Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Maine Voters Weigh Platner's Controversies in Senate Race; Texas Teen Convicted of Murder in Track Meet Stabbing; Interview with Rep. Yassamin Ansari (D-AZ): Epstein's Longtime Assistant Denies Knowing of His Crimes; Serena Williams Makes Return to Professional Tennis. Aired 3:30-4p ET

Aired June 09, 2026 - 15:30   ET

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

[15:30:00]

HOCHITI HINOJOSA, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Democrats are running against many people, like for example, Greg Paxton, or I mean, sorry, Ken Paxton in my state of Texas, who have serious allegations against him, whether it is corruption, whether it is around his divorce, etc. And I think that Democrats need to not only look at this race, but they need to look at the totality of races.

Democrats have a lot of options when it comes to taking back the Senate. It's not just Maine. If they need to invest in other places like Iowa and Texas or elsewhere, then they should really think about that.

The other thing that they need to look at is 2028. I've noticed that there are presidential candidates, presidential hopefuls that have endorsed Platner. What I would say to them is be careful about what you're doing at this point.

Women turn out and women will be what wins Democrats, the Senate and what wins Democrats in 2028. If we are defending folks like Platner and others, it'll be difficult for Democrats to have credibility going into 2028 when it comes to women. So I just caution Democrats at this point, maybe not put -- don't put all of your eggs in the main basket.

BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN HOST: Hochiti Hinojosa, thank you so much for joining us.

HINOJOSA: Thank you.

SANCHEZ: Of course.

Don't miss our special coverage. Election Night in America begins tonight at 7 p.m. And still ahead on CNN NEWS CENTRAL, longtime assistant to Jeffrey Epstein is testifying on Capitol Hill, what she told members of the House Oversight Committee when we come back.

[15:35:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: We do have breaking news. Jurors have reached a verdict in the Karmelo Anthony murder trial. The former high schooler accused of fatally stabbing a 17-year-old competitor at a track meet in Texas last year.

Our Jean Casarez has been following this case. Jean, what are we learning here about this verdict?

JEAN CASAREZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: The jury unanimously has determined that Karmelo Anthony committed murder to Austin Metcalf in April of 2025. Now, in the state of Texas, it is not first degree murder, second degree murder. It is murder, first degree felony.

This is the highest count of murder that they have. And the penalty for this is five years to 99 years. This is an 18-year-old former high school student last year.

And according to Texas law, the jury had to look at several theories that he intentionally and knowingly caused the death or that he committed a serious bodily act that was dangerous. And that then caused the death.

And the facts surrounding this are that they were two track team members. And Karmelo Anthony was under the tent of National High School, where the victim, Austin Metcalf, was standing along with his teammates and others. And it went to a point where Austin right there, that is the victim, told him, can you get out of our team tent? And he said, touch me. You'll find out.

Austin Metcalf touched him, according to the arrest report and trial testimony. And then Karmelo Anthony said, well, push me. See what happens then. And he pushed him. And that is when Karmelo Anthony rummaged through his bag, took out a knife.

And the jury has determined that when that knife went into the chest of the victim, Austin Metcalf, that that was murder. And so in Texas, the penalty phase normally happens very shortly after there is a verdict. I'm licensed in Texas, so I know a little bit about Texas law.

And the defendant can select either the jury or the judge to sentence. And we understand that it appears as though the jury, at least preliminarily, the defendant wanted the jury to do the sentencing. We'll see if that changes ultimately, but that may even take place this afternoon.

I have seen a bit of time so both sides can prepare because this is a mini trial in and of itself. And there is a very wide range of 5 to 99 years. And the defense is going to try to get that down as close as they can to the five years.

But the issue is he had a knife. We don't know why he had a knife. He did not take the stand.

This was a self-defense case. And what was in Karmelo Anthony's head was so important because if he subjectively believed that he was going to be killed or seriously bodily injured by Austin Metcalf, who is the victim now, then he had a right to take out a knife. But he did not take the stand to testify in his own defense.

So we don't know what was in his mind. The jury could not consider that. What they do know was he had a knife. He had brought a knife to a track meet, which was on school grounds, which was illegal in the sense of what is appropriate at school.

SANCHEZ: Jean Casarez, thank you so much.

Let's bring in attorney and legal affairs commentator Areva Martin. Areva, Anthony's attorneys argue that the killing was in self-defense and a social justice group supporting Anthony compared him to Kyle Rittenhouse.

What do you make of that comparison and the fact that the jury did not find that this was self-defense?

