Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Trump Administration Targeting Critics of Charlie Kirk?; U.N. Accuses Israel of Genocide in Gaza; Kash Patel Grilled on Capitol Hill; Tyler Robinson Set For Court Appearance. Aired 1-1:30p ET

Aired September 16, 2025 - 13:00   ET

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

[13:00:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:00:42]

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: Crucial new details from the investigation into the killing of Charlie Kirk, prosecutors set to formally charge the suspect in the case. And we will learn more at a news conference minutes from now.

BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN HOST: And the FBI director taking questions on Capitol Hill, Kash Patel grilled by lawmakers over his handling of the investigation into Kirk's murder, one Democrat telling Patel -- quote -- "Shut up and let the professionals do their job."

Plus, Israel launching a ground offensive on Gaza City, as a U.N. commission determines that Israel is committing genocide against the Palestinians.

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

KEILAR: One hour from now, officials are set to announce formal charges in the deadly shooting of Charlie Kirk, and we're expecting to learn a lot more about the case that prosecutors have built against Kirk's accused assassin.

Just a short time later, the 22-year-old suspect will make his first court appearance.

CNN's Ed Lavandera is where this news conference is being -- or is about to be held, I should say.

Ed, what are we expecting to find out?

ED LAVANDERA, CNN SENIOR NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, as prosecutors will step forward to the microphones and answer questions and lay out probably what we presume is going to be new information involving the investigation that has been taking place since last Wednesday here in Utah, we also anticipate that -- some of the filings of these criminal charges to happen at basically the same time. So that is what we are preparing for. Prosecutors say they will

present this -- answer questions about the investigation and how it's proceeded in recent days. And then later this afternoon, 22-year-old Tyler Robinson will make his first court appearance. He will be informed of these criminal charges filed against him, as well as -- and we expect some sort of plea.

Obviously, there's probably likely be a not guilty plea, and then trying to figure out who his attorney will be. So it's possible that one will be appointed for him. But we're expecting a very short briefing. But so far in this investigation, we are learning more this morning from the FBI director once again, who was on Capitol Hill testifying before a Senate committee.

And the FBI director says that one of the things that they are looking at is the Discord chats that Robinson was having with a number of people. There was one that "The Washington Post" reported about that appears to be a confession to the crime and the shooting and killing of Charlie Kirk. There were other conversations as well.

And the FBI director says they're looking at the other people who were in those chat groups as well.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KASH PATEL, FBI DIRECTOR: We're also going to be investigating anyone and everyone involved in that Discord chat.

SEN. JOSH HAWLEY (R-MO): OK, very good. I see the public reports that the Discord thread had as many as 20 additional users. It sounds like you're trying to run down all of that to see if that's accurate, who else may have been on that thread, what they may have known. Is that fair to say?

PATEL: It's a lot more than that. We're running them all down.

HAWLEY: It's a lot more than 20?

PATEL: Yes, sir.

HAWLEY: And you're running all of that to ground, you say.

PATEL: Every single one.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LAVANDERA: So, again, about an hour, prosecutors here will present these criminal charges and also take questions from reporters.

And as I mentioned, the hearing later today is expected to be brief. And we should also point out that he will, Tyler Robinson will appear virtually. The jail is several miles away from the building in the courthouse where the judge will be. He will appear virtually, as well as the lawyers and the prosecutors as well.

So that's kind of the way this afternoon here in Utah is going to play out -- Brianna.

KEILAR: Ed Lavandera live for us in Provo, thank you.

And we're joined now by Phil Mudd, former FBI senior intelligence adviser and former CIA counterterrorism official. We're also joined by on Ankush Khardori, federal prosecutor and senior writer for "Politico" magazine.

Ankush, what are you looking for in these state charging documents?

ANKUSH KHARDORI, SENIOR WRITER, POLITICO: Well, I mean, look, two things at this moment.

One is, what can we learn about the quality of the investigation and the evidence that the investigators have managed to put together so far? Lest we forget, this person is still innocent until proven guilty. And a charging document is just a set of allegations. We need to scrutinize those closely, as we would in any case.

[13:05:03]

Number two, I think everyone's going to be looking for whether and to what extent there's any more information or disclosures about the motive behind this killing. I think, candidly, there's been too much discussion from politicians getting ahead of this subject and speculating about left-wing ideologies and that sort of thing.

And now is the time I hope for some sobriety and some professionalism to be brought to bear by prosecutors and investigators, who will hopefully, if they're going to wade into that subject, do so in a more circumspect and responsible and targeted manner.

But I think those are the two big topics that people are going to be keeping an eye out for.

