Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Kirk Shooting Suspect Set To Be Charged, Make First Court Appearance; Israel Launches Ground Offensive To Occupy Gaza City; Luigi Mangione Due In Court Amid Double Jeopardy Fight. Aired 7:30-8a ET

Aired September 16, 2025 - 07:30   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[07:30:25]

JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: Happening today, the suspect in the murder of Charlie Kirk makes his first appearance in court.

Also happening today, FBI director Kash Patel is testifying before the Senate. He does face questions about his handling of the investigation. The director discussed evidence and specifics in the case before charging documents were even filed.

With us now, CNN legal analyst Joey Jackson. And counselor, thank you so much for being here. Talk to me about what this court appearance in Utah is today.

JOEY JACKSON, CNN LEGAL ANALYST, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY, FORMER PROSECUTOR: Sure. So what happens, John -- good morning -- is it's an arraignment. Not an arraignment, it's about due process -- notice and an opportunity to be heard.

What does that mean? It means that he'll officially be charged with the charges that officials think are appropriate for what he did. He'll -- there will be a reading of those charges unless otherwise waived. He'll know specifically what they are. He'll be afforded an opportunity to plead guilty or not guilty. He'll be advised of his right to counsel and other rights. And then, of course, the date -- there will be other dates into the future so that discovery and other information could be exchanged between counsel and the actual case could begin in earnest.

So it's a -- not an elongated type of proceeding today. It's not an evidentiary hearing or anything else. But it's an important first step.

BERMAN: Not an evidentiary hearing. Nevertheless what might we learn?

JACKSON: I think we can learn a lot, OK?

Number one, I talked to you about the charges. In that, there's a charging document. That charging document contains information with respect to what authorities believe that he did. We know that initial indications are there's an aggravated murder charge. What does that mean? It means he would be eligible for the death penalty. We'll learn the theory as to why officials believe that.

We've learned about obstruction of justice charges -- about the firearm charges.

And not only that, I think there's a lot of people, right -- of course, a lot of public attention in terms of what the motivations were. Why would he do such a thing? We may learn that today in the documents.

In addition to that, we may learn about specific evidence and information -- surveillance video, cell phone video, DNA, and other information. It could be important tidbits to what they're going to do moving forward.

BERMAN: You mentioned the death penalty. Utah is a state where the death penalty --

JACKSON: Oh, yeah.

BERMAN: -- is utilized.

What might happen with that today, and what are you looking for in general with that going forward?

JACKSON: So what ends up happening is we may, John, and we may not know whether or not they will seek the death penalty today. They have 60 days -- authorities do -- to give the indication as to whether they're going to pursue the death penalty. In the event that they do they'll give again their theory as to why.

One of the bases for the death penalty could be because he put other people at risk --

BERMAN: Um-hum.

JACKSON: -- in terms of death. Very public proceeding, et cetera. They may come out the gate saying that they're going to do it. They may not. And so that's something that we could learn today or some subsequent day.

And let's be clear about a couple of things. Number one, Utah is a very activist death penalty state.

BERMAN: Um-hum.

JACKSON: About the half the states in the country have the death penalty. Utah uses it. Firing squad is one of the mechanisms they do to do that. The last execution was last August.

So in the event that he's tried -- long ways away from there. Everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty. But you would have --

BERMAN: Yeah.

JACKSON: -- such a death penalty proceeding. If the jury votes to convict unanimously then you go to a penalty phase, and at that time a jury has another decision to make as to whether to put him to death. Not there yet but just giving you a preview of what is to come.

BERMAN: It helps us understand what we're seeing today as this plays out.

Joey Jackson, not for nothing. Happy birthday today as well.

JACKSON: Thank you. I appreciate it.

BERMAN: Thank you very much.

JACKSON: Thank you, John.

BERMAN: Kate.

KATE BOLDUAN, CNN ANCHOR: So in the wake of Charlie Kirk's killing the Trump administration is threatening now a crackdown on left-wing and far-left groups. The president is saying that he is now considering labeling the far-left antifascism group Antifa as domestic terrorists, something actually the president had threated to do before in his last term in 2020 but has yet -- but clearly did not do at that time and has yet to do now.

He was asked about this in the Oval Office.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REPORTER: Do you plan on designating, uh, Antifa finally a domestic terror organization?

DONALD TRUMP, (R) PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Well, it's something I would do, yeah. We have some pretty radical groups, and they got away with murder. I've asked Pam to look into that in terms of RICO -- bringing RICO cases against them -- criminal RICO because they should be put in jail.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BOLDUAN: So far, no evidence has emerged publicly that Charlie Kirk's alleged killer was working as part of any larger coordinated effort.

