Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Now: Erik Menendez Appears Before Parole Board; Now: California Parole Board Weighs Erik Menendez's Release; Trump Plans to Join Law Enforcement on Streets of D.C. Tonight; McCarthy Urges CA Voters to Reject Dems Redistricting Efforts; Rep. Robert Garcia (D-CA) Discusses About Redistricting; California Democrats Poised to Pass Redistricting Plan Aired 3-3:30p ET

Aired August 21, 2025 - 15:00   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:01:13]

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: After decades in prison, brothers Erik and Lyle Menendez get their closest chance at freedom. A pivotal parole hearing is happening today in California, and if parole is recommended, their fate will be in the hands of Gov. Gavin Newsom.

BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN HOST: And President Donald Trump taking to the streets of D.C. tonight, saying he will join law enforcement on patrol. This as a new poll finds that a majority of the city's residents say they feel less safe after the President took over the city's police force.

And dissent in the ranks. Despite TikTok saying its app is safe for young people, internal videos show employees raising concerns about the impact the app has on teenagers' mental health.

We're following these major developing stories and many more all coming in right here to CNN NEWS CENTRAL.

KEILAR: We are closely tracking a highly anticipated parole hearing happening now in California. Erik Menendez is facing the state's parole board three and a half decades after he and his brother Lyle murdered their parents in their Beverly Hills mansion. Lyle's hearing is tomorrow.

In May, a judge reduced their sentences, opening the door to their possible release. Both brothers have admitted to the killings, but claim they were abused by their father for years and that they committed the murders in self-defense. CNN's Jean Casarez is with us now on this story.

Jean, we could learn very soon what the parole board decides here. Bring us up to speed.

JEAN CASAREZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, everything we know, there is going to be a decision today by the parole board on Erik Menendez. Now, there's two to three, we believe, parole board members that are looking at this case. And once they have everything before them, they've got to deliberate. So, we don't know how long they're going to deliberate.

Now, they've had documents for months. So, this is the culmination of all of the written documentation they have on both sides. And so, they've had a lot of knowledge going into this, but they will have to deliberate before releasing what is their decision, which is so important after 36 years. It's a pivotal decision.

Now, beyond that, as time goes on, there can be a fact check that takes some time, a legal check by the attorneys that are with the parole board. That can take up to 120 days. That's four months. And then, it ultimately goes to the governor. And the governor has 30 days, I believe. So, he's got his time, too, that he can make his own assessment. And he is the -- he's the one that decides what happens.

You know, it's interesting. One of the things that they're going to look at is the criminal history. And, of course, we've got the double homicide, right? But even before that, there was some criminal activity by the brothers. It was one year before. And it had to do with burglaries. They burglarized the mansions in their Beverly Hills area. They were arrested. Their father had to pay thousands upon thousands of dollars because jewels and very important expensive things were taken, so that may also be a part of this. But so much is going for them to all the work they have done the last 36 years in prison.

KEILAR: Jean Casarez, thank you so much.

We will await the outcome there.

With us now is CNN Legal Analyst and criminal defense attorney, Joey Jackson. Joey, this board is going to decide ultimately whether the brothers pose an unreasonable risk of danger to society. How do they work through these factors and what are the other ones they're thinking of?

JOEY JACKSON, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Yeah, Brianna, they do. Good to see you and Boris.

[15:05:00]

So, what happens is, is there's a determination that's made based upon numerous factors, right? Number one, of course, they're going to look at the nature of the offense when it was committed. How old they were when they -- when it was committed. I believe 21 and 18 years old at the time, approximately. So that'll be factored into it. But significant to that will be what have they done in between and what are they doing now?

Now, of course, as Jean Casarez noted, what happens is, is you have to look at public safety and that's certainly critical, right? If the event that we are as a parole board, there's two or three that are there, majority have to vote to have him released. That means if there's two, both have to say yes. If there's three, two out of three.

But when you look not only at the nature of the offense, not only at the -- what they did with their parents, not only what the criminal conduct they engaged in before that, what have you done in between. And so, looking at prison, were you involved in any rehabilitative programs? Have you helped others? Indications are that they have.

In addition to that, do you have any infraction histories? That is have you broken any rules as it relates to you being in prison at this time? Are you a good candidate to be released? Will you reoffend if you are released? What do people have to say about you?

And so, as you go through, when you look at their right, this -- they have the support from corrections officials. Why? I think that's in large measure, Brianna and Boris, because of what they've done and who they've represented themselves to be. The rehabilitative work they've done is indications they've helped out the elderly, that they've helped out the disabled, that there's some information that one of them knows how to do sign language and has helped out the deaf. The disciplinary records in terms of their disciplinary record in history.

So, all of that will be factored in with respect to what the parole board considers and they'll make a determination based on that whether to release them or not.

SANCHEZ: Joey, I was really interested in the disagreement among ...

JACKSON: (INAUDIBLE) ...

SANCHEZ: ... can you hear me, Joey? Looks like we're having a technical issue.

KEILAR: All right. He -- I have faith in him, though. I think he's plugging it.

SANCHEZ: I think he can -- let's banter a little bit.

KEILAR: He may be plugging it. All right. I actually -- he -- we're going to give him a second. He's going to figure this out. I see him in the big screen.

SANCHEZ: So, I'll repeat this for Joey. But one of the things that I found really interesting in all of this is that the parole board is reviewing some psychological records related to the Menendez brothers.

KEILAR: It's interesting.

SANCHEZ: These evaluations that were done recently. And there was a disagreement between the defense team that wants to present this to the parole board and what was put out by some of the therapists, because apparently and I should be clear, CNN has not had a chance to review these records, but apparently their assessment was that the brothers were a moderate risk if they were to be released.

KEILAR: Really?

SANCHEZ: A moderate risk as opposed to a low one. Historically, the percentage of folks who are granted parole that have a moderate risk as assessed by psychologists is only about 20 percent. So, it lessens their chances of getting a recommendation from the parole board. And Joey, can you hear us now?

JACKSON: I got you and I'm so sorry.

SANCHEZ: No worries.

KEILAR: That's okay. That was a good scramble though.

SANCHEZ: That was great, Brianna.

KEILAR: Friend.

SANCHEZ: That was great. So, I've just been sharing with viewers this disagreement between the brothers' attorneys and the psychologists that put together these assessments of risk for them. There was a dispute over what kind of risk they would present. The psychologists determined that they were a moderate risk. And I was just explaining that that lessens their chances of actually being granted a recommendation from the parole board to be released. I wonder how big that plays a role, because their attorneys are arguing that these assessments are inaccurate.

JACKSON: So, I think, Boris, that that's certainly a factor, right? You want to look at someone psychologically because, of course, public safety is at issue. And you want to ensure that if you release someone, that they're not going to reoffend, that they don't pose a danger. And certainly, you could look at the heinous nature of the offense, the fact that there was the death of their parents, that both of them participated. But jurors even, right, had some problems. Let's go back as we look at psychological determinations.

Jurors way back when in '93, I know the killing happened in 1989, but during the first trial, they had these two separate jurors, right? Juries. Both brothers had each juror on their own, right? So, there was 12 and there was 12.

And at that particular hearing, there was information released with respect to sexual abuse. And the judge allowed all kind of information about that there. And in that they were not that as a juror is able to reach a determination with respect to whether they were guilty. So, they had this retrial where all of that information on sexual abuse was excluded. And based on that, now you had a conviction at that time. Why is all of that relevant?

Because I think in terms of the psychology of it is there's an open question as to whether there was this abuse. Was there not this abuse? But notwithstanding that, I think what's going to be critical is the interim period. Yes, this happened. They were young men at the particular time. What have you done in prison to deem yourself worthy? Were you violent at that time? Did you get into fights with other people in custody or did you not? Were you respective of the rules, respectful of the rules or were you not?

[15:10:02]

And each of them have a slight infraction history with respect to breaking rules. Pretty de minimis, you know, one having a cell phone or what have you, you know, that type of thing. But there's nothing major.

And I think when you look at that, they're also going to look at what have you done for other people in custody. How have you uplifted others ...

KEILAR: Yes.

JACKSON: ... not only yourself. Have you engaged in the programming in the jail, have you not. And so all that plays into your psychology, whether you're suitable to be released, whether you've accepted accountability, when you could come out into the public and that's important.

KEILAR: Joey, super quick, but I just have this question I really want to know the answer to. Let's say they were to get out. Could they associate with each other having been convicted murderers?