SANCHEZ: Phil, I want to get your thoughts on the 20-plus interviews that Director Patel said would be conducted of the people in that Discord chat in which the suspect reportedly confessed.

I mean, what does it mean when he says that they're running them all down? What could investigators glean from those conversations?

PHILIP MUDD, FORMER COUNTERTERRORISM OFFICIAL: You have got to prove a negative, Boris, and that is not easy, especially when you're dealing with these numbers. Director Patel said there were significantly -- it sounded to me like significantly more than 20. That's a lot of investigation.

You think of this as a concentric circle. In the middle of the circle, were there are other conspirators, people who were actually involved in the conspiracy? It sounds like that's a negative. But it sounds like it's not a fact. You have to go through all those pieces to ensure that nobody was actually involved.

The second piece is, was somebody a supporter? Did they know about this in advance and supply, support or a co-conspirator? So it's not just going out to say whether somebody was involved. It's going back over maybe weeks and months, maybe longer, to determine whether anybody was actually knowledgeable and should have done something about it beforehand.

When you're dealing with that many people, Boris, that is a lot of investigation going on.

SANCHEZ: And, Ankush, part of these conversations are cryptic by nature, the language of these very online communities. And just given some of what was written on the weapon and inscribed on some of the material that was used, is it going to be difficult for prosecutors to discern some of that video game online sort of trolling language and, further, for prosecutors to make a compelling case the jury just based on the potential ambiguity of those messages?

KHARDORI: Yes this is a tricky area, and it's not the only time that prosecutors encounter something like this.

From my own experience, I know, when we're dealing with financial fraud cases, often, there's a particular sort of jargon that people will use. And prosecutors and investigators do need to get up to speed on those things. They have the tools available to do that. They can speak with other people, help inform their own questioning.

But for sure it can be tricky and it can complicate things, but it is not necessarily going to preclude their ability to get into it. I think, though, that the way in which the FBI director framed this line of inquiry was rather unhelpful.

To say that they are investigating people on a group chat with no evident indication that those people had any knowledge or involvement is, I think, counterproductive in this point. Among other things, you would want to speak to those people as potential witnesses who, as Phil said, may have knowledge that may be relevant.

But if you're telling people that you're investigating them, guess what they're going to do? They're going to get lawyers and they're going to potentially invoke their Fifth Amendment rights because you seem like you may be out to try to prove a conspiracy that you haven't even established the predicate for.

So I think this is one of those things that can sound good on television or in front of a congressional committee, but that is not necessarily the most prudent investigative path forward.

KEILAR: Phil, that really goes to how much we have learned from officials, especially federally, that we don't normally learn. The FBI director has talked about detailed evidence on FOX. He's done that multiple times just in the last 24 hours.

We heard what Ankush is talking about here about what he said on the Hill. He also initially posted information on social media that ended up not being true. What's the effect of that, Phil?

MUDD: Boy, I don't get this. There's a couple of effects here. First of all, as you suggested just

a moment ago, there's a chance you're going to make mistakes. Kash Patel, Director Patel, is out there saying this is about transparency. Well, transparency is OK if you're certain that you understand that the facts you're gathering are the only facts out there.

So the first is, transparency might mean you're too quick out there and there's going to be misinformation that you present. But more significantly, there are other players in the room here, state and local police, for example, who must be looking over their shoulders, saying, what the heck is this from our partner? Why is that person presenting information while the investigation is still under way?

The final piece of this is, the FBI investigates, the Department of Justice lawyers prosecute. My experience was, the investigators I worked with and the analysts are quiet during the investigation. The people who speak are the prosecutors, because they know what kind of information should be out there to ensure that the case is prosecuted successfully.

[13:10:07]

Bottom line, shut up, do the case and let the Department of Justice speak, not the FBI.

SANCHEZ: Ankush Khardori, thank you so much.

Phil Mudd, please stand by. We want to further a discussion with you about Patel's testimony, but we are still following key moments as that Kash Patel hearing goes on.

We want you to watch this exchange between the FBI director and New Jersey Democratic Senator Cory Booker.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PATEL: If you want to work on bringing this country -- it's my time, not yours.

SEN. CORY BOOKER (D-NJ): My God. My God.

PATEL: If you want to talk about...

BOOKER: You're going to lecture me on dividing this country?

PATEL: It is my time.

BOOKER: I follow you on your social media posts that tear this country apart.

PATEL: It is my time to address your falsehoods.

(CROSSTALK)

PATEL: ... embarrassment to the division in this country.

BOOKER: You can try all you want to not take responsibility for what you have said.

(CROSSTALK)

BOOKER: Sir, you're making a mockery of this committee.