The president has repeatedly and incorrectly though said that the political -- that political violence only comes from the left, downplaying violent attacks and rhetoric that span the political spectrum and also target Democrats just as well as Republicans.

[07:35:00]

Joining me right now is CNN political commentator S.E. Cupp and Marc Short, the former chief of staff to Vice President Mike Pence. Guys, thank you for being here. S.E., um, in talking about kind of the path forward from here, we've

talked -- you know, you and I have talked a lot about kind of the tone and tenor. It seems really evident at this point, by and large, that lawmakers and politicians are not choosing the path of kind of rise above it in the aftermath of Charlie Kirk's horrific murder. I mean, look no further than Tim Burchett's performance on this show yesterday.

But still, it doesn't mean that we can't push for it. I feel like we just -- we still need to hold people accountable for it.

I mean, do you think -- when you think about pushing for people to tone it down and to stop demonizing the other, do you think someone on the right or the left could win a primary, win a general not demonizing their opponent in today's political environment?

S.E. CUPP, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, HOST, "OFF THE CUPP" PODCAST (via Webex by Cisco): It's really hard to imagine, and that makes me very sad. But it's so clear to me today more than ever that the point of American politics isn't ideological. It isn't about ideas. It isn't about -- it isn't practical. It isn't about solving problems. It isn't philosophical about ideals. It isn't even really about practicing politics.

The point of American politics today is to point at someone and tell them this is who you need to be angry at. This is who you need to hate. Both sides do it. The Democratic Party has decided to do it. The Republican Party does it. Donald Trump is doing it now. He is pointing in one direction only.

Anyone getting up and telling you this one side is to blame, or the violence is only flowing one way, or who is parsing through this shooter's social media to say see, I told you, he's actually a right- winger, or see, I told you, he's actually a left-winger, they don't want any of this to change. Because if you're just pointing at people and saying this is who you need to hate, you're part of the problem and you want to foment more of this.

If you really want to take the temperature down the finger has to point back to you and you have to ask yourself, where am I responsible for this.

As a member of the media, cable news engages in this too and that's a problem we take responsibility for. You engage in it -- you, ecumenically -- probably in your social media. You've probably done this in your personal life with friends or family and the way you talk about the other side.

So if you just want to point and say blame this guy or blame this group you want more of this. And unfortunately, I don't see very many leaders in politics or in the media, or influencers who want to do that. Who want to say here's where I'm responsible or here's where my side has done this, and I'm asking for us to stop. I don't see a lot of that.

BOLDUAN: I will say though I adore you for your eloquence and how you put it because you put it better than I think many have, and what is needed. Though, I mean, it's hard to not be cynical. It doesn't mean that something can't change, right? We can remain hopeful. It's like -- almost like cynical and hopeful. Those two things I'm going to force to be able to live together in this new world.

And Marc, I was thinking about this obviously a lot. Mike Pence won a Profile in Courage award for putting country over party. What would -- I don't mean this in, like, the WWJD sense but I really do -- it's like what would Mike Pence do in this situation? Like, this is kind of a moment that Mike Pence stood up for and he was not -- he was awarded for but not politically.

MARC SHORT, FORMER CHIEF OF STAFF TO VICE PRESIDENT MIKE PENCE: Well thanks, Kate. I think that Mike will have his own opportunity to speak into this moment probably in the coming days.

But I -- look, I think that America has been fortunate to have leaders who have risen up many times to place country over party, and I think that we -- we'll -- we will continue to. We're definitely going through a turbulent time in our history, but we've gone through those before. And I think eventually America tires of that and wants a different type of leader, and I think -- I think that's what we'll get.

I do think, you know, as it relates to this tragedy that has left two little girls without a dad, I think there's naturally a lot of emotion that wants to retaliate in this -- in this moment.

And I do think Kate that there has been polling that has shown that they are more and more frustrated voters on the left who do not denounce political violence as means to accomplishing their ends.

Having said that, Charlie Kirk -- you know, I think he built an organization when he started at 19 years old identifying colleges and universities where he felt like there was one side of the debate that was singled out and is providing a voice to others.

And it would be a mistake for those in leadership or in power today to say a solution to this would be to try to silence the voice of others. All that's going to do is to lead to more violence instead of actually providing an outlet for people to have an honest discussion about the issues facing us today.

[07:40:00]

BOLDUAN: It's so interesting you say silencing the voice of others because that does seem to be a trend in the aftermath of Charlie Kirk's killing is you've got workers across the country who -- they have mocked his death online and quickly learned that words can get them fired, right -- from airlines to Nasdaq to restaurants, and schools, and law firms. There's -- I mean, there's a lot of people who are losing their jobs, which is separate and apart from should you be able to say anything you want. It doesn't mean you should be able to be employed by anyone you want as well.

