Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Epstein Mentioned Trump in Private Emails; President Trump and Inflation Polls; Kit Darby is Interviewed about Aviation Issues; Warning to be Removed from Hormone Therapy; Trial Begins for Former Aide Accused of Helping China; U.K. Suspends Intel Sharing with U.S. Aired 8:30-9a ET

Aired November 12, 2025 - 08:30   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[08:31:41]

ANNOUNCER: This is CNN breaking news.

JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: All right, we do have breaking news in the Jeffrey Epstein investigation. Democrats on the House Oversight Committee, minutes ago, literally, releasing emails that they say were written by Jeffrey Epstein that explicitly, specifically, mentioned Donald Trump by name. And in context that we really haven't heard before.

Let's get right to Kaitlan Collins, who's got this reporting.

Kaitlan, what are you learning?

KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN ANCHOR: Yes, John, these are emails that show Jeffrey Epstein mentioning Donald Trump by name multiple times in private correspondence that he had with people, including Ghislaine Maxwell, obviously his longtime associate and accomplice, and also the author, Michael Wolff, in a time span of about the last 15 years or so in these emails.

Now, these are coming out from the House Oversight Committee. They had issued a bipartisan subpoena to Jeffrey Epstein's estate, John, as you know, earlier this year. And so they've gotten their hands on a trove of documents. And these are emails that included Jeffrey Epstein on them. They were sent either to him or from him that mentioned Donald Trump before he was in office and also while he was in office during his first term.

And I want to walk you through these emails of what exactly we are reading in Jeffrey Epstein's own words in these emails that have been released by the House Oversight Committee. And in one of them, Jeffrey Epstein says, and I should note, Trump did not send or receive any of these messages. He's not a party to these emails, John. But these are emails from Jeffrey Epstein to Ghislaine Maxwell.

This is one from April 2, 2011. And in this email, Jeffrey Epstein writes to Ghislaine Maxwell and says, quote, "I want you to realize that the dog that hasn't barked is Trump. There's a name that's redacted, which the House Oversight Committee has said is a victim of Jeffrey Epstein's. Obviously, we have not been able to independently confirm that because her name is redacted from this email. But they say, "redacted spent hours at my house with him. He has never once been mentioned. Police chief, et cetera. I'm 75 percent there." Ghislaine Maxwell responds to that email, John, it says, quote, "I have been thinking about that."

Now, there's no context for that message in this release of what we're getting. Obviously, this was a time span, and this was about three years after Jeffrey Epstein had accepted what is now known as that sweetheart deal that only got him a few months in prison. And something that came under a ton of scrutiny during Donald Trump's first term in office because of his then labor secretary, Alex Acosta, who helped negotiate that plea deal, that sweetheart deal, for Jeffrey Epstein at the time. And so that's the context of -- this came about three years after he had negotiated that plea deal, John.

And there's also other emails that have been released by the committee this morning, including between Jeffrey Epstein and Michael Wolff. People will remember Michael Wolff, of course the author who wrote a book on the inner workings of Trump's West Wing back in 2018, during his first term. He is someone who has talked at length about his own correspondence with Jeffrey Epstein, published audio recordings of those conversations between the two of them. And in another email, and this seems to be a reference to Donald Trump saying that he kicked Jeffrey Epstein out of his Mar-a-Lago club. And Jeffrey Epstein writes to Michael Wolff and says, quote, "Trump said he asked me to resign."

[08:35:05]

And he adds, John, "never a member ever. Of course, he knew about the girls as he asked Ghislaine to stop."

Now, again, we don't have the context of this email. But, John, that comes as in recent months we've heard President Trump himself and the White House say that Jeffrey Epstein was kicked out of Mar-a-Lago for being a creep. And Trump himself told reporters on Air Force One that he was trying to poach women, he and Ghislaine Maxwell, from the Mar- a-Lago spa. And that was why they had such a falling out and why he ultimately asked Jeffrey Epstein to leave the Mar-a-Lago club.

Now, there's also a third email in here, John, and this is again in regards to Jeffrey Epstein and Michael Wolff. And Michael Wolff emails Jeffrey Epstein. And this is back in December 15, 2015. So, the height of the 2016 campaign, just to put that in perspective for you. And it was the day of a CNN Republican primary debate. And Michael Wolff says, quote, "I hear that CNN is planning to ask Trump tonight about his relationship with you, either on air or in a scrum afterwards." And Epstein wrote, "if we were able to craft an answer for him, what do you think it should be?" Michael Wolff responded at length, John. I'll summarize it. But he said, "in regards to Trump, I think you should let him hang himself. If he says he hasn't been on the plane or to the house, then that gives you a valuable PR and political currency. You can hang him in a way that potentially generates a positive benefit for you, or, if it really looks like he could win, you could save him, generating a debt."

