Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Virginia Double Murder Trial Begins; Havana Syndrome Cause?; Bill Clinton Defies House Republicans; Supreme Court Hears Arguments Over Transgender Athletes. Aired 1-1:30p ET

Aired January 13, 2026 - 13:00   ET

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

[13:00:00]

DANA BASH, CNN HOST: The rallying cry that they have written in this to Democrats and to Americans, who they know want to see their leaders fight, they're clearly providing a road map and a place to rally behind.

AARON BLAKE, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL REPORTER: Yes, I mean, it's a really interesting decision.

We obviously saw, when we did get some Epstein files last month, the White House, the Justice Department made very clear they want to focus on the Clintons. That was a big part of the first initial release. I can expect -- we can expect now the House to try and continue this moving forward.

I think that was really the point of all this.

BASH: Absolutely.

Thank you all so much. Thank you for joining "INSIDE POLITICS."

CNN NEWS CENTRAL starts right now.

BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN HOST: A high-stakes fight. The Supreme Court hearing arguments over transgender athlete bans, two cases examining whether states can stop transgender women from competing on female sports teams.

Plus: a no show, former President Bill Clinton defying Congress, now at risk of being held in contempt for skipping an interview with the House committee investigating the crimes of Jeffrey Epstein.

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: And new reporting on the device that could be behind the mysterious Havana Syndrome, how the Pentagon is testing a machine that could be the cause of illnesses experienced by Americans in Cuba.

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

SANCHEZ: Happening now, the Supreme Court is hearing arguments in two cases for one of the most hot-button issues facing the country: Can states prohibit transgender athletes from competing in sports consistent with their gender identity?

In the last few hours, justices have been grilling attorneys representing Idaho and West Virginia, two of the 29 states with bans now in place for trans athletes. At issue, do these bans comply with the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment and Title Ian,the federal law banning discrimination in education on the basis of sex?

The case has major ramifications for transgender youth. It also marks another major test for the conservative majority on the Supreme Court, who ruled in 2020 that federal law protects transgender individuals from discrimination in the workplace.

Today, liberal justices challenged why that and other precedents are now in question.

(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)

SONIA SOTOMAYOR, U.S. SUPREME COURT ASSOCIATE JUSTICE: You're asking the court to adopt views expressed by two minority dissenting judges in this case. We have been doing an awful lot of that lately, but -- you're smiling because it's true, but you're asking us to adopt an approach that we have rejected as a majority court and accept what dissenters are doing, correct?

(END AUDIO CLIP)

SANCHEZ: CNN's Jeff Zeleny is here with us now.

Jeff, this was a major driver in the 2024 election.

JEFF ZELENY, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: It absolutely was.

I mean, it really is a dividing line in America, yet one more example of the dividing line in America. When you look at the states that have bans against transgender athletes and ones that do not, it really kind of follows pretty closely to the lines of red and blue America, those maps that we are so familiar with.

But the arguments this morning in the court were so historic in one respect. This is the first time the Supreme Court will be weighing in on something like this, the Idaho arguments are first, the West Virginia arguments second, but it absolutely propelled the Republicans and the Trump campaign.

And it caused some issues for Democrats right after the election. We will remember, even a year or so ago and most of last year, Democrats were wondering, how much should they be talking about issues like this versus issues of affordability?

And as we enter this midterm election year, many Democrats are much more focused on high costs from health care to housing to food, and they do not want to talk necessarily about social issues. However, this is going to inject it squarely in the midterm elections regardless of the outcome. And given the majority, conservative majority, on this court, many

observers believe the outcome could benefit the Trump administration or Republicans, at least politically speaking, here. So it'll be interesting to see if Democrats are able to keep this on the back burner or if it will drive it to the front of the conversation.

SANCHEZ: Yes, it's a big question, the kitchen table issues or the culture wars. We will see.

Jeff Zeleny, thank you so much for the report -- Brianna.

ZELENY: You bet.

KEILAR: A contempt of Congress charge against Bill Clinton is now moving ahead after his no-show today on Capitol Hill.

The House Oversight Committee was scheduled to depose the former president this morning as part of its Jeffrey Epstein investigation. Previously, Clinton said he knew nothing of Epstein's crimes, while acknowledging trips on Epstein's airplanes and meeting with the late sex offender after leaving office.