I mean, J.D. Vance just yesterday was promoting people finding those who are speaking out and mocking -- speaking out and mocking or disparaging what has happened and trying to call people out and hold them to account.

Let me play this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

J.D. VANCE, (R) VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: So when you see someone celebrating Charlie's murder, call them out -- and hell, call their employer. We don't believe in political violence, but we do believe in civility, and there is no civility in the celebration of political assassination.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BOLDUAN: It -- the way the Playbook put it this morning is while for so long, especially the president and those around him have lamented cancel culture. It appears cancel culture is in fashion once again.

I just -- quickly, if you both -- S.E., kind of what you think of this.

CUPP: Um, it's illiberal and it's the opposite of what Charlie Kirk would have wanted. Charlie Kirk was a debater. I didn't like what he said, and I was offended by what he said. That's alright, you know. It's -- you're -- it's not illegal. It's not a crime to offend someone.

And yeah, I think this is the opposite of what we need. And we're just as violent is the opposite of what we need to, um -- to counteract speech we don't like, we need more speech; not less. When we meet speech we don't like, we meet it with more free speech. We have to debate our ideas. We have to be able to talk about the things that we disagree with. We have to do that civilly.

But we can't punish people for disagreeing with us. We can't punish people for being jerks and celebrating the death of someone. That's not illegal and that shouldn't be who we are.

BOLDUAN: Marc, what do you think?

SHORT: Look, I don't think it's the government's job to try to regulate speech. Having said that, I -- you know, I also wouldn't want to do business with an employer who has employees who celebrate the death and the assassination of Charlie Kirk.

And so I do think that employers do have a responsibility to police their own employees. That's not the government's job but I do think that it's perfectly warranted --

CUPP: Yeah.

SHORT: -- for employers to hold that responsibility.

BOLDUAN: Yeah. Those two things can exist in the very same space -- what you just said. It is great to see you both. Thank you so much -- John.

BERMAN: Breaking overnight, Israel says it launched a ground offensive into Gaza City. Israeli officials say the operation targets one of the last remaining Hamas strongholds. So far, hospitals in Gaza are reporting that at least 38 people have died, including children.

New footage shows civil defense crews rescuing people from underneath the rubble of a home.

With us now is CNN global affairs analyst Kim Dozier, and CNN military analyst and retired Air Force colonel Cedric Leighton.

Colonel, just first to you on what you see as the military necessity or goals of this operation.

COL. CEDRIC LEIGHTON (RET.), CNN MILITARY ANALYST, U.S. AIR FORCE (RET.) (via Webex by Cisco): Yeah, good morning, John.

The basic goals seem to be the elimination of Hamas. At least that's what the Israeli government has stated. And when you look into what the Israeli air force has done in the runup to this, they've struck about 850 targets, according to the IDF, going after all of these different areas. You know, anything from tunnels to the high-rises.

And the high-rises, in particular were important for the Israelis because they see those as potential observation -- or actual observation posts for Hamas. So they eliminated them basically trying to eliminate the intelligence gathering capabilities of Hamas.

So this is an operation that is designed to -- it paves the way for not only the Israeli ground forces, which are moving in now, but it's also designed to achieve Prime Minister Netanyahu's goals, which are to eliminate Hamas as a viable fighting force. That goal is a questionable goal, and it may not be achieved just because of the very nature of Hamas' terrorist organization.

BERMAN: Kim, there were protests already in Israel overnight by the families of hostages who fear that this operation puts their loved ones at risk. Internationally, there has been intense criticism and skepticism of the idea of this operation even before.

Talk to me about the environment in which Israel decided to do this.

[07:45:00]

KIMBERLY DOZIER, CNN GLOBAL AFFAIRS ANALYST: Well, from the Netanyahu government's perspective they have made a pledge to those who support them to eliminate Hamas.

And the argument that the Israeli Defense Forces make -- like, every day that they've taken a strike inside Gaza City in the advance of this onslaught, they've put out statements justifying what they hit. And they've said this high-rise building that we've just taken down was riddled with Hamas weapons that were stored. It is connected to tunnels where we believe the hostages are being kept. So that's the IDF's argument of why they're pursuing this.

From the hostage families' point of view, they know that the 20 hostages that are believed to be still alive are thought to be in those tunnels beneath Gaza City. And Hamas has pledged to kill them if Israeli forces or their -- the Palestinians who are cooperating with them approach and has happened in the past.