Now I'll note, John, we looked at the transcript of that CNN debate from December 2015. There's no mention of Jeffrey Epstein in there. And, of course, as I mentioned, Donald Trump himself is not a party to these emails. But what this shows is Jeffrey Epstein mentioning Donald Trump by name multiple times at a moment here in Washington when their relationship has come under incredibly intense scrutiny, John.

BERMAN: Kaitlan, as you mentioned multiple times, we just don't have the context surrounding any of these emails. But that first email, you read, the language absolutely jumps out to me. This is April 2, 2011. Epstein writes to Ghislaine Maxwell, "I want you to realize the dog that hasn't barked is Trump blank." And blank here is one of the alleged victims of Jeffrey Epstein. "A victim spent hours at my house with him." Him being Trump. "He has never once been mentioned."

Now, again, we don't have the context surrounding that, Kaitlan, but this kind of language from Jeffrey Epstein himself, how often has Donald Trump -- what has Donald Trump said about contact he may have had or time he may have allegedly spent with some of Epstein's alleged victims?

COLLINS: Yes. And, John, just to be clear, the woman -- the person whose name is redacted here was redacted by the House Oversight Committee before they put this out. That has been a huge point of focus as people have demanded the release of these documents is to be able to protect the survivors and the victims.

We have not been able to independently verify who this person is. The committee is the one doing the redacting here. But, obviously, he is referencing someone who Jeffrey Epstein says in this email from 2011 that spent time with Donald Trump at his house.

And so, we've asked the White House for comment on this this morning. Obviously, these are emails that predate his time in office this term. They span about 15 years, this correspondence that's being released. And Trump has denied that he knew anything about what Jeffrey Epstein was doing and the sex trafficking of young women. And he said that he wasn't aware of that at the time. And obviously, Trump himself has not been accused of any wrongdoing. It's very important that we make that clear here, John.

But, of course, the question has been when it comes to regards to the Justice Department and what they've released about what they know. And Adelita Grijalva is being sworn in today. She's the new House Democrat from Arizona. And she's expected to be that 218th signature. And so, the pressure has been building on not just Democrats but Republicans here in Washington to release more information about what the Justice Department has. And so, looking at that email, obviously, will likely only increase that pressure to do so.

And you're right, John, we don't know the context of that. But, obviously, you could read Jeffrey Epstein's words in and of itself and take away, obviously, what you will from that.

BERMAN: Oh, yes, it begs many questions to be asked, perhaps to the president or the White House. You've already put this to them. Much more on this ahead.

Kaitlan Collins, thank you so much.

COLLINS: And can I say, John --

BERMAN: Yes, please.

COLLINS: I just want to say, because, obviously, you know, we're -- we're breaking this this morning. We did get a comment from Michael Wolff himself on this. I reached out to him to ask for any context on these emails for anything from him. And he said, quote, "I don't quite remember the context," but he says, "I was engaged then in an in-depth conversation with Epstein about his relationship with Trump. And this seems to be part of that conversation."

We have not yet gotten a comment from the White House. Obviously, they were going through these emails themselves this morning. And we will let you know what they -- what they have to say about it and what the president himself has to say about it, John.

[08:40:02]

BERMAN: All right, all of this developing before our very eyes. Kaitlan Collins, breaking this for us this morning, these emails, which we haven't seen before, where Jeffrey Epstein explicitly mentions Donald Trump by name over the years in different circumstances.

Kaitlan, thank you very much. Much more ahead on this.

In the meantime, let's go to Kate.

KATE BOLDUAN, CNN ANCHOR: Yes, much more to come on that. There's also new CNN reporting today coming from the White House that advisers to President Trump are now acknowledging that they have an affordability problem and that the president has been bristling about it very publicly.

According to administration officials, they're now strategizing inside the White House a number of ways to manage this essentially, including getting the president himself to travel the country to give a series of economy-focused speeches. Polls do show Americans are blaming the president for how they feel about the economy, for their economic woes. Polls that the president, just days ago, called fake.

CNN's Harry Enten is running the numbers on this one. He's here with us now.

Harry, let's talk about polling. I mean, have polls always been down for Trump when it comes to inflation?