[13:05:00]

Republicans on the House Oversight Committee point out that last year's vote to subpoena Clinton and his wife, Hillary, the former secretary of state, was bipartisan.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. JAMES COMER (R-KY): So no one's accusing Bill Clinton of anything any wrong doing. We just have questions. And that's why the Democrats voted along with Republicans to subpoena Bill Clinton.

This is the amount of preparation that went into this deposition today. These were the questions that we were prepared to ask. We've communicated with President Clinton's legal team for months now, giving them opportunity after opportunity.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KEILAR: Hillary Clinton's deposition is set for tomorrow, but she won't be appearing either. In a letter to committee Chair Comer explaining their no-shows, the Clinton's lawyer says -- quote -- "Subpoenas themselves are nothing more than a ploy to attempt to embarrass political rivals, as President Trump has directed."

Let's turn to CNN senior legal analyst Elie Honig, a former federal prosecutor.

All right, Elie, the Clintons' argument here that the subpoenas are not related to a valid legislative purpose, what do you make of that?

ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Well, here's the problem, Brianna. The Clintons have taken a risk in the way they've gone about this.

They could have gone to court weeks ago, when they received these subpoenas, and made precisely that argument, and maybe they will go to court in the future and maybe they will win. But as we sit here right now, what we have is a valid subpoena from Congress that says you are to appear on today's date.

We have Bill Clinton no-showing, and we do not have a court order saying this subpoena is invalid. Now, it seems what's going to happen from here, if Congress does pursue contempt, is, Bill Clinton will then go into courts and challenge the subpoena.

But by waiting to do that, he's taking the risk of being held in contempt first.

KEILAR: So they also say they're willing to certify their draft declarations. That is what the statement from the lawyer says. They say that there are other subpoenaed witnesses who have not had to appear in person. What do you make of that?

I mean, are those witnesses facing different circumstances than the Clintons?

HONIG: Yes, all of those are fair points. And the Clintons' core argument is that this subpoena does not have a valid legislative purpose. Congress is saying, well, we need to hear from the Clintons because we're considering new legislation having to do with sex trafficking.

And the Clintons are arguing that that's not a valid purpose. There's no connection between what the Clintons might know about Jeffrey Epstein and some sort of future legislation. The point, though, is, in the end, it's up to Congress how they want to treat witnesses.

Sometimes, if you're a member of Congress, you accept written declarations. Sometimes, you accept behind-closed-doors depositions and sometimes you insist on public testimony. Congress really has the power there.

So, if Clinton's legal team is able to get together with Congress and work out some sort of mid-ground, some sort of agreement and arrangement, then they can go with that. But ultimately the Clintons are not the ones in the power position here. Congress is the ones with the subpoena power and Republicans control Congress.

And, as you noted earlier, this was a unanimous, not just bipartisan, but unanimous vote to subpoena the Clintons.

KEILAR: So where does this go from here? If Congress can pursue a contempt of Congress proceeding here, what happens?

HONIG: So Congress now has an important strategic decision to make. If they choose to go to contempt first, which seems like they're going to do, they do run the risk that the Clintons then go to court and get a ruling that the subpoenas were invalid. If that happens, it undercuts, probably ends any contempt. The other

alternative is, Congress can wait till this plays out in the court. And if Congress wins, if the subpoena is deemed to be valid and the Clintons still do not comply, then they can go seek contempt.

But important to know, if and when Congress does issue contempt, the next step is the case then goes over to the Justice Department, which has the ability at that point to bring criminal contempt charges. That's been done in the last administration.

We saw criminal contempt charges against Roger Stone and others. Peter Navarro went to jail because of that. So that is an option. I know it's an extreme option. But the way this works is, Congress finds in contempt first. Then it gets referred over to DOJ, and it'll ultimately be Pam Bondi's call whether she wants to pursue criminal contempt if we get to that point.

KEILAR: It's important, Elie, to note that authorities have not accused Bill Clinton of wrongdoing at this point, right? But as we saw the release of a lot of Epstein documents, we also saw photos, a lot of photos that included Bill Clinton, including some where he is in photos with a woman in at least two cases where their face is redacted, raising questions if he's in a photo with a woman who is a known or possible victim, right?

[13:10:00]

And that sort of challenges, I think, what we knew at least publicly coming from his spokesperson. So what kind of information would members of Congress want to know from Bill Clinton with that in mind?

HONIG: Well, I think that's precisely what's animating this dispute here. It is important to note, there's a certain stigma to getting a subpoena.