So this is a devastating and dangerous time for the hostage families. They believe it's -- that you might win Gaza City but lose all of the hostages.

BERMAN: And Kim, a little bit more on the diplomatic and political environment around the world right now with Israel, particularly in the wake of the attempted targeting of Hamas leaders inside Qatar. Because that still is having huge ripple effects that drag in the United States as well.

DOZIER: Yes. Israel is facing massive censure for its ongoing crackdown in Gaza. You've got Britain, France, and Canada all about to recognize Palestine as a state at the upcoming leadership section of the U.N. General Assembly.

And you also have Arab leaders meeting in Doha yesterday to discuss the strike on Hamas there that killed a Qatari security official as well as Hamas leaders. That could have been any senior Qatari official who has regularly taken part in discussions with Hamas leaders that were invited -- the U.S. asked Qatar to house Hamas there for the purposes of negotiations. That was past administrations, yes, but it has facilitated negotiations. So Israel is facing censure from multiple different points.

And Secretary Rubio, who just visited Israel, has tacitly approved what Israel is going to do in response. It has threatened to annex much of the West Bank, which would make a future Palestinian state very difficult to form.

BERMAN: Again, and the United States -- the president denied he knew beforehand of the strike in Qatar. There is skepticism around the world about how that could be the case.

Colonel Leighton, Kim Dozier, thank you both very much.

DOZIER: Thanks.

BERMAN: We are standing by as alleged CEO killer Luigi Mangione returns to court this morning. His defense hoping to get some charges dropped.

And a house up in flames with a man trapped inside. The heroic efforts from firefighters to save his life.

(COMMERCIAL)

[07:52:25]

BERMAN: All right. This morning two boys face charges for allegedly causing $50,000 worth of damage to a Florida elementary school. You can see some of it there. The boys, ages 12 and 13 -- they were turned in by their mothers. Body camera video shows deputies walking through the school's media center. After release of the footage police say they heard from the mothers of the suspects. Both boys face charges of burglary, trespassing, criminal mischief, and theft.

New police body camera video shows first responders rushing to a house fire in Michigan. Fire crews crawled through thick smoke and flames to rescue a 76-year-old man trapped inside. The man is in critical condition with burns to his body. A passerby noticed the fire and called 911. The cause of this fire still under investigation.

Breaking overnight, President Trump announced he is filing a $15 billion lawsuit against The New York Times accusing the paper of defamation, libel, and acting as a "virtual mouthpiece for the Democratic Party." His lawsuit accuses the paper and four of its reporters of a pattern of false and malicious and disparaging reporting.

This is the latest in a series of high-profile legal challenges by the president against major media outlets -- Kate.

BOLDUAN: So this morning Luigi Mangione, the man accused of killing UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson -- he is expected back in court. His attorneys are asking the judge in New York to throw out the state's murder case if he is convicted in state court. Mangione faces life in prison.

CNN's Kara Scannell is live outside the courthouse where it's all going to happen. So, Kara, why do they want to throw out the charges?

KARA SCANNELL, CNN REPORTER: Good morning, Kate.

Yeah, Mangione's lawyers have put forward a number of motions. One of them is that they're asking the judge to throw out the indictment because he is also facing federal charges for the same alleged shooting. And in that case the Justice Department said they're going to seek the death penalty.

But he also wants to have the terrorism charges thrown out. That was murder through the use of terrorism. And that is because his lawyers argue that Mangione was not trying to target a civilian population. And they say that it was actually the government that created terror by releasing information of Mangione's private writings and also that there were words written on the bullets and shell casings "deny, delay, depose" -- words that are known within the insurance industry. So they're trying to put that on the government.

Of course, the prosecution says that Mangione was very clear in his writings that he intended to stoke terror. That he wanted to be a revolutionary person and figure, and that he was targeting the health care industry as he wrote they were parasites and bean counters.

[07:55:05]

Now the defense is also trying to suppress some of the evidence that was collected on Mangione -- key things, including those writings and a gun that was in his backpack. They say the search in Altoona, Pennsylvania was illegal because there was not a warrant to search his backpack when those officers found him at the McDonald's there.

They're also trying to suppress statements that Mangione made to the police officers, saying that he wasn't told his right to remain silent.

So a lot on the table today. The prosecution opposing it all. It could be something that we see the judge schedule some future hears on these suppression arguments, but it remains to be seen how he will rule on that today.

And we can see already there are about 50 supporters here quietly lined up, one holding a sign that says "Free Luigi," another saying that "Health care is a human right." So Mangione still getting -- you know, gathering a crowd here as people are trying to get into the courtroom to see him -- Kate.

