. Gaetz that evening, which she understood to be payment for sex. At the time, she had just completed her junior year of high school. Victim A said that she did not inform Rep. Gaetz that she was under 18 at the time, nor did he ask her age. The Committee did not receive any evidence indicating that Rep. Gaetz was aware that Victim A was a minor when he had sex with her."

And Gaetz also has said in court filings today, as well as publicly, that he is denying these allegations against him from the House Ethics Committee. Danny?

FREEMAN: Katelyn Polantz, thank you so much for breaking all that down.

All right. Joey Jackson is back with us to continue this analysis. Joey, I just want to read from part of the report here, just because the language was so strong and forceful. The Committee concluded there was, quote, "substantial evidence that Representative Gaetz violated House rules, state and federal laws, and other standards of conduct, prohibiting prostitution, statutory rape, illicit drug use, acceptance of impermissible gifts, the provision of special favors and privileges, and obstruction of Congress."

Joey, as Katelyn Caitlin noted, the DOJ did decline to bring federal charges against Gaetz a few years back, but do you think state charges are possible in Florida after, I mean, this damning report?

JACKSON: So, Danny, we're in a different world now, and here's what I mean by that: Ordinarily, you'd ask me a legal question, I talk to you about the Florida laws relating to statutory rape, relating to underage, et cetera, what does it mean, what is the elements, what's the sentence. I talk to you about the federal statutes concerning trafficking and commercial sex or minor sex, but what is a different world I'm speaking of?

In terms of any federal crimes that are noted in the report, because they specifically note the federal crimes that they believe, that is, these committee members that he violated.

[15:15:07]

Donald Trump, remember, suggested and appointed, not only suggested, that he be the attorney general of the United States. He has a get- out-of-jail-free card. So even if you say, you know what, let's drum up these federal crimes again, he's not the Attorney General, but as long as a person in the White House is a person who's a friend of his, there will be no federal prosecution, much less any charges.

Let's go to state court, Danny, very briefly. Who is in charge of Florida? And that is Mr. DeSantis, who ran for president, also aligned, right, with the current incoming administration. And so even if there was a prosecution, right, Trump can't pardon him, but guess who can? The governor of Florida. So I'm not suggesting that that will happen, I'm not suggesting he'll be prosecuted, I'm not suggesting he's guilty. Everyone deserves the presumption of innocence. I'm a defense attorney, I'll yell that from the mountaintops.

What I'm suggesting is that we're in a different world, and we're in a world that says that if you know friends in high places and they happen to be in an elective office, they can pardon you.

And so as it relates to state crime, he could be prosecuted, but pardoned. And as it relates to federal crimes, he could be prosecuted and pardoned, but I would not look for either in this circumstance.

FREEMAN: All right. Well, let me then take advantage of your defense attorney hat then here for a second, because we've actually been hearing from the former congressman, who really kind of went on a bit of a tweet storm this morning as this report was being released, saying, at least in part in one tweet: "Giving funds to someone you're dating that they didn't ask for and that isn't 'charged' for sex is now prostitution? There is a reason they did this to me in a Christmas Eve-Eve report and not in a courtroom of any kind where I could present evidence and challenge witnesses."

Joey, do statements like this help Gaetz at all?

JACKSON: I think that the imperative here, because remember, Danny, he's no longer a congressperson. He resigned and therefore the committee doesn't have jurisdiction. You can argue whether they should have released a report. Many members felt they shouldn't have. Some, of course, a majority said that they should.

So he, right, is not going to be subject to any congressional type of reprimands, et cetera. The only other thing he could be subject to is prosecution. He has a right to defend himself. Everybody is presumed innocent. There has been no trial. He's entitled to due process. He's entitled to question these witnesses, to push back forcefully, to say he didn't do it, and maybe he's right. That would be for a jury to make the determination.

So he's going to protect his interest, protect his brand, protect himself, and he should, because everyone deserves a defense. But at the end of the day, until these are vetted, this is a committee report. It needs to be vetted. There needs to be a trial. That's our system of justice. We can't brand him guilty, but this report is damning. It looks pretty bad. Whether or not it'll see the light of day in a courtroom, such that it could be shined under the glare of cross-examination is another matter. And I say to you, Danny, that's not going to happen, is my view.

FREEMAN: You know, one other thing, Joey, is as interesting as - or rather as harsh as this report was specifically for Matt Gaetz, the report also detailed a lot of frustration the Committee had with the DOJ for not helping their investigation. I was curious what you made of that. We can see right here, part of the report was saying, the DOJ refused to provide the relevant statements and other significant evidence to the committee. DOJ's initial deferral request and subsequent lack of cooperation with the Committee's review caused significant delays in the investigation.

Now, obviously, there's - these are two totally different bodies, but is that normal, to have a DOJ really drag its feet or not help at all a House committee?

JACKSON: Yes. So generally speaking, you have a lot of interagency cooperation at every level, right? We've seen that in what we talked about before, Danny, what I was talking about with Erica, Luigi Mangione, different case, different time.

But the reality is, right, for Matt Gaetz, right, but he's now - Luigi Mangione - you had Pennsylvania cooperating with New York, you have the federal government in prosecuting him, cooperating with New York state, right? There's this level of cooperation, as it relates to this specific case involving Gaetz, you would expect and anticipate DOJ, Department of Justice, is investigating.

They would open their file. They would share it with the committee. The committee would open its file and share it with them. Why it happened, who got involved, what were the dynamics, what were the politics, what really did occur, we may never know. But no, generally speaking, there are these cooperations between prosecutors when you're trying to get to one objective, and that objective, excuse me, Danny, is justice.

