Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Interview with Rep. Melanie Stansbury (D-NM): New Release: Epstein Mentioned Trump Multiple Times in Private E-Mails; White House Holds Meeting on House Effort to Force Release of Epstein Files; FDA Removing "Black Box" Warning from Menopause Hormone Therapy; Judge Orders Release of Hundreds of People Arrested in Illinois Immigration Crackdown. Aired 2:30-3p ET

Aired November 12, 2025 - 14:30   ET

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

[14:30:00]

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: CNN has learned that survivors of convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein are expected to be in attendance at Adelita Grijalva's swearing-in ceremony this afternoon. Grijalva is set to be the newest member of the House of Representatives, and she's expected to provide the final signature that's needed for a discharge petition that would compel a vote on the release of the Epstein files. It would force it so that it basically goes around leadership in the House.

And this comes just hours after Democrats on the House Oversight Committee released private e-mails from Jeffrey Epstein, where the convicted sex offender mentions Donald Trump by name multiple times. In one of these e-mails, which is dated April 2, 2011, Epstein writes that Trump, quote, spent hours at my house with one of Epstein's victims. Republicans on the House Oversight Committee identified that person as Virginia Giuffre, one of Epstein's most prominent survivors, certainly his most vocal one, who died by suicide in April.

We should note that before her death, Giuffre had not accused Trump of doing anything wrong. Just moments ago, President Trump responded to the release of the Epstein e-mails, once again calling the situation a hoax, appearing to give an order to Republicans saying, quote, there should be no deflections to Epstein or anything else, and any Republicans involved should be focused only on opening up our country.

Joining us now is Democratic Congresswoman Melanie Stansbury of New Mexico. She's a member of the House Oversight Committee. Thank you so much for being with us. What are you taking from these e-mails?

REP. MELANIE STANSBURY (D-NM), OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE: Yes, I mean, these e-mails are clearly extraordinarily explosive. They implicate the president, that he not only knew what was happening in Jeffrey Epstein's circle, but that he spent time with at least one, if not multiple, of Jeffrey Epstein's named sex victims. As well as there's discussion in the e-mail that you just cited between Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein about the fact that he had been the dog that didn't bark, and they specifically are talking about the police.

So what this implicates is that potentially going back all the way to 2011, even after Jeffrey Epstein had been investigated for criminal activity, not just in sex trafficking, but also for financial crimes, which we know U.S. Attorney Acosta lied under his deposition about, that Donald Trump was being named by Epstein and by Ghislaine Maxwell as being the dog that didn't bark on them. And so the question is, what did Donald Trump have on them? Was he engaged in these activities?

And why is Donald Trump calling Republican members of the House today and yesterday to threaten them to get off of the discharge petition? If he thinks that we should be focused on reopening the government, then why is he personally calling Republicans and threatening them right now?

KEILAR: So help us understand this, because Democrats redacted Virginia Giuffre's name. And I mean, I have to say, these e-mails --

STANSBURY: No, it came to us redacted. No, it came to us redacted from ABC.

KEILAR: It came to you redacted. OK.

[14:35:00]

STANSBURY: Yes, so we don't even know. That is the claim of the White House. So that's something that we shouldn't be asking questions about, yes.

KEILAR: OK, really interesting. So, and House Republicans came out and mentioned the redaction there. It is of significance that Virginia Giuffre, who was so vocal, right, and was not known for pulling any punches about what happened to her, did not accuse Trump of wrongdoing.

And so I want to know kind of what you think of that, because there is this discrepancy. You have Epstein saying this in an e-mail to Maxwell. Maxwell, you know, we know about her in terms of her credibility.

She doesn't really have credibility, right, when it comes to being honest. I'd say people have the same questions about Epstein. Giuffre has said that there wasn't wrong -- she hasn't claimed wrongdoing with Trump.

So how do you kind of square what you're reading in the e-mail with what Virginia Giuffre had said publicly?

STANSBURY: Well, first of all, like I just mentioned, we don't know if the White House's claim that that redacted name actually is Virginia Giuffre. And maybe it is, maybe it isn't, but I think it's convenient that the White House is trying to choose an alibi that they think, and you know, if you read the e-mail, this is private correspondence between Maxwell and Epstein. Why does the White House know at all who Donald Trump was hanging out with at Jeffrey Epstein's house, who was one of the sex trafficking accusers, right?

Like this should be raising every hair on the back of your neck right now. We don't even know that that is who is named in this e-mail. Secondly, whether or not Virginia Giuffre has accused the president of wrongdoing, what I'd like to say to the American people is believe your eyes.

We have all seen the photographs of Donald Trump with underage girls sitting on his lap. We know that he was best friends with Jeffrey Epstein for more than a decade. We know that he has not complied with our congressional subpoena of the DOJ files.

And we know that he is named multiple times in those files. So believe your eyes, believe your ears. And my question is, if they were not engaged in an elaborate smokescreen and coverup, then why the hell is the president calling and threatening members of Congress for them to not take a vote on releasing these files after these files have already been subpoenaed?

They are trying to bury this, and the president is personally trying to stop Congress from asking for these files again.

KEILAR: And I do want to ask you about that, because it is unusual that Lauren Boebert is there for this meeting. But first, just to just to really zoom in on this redacted name here. So are you of the belief that the victim that Epstein is alleging Trump spent time with at his house is someone besides Virginia Giuffre or could be someone besides Virginia Giuffre?

STANSBURY: I do not have information that would allow me to answer that question. What I know is that we've received 23,000 documents from the Jeffrey Epstein estate, including this e-mail.

(CROSSTALK)

KEILAR: OK, but then let me zero in on this real quick. But can I just ask you this? So you you do not have knowledge that tells you that is Virginia Giuffre?

STANSBURY: Absolutely not.

KEILAR: OK, so so explain this again to us. You receive this and it is redacted. There is no name.

(CROSSTALK)

And so you're saying it's as I understand it, the White House that's saying, yes, this is Giuffre.

STANSBURY: Yes.

KEILAR: And what and what kind of questions does that raise for you?

STANSBURY: Well, as I said, first and foremost, you know, the we have subpoenaed these files from the White House, from the Department of Justice. We have subpoenaed financial documents. We have subpoenaed the estate.

And thus far, Donald Trump and the White House have refused to disclose the DOJ documents that are clear on what the FBI investigated, who was facing potential criminal charges, who was implicated, why the president is named in those files. So we don't know what is in the White House, DOJ, FBI files. But what we do know is that the estate has been producing documents in tranches and they have been redacting those documents as they have been sent to the committee.

I have not reviewed the original transmittal that came from the estate. But my understanding is that in that 23,000 page document production that happened over the weekend, that there were redactions produced by the estate. And so it is my understanding that it is the White House's response.

They are trying to claim that it is Virginia Giuffre. And we do not know if that is the case or not. And while we can ask the estate to verify that, I don't have that information in front of me right now.

[14:40:00]

KEILAR: OK. And back to Congresswoman Lauren Boebert. And I don't know how well you know her. She is certainly from your neighboring state there.

She's at the White House for this. She's been invited to the White House for the meeting about the Epstein files.

And it is unusual. But she's one of these few Republicans who has joined Republicans in this discharge petition effort. You can't lose anyone and still be successful in that.

Do you have any reason to believe that she would change her mind? And if she were to, what would that say to you?

STANSBURY: Well, at this point, we don't have information. I'm sure as soon as she makes public her final decision, it'll be breaking news. But certainly, we know that the president is a fan of bringing in members of Congress that have done things that he doesn't like.

And it offers them all manner of treasures and offers in order to switch their vote or switch their point of view. And so it would not surprise me at all if Representative Boebert changed her mind. But I think it would be very clear that there would be some sort of pay to play involved in order for her to do that.

KEILAR: What would you say --?

STANSBURY: So I call on her as a fellow woman. I call on her as a fellow woman to hold her ground, stand up for the survivors, do the right thing, because I think the American people are going to see, whether it's in the next few days or months or a few years, that we know that Donald Trump is implicated in this case and has been involved in the cover up.