HARRY ENTEN, CNN CHIEF DATA ANALYST: No, no, not at all. And if I had one piece of advice to my fellow fast-food lover, it would be, in the words of Michael Jordan, stop it. Stop going after the polls. You have a real problem. Because take a look here, Americans on inflation. You know, you go back to October of 2024. Who did Americans trust more in inflation, Kamala Harris or Donald Trump? They trusted Donald Trump by nine points on average. You jump over to this side of the screen. Those same exact polls have him way, way, way under water. Twenty-six points underwater on his net approval on inflation.

So, it's not that the polls are fake, it's that the American people have turned against you, Mr. President. You've gone from leading by nine points on inflation to being 26 points underwater. You're doing something very wrong in the minds of the American public.

BOLDUAN: I mean negative 26, that's a problem.

ENTEN: Yes, it's a huge problem.

BOLDUAN: OK. Let's go down this path of hypotheticals, right. If the polling is off a la 2024, what would that mean for the president?

ENTEN: Yes, OK.

BOLDUAN: And inflation.

ENTEN: Exactly. So, you see this switcheroo, right, going from plus nine to minus 26. That's a move of over 30 points in the wrong direction.

But let's say the polls are off. Let's take up Donald Trump on his hypothetical, right? Oh, the polls always underestimate me. Well, here's Trump's net approval rating on inflation. Currently, he's 26 points below water. If the polls are off like they were in 2024, he still got a Titanic sized problem. He's then 24 points underwater on inflation.

So, yes, the polls underestimated him. But just by about a point and a half in 2024. He would still have a massive, massive, massive problem on inflation even if the polls were off like they were a year ago.

BOLDUAN: OK, just go down the underestimating route when it comes to if -- is there -- what if they're underestimated? What if Donald Trump himself is underestimated? What if the Republicans are underestimated?

ENTEN: Yes, OK. So, you see this right here, right? You see, if Donald Trump is underestimated the same way that he was in 2024, he'd still be way below water. But there is no guarantee that the polls are underestimating Donald Trump. They may, in fact, be overestimating Republicans.

BOLDUAN: Sorry, I said under -- I mean overestimate, sorry.

ENTEN: It's all good, Kate Bolduan. It's all good. I got you right here.

BOLDUAN: I'm sorry.

ENTEN: No worries.

So, you know, you see this right here. If they were underestimating the Republicans. But the truth is, they could be overestimating the Republicans. We just saw this a week ago in both Virginia and New Jersey. Who the polls underestimate in 2025. They underestimated the Democrat, Mikie Sherrill, by eight points in New Jersey. They underestimated Abigail Spanberger's margin by five points in Virginia.

The bottom line is this, the polls on inflation are absolutely awful for Donald Trump. Even if they were slightly better, he'd still be way, way below water. But the problem, Kate Bolduan, might be even worse than the polls suggest. The bottom line is this, Donald Trump has a massive issue on his hand, and no wishing will make it go away because people feel it in their pocketbooks every day and they see it as the prices climb ever higher when they try and purchase their groceries.

BOLDUAN: Harry, thank you so much for that.

ENTEN: Thank you.

BOLDUAN: Sara.

SARA SIDNER, CNN ANCHOR: All right, thank you, Kate. Thank you, Harry.

Even as lawmakers appear ready to end the longest ever government shutdown, it may be some time before travelers see relief at airports. Today, more than 800 domestic flights are canceled as airlines follow the FAA's order to cut air traffic by six percent to help keep the airspace safe. That requirement is set to increase to eight percent tomorrow, and then up to ten percent Friday if no deal is done.

So far this morning, one air traffic control facility handling flights in and out of Newark Liberty International is reporting a staffing shortage. We have seen this before. And even before the shutdown.

Joining us now is retired United Airlines Captain Kit Darby.

Thank you so much for being here this morning.

First to you. You have talked about the recovery here. If this shutdown ends, how long will it take for things to go back to normal? Because I think you have said that it will not be instantaneous.

KIT DARBY, RETIRED UNITED AIRLINES CAPTAIN: No, not instantaneous.

Thanks for having me, Sara.

Quicker, though, than you might think. In a normal situation, when aircraft are canceled or delayed, it happens on a random basis.

[08:45:02]

This time it's happened on a plan. A plan to cut back a varying percentage going toward Friday. But we know where those planes, those pilots, those flight attendants are, which is not the case in something like a weather event. So, now that we know where they are, it's going to be pretty fast getting them back in place. I don't believe it will take more than a few days to get most of it back. And if we can solve the problem this week, I believe we'll be 100 percent by Thanksgiving.