BOLDUAN: All right, much more to come on this. Kara is there for us. Thank you so much, Kara -- John.

BERMAN: All right, with us now to discuss this briefly, but also his new book that comes out today, "When You Come at the King: Inside DOJ's Pursuit of the President, From Nixon to Trump." Here with us now is author and CNN senior legal analyst Elie Honig.

Elie, first the Mangione case. He wants the state charges dismissed because of double jeopardy -- because of being charged by the state and the Feds.

What does that mean, and what's the likelihood of success?

ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST, AUTHOR, "WHEN YOU COME AT THE KING: INSIDE DOJ'S PURSUIT OF THE PRESIDENT, FROM NIXON TO TRUMP," FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR, FORMER ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY, SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK: Close to zero. I know it sounds like double jeopardy. It's sort of unusual for the Feds and the state to charge.

But the Supreme Court has said for 150-plus years and most recently in 2019, it's constitutionally OK to do that because the federal government is what they call a separate sovereign -- just separate from the states.

So he's going to lose on that double jeopardy charge but it's a case that he has to argue, at least to the judge.

BERMAN: All right. Let's talk your day job here --

HONIG: Yeah.

BERMAN: -- which is to be an author of what will be a bestselling, wildly popular book here. Elie, this is -- this is sort of a review and an analysis of special prosecutors/independent counsels --

HONIG: Right. BERMAN: -- which are similar yet different going back some time here. And you've gone prosecutor by prosecutor here and you've spoken to some remarkable people who were on the inside.

HONIG: Yeah. I love talking to these people. I mean, look, I was a prosecutor. I understand the stakes of being in the courtroom. But when you get one of these jobs -- when you have to investigate the president and the whole world is watching, each one of these cases is basically life or death for these folks.

I spoke to 35 or so of these people going back to Watergate all the way up to Jack Smith and Donald Trump's teams, and all of them told me we understood that this would be all we would be remembered for. And each of these cases plays out like its own sort of real life drama -- real life crime drama.

And so I loved getting those stories and I think it's important to tell the history so we can understand sort of where this all came from and where we're heading with respect to these cases.

BERMAN: What surprised you the most from whom?

HONIG: I think the fact that so many people were willing to speak with me on the record.

BERMAN: Why do you think they were?

HONIG: I think people want to speak for history. I think all these folks understand that this will be their legacy, whether they are a prosecutor, a defense lawyer, or a person who was prosecuted. I have a few of them in here -- White House official. They want their story told. I think they believe that this will be one of the definitive accounts of history of what happened.

I was surprised a) how many people talked to me, b) there are some surprising admissions in this book, right, from members of Ken Starr's team.

BERMAN: Let's talk about that.

HONIG: Yeah.

BERMAN: (INAUDIBLE) first.

HONIG: Yeah. So there was a -- Ken Starr passed away a few years ago but his number two, a guy named Sol Wisenberg, spoke to me. He admitted that some of the things they put in the Starr report -- some of the sexual details were, in fact, over the top. He admitted that his team leaked, which is something that has been long disputed.

There were admissions to varying extents from the Trump legal teams, from the Biden legal teams -- Hunter and Joe Biden legal teams.

So I was actually really impressed with how willing people were to speak with me but also to make candid assessments and, at times, admissions. But look, it's an important part of the story. BERMAN: Rod Rosenstein, who was the deputy attorney general --

HONIG: Yeah.

BERMAN: -- appointed the special counsel -- you know, Bob Mueller basically talked to you and it just -- he just seemed to candid about everything.

HONIG: Well, he said something like every special counsel starts the job with a sterling reputation. Nobody ends up that way.

But one of the interesting things that Rod Rosenstien told me -- I asked him -- he -- look, he worships Robert Mueller, you know. I said, "If Robert Mueller had said no, would you have still appointed a special counsel?" And he said, "I don't think I would have. I thought -- thought there was only one person who could have done that job." So there is like a hinge point in history.

BERMAN: Very quickly, Elie, having read the book and loved every page I left thinking there are a lot of problems --

HONIG: Sure.

BERMAN: -- with special counsels here. Can this system be fixed?

HONIG: Yes, I think it can be, and it has to be. I am not arguing the special counsel is perfect. It's highly imperfect. That's some of the best stories in here. But I also argue that we need this. It can be improved but if we abandon this system we're going to be left in a place where there's no meaningful accountability for the president and where we're just making it up as we go along.

And the example I give why that's a problem is Jim Comey. No special counsel and he ended up botching the Hillary Clinton 2016 email investigation because there were no rules. And when you make it up as you ago along you cause problems.

BERMAN: We have about 25 seconds.