A subpoena does not necessarily mean anyone did anything wrong. Witnesses get subpoenas because they have relevant information. But let's be real. If Bill Clinton is to appear for a deposition, I promise you members of that committee, Republicans, are going to slide those very photos in front of Bill Clinton and demand specifics about what he was doing there, who else is in those photos, why he was there.

So I don't think the Clintons are under any illusion that that's not going to happen. And I would speculate that that's exactly why they're fighting against this so far. If they were just bystanders on the corner and witnessed a traffic accident, I don't think they would have any resistance to going in and testifying.

But this is going to be ugly politically for Bill Clinton any way you slice it.

KEILAR: Ultimately, do you think he will have to answer those questions?

HONIG: I mean, it could be that he is compelled by the courts. The courts could say, this is a valid subpoena. If that happens, then, yes, Bill Clinton will have to answer questions. Again, his lawyers are going to push for some sort of arrangement involving written answers or closed-door testimony, but ultimately the courts will resolve this.

And if the courts find this is a valid subpoena and it's related to some sort of valid legislative purpose, then, yes, he will have to answer questions. The fact that he's a former president, Hillary Clinton is a former secretary of state is not going to change the calculus whatsoever here.

There's no privilege that survives that long after the fact.

KEILAR: Elie Honig, thank you so much.

And still to come: Minnesota and Illinois are taking the Trump administration to court. Both states want the president's immigration crackdowns declared unconstitutional and unlawful.

Plus, is the Pentagon closer to finding out the cause of mysterious ailments impacting American spies, diplomats and service members? What we know about a device that they have been testing.

And the latest on the double murder trial of the man accused of plotting with his au pair to kill his wife and another man.

We will have that and much more coming up on CNN NEWS CENTRAL.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:16:45]

SANCHEZ: CNN has learned that the Defense Department has spent more than a year testing a device that may be the cause of the mysterious illness known as Havana Syndrome.

The U.S. government bought the device for millions of dollars in a secret undercover operation, according to our sources. The strange illness, you might recall, first emerged in late 2016 when a group of U.S. diplomats in the Cuban capital of Havana reported being sick, some with career-ending injuries.

Since then, there have been similar cases reported around the world.

CNN's Zach Cohen joins us now.

Zach, walk us through this reporting.

ZACHARY COHEN, CNN SENIOR NATIONAL SECURITY REPORTER: Yes, Boris, we're learning some remarkable details about this undercover operation, the Pentagon using millions of dollars to effectively purchase this device and working with the Department of Homeland Security, and they have been studying it now for over a year.

Now, that said, we're still no closer to a definitive answer as to whether or not this was used in those Havana Syndrome cases, the first ones emerging back in 2016. There is significant debate inside the U.S. government as to whether or not this was something used by a foreign adversary to inflict these symptoms upon U.S. service members, intelligence officers, and U.S. troops and diplomats abroad.

Now, look, there are some details, though, about the device itself that has lent itself to some speculation, some evidence that it could have been used to cause this, one specifically being that it creates what are known as pulsating radio waves.

And that is something that U.S. officials and experts have long speculated to be potentially the root cause of these symptoms, which are similar to head trauma. That's what victims have reported. We're also learning that, while not completely Russian in origin, the device is made up of Russian components, which, again, lends itself to the theory that it could have been used by a foreign adversary to target U.S. officials.

Now, the last thing is, one of the core questions has always been, how can a device both cause so much damage and also be portable? Well, this device is about the size of something that could fit your backpack, so that would potentially check that box as well.

SANCHEZ: Really?

COHEN: Look, we're still going to push all the relevant agencies for more information on this because the victims are still demanding answers. They feel like the Biden administration and, to date, the Trump administration have sort of shrugged off their demands for accountability, particularly because this was inflicted upon them while they were serving their country.

And a core question too that remains is whether or not, if this device was viable, whether or not it could have been proliferated, meaning, do other countries potentially have the capability to target U.S. officials in that way?

SANCHEZ: Yes, it's a huge security question, especially if it fits in a backpack. That detail is just stunning to me.

Can you walk us through the process of trying to determine where it came from? If it contains Russian components and they were able to buy it for millions of dollars on the black market ostensibly, where does this thing get put together?

COHEN: Yes, it's really murky and it's really been put together in the bowels of the Pentagon in really classified areas. We haven't heard really anything about this investigation in recent months.