SIDNER: All right, so let me ask you about something that has come up again and again. President Trump slammed air traffic controllers who were calling in sick during the shutdown, saying that he was angry with them. And then you had the transportation secretary just saying yesterday that he's considering possibly firing some air traffic controllers who consistently called out of work during the shutdown. But this is a very different stance that he took from the beginning of the month, when he said he absolutely would not be firing any of the controllers because they have to feed their families, take care of their children, and they are not getting paid throughout all this.

There's already a serious shortage of air traffic controllers. Is this a wise move to threaten and shame air traffic controllers now?

DARBY: Well, I can't speak to the virtues of threatening folks, but my experience with air traffic controllers is, they are consummate professionals. They show up. They do more than 100 percent. They're the reasons that our system is working 100 percent with only 70 percent of the controllers present. And the fact that a few chose to not be available during this period, I don't really -- can't really speak to that. But as a group, I'm counting on them coming back, doing above and beyond, and returning our system as quickly as possible to 100 percent.

SIDNER: Yes, you've relied on them for your safety, and certainly the safety of the passengers as well for many years.

Captain Kit Darby, thank you so much for being here this morning. I do appreciate you coming on.

John.

BERMAN: All right, this morning, the Food and Drug Administration taking steps to remove the lengthy black box warning on many hormone treatments for women with menopause symptoms. Dr. Sanjay Gupta here to answer your questions.

People have been writing in, Sanjay. Michelle from Virginia asks, "I am a 42-year-old woman. When should I start to explore HRT? Are there any tests, blood or otherwise that can determine if it is needed?

DR. SANJAY GUPTA, CNN CHIEF MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes, really important question. First of all, I'll say, I think just because the black box warning has gone away, I think discussions are probably going to start happening earlier, you know. So, typically what they say is that there's no specific blood test that's going to determine whether or not HRT is going to be the right option for you. And keep in mind, when you do a sort of a single blood test, hormone levels fluctuate. So, they're not going to be that helpful in actually determining what the longer term picture is.

The guidance seems to be, you know, starting within ten years of the onset of menopause. That's one thing that I think really jumped out of some of the studies that we talked about yesterday. And that's when you seem to get the biggest benefit. But no specific blood test. Talk to your doctor. Menopause, by the

way, defined as 12 months continuously without menstrual cycle. So, that's when you sort of determine. If, you know, sometimes that sort of fluctuates during perimenopause. Talk to your doctor about that. But those first ten years after onset of menopause, that seems to be the most important.

BERMAN: And if you do go on hormones, Mavis from Georgia wants to know, "how long should you be on them?"

GUPTA: Yes, you know, again, no magic number here. What is interesting, we sort of dug into this a little bit yesterday. First of all, I think a lot of people think, OK, I'm starting this medication. Is this going to be a lifelong thing? And that does not appear to be the case for the vast majority of women. In fact, if you look at averages out of Mayo Clinic, they say most women stay on about five years or so.

But I think the way to sort of think about it is that you have sort of a risk benefit sort of analysis here. Right around the age of 60 is probably when you start to say, hey, look, do the benefits outweigh the risks at this point? Obviously, you want to talk to your doctor about that. But typically what we're -- the guidance seems to be, first ten years of menopause, average age of menopause in the United States around age 51. And around age 60 is when that risk reward sort of calculation starts to differ. So, there are some women who will stay on it much longer because the benefits still outweigh the risks. But that's around the numbers you're looking for.

BERMAN: These are such important discussions being had in so many places.

Dr. Sanjay Gupta, great to see you this morning. Thank you very much.

Kate.

BOLDUAN: Still ahead, more of the breaking news coming in, having to do with Jeffrey Epstein. New emails being released by Democrats on the House Oversight Committee, multiple -- and mentions of Donald Trump, President Trump, in emails between Jeffrey Epstein and others.

[08:50:01]

We'll have much more on that.

A beauty store bulldozed by a suspected drunk driver. Makeup thrown everywhere. That's also coming up.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BOLDUAN: A dozen salted ducks, a Ferrari, and millions of dollars in kickbacks. Today, the trial begins for a former aide to two New York governors who stands accused of being an agent of the Chinese Communist Party. Prosecutors allege that Lindas Sun is -- in exchange for luxury gifts, covertly promoted China's agenda. Now, this case is the latest in which prosecutors are claiming that the Chinese government is seeking to infiltrate the United States.

CNN's Kara Scannell is following this one for us. She's here with us now.

What is expected today, Kara? And also, what are you hearing about the case that they're building against this woman?