PATEL: You had your time. Your time is over.

BOOKER: Sir, you don't tell me my time is over. The people of New Jersey tell me what my time is. You can't lecture me.

(CROSSTALK)

PATEL: If you can tell me my time is over...

(CROSSTALK)

BOOKER: You may be in charge of the FBI, but I am not afraid of you.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Mr. Chairman...

PATEL: I'm not going anywhere.

BOOKER: I'm not afraid of you.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KEILAR: CNN senior justice correspondent Evan Perez following this hearing for us.

Extraordinary, perhaps not unexpected completely in this case. Evan, what led up to this moment?

EVAN PEREZ, CNN SENIOR JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Yes, that was probably the most fiery that this hearing has gotten today, Brianna.

And it began as a conversation or as Cory Booker -- Senator Cory Booker was asking him, the FBI director, about the FBI diverting agents to help on their missions -- on missions for ICE and the roundup of immigrants, as well as the politicization of the FBI.

Those were the way this conversation began. And then it devolved into finger-pointing because the senator said that he expected that Kash Patel wouldn't be long for this job, that essentially he would be fired because he's done such a terrible job.

And, look, I think that was obviously very, very heated. But there's also been a lot of good information that we have gotten out of this. Certainly, the FBI director has defended that social media post, the false -- the mistake that he had posted. There was a subject in custody. Actually, he said it wasn't a mistake.

He said that he misspoke and he wishes he had put it differently. And he called it transparency, as you guys were just discussing just now. We also heard him talk about the Epstein files. He said that he still plans and the FBI and the Justice Department still plan to release as many documents as they're legally permitted to do. And he really did go back to the -- what he called the original sin,

which is Alex Acosta, the former U.S. attorney in Miami, who's the one that signed off on that good -- that really extraordinary deal that allowed Jeffrey Epstein to evade federal charges and instead got state charges. He said that that was the original sin that got us to this point.

Of course, Alex Acosta later became labor secretary under President Trump in Trump's first term. And we also heard the FBI director defend his use of the FBI plane. He said he's actually saving money for the taxpayers by having the plane fly from Andrews Air Force Base and not other airports. So there you go. That's what the FBI director is saying, sort of defending his management of the FBI at this point.

SANCHEZ: Phil, I wonder what you make of Kash Patel saying that there is no enemies list and that anyone internally that has been fired or reassigned has been justified, that there's no political agenda.

MUDD: This was the most interesting part of the hearing for me. This is all about verbal gymnastics.

So stick with me here, Boris. You notice, when Patel, Director Patel, talks about the removal of individuals, he says they're removed for cause, partly because he's facing and the government is facing legal cases from several of these fired employees. That cause includes violating their oath, violating the law, violating FBI regulations.

So let's do the gymnastics for a second. Why is he saying that? My guess is that when we get to the legal case of these former agents suing the government, the government, and Patel was indicating this today, is going to say, well, that's because they're working on issues that violated their oath of office and therefore it was appropriate to remove them.

Now, that's gymnastics saying it's appropriate. My interpretation of that is they worked on the Trump case, therefore, they got to go. That's a different way to look at it.

KEILAR: Phil, thank you so much. Evan, thank you for the reporting, and there you are at the hearing. We appreciate you bringing it to us.

[13:15:00]

Still to come, President Trump suggesting critical media coverage could be considered hate speech, as he threatens to go after journalists who he believes have been unfair to him.

Plus, Israel defies worldwide outrage, moving forward with a ground incursion in Gaza City, even as a U.N. commission concludes for the first time that Israel is committing genocide.

SANCHEZ: And, later, Hollywood honoring an icon. We remember Robert Redford.

These important stories and many more all coming your way in just moments. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SANCHEZ: We're following breaking news out of the Middle East, where explosions are lighting up what's left of the Gaza skyline, as Israel's military launches a full-scale ground offensive on Gaza City.

The Israeli military says it is targeting Hamas in one of the group's last remaining strongholds. Hospital officials say that overnight attacks killed at least 86 people in Northern Gaza. And this video shows Palestinian rescuers searching for people trapped underneath rubble.

As this new offensive gets under way, a United Nations commission is accusing Israel of genocide, a charge the Israeli government categorically rejects.

[13:20:06]

CNN's Jeremy Diamond joins us now live from Jerusalem.

So, Jeremy, bring us up to speed on where things stand right now.

JEREMY DIAMOND, CNN JERUSALEM CORRESPONDENT: Well, Boris, for weeks now, we have watched as the Israeli military has intensified its bombardment of Gaza City and positioned troops in key areas on the city's outskirts.