JACKSON: So, you can. Now, so just understand, and I'll be quick, is that there are certainly factors in the event they are released, right? And remember what the board could do. The board could release one, not the other. Then it'll be up to the governor when the governor gets it to have 30 days to make a determination. No one's going home today, but there are certainly conditions.

And upon your release, Brianna, you have to have an action plan. What is your release plan? Where are you going to stay? Who are you going to associate with? What are you going to do with your life? Are you going to work? Where are you going to work? Where are you going to be?

So, all that's important. But I don't think there's going to be a prohibition with respect to whether they can associate with themselves. They definitely need to stay out of trouble because if they got involved in one thing in terms of police contact, you know where they'll find themselves if they get released, and that is right back in jail.

SANCHEZ: Yes. Joey Jackson, I wish viewers could have seen Joey maneuver through that technical issue. He had to, like, get up out of his chair, grab a wire off the floor, plug it back in and answered our questions. Always a pleasure to have you, Joey.

JACKSON: Thank you so much, Boris and Brianna.

SANCHEZ: Another major story we're tracking today, President Trump announced he will be going out with police and the military on the streets of D.C. this evening, joining federal officers who are taking part in his militarized crackdown on crime in the nation's capital.

KEILAR: A senior White House official says that details of the evening are still being worked out. And of course, they're kind of a close hold here. But the latest development this is since the President's federal takeover of the city's police force last week. We have CNN Law Enforcement Analyst and former Secret Service agent Jonathan Wackrow with us. This kind of reminds me a little bit of that show where the boss takes

on the employee role. I don't remember something like this happening, Jonathan. What do you think about this?

JONATHAN WACKROW, CNN LAW ENFORCEMENT ANALYST: Well, listen, this presents -- you know, I assess this really presents four key challenges for the Secret Service right now. One is, you know, the compressed planning window that they have. I mean, I have a funny feeling that many in the Secret Service found out about this the same time that you and I found out about it, right, from the President himself.

So, just the planning window is very tight. The movement in D.C., the urban unpredictability is a significant challenge. The President has already telegraphed what he intends to do. Well, he is away from the White House. Again, another challenge. And finally, there's this resource strain on the Secret Service.

And let me just talk about these in a little bit greater detail. The success factors for the Secret Service have always talked about is their proactive advanced process. And, you know, after -- in the aftermath of the two assassination attempts, that really became a focal point of criticism of the Secret Service, you know, that they sometimes act hasty. They don't take the methodical process, you know, put forth in their protective plan.

Here we see that they're not even given that advantage anymore. So, the proactive advanced process is going to be extremely limited. It's going to be a hasty security plan developed in an urban environment. And that urban environment, again, presents many challenges, most notably these elevated locations that are, you know, around the city and the President could find himself, you know, subject to.

Both assassination attempts had -- of the President had long range threat components to it. Now, again, we're going into an environment where the President could be susceptible to those long-range threats. The telegraphing of these movements, again, we lose the advantage of unpredictability in the security planning process. The President has already said not only is going to depart the White House, but he's actually going to depart the White House and go out with the officers and the members of the National Guard. So, there's only a finite amount of locations that could be.

And finally, you have to look at this as, you know, another resource strain on an agency that already operates with a finite manpower. You know, extending the security coverage for this type of event that may have multiple zones of protection required is a significant challenge. But Brianna, despite these risks, there are real advantages that the Secret Service has. One, D.C. is the most prepared city in the world for any type of presidential movement. And the reality is this is a home field advantage for the Secret Service with the Washington field office, the home of the Presidential Protection Division, our uniformed division officers. You will see a overwhelming show of force from the United States Secret Service, regardless of where the President goes.

[15:15:04]

Also, the Secret Service has an extensive familiarity with the city as a whole. Our uniformed division officers are on patrol 360 days a year. They have a great working relationship with the Metropolitan Police Department, as well as all of our federal law enforcement partners within the District of Columbia.

And not to mention, the whole point of this is the optic of going out to visit the National Guard and the law enforcement surge. You will see those entities also encapsulated within the security program, you know, should this event take place later on this evening. So, while there are definite challenges that the Secret Service faces, they're offset by some of the advantages, you know, most namely that the Secret Service has such a great working relationship and knowledge of this environment.