And how do you get there if people are not talking to each other, people are dragging their feet. I don't know what the political dynamic is. We may not want to know what the political dynamic is, but for whatever reason, you know, they didn't speak, and that's a problem because critical evidence may not have come out, which could have given this report more emphasis. But on its face alone, it's pretty bad. These allegations, he hasn't been proven guilty of anything, of course.

[15:20:03]

FREEMAN: Like you said, Joey, we live in interesting times. Thank you so much for your analysis, really appreciate it as always.

JACKSON: Thanks, guys.

FREEMAN: All right. And still to come, what do Canada, Greenland and the Panama Canal all have in common? Well, President-elect Donald Trump generally wants them under U.S. control. He'll tell you what we know about the newest items on his presidential wish list.

Plus, new fallout after actress Blake Lively accuses the director and co-star of her latest movie of sexually harassing her, and then plotting to ruin her public image. Allegations he denies. That and much more all coming up on CNN NEWS CENTRAL.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:24:30]

HILL: With just 28 days now to go until Donald Trump's second inauguration, the president-elect is sharing some of his ideas for his new administration in a speech on Sunday at a conservative conference in Phoenix. Trump doubling down on plans posted on his social media, he wants to take back the Panama Canal. He's also pushing back on Democrats' claims about billionaire Elon Musk and his increasing political clout with Republicans, despite some in the party welcoming Musk into the fold.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. TONY GONZALES (R-TX): It's kind of interesting. We have a president, we have a vice president, we have a speaker.

[15:25:00]

It feels like it - as if Elon Musk is our prime minister. And I've - I spoke with Elon a couple of times this week. I think many of us --

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Unelected.

GONZALES: Well, unelected, but I mean, he has a voice and I think a lot of - large part of that voice is a reflection of the voice of the people.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HILL: CNN's Steve Contorno joining us now live from Florida.

So it's interesting to see all of these moments, especially that reference there to Elon Musk being sort of the prime minister as we look at all of this. A lot to unpack. We'll get to Elon Musk. Talk to me though about Panama, Greenland, Canada, I mean, these are some interesting ideas to be throwing out at this point, Steve.

STEVE CONTORNO, CNN REPORTER: It's certainly is. It's certainly nothing that came up during the presidential campaign, though the idea to purchase Greenland has been sort of a long-time fixation of Donald Trump's. He first floated that all the way back in 2019. Greenland is a - is an autonomous territory of Denmark, which has repeatedly said it's not for sale. But he is clearly reviving that idea here.

The idea though to seize the Panama Canal is coming out of left field. In fact, I've talked to several people close to Trump's transition team who said they are not entirely sure what provoked Trump to suddenly become interested in the Panama Canal. Several people have said it wasn't something that was on their radar, though they did point out that Trump has been very focused on trade issues. Certainly what happens in this passageway between the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans would count toward that.

But take a listen to why he described the need for the U.S. to get involved in this more - in this issue. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT-ELECT OF THE UNITED STATES: Has anyone ever heard of the Panama Canal, huh? Because we're being ripped off at the Panama Canal like we're being ripped off everywhere else. A secure - he just said, take it back and that's a good idea.

It was given to Panama and to the people of Panama, but it has provisions. You got to treat us fairly, and they haven't treated us fairly. If the principles, both moral and legal, of this magnanimous gesture of giving are not followed, then we will demand that the Panama Canal be returned to the United States of America.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CONTORNO: Trump basically said that, look, we are - we have to pay fees to use the canal, and those fees should be lowered. And if they are not, then perhaps we would have to take over the canal once more. And so that was certainly the threat he put out there.

I will point out, Erica, that with his threats on tariffs looming and the potential increase that could cause on consumer goods and prices, perhaps getting the cost of shipping and using the canal is one way to lower costs.

HILL: Interesting to see whether or not this ends up being some sort of a negotiating tactic to that point. Steve, appreciate it. Thank you.

Joining me to discuss, CNN Political Commentator, Jamal Simmons, and Republican strategist, Erin Perrine. Good to see both of you.

Erin, when we hear this from Donald Trump throwing out the idea of taking over control of the Panama Canal, which, of course, the president of Panama then pushed back on very strongly because it is under Panamanian authority, floating again the idea of Greenland, how is this helpful? Is this a distraction from something else?

Erin Perrine: I'm not a hundred percent sure what the strategy is here. But I heard a couple of things in Steve's reporting that kind of piqued my interest here. One, you heard that Steve was saying regarding the Panama Canal that he's hearing from transition folks that this was out of left field. They don't really know where this came from or why Trump has decided to put this in.

However, from what I heard of Trump's speech, and I didn't see it, so I'm not a hundred percent sure on this, it sounded like those were almost prepared remarks put into the speech about seizing back the Panama Canal, which means people in Trump's circle do know what's going on here.

He has been talking about it, at least enough that somebody typed it up and put it into remarks, potentially. I, again, didn't see the full remarks, but what I heard sounded a bit more prepared than off the cuff like you normally hear from Donald Trump. It does sound, and again, we don't elaborate or explain if you've ever worked for Donald Trump, but it sounds like it's an attempt at a negotiation tactic. I'm not sure on the Greenland front either. But if it's true that Steve's reporting says that people don't know where this came from and people are that much in Donald Trump's ear right now, Susie Wiles needs to be able to step in and say, enough's enough, let's get this back on track and remain focused on what we've promised to deliver for the American people.

HILL: In terms of people being in Donald Trump's ear, of course, there's a lot of focus on Elon Musk involvement. You just heard Rep. Gonzales refer to him as almost like the prime minister. What's been interesting to watch, Jamal, is this seems to be one area, as Democrats are still struggling to find their path forward and their message forward. This seems to be an area where they are all coming together with a common message, is it effective?

[15:30:03]

JAMAL SIMMONS, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Yes, it's an easy hit. Listen, Elon Musk is literally the richest person in the world.