And now the military says that it has launched its invasion of Gaza City. This is a plan not just to carry out raids inside of Gaza City to clear the area and then withdraw, but, rather, this time, the Israeli military is carrying out one of its most consequential offensives here, planning to conquer and ultimately occupy the city of Gaza.

The Israeli military now saying that this is an operation that could take months to actually complete, even as a military official today told us that they believe that there is a Hamas force of just some 2,000 to 3,000 Hamas fighters in the city.

The Israeli military, for its part, is committing two divisions, or about 20,000 troops. So far, we have yet to see Israeli tanks and troops actually make their way into the center of the city, but we certainly have seen the destructive impact of its opening strikes in the early hours of this offensive, with 86 people killed since midnight in Gaza City alone.

We have seen horrible scenes at the hospitals in Gaza City, including the images of many young children brought in bloodied, covered in soot, some of them injured, some of them unfortunately already dead. In addition to that, we know that hundreds of thousands of people have already been forced to flee Gaza City, with the Israeli military estimating that some 350,000 people have fled.

But we do know that more than that, hundreds of thousands more, are still in Gaza City and very much fearing what could come next from the next phases of this Israeli military offensive. And as this is happening, Israel is facing new condemnation from the world, not only for this offensive, but also this growing chorus of voices accusing Israel of committing genocide in Gaza.

The latest organization to make this assessment is an independent commission of inquiry set up by the United Nations Human Rights Council. They conclude that Israel has been committing a genocide in Gaza, based not only on the facts on the ground, the indiscriminate bombing, the attacks on health care facilities, the mass displacement of people, but also the statements from Israeli officials that they believe confirm that there is a genocidal intent here.

The Israeli government, for its part, of course, adamantly rejecting these conclusions, insisting that they are based on Hamas propaganda -- Boris.

SANCHEZ: Jeremy Diamond live for us in Jerusalem.

Thank you so much, Jeremy.

Attorney General Pam Bondi vowing to go after anyone targeting others with hate speech in the aftermath of Charlie Kirk's murder. But when a reporter asked the president about it, things got tense. We will bring that exchange to you next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:27:23]

KEILAR: In minutes, we should learn more about the formal charges filed against the suspected killer of Charlie Kirk.

And as we await that, Attorney General Pam Bondi is facing some criticism over her recent comments about hate speech. Here's what she said on the Katie Miller podcast yesterday. There's free speech and then there's hate speech. And there is no place, especially now, especially after what happened to Charlie, in our society.

We will absolutely target you, go after you, if you are targeting anyone with hate speech, anything. And that's across the aisle.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KEILAR: While hate speech can be offensive, it is generally protected by the First Amendment and a number of conservatives were quick to call Bondi out on that.

SANCHEZ: Yes, today the attorney general seemed to clarify her remarks, writing -- quote -- "Hate speech that crosses the line into threats of violence is not protected by the First Amendment."

This morning, President Trump was asked about Bondi's remarks. Listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JONATHAN KARL, ABC NEWS CHIEF WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT AND CO-ANCHOR OF "THIS WEEK": What do you think? Pam Bondi is saying she's going to go after hate speech. Is that -- I mean, a lot of people, a lot of your allies say hate speech is free speech.

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: She will probably go after people like you, because you treat me so unfairly. It's hate. You have a lot of hate in your heart.

KARL: Would that be appropriate?

TRUMP: Maybe they will come after ABC. Well, ABC paid me $16 million recently for a form of hate speech, right? Your company paid me $16 million for a form of hate speech. So maybe they will have to go after you.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SANCHEZ: Let's talk about this with CNN senior political analyst Ron Brownstein, an opinion columnist for Bloomberg, and Jeff Angelo, a conservative radio host.

Thank you both for being with us.

Jeff, first to you. What do you make of Bondi's attempt to clarify what she, I guess, meant to say regarding hate speech, that it's not just speech, but it's speech that crosses into threats of violence? Do you agree?

JEFF ANGELO, RADIO TALK SHOW SHOT: I think that, if you're threatening violence, obviously, that's something that our law enforcement officials can investigate. But that is a concept that I think we all agree to.

I don't think that's hate speech. In fact, it's really disturbing to hear a Republican administration start to talk about hate speech, because, for many, many years, conservatives derided the concept of hate speech. They thought that was an avenue for the government to go after speech that it didn't like.

So it's very discouraging, I think, to conservatives like me to hear the administration start to adopt terminology like hate speech and say we will go after it. And, certainly, I think it's conservatives that started to rein Pam Bondi back in and why she had to clarify today that they're looking into investigation of threats of violence. That's a whole different concept.