SANCHEZ: Yes. You mentioned urban unpredictability, obviously a factor in a big city like Washington, D.C. I wonder if you think that any resources are going to inevitably have to be pulled from other areas in D.C. that could use them.

WACKROW: Absolutely. I mean, this is a public safety drain and you can't avoid that, right? This is the President of the United States going into an environment that has not been fully vetted. The environment may not be fully controlled by the U.S. Secret Service. This isn't like the Presidential inauguration parade where, you know, we spend six months in terms of planning every nuance of the movement. This is really an ad hoc almost you could, you know, consider it an off the record movement the way that it's been developed. Obviously, the movement has been telegraphed.

So, there are some significant challenges that are there in the in the city at large may feel that because public safety resources, not just from law enforcement, but also from fire and EMS and other services that are always in support of the President of the United States within the District of Columbia will be drawn upon, you know, to support this mission. So, without a doubt, you may have a, you know, collateral impact, you know, throughout the city.

KEILAR: We'll be looking to see what happens. Jonathan Wackrow, thank you so much for being with us.

WACKROW: Thanks a lot.

KEILAR: Still to come, California Democrats are poised to approve their new congressional map designed to offset what Republicans in Texas may be gaining in terms of congressional seats with their new map. I'll speak with a Democratic congressman about the plan and what comes next.

SANCHEZ: Plus, evidence from a lawsuit shows internal videos from TikTok employees sharing concerns about the platform's impact on teen mental health.

And later, caught on video a wing flap on a commercial airliner partially breaking off right before landing. We'll discuss in just moments. Don't go anywhere.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:22:10]

KEILAR: Texas is one step closer to passing its controversial new congressional map. A key Senate vote earlier today opened the door for a full vote as soon as tonight. President Trump personally called on Texas Republicans to redraw their map ahead of the midterm election next year in the hope of keeping their slim majority in the House of Representatives.

But right now, California is working to nullify Texas's potential five seat pickup. Lawmakers in the Golden State are expected to pass a series of proposals today that would let voters decide on a newly drawn map in November.

Former House speaker and former California Congressman Kevin McCarthy is now weighing in on the redistricting fight in his state. He told CNN earlier today that he's going to fundraise against Democrats redistricting push and he urged voters to reject the new map in November.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KEVIN MCCARTHY, (R) FORMER HOUSE SPEAKER: I don't like the idea of gerrymandering. I like competition. Now, every seat can't be competitive just because of the nature of where you live. But what they're doing now is going and breaking these cities and states up in these counties. That's going to destroy the voters even wanting to participate. But the voters of California have a say.

And look, you don't have to be Republican, Democrat or others. But if you truly believe in the - your power of your own vote, you should vote against this.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KEILAR: Let's talk about this now with Democratic Congressman Robert Garcia, who represents California's 42nd District, which is in L.A. County. He's also the ranking member. He's the top Democrat on the House Oversight Committee.

McCarthy, Congressman, also told my colleague Dana Bash that the D trip -- the political arm of House Democrats here in Washington, sent California Dems this new map. Is that true?

REP. ROBERT GARCIA (D-CA): Well, first, who knows what Kevin McCarthy, first of all, is even talking about. The guy should be focused on Texas, which is actually where the 2026 election rigging is actually happening. California is only responding, and Kevin knows this.

California is only responding because of what Texas is doing. We would not be doing any mid-decade redistricting if it wasn't for Texas trying to essentially redraw their map. And so absolutely, California is going to respond. Absolutely. The governor, the congressional delegation, the legislature, we've all been involved in creating a map to respond to what Texas is doing. And we hope the big difference. We hope that in California we can actually get back to independent redistricting, which ours is actually going to be on the ballot.

So, unlike what Kevin and his friends in Texas are doing, which they're essentially changing it themselves, the voters in California will decide our new map.

KEILAR: Okay, so who all has been involved and talked to us about the process?

GARCIA: So, for our map, I mean, there's been a variety of folks involved. At the end of the day, the decision is the legislature.

[15:25:01]

So, the legislature proposed the map.

KEILAR: No, I'm not talking about the decision.

GARCIA: The California delegation.

KEILAR: I'm talking about the drawing of the map, not the decision of the map. The actual construction of the congressional districts. Who did that?