AREVA MARTIN, ATTORNEY AND LEGAL AFFAIRS COMMENTATOR: I'm really shocked by this decision by the jury. Look, this is going to be a difficult case for this country in this moment. It's going to be challenged by civil rights groups.

You have a young Black man who has now been charged with murder of a young white man by an all white jury in Texas.

[15:40:00]

And we know there are Batson challenges, challenges to the exclusion of Black jurors by the defense attorneys for Anthony. Those challenges were not recognized by this court. So we should expect to see an immediate appeal on that basis. And I'm sure there's some other things that the defense attorney will appeal on.

But this is going to be a very difficult verdict for many in the civil rights community, many in the African American community to accept because of the exclusion of all of the Black potential jurors in this case.

You're right. The defense's theory was that Anthony was in this tent. He was asked to leave.

He was being confronted and, in some ways, intimidated, provoked by larger athletes. And he was fearful of his life. And he pulled out that knife and used it because of his fear that he was going to be injured, harmed by these larger athletes.

Obviously, the jury did not accept that defense and they determined that he was the initial person, the initial aggressor that he provoked this incident and that he did so obviously intentionally when he used the knife to stab Metcalf.

KEILAR: His thinking at the time, Areva, is so crucial to his defense. And yet I'm not sure if the jury necessarily had a lot to work with when it came to his thinking on the matter. How did you understand it?

MARTIN: You're right. It's always a tough call, right, for a defendant. Do you take the stand or not? And clearly, he and his attorneys had to do a lot of soul searching, a lot of talking, a lot of serious discussions about that. But in the absence of his testimony, in the absence of him taking that witness stand saying that he feared for his life, that he believed he was going to be seriously injured as a result of this altercation with these other athletes, yes, it left a void in the testimony and many jurors may have felt like they had no choice but to convict on the facts because you did have an eyewitness that said that Anthony was the aggressor and that he provoked it.

And we heard Jean say that he made the comment, you know, try me, push me, touch me, and you'll see what will happen. Again, suggesting that if Metcalf touched him, he would do something in return and that something was pull out that knife and stab him. So we don't know, and maybe we'll hear from some of the jurors what they grappled with.

But clearly, if we had a witness that could have talked about it, and the only person credible enough to do that or had that information would have been Anthony, that may have resulted in a different verdict.

KEILAR: All right, Areva, if you can stand by for us, we'll be right back as we're following our breaking news here that a jury in Texas has convicted a teen of murder in the fatal stabbing of a 17-year-old athlete from a rival team at a high school track meet last year. You can see people congregating there in McKinney, Texas. We are following this.

We'll be right back with more.

[15:45:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SANCHEZ: Sources say the longtime assistant of Jeffrey Epstein told the House Oversight Committee today she did not know about his crimes over the 18 years that she worked for him. Lesley Groff has been undergoing several hours of questioning behind closed doors, the 14th witness in the House Epstein investigation. Sources tell CNN that Groff described Epstein as a master manipulator who believed the massage appointments she made for him with young women and girls were massage therapists.

The Epstein files released by the Justice Department show Groff helped manage every aspect of Epstein's life. And one House Oversight Committee member noted that Groff was doing so during and after Epstein's plea deal in 2008 on prostitution charges.

Let's discuss with a member of the Oversight Committee, Democratic Congresswoman Yassamin Ansari joins us now. Congresswoman, thank you so much for being with us. So Groff today testified that she knew nothing of Epstein's crimes. You've been skeptical that over 18 years she had no awareness of what he was doing.

Did her testimony today change your mind at all? REP. YASSAMIN ANSARI (D-AZ), OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE: It's very difficult to believe what Leslie is saying, unfortunately. I mean, we've been asking her very tough questions over the course of many hours. The transcribed interview is still ongoing.

And while she repeats herself over and over again, I think what is so difficult to believe as somebody who was so intimately involved as an executive assistant to somebody for 18 years, to your point before and for 10 years after he was first convicted in 2008 and got his sweetheart plea deal. That is what is really challenging for me to believe. That's also why we believe as Oversight Democrats, why it's so important to have these interviews in front of American people under oath as a deposition or a hearing public for the American people instead of these interviews that are taking place behind closed doors that are not videotaped, that are just happening, quite frankly, in a vacuum.

We are getting more valuable information about other people in Epstein's orbit. But I believe when Democrats are in power, we're going to have to bring every single one of these people back under oath to testify again.

[15:50:00]

SANCHEZ: I want to ask you about what she said about associates of Epstein's, because she was the conduit, right, between him and his high-profile friends. She also booked travel for him and dozens of women. What specifics did she offer on who those associates were? Is there evidence that these women were trafficked to these friends?

ANSARI: According to Lesley, she did anything that Jeffrey Epstein directed her to do. She said that he called her every single morning right before 9 a.m. with a laundry list of things to do, described it as crazy or chaotic, and that she did as she was told. She really is saying essentially that she was naive, didn't know better, did not think anything of it.

She was calling and booking predominantly in New York, is what she says, she didn't manage most of what happened in Palm Beach or in New Mexico. He also had five or six traveling assistants, so that's people like Sarah Kellen, who of course came before us and she herself was a victim and says she was a victim. But Leslie does not have that same story.

She says she was never abused or assaulted by Epstein, that there was nothing romantic or sexual in nature there at all. And yes, she scheduled all of his calls with important, high-profile people. She was just, as I left the room, being asked about setting up calls with Donald Trump before their alleged fallout, and she said that she did that about once a quarter before that time period.

SANCHEZ: And did she know anything about the tenor of their conversations? Did she reveal any of that?

ANSARI: She would reveal nothing about that, said she didn't know. I mean, the number of times the interview will come out, as it does in form of a transcript, you will see the words, I don't recall, I don't know, no, I wasn't aware, many, many, many, many, many times.

SANCHEZ: Understood. Congressman, you mentioned that 2008 agreement that Epstein reached with federal prosecutors, obviously controversial in its own right, but it includes a clause that it would not bring any charges against any potential co-conspirators, including Lesley Groff. Did she answer questions about that?

Why was her name included in this non-prosecution agreement?

ANSARI: My recollection is that she said she did not know. She was not aware. And Sarah Kellen said a very similar thing, that she found out about it after the fact.

I think there needs to be an independent investigation into this non- prosecution agreement from 2008. I think Alex Acosta, when he came before the committee, made very clear, at least in my view, it was very clear that he was lying and being untruthful. And I think that there are so many questions about that 2008 agreement.

Why were these people listed as co-conspirators, but then never investigated? Why were federal charges not brought forward? Why has nobody else in relation to Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell's heinous crimes ever been questioned or properly investigated, let alone prosecuted by the Department of Justice?

I believe this is a massive, massive, massive cover-up that the Trump administration has exacerbated. And that is why this investigation is just getting started. Every single one of these people needs to come back before the committee under oath.

And we need to actually make sure people are accountable and people go to jail for the crimes that they committed.

SANCHEZ: Congresswoman Yassamin Ansari, we have to leave the conversation there. Thank you so much for the time.

ANSARI: Thank you.

SANCHEZ: Of course. The comeback is on for Serena Williams. That story next.

[15:55:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KEILAR: Queen is back. Serena Williams making her return to professional tennis today after almost four years away from the game.

SANCHEZ: CNN Sports anchor Don Riddell is with us. Don, Serena's first match is over. How'd it go?

DON RIDDELL, CNN ANCHOR AND CORRESPONDENT: Hey, guys, it went great. She and Victoria Mboko, her 19-year-old teammate from Canada, won their match in straight set 7-6-6-2. And this was an upset.

They beat the third seeded team in this competition. So an absolutely fantastic return for Serena Williams. Remember, we can't really call it a comeback because she never really retired.

She said she was just evolving away from tennis. But it has been a long time, 1,375 days. Serena's first shot of the match wasn't encouraging.

She put a volley into the net. But in the end, she relied on the serve that made her so famous to serve out this match and win it. And so they're on to the next round.

This is what Serena said afterwards.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SERENA WILLIAMS, 23-TIME MAJOR CHAMPION: Well, we had a lot of fun.

VICTORIA MBOKO, CANADIAN TENNIS PLAYER: We did have a lot of fun, you know.

WILLIAMS: I feel like there's room for improvement. I need to make some returns next match, which I will. I didn't miss one in practice. But yes, that was a little embarrassing out there.

But you know, the good news is we can do better. I can do better. I don't know about you.

MBOKO: There's always room for improvement, you know.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

RIDDELL: Mboko was 10 years old when she watched Serena win her last Grand Slam title. And of course, Serena inspiring Mboko to go on and play the game.

Serena Williams saying that her partner held her up. She played big on the big points, but it felt so natural. She said to be back. And of course, we're all now wondering, where does this lead?

Obviously, they're going to have at least one more match at Queens. But does this mean she's going to play at Wimbledon? We will see.

But I certainly think it was a very encouraging return to competitive tennis today.

SANCHEZ: Don't call it a comeback. Don Riddell, thank you so much for being with us.

"THE ARENA" with Kasie Hunt starts in just a few seconds. Thanks for being with us this afternoon.

END