Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Republicans Spend Big To Save Ken Paxton's Texas Senate Bid; Prosecutors Reopen Investigation Into Cornell Gang Rape Allegations; U.S. Senate Passes "Protect College Sports Act." Aired 7:30-8a ET

Aired September 29, 2026 - 07:30   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL)

[07:31:50]

KATE BOLDUAN, CNN ANCHOR: So an unlikely name has entered the chat if you will, in the highly contested and very closely watched Texas Senate race between the Republican Ken Paxton and the Democrat James Talarico. That unexpected name, Judge Judy. It turns out the commercials that aired during "JUDGE JUDY" have become quite the political battleground for this race with Republicans spending huge to air pro-PACS and ads during her show.

Much of the spending is by a Republican-backed super PAC, Texas PAC. So far, it's spent $600,000 to run pro-PACs and ads more than 750 times on "JUDGE JUDY" this month alone. The reality is that the money is a fraction, though, of the tens of millions of dollars. I mean, more than $100 million -- hundreds of millions of dollars that Republicans are spending in Texas, a move with both massive financial, but obviously political implications.

CNN's Jeff Zeleny has a lot of the reporting on this because, Jeff, when it comes down to it, especially in the final minutes, you follow the money and you see where the attention is and where the pressure points are.

How much are Republicans spending on this race?

JEFF ZELENY, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Hey, Kate, good morning.

I mean, this is really a window into how all of these millions -- hundreds of millions of dollars in the case of Texas are being spent. And our analysis shows that the "JUDGE JUDY" program -- her famously scolding courtroom -- is a great place, at least campaigns believe, to get viewers to win over or change their mind in this Texas Senate race.

But if you look at this, just altogether, about $300 million is going to be spent by Republican-aligned groups in Texas alone to try and save the candidacy of Ken Paxton. He, of course, is the embattled attorney general of Texas, running against James Talarico. He, of course, beat John Cornyn, the incumbent senator, in the primary back in May. And Republicans have been scratching their head and worrying about this race ever since.

That's why this $300 million rescue mission, if you will, is underway in Texas, trying to effectively change this race. All polls that have shown that this is an incredibly close neck-and-neck. And Texas, of course, has been dominated by Republicans for decades. So when you take a look at this spending it's extraordinary the degree to which Republicans have an advantage here in Texas. But it's all to save Ken Paxton. And Republicans are deeply worried about this race.

And the question is, is money being spent here that might be spent in other competitive Senate races? Republican strategists are saying, no, there's plenty of money to go around, but it's an extraordinary amount of money when you look at how much money is being spent and invested here to try and save Ken Paxton.

BOLDUAN: And put that into perspective on what's being spent in other races across the country, please.

ZELENY: I mean, look, if you look at the numbers here, more money is being spent in Texas than in Michigan and Maine combined by Republican groups. Take a look at these numbers here. Michigan, of course, is one of the hottest Senate races, one of the most important races for Democrats to try and win their majority and for Republicans to hold on the majority -- $83 million. That's a lot of money. Maine -- of course, Susan Collins is in the fight of her life as well.

[07:35:08]

But in Texas, which is often a red state -- always a red state for the last of several decades -- almost twice as much money is being spent here.

So the bottom line here, the next five weeks of the campaign, the midterm elections -- five weeks from right now will all this money be able to save the candidacy of Ken Paxton? We shall see.

But it's those "JUDGE JUDY" ads and Kate, also one of the top programs, "FAMILY FEUD." So that's perhaps an apt program for this Republican infighting to try and play these commercials out. And college football also a very popular place for these candidates to be placing their ads -- Kate.

BOLDUAN: Yeah. I mean, "FAMILY FEUD" has a whole lot of twists and turns and applications when it comes to this Texas race --

ZELENY: So many metaphors here.

BOLDUAN: -- from the primary on through the general at this point.

It's good to see you so much, Jeff.

ZELENY: Yeah.

BOLDUAN: John.

JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: Yeah, survey says Republicans in trouble around the country.

With us now, the Washington Bureau chief for The Boston Globe, Jackie Kