Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Conflicting Accounts in Tupac Murder Trial; Numbers on National Debt and Donald Trump; A.I.-Generated Version of Val Kilmer in New Film. Aired 9:30-10a ET

Aired August 20, 2026 - 09:30   ET

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

[09:30:00]

NEIL CHATTERJEE, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: Shouldn't be the focus. Like, we are dealing with major, major issues in this country right now. The debt is ballooning out of control. Republicans and Democrats are both responsible for this exploding debt. I'm fine with fixing up Washington, D.C. As someone who lives in the region, I kind of like it. But, good gracious, it should not be the focus at a time right now when we are cutting taxes and waging a war simultaneously. Not the right time to be focusing on it.

JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: And then there is this other issue that a lot of people in the business have found that voters are borderline obsessed with, and that's A.I. data centers right now. And it has crossing this barrier from the political and the local to sort of the mainstream cultural. Look at this ad from Jason Kelce that started airing this week.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JASON KELCE: A.I. data centers waste millions of gallons of water. That's why Liquid Death and Garage Beer decided to team up. We want your pee to cool these data centers.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BERMAN: All right, every time I see that, I laugh. I can't believe he's doing it. But also, I'm really interested in the -- sort of the implications of this, Neil. People -- voters say they don't like these data centers. Politicians are running from them. Like this week. Like they've all of a sudden discovered this is political kryptonite here. How big could this be by November?

CHATTERJEE: Yes, look, it's significant. I think the tech companies need to do just a better job of messaging.

Look, I live in Herndon, Virginia. Go Hornets. We are literally in the shadows of data center alley. And for a while my neighbors and I, we loved these data centers because they were contributing a huge amount to the tax base without adding a lot of traffic. And we preferred them. But now what we're starting to see is our utility bills are ticking up a little bit, our water usage is going up. There's noise pollution issues. There's land utilization issues. Some people think the optics that these things are kind of ugly.

BERMAN: Yes.

CHATTERJEE: The data center companies need to do a better job of making the case for why we need to win the A.I. race.

BERMAN: Yes.

CHATTERJEE: I, for one, think we need to win the A.I. race for national security purposes. We don't want an autocracy of the Chinese Communist Party to control this powerful technology. But there's also like real life solutions.

BERMAN: Yes.

CHATTERJEE: Like, my parents both worked in cancer research. They are convinced that A.I. is going to enable us to cure cancer in the next decade. Sell that story.

BERMAN: Yes.

CHATTERJEE: Don't say, hey, you've got 10,000 employees, use our model, and we can help you get down to 2,000 employees. I understand, from an investor standpoint, that's an attractive message. Politically, it's a disaster.

BERMAN: Yemisi, very quickly, there are candidates now running like exclusively on this issue.

YEMISI EGBEWOLE, FORMER CHIEF OF STAFF, BIDEN WHITE HOUSE PRESS OFFICE: Yes, A.I. data centers seems to be the new litmus test. And I just want to tell people that data centers are going to be inevitable. And they're inevitable because of the phones that you hold in your pocket and the A.I. memes that your mom sends on Facebook. If you'd like to slow down data centers, then maybe you should slow down your consumption of artificial intelligence.

BERMAN: Try to run on that, though. You're not going to want to be a candidate running on that in the next few months.

Yemisi Egbewole, Neil Chatterjee, great to speak to both of you. Thank you so much.

Kate.

KATE BOLDUAN, CNN ANCHOR: Soon, testimony will start back up in the murder trial of the man accused of orchestrating the killing of Tupac Shakur, Duane "Keffe D" Davis. Yesterday wrapped with the jury hearing differing versions of who Davis said killed Tupac. A former FBI agent testified that two years after the murder that Davis blamed Compton Police, alleging -- allegedly working for Suge Knight. But a former LAPD detective also testified and gave a different account, saying Duane Davis told him that his own crew helped carry out the attack.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) DARYN DUPREE, WITNESS, FORMER LAPD DETECTIVE: Mr. Davis had the gun at first, but they came up on the passenger side of Suge Knight and Mr. Shakur's vehicle, so he couldn't shoot across the driver. So, he handed a gun to Trey (ph) in the back seat, Mr. Andre Smith. He was afraid to shoot. Mr. Anderson grabbed the gun and shot across Mr. Smith into Mr. Knight's car that Mr. Tupac Shakur was in with Mr. Knight.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BOLDUAN: Joining me right now, CNN legal analyst and criminal defense attorney Joey Jackson for more on this. He's been watching all of the twists and turns here.