KEILAR: And I do just want to note, I mean, these e-mails are raising significant questions. We're going to seek answers, obviously, to those questions. We should note, though, that Trump, he's not been at this point implicated of wrongdoing.

We do just need to be clear of that. We are asking those questions. Of course, these e-mails do predate his time as president.

But certainly we are glad to have you on to talk about this. It's really important. Congresswoman Melanie Stansbury --

STANSBURY: Thank you.

KEILAR: -- thank you so much for being with us.

And more than a dozen babies have gotten so sick that they had to go to the hospital after drinking formula suspected of being infected by botulism. The latest on this concerning outbreak right after this.

[14:45:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KEILAR: The Food and Drug Administration is dropping its strongest warning -- it's the black box warning -- from many hormone treatments for women with menopause symptoms. It's expected to give women more options for treatment and generate a substantial amount of new sub -- prescriptions, I should say. Dr. Sanjay Gupta is here to answer some of your questions. And man, do we have a lot of questions about this, Sanjay.

So let's start with Michelle from Virginia, who sent this in. She said, I'm a 42-year-old woman. When should I start to explore HRT? Are there any tests or blood tests or otherwise that can determine if HRT is needed?

DR. SANJAY GUPTA, CNN CHIEF MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, one thing I'll just say, you know, first of all, this is a really big deal. I mean, obviously, so many women affected by this. The black box warnings going away means that people like Michelle are probably going to have conversations with their doctor about this.

A couple of things to keep in mind, there is no single blood test to the question to determine for sure perimenopause or menopause. And even if you check hormone levels, you get a static image in time. Hormone levels fluctuate throughout the day.

So they're not very reliable in terms of determining menopause. What we do know is that menopause is more strictly defined as having gone without a period for 12 months in a row. And the average age is around 51. So Michelle may be a little bit young now for it. But again, these conversations are happening.

Where you see the greatest benefit versus risk, which has always been what this conversation is about, is if you start the hormone therapy within the first 10 years of menopause. So if you start within the first 10 years, benefits seem to significantly outweigh the risks.

And then, you know, past that, around age 60, sort of making a reevaluation again. Do the benefits continue to outweigh the risks? So it's an ongoing conversation. But, you know, for a long time, Brianna, as you know, hormones just simply weren't given or they were minimized. I think that part of things are going to change.

KEILAR: So Mavis from Georgia wants to know how long should a person be on hormones.

GUPTA: Yes, you know, it's interesting. So so many questions around this. And I think for a lot of people, they start a new medication and they think, well, is this going to be a lifelong medication?

That's not typically the case with hormones. If you want to put some numbers on it, according to Mayo Clinic, on average, women will be on hormone therapy for about five years. But again, similar to the question from Michelle, I think this is really individualized.

There's so many potential benefits if started early enough within the first 10 years of menopause impact overall on cardiovascular benefits, bone density, things like that. So I think five years on average. But if a woman gets to age 60 and the benefits continue to outweigh the risks, then there will be a lot of doctors who say continue it and just continue to monitor it.

So the risks do increase as you get older, as a woman gets older and they stay on hormone therapy. But for a lot of women where that end point is could be very different.

KEILAR: And Christine from Arizona -- and I think this is such an important one to talk about here, Sanjay -- she tells us she's a uterine cancer survivor going through menopause and has been advised not to use hormone therapy. There's going to be a lot of people in that boat. So she wants to know if there's anything available for people like her to reduce menopause symptoms.

[14:50:00]

GUPTA: Yes, I think this is important for a lot of reasons, you know, we want to make sure that people understand that there are still going to be reasons you don't want to take hormone therapy, past history of certain cancers, past history of certain types of blood clots, things like that. Again, I can't emphasize enough that this has to be a conversation with the physician.

About 80 percent of women who are going through menopause are going to have symptoms of hot flashes, night sweats, 80 percent. So it's a high number. These are called vasomotor symptoms typically associated with menopause.

And the first thing women are often counseled is try and figure out if there are certain triggers for this. Caffeine can be a trigger. Sugar can be a trigger.

Not getting good sleep can be a trigger. So, you know, keeping a journal, sort of identifying those triggers. But for a lot of women, that's not going to do the trick. So the triggers, you've assessed those not helping. You're not taking the hormone therapy. There are other potential non-hormonal options out there.