KARA SCANNELL, CNN CORRESPONDENT: So, today is opening statements in the trial against Linda Sun and her husband. And she is charged as serving as an unregistered foreign agent for the Chinese government and the Chinese Communist Party. He is facing charges of money laundering, conspiracy and other money crimes.

But what officials accused her of doing is they say that she was trying to push the Chinese government and the Communist Party's agenda by taking certain steps is -- in her job working for the state government. She worked for Andrew Cuomo and also for Kathy Hochul. What they say she did was that she blocked any meetings between the Taiwanese officials and state officials, as well as preventing any mention of the Uighurs, that minority group in China, from being mentioned in any lunar new year messages, among other things. And in exchange they say she got these gifts, including the personal chef of the high ranking official at the Chinese consulate had made these Nanjing-style salted ducks and provided them to her parents, made dozens of meals for them, as well as millions of dollars that she and her husband had received, in part by facilitating his business in China.

[08:55:18]

They also are accused of a Covid fraud by getting state contracts for certain vendors of PPE that they themselves financially benefited from. So, in -- what the government alleges is that they made millions of dollars. They laundered it by having a $4 million home on Long Island, buying a $2 million condo in Honolulu.

Now, Sun and her husband have pleaded not guilty. Her lawyers say that she was advancing U.S. policy interests and that the -- her actions were aligned. But, of course, if convicted, she could face some serious time in prison.

BOLDUAN: All right. Opening statements today.

It's great to see you, Kara. Thanks so much.

Sara.

SIDNER: All right, on our radar for you this morning, passengers got a real scare on a commuter train in San Francisco. A light rail operator appears to fall asleep at the controls. You can see her sort of swaying there with the train as it travels 50 miles per hour, and then jolting upright. Some passengers were also jolted out of their seats.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

(CROSS TALK) UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I'm sorry. Relax. Relax. Relax. Relax. We didn't crash. Relax.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SIDNER: This morning, the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency says the incident was due to operator fatigue.

A suspected drunk driver in Michigan slammed into an Ulta Beauty supply. Police say they pulled over the 26-year-old after seeing her drive on train tracks. Then they say she had an open container of booze in her car. She fled from the traffic stop, lost control, slammed into the side of that Ulta. And you'd think that would be the end, but it wasn't. She then backs up, hits a patrol car, and then drives back into the Ulta several times before police could finally arrest her. The damage estimated in the thousands of dollars.

John.

BERMAN: All right, this morning, Venezuela is launching what it calls a massive mobilization. This as the U.S. has sent its largest aircraft carrier to the region. The U.S. says its military buildup is about fighting drug trafficking and has carried out strikes on numerous alleged drug boats. But there are growing questions about the legality of these strikes, including, CNN has learned, from lawyers inside the Defense Department.

The United Kingdom, importantly, has started to refuse to share intelligence with the United States in the region.

With us now, CNN national security analyst Carrie Cordero.

The U.K. saying they're not going to share intelligence because of questions about legality here, Carrie. How significant is that?

CARRIE CORDERO, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: I think it's a really important development, John, for a variety of reasons. One, the U.K. is one of, if not the most important intelligence sharing partner that the United States has, not just related to this specific issue, but broadly across a wide range of global security issues. And so, if they are saying that because of the questionable legality of this particular strikes they're not going to share information on drug trafficking in the region or to assist the United States, that indicates to me that they've got a question both potentially about the legality of the strikes and them assisting in it under U.K. law, but also under international law.

BERMAN: When the United Kingdom talks about or questions the legality of the strikes, or when Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky questions the legality of the strikes, what exactly are they questioning? What are they saying is not legal?

CORDERO: So, I think there's probably different perspectives from Senator Paul than from a foreign partner. When it comes to Senator Paul, what he's looking at is the constitutional issues. So, the administration is arguing that the president has authority under Article Two of the constitution to unilaterally make the decision to make these strikes. What Senator Paul would be arguing is that Congress has a role here under the War Powers Act, and therefore there should be congressional authorization for these military strikes.

From the foreign perspective, I would imagine that the U.K. government is looking at both whether the strikes would be lawful under their own law. In other words, intelligence agencies, particularly western ones, they are not going to want to provide intelligence to something that would be illegal for them to do themselves.

And then there's the question that, according to our reporting, the U.K. government is looking at, which is the question of international law. And there there's pretty broad consensus amongst international law experts, based on the information that the government -- the U.S. government is releasing publicly so far, that the international law justification is pretty questionable. And that would be because the international law assessment would look to as to whether these strikes are necessary, whether they're proportional, i.e., taking into account potential civilian deaths that are implicated.

[09:00:07]