GARCIA: (INAUDIBLE) same exact folks. The drawing of the map is put together through the California legislature in partnership with the California delegation. And at the end of the day, process driven by the governor of our state, Gavin Newsom.

Gavin Newsom has led this process from day one and he's engaged and worked with the California delegation and, of course, has worked with the allies in the state legislature. So, it's been a combination. But let's not forget the big difference (INAUDIBLE) ...

KEILAR: So, you're saying the DCCC did not, like take a map, put a map together and send it to California Democrats.

GARCIA: Well, now look, the DCCC absolutely supported the map that's currently in front of voters. I mean, they publicly said that and they put out a letter actually to the legislature saying as much.

KEILAR: Supported, but did they draw it?

GARCIA: Now, I mean, the drawing was a combination of between the legislature and the California delegation. A lot of folks were involved in that process, including very skilled map drawers, of course. And at the end of the day, the difference ...

KEILAR: At the DCCC?

GARCIA: ... is this map the we actually [INAUDIBLE], the DCCC, of course, have been involved and they've actually said so publicly. I mean, everyone has been involved.

KEILAR: Okay.

GARCIA: The California delegation in Congress has been involved, absolutely.

KEILAR: Okay, so there is this, I think, conventional wisdom because it's what we normally see, right, which is that the opposition party flips the House in the midterm elections. Trump may have turned that on its head in redistricting. You guys are at a disadvantage nationally. You're well aware of this. It's just the way it goes, right? The GOP has single party control of 15 states, to Democrats, four.

What is it at this moment the Democrats are offering voters as an alternative to Republicans? And has the party squandered any time, do you think, since the 2024 election, coming up with that sort of political product that they need to sell to voters?

GARCIA: I think that it's been very clear since Donald Trump has been in office, he's done nothing but corrupt and more corruption all across the government. And so, Democrats, one, are pushing back on the corruption of the administration. We're pushing back and creating a contrast when Donald Trump proposes cuts to Medicaid, which he's done. When he proposes cuts to health care for people all across the country. I mean, Democrats stand and stood opposed to that. We oppose the huge tax breaks for billionaires. We support tax breaks for middle class families.

We also are pushing, and I think really strongly, particularly the last few months, an agenda that's more forward looking than anything Republicans have proposed.

We want to make sure that we cover more people with health care. We want to support public schools. They're trying to take down and destroy our public institutions. We've seen through DOGE, Elon Musk, what they have done to different agencies, to things like protecting our oceans, things like taking on climate change. They have rolled back regulations. They've let oil polluters all across the country.

And so, Democrats want to support, at the end of the day, working class families, a clean environment for everyone, an actual sensible tax policy that's focused on lowering costs. Donald Trump has done nothing to lower costs since he's been president. Democrats are focused on that issue more than any other right now.

KEILAR: The New York Times is reporting on what is an alarming voter registration crisis for Democrats. I know that Democrats have really focused on this with some alarm today. They say, quote, "Of the 30 states that track voter registration by political party, Democrats lost ground to Republicans in every single one between the 2020 and 2024 elections -- and often by a lot." Who is the leader for the Democratic Party who is going to help turn that around, do you think? Is that Governor Gavin Newsom? Who is that?

GARCIA: Well, look, I don't think anyone in our party is doing a better job right now of leading this party right now than Governor Newsom. He is out there right now, really a model for not just governors, but for, I think, Democrats across the country. And he's bringing the fire and the energy that folks want to see. He has galvanized folks on the ground. Everywhere I go here, not just across our state here back home, but anywhere else across the country, people are talking about the governor.

And the reason he's been so successful is he's actually pushing back with everything he's got. He's taking on redistricting by taking it to voters. He's out there pushing back on Donald Trump by using his own language. And he's reaching out to all Americans. I think Governor Newsom at this moment is doing a great job of leading not just our state, but also our party.

KEILAR: You are the top Democrat on House oversight, as I mentioned. Former Biden aide Ian Sams, who spoke publicly on behalf of the Biden administration often, was one of the latest people to testify in this probe on Biden's mental fitness today.

[15:59:57]

And according to the Republican chairman, James Comer, Sams testified that he only interacted with Biden twice during his two years as a spokesperson for -- from 2022 to 2024, which I will note is the time.