Just to throw a few up there, if you look at sort of, for example, antidepressants such as SSRIs, taking them at low dose, so not for the depressant effects, but more for night sweat effects, they can be helpful. Anticonvulsants like gabapentin, middle of the screen there, that can help with sleep, for example, and mood swings. And then the neurokinin agents, they're called the antagonists, they can help with hot flashes, for example.

So it's obviously more challenging, you know, to try and navigate all those different medications. But over the last 25 years, since, you know, roughly 25 years you've had the black box warnings, there have been other modalities that have been sort of put forward as options to try and treat some of those symptoms, Brianna.

KEILAR: Really interesting. Sanjay, thank you so much for taking us through all of that. So many people want to know about this -- Boria

BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN HOST: We're following breaking news. CNN affiliate WLS reports that a federal judge has ordered the release of hundreds of people arrested as part of the Trump administration's immigration crackdown in Illinois. This deals a major blow to federal efforts to detain and deport as many undocumented people as possible.

CNN's Whitney Wild is following the latest from Chicago. Whitney, what more are you learning?

WHITNEY WILD, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Boris, what we can say is that this is, as you said, this is a major win for plaintiff's attorneys, immigration rights attorneys who are saying that these arrests by people who have no deportation orders, who have no criminal history, are simply illegal. The judge today is ordering the release of hundreds of people who have been arrested. Plaintiff's attorneys believe that up to 3,000 people have been arrested between June and October.

And the district court judge who has listened to this case voiced quite a bit of skepticism that the majority of those people have any criminal record, have any reason to be remaining in U.S. custody. And so now he is ordering the continued review of people who are in custody and the release of those who are in custody. This more practically applies to -- it applies to all 3,000 people who are who have been arrested by ICE and the Customs and Border Patrol between June and October.

Plaintiff's attorneys believe that that number is actually lower than the total number. So it does apply to all of those people. But most practically speaking, it applies to 615 people who are currently in custody all across the country.

I spoke with the plaintiff's attorneys after the judge issued their ruling and they said of those 3,000, they believe 1,100 simply left voluntarily after they were placed in custody because they just they gave up on their immigration status fight and chose to leave the United States. So this is, again, an enormous win for the ACLU, for the National Immigration Justice Center. Here's more from attorney Mark Fleming.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MARK FLEMING, ATTORNEY, NATIONAL IMMIGRANT JUSTICE CENTER: The last two months, the terrorizing of our neighborhoods, the brutalizing of people here has all been unlawful. That's what it's going to show. It's going to show that all of this, all of the tactics of Mr. Bovino, all of the tactics of ICE have been unlawful in the vast, vast majority of arrests.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WILD: We've reached out to the Department of Homeland Security to find out if they are going to appeal to find out what their reaction is to the judge's ruling. Fleming told me that he his understanding is that they are going to at least -- the DOJ is going to consult with the solicitor general about a potential appeal. So they're expecting that most practically speaking, this order needs to be fulfilled by November 21st.

And then more broadly, the question is, what does this mean for cases all across the country? Because this is actually based on a consent decree that is three years old specifically that says ICE is not to keep people in custody who don't have, again, these specific reasons, deportation orders, criminal arrest records, things like that. So this ruling is specifically about a consent decree that only applies here.

So the question is, what does this mean nationwide? And the attorney for the ACLU told me that she believes that there are other cases across the country that are similar.

[14:55:00]

And so you will start to see more cases end up just like this with judges simply saying that these people who are in custody it's completely improper. Back to you.

SANCHEZ: And we'll see how the administration responds. Whitney Wild in Chicago. Thank you so much.

The mother of missing nine year old Melody Buzzard is in court today on charges unrelated to her daughter's disappearance. We'll discuss the latest on the case in just moments.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KEILAR: New video shows the moment that a major bridge in China partially collapses just months after opening. Look at this. Government officials say the more than 2,400 foot long bridge was closed before the collapse took place after cracks appeared on nearby slopes and roads.

And the company, ByHeart, has now recalled its entire line of infant formula ...

END