But we do know that the CIA's narrative in particular has shifted over time. Initially, they ruled out the possibility that a foreign adversary could have targeted U.S. officials in this way. But now we're learning of new evidence that that potential does exist.

SANCHEZ: Yes, wild stuff.

Zach Cohen, thanks so much for the reporting. Still ahead, the latest on the double murder trial of the man accused

of killing his wife and another man as part of this elaborate plot with his family's au pair.

Stay with us. The details are next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:24:36]

KEILAR: The trial over the brutal double murder of -- the trial over the brutal double murder having to do with Brendan Banfield began today.

The Virginia father is accused of killing two people, including his wife, while having a monthslong affair with the family's au pair. Prosecutors claim Banfield conspired with his mistress to frame a stranger for his wife's death after luring him into the house with the promise of violent BDSM role-play. Banfield has pleaded not guilty.

[13:25:04]

CNN correspondent Jean Casarez is with us now.

So, Jean, court is in recess for lunch. Witness testimony began this morning. What have we learned so far?

JEAN CASAREZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: We have learned a lot more, Brianna, because there's been a gag order. So this is the first time we're really hearing this.

Prosecution, learned a little bit more that they say, for months, Brendan Banfield and the au pair worked with FetLife.com to select just the right escort to come to the house, a man that used a knife as part of the role-playing, told him 6:00 a.m. on this date, come over, door will be unlocked, go upstairs.

That's how it began. We learned from the defense that the au pair, who has flipped, is going to be a prosecution witness, that they say she's inconsistent, that she's not going to be telling the truth, be wary of her, she is out for herself.

But then came the 911 call. The jury heard this. We all heard the 911 call. It was after Joseph Ryan, the escort was conceivably dead. And Christine Banfield, a pediatric nurse, his wife, was laying there with all these stab wounds on her neck, and Brendan Banfield. It was an IRS agent, a federal agent. You're going to listen to him right now in that 911 call speak.

(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)

BRENDAN BANFIELD, DEFENDANT: My name is Brendan Banfield. I'm a federal agent. This is my house. There's somebody here. I shot him. He stabbed her. She's bleeding. She's got several marks on her neck.

What do I do? EMERGENCY DISPATCHER: Where is the person that's bleeding? Are they -- where are they in the house?

BANFIELD: They're upstairs in the bedroom.

EMERGENCY DISPATCHER: OK. And where is the person that was shot? Are they also in the house downstairs?

BANFIELD: Yes.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes, in the bed, in the bedroom.

(END AUDIO CLIP)

CASAREZ: So, Brianna, there's going to be two distinct sides here. And this case at this point could go either way.

KEILAR: So, many of the exhibits so far, we have heard about them or the jury's heard about them, but not seen in the gallery. Is that unusual?

CASAREZ: Well, these -- this is the crime scene. This is the body cameras of the officers that went up to that bedroom. And there seems to be so many. We have heard from four so far.

And you're looking at the bodies right there. So the jury saw those videos. The attorneys saw it. The defendants saw it. But it is sealed from public view because it is very gruesome.

KEILAR: Banfield's also charged with felony child abuse charges. He had a young daughter. She was young at the time that this occurred. Is it possible that his daughter could testify?

CASAREZ: You know what, Brianna? It is. She actually was interviewed by a forensic investigator right after all this happened. The judge did not allow it, because Brendan Banfield had not given his permission at the time.

The prosecution's opening, they actually mentioned her name. She's probably about 6 now. That's unusual. You never hear a name mentioned like that. But he is facing felony abuse and neglect of his daughter because they put the daughter in the basement before they went upstairs to the bedroom.

KEILAR: And the au pair could really be the lynchpin of this, which is presumably why the defense was attacking her credibility. When are we going to hear from her?

CASAREZ: I would say sooner than later, because her story is the story of the prosecution right there. But she has been inconsistent. The defense made a point of that in their opening statement. She's going to see the man eye to eye that she conceivably loved, thought she was going to have a life with.

And she's going to now have to testify against him in court. And how will she weather that? Will she be a strong prosecution witness or will she fall at that point?

KEILAR: Yes, certainly something to watch for.

Jean, thank you so much. We're obviously following this very carefully. Thank you.

Ahead: President Trump says all meetings with Iran are off until it's crackdown on protesters ends. A U.N. working group now fears those protesters could face state-authorized executions.

We will have that story next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)