Joey, what's the impact of these, I'm going to call them conflicting accounts?

JOEY JACKSON, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Yes, that's a good way of putting it, Kate.

So, it's significant -- good to be with you and good morning -- because of the fact that the prosecution is basing their case on the statements of the man we're looking at there, Mr. Davis, Keffe D.

What do I mean by that? Prosecutors are saying, hey, jurors, you can convict him because he told you about his involvement. We know that he didn't -- or they're not saying, prosecutors, that he pulled the trigger, but that he was involved. And whenever you aid, abet, assist, encourage, counsel, you're equally as guilty.

[09:35:03]

But the entirety of the deck of cards of the prosecution's case is built on his credibility, the credibility of the defendant, if you can believe that, by suggesting that, hey, he admitted it. And then he went on podcasts and YouTube and in the media and everywhere else and he told you again that he did it. But did he? Because you have this inconsistency that is so significant.

What inconsistency, Kate? You have him saying in 1998, when he was first interviewed by authorities, that he didn't have anything to do with it at all. And as a matter of fact, it was the police who shot and killed Tupac Shakur that we're looking at. And then, ten years later, he gives an interview and he says, no, no, no, wait, I really was involved.

Last point, Kate, and that's this. You have to always consider context. It matters. In the context of the statement that he said, admitting that he was involved in some way, he was looking at a lifetime federal sentence for an actual drug case. And he was trying to, Keffe D was, get out from under that. So, the defense will argue, he would likely tell you anything to do it. And unless you have an independent corroborating witness that puts him there, which has not been the case yet, puts him where, in Vegas, puts him in that white Cadillac, puts him as an aide or abettor in that Cadillac and handing a gun to someone, then you have a case that really is teetering. And that's the issue right now and the significance of the inconsistencies.

BOLDUAN: Also, they kind of threw out, and playing in the trial is a lot of discussion around kind of abiding by the code of the street, from gang -- from gang members to former -- even former officers kind of talking about the role in that. What do you think -- what do you think of this?

JACKSON: So, what happens, Kate, this -- the relevance of that is, you've got to explain to the jury why it took us 30 years to get here. And so, prosecutors are laying out and talking about the Bloods and talking about the Crips and talking about gang activity and the code of the streets, as we look at the bullet-ridden car right there. And what was the code of the streets? No one says a word. That's why we're here 30 years later, because people weren't talking.

But now we have, prosecutors say, the guy who did talk, and that is Mr. Davis. But the defense says, you can't trust him because he stole one -- he told one story in '98, another in 2008, and, by the way, defense argues, he was making money all the time, supporting his family, puffing, getting street cred for saying this. This is not to be believed. Where's the beef? Where's the independent evidence? Where are the eyewitnesses? And if you don't have that, the defense says, then you got nothing.

What they have, of course, will be up to the jury at the end of the day. But what I'm looking for moving forward are some witnesses, absent his own statement, Keffe D, that actually put him at the scene and doing something like committing a crime, that's what we're looking for moving forward. If they can do that, then they're in good shape, prosecutors are. If they can't, then there might be some trouble.

BOLDUAN: A lot more to come. Joey Jackson. Thank you, Joey. It's great to see you.

And Joey joins CNN's live coverage of the Tupac murder trial starting today at 3:30 Eastern. You can stream it all on CNN All Access at cnn.com/watch, streaming Amazon Prime and HLN.

Sara.

SARA SIDNER, CNN ANCHOR: All right, thank you so much, Kate.

You know his name, his face, and his acting, but this is not him. We're talking about Val Kilmer. There is an A.I. version of Val Kilmer. It was made after his death. We are getting a look at an extended cut of a new movie with an A.I. created star.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:43:00]

BERMAN: Donald Trump once called himself the king of debt. That has proven to be true. Now, as president, the U.S. national debt has crossed $40 trillion, which, this just in, is a lot of money.

With us now, CNN chief data analyst Harry Enten. HARRY ENTEN, CNN CHIEF DATA ANALYST: Oh, boy.

BERMAN: When we talk about government spending --

ENTEN: Yes.

BERMAN: And spending is one part of the national debt, how is the president doing right now? What are his numbers on spending?

ENTEN: Yes, when it comes to the king of debt, as Johnny B put it, the American people very much do not like the direction that President Trump is taking when it comes to government spending.

Look, his numbers have always been not so great on this, but now they're just downright awful. Trump's net approval rating on government spending. When you go back to term number one at this point he was 12 points under water. Not too hot to trot. But look at this, 34 points under water. His disapproval rating 34 points higher than his approval rating. Going way down there into the Hudson River.

And look at this. Among independents it's minus 58 points among independents. Minus 58 points when it comes to government spending. So, again, the king of debt, with that debt climbing ever higher, the American people not too hot to trot on the president of the United States.

BERMAN: Fifty-eight points under water among independents there.

ENTEN: I know.

BERMAN: That gets to the question of, which party do people think is doing a better job? Who do they trust more on spending?

ENTEN: Yes, you know, normally Republicans want to take that ball and run, right, when it comes to government spending and hold that advantage over Democrats. No longer. No, no.

Take a look here. OK, party trusted more on government spending. You go back to November of 2023, it was the Republicans plus 11 points. Even after the one big, beautiful bill was, you know, being spoken about, passing, you know, back in 2025, look at this, it was still plus five GOP.

But look now where we've added on the Iran War and now the Democrats, the Democrats hold a three-point advantage on an issue that Republicans normally dominate on. So, this isn't just about President Trump. If you're a Republican running for re-election, you might say, hey, you know, his problems won't necessarily hurt my re-election chances.

[09:45:04]

Uh-uh when it comes to government spending. The party trusted more, for the first time in a long time, is the Democratic Party.

BERMAN: How do people feel about spending in general? ENTEN: Yes, and this might be what is driving this. What is driving

this? Say government -- most government spending is wasteful and inefficient. You know, you go back to March of 2025, it was 57 percent. That's a pretty high number. But you think that's high? Rocketed up. Now we're talking about three in four Americans. We got these numbers just after the Iran War started. We're talking 75 percent. Three in four say most government spending is wasteful and inefficient. No wonder President Trump's numbers and the Republican numbers are so bad.

BERMAN: I'll tell you a picture that can be associated with this is the Reflecting Pool, right?

ENTEN: Yes.

BERMAN: I mean, it may not be as much money as a war, but it is something that could stick in their minds.

Where do people see this debt going? What do the prediction markets say?

ENTEN: Yes, you think the debt is high now. Well, hello, chance that the national debt in Trump's term peaks at over $45 trillion, 92 percent chance according to the Kalshi prediction markets.

Well, a Reflecting Pool indeed is reflecting poorly on the president of the United States.

BERMAN: As they say, $1 trillion here, $1 trillion there. Sooner or later --

ENTEN: I'll take $1 trillion here.

BERMAN: It adds up to real money.

Harry Enten, thank you very much.

ENTEN: Thank you.

BERMAN: We have a lot of news. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:50:46]

SIDNER: All right, on our radar for you this morning, a judge will consider whether to grant a new trial for 19-year-old Karmelo Anthony after he was convicted in a high profile Texas murder case. Anthony was convicted of fatally stabbing 17-year-old Austin Metcalfe at a high school track meet. Now, Anthony's attorneys asked for a new trial, claiming in part, improper jury instructions. Anthony was sentenced to 35 years in prison in that first trial. Now Wednesday, the judge originally assigned to the case had to be removed following a TV interview he did in which he said the jury, quote, "got it right."

Kate.

BOLDUAN: This morning, the world is getting an extended look at a truly unique movie, one raising also a lot of questions about the future of film. The film is "As Deep as the Grave." And starring in it, Val Kilmer, brought back to life by A.I. He was cast long before his death last year, and Kilmer's family and estate, they are on board with this project. They approved using A.I. to create a digital version of him. Now, take a look at what we're just now seeing.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What are you doing here? Answer me!

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BOLDUAN: Joining us now are the filmmakers behind "As Deep as the Grave," Coerte Voorhees and John Voorhees.

Thanks for being here.

The last time you guys were on, joined the show in March, it was kind of at a moment when people were still wrapping their mind around how Val Kilmer was going to be brought to life in this film using A.I. and how they felt about it. Since then, and now seeing this, what's the reaction you're getting?

COERTE VOORHEES, DIRECTOR, "AS DEEP AS THE GRAVE": It's been just amazing. And it's so good to be with all of you this morning out here in California.

The attention has been really great for the movie. We're incredibly honored and grateful for it. And we're just -- we're so proud of the results and just how everyone's receiving it. How the public is receiving it, how distributors and the film industry is receiving it. The project's gotten a lot of attention, as you said, and we're really, really grateful for it.

BERMAN: To what extent do you think people are paying attention to the seven minute clip, or just glued to Val Kilmer, or the A.I. version of Val Kilmer, to see if they can get a sense, or see or notice the A.I.- ness of the whole thing? I mean, do you think it will be distracting?

C. VOORHEES: Yes, sure. I think everyone is going to be curious. And that's why we've just taken so much time really, really studying his incredible work and really reviewing all the material to present the best work that we can as filmmakers. And it's our job to make it just as immersive as possible.

So, I've been really proud of it. I'm really excited for everybody to see the finished film. This is just a very small piece of a very, very large story, and we're really looking forward to sharing more, of course.

SIDNER: Can you give us a sense of why the family of Val Kilmer, after his death, said, you know what, go ahead with this project. Why was it so important to them to let you use his image and likeness and recreate this?

JOHN VOORHEES, PRODUCER, "AS DEEP AS THE GRAVE": When Val joined our project several years ago, he -- this character that my brother wrote for him, the priest that he's playing, he's also a Navajo spiritualist, really spoke to Val on a very deep, very personal, very spiritual level. And after he passed, he -- or -- and just before he passed, he had a conversation with his daughter about continuing his acting legacy and this specific film. And so, when we started collaborating with Mercedes and Jack on this, it was really about completing something that was not finished. And what you're seeing now with his performance, people can judge for themselves. And I think that this is very important for people. Everybody's seen an A.I. video somewhere on the internet at this point. We are taking extreme effort to make sure that what you see is something that you would want to see in a movie theater, because we do believe that this is actually a way for people to experience stories. And when they're done ethically and with the consent of the family, it's the only way it should be done.

[09:55:06]

So, this is the era that we're getting into now with A.I. filmmaking, and we want to serve as a good example of the right way to do it, which is what you're seeing here.

BOLDUAN: And what -- the -- from what I read, the film is quite, quite lengthy. How much of -- how much is Val Kilmer in the film?

C. VOORHEES: Yes, right now he's clocking in over an hour and 17 minutes of the movie of his physical screen time, which we're really looking forward to having everybody see. And we've talked a bit about how we're showing him at different ages, because the story takes place over an extended timeline. So, yes, there's quite a bit to the performance and the role.

BOLDUAN: Wow.

SIDNER: It's fascinating.

BOLDUAN: It is. Thank you. Coerte and John Voorhees, thanks for coming in. Really appreciate it.

C. VOORHEES: Of course. Glad to share.

BERMAN: And thank you all for being with us this fine morning. This has been CNN NEWS CENTRAL.

BOLDUAN: Oh, said in soft tones.

BERMAN: "THE SITUATION ROOM" --

SIDNER: "SIT ROOM" is up next.

BERMAN: "THE SITUATION ROOM" is up next.

BOLDUAN: Soft tones today.

BERMAN: I'm going to ease them into "THE SIT ROOM."

SIDNER: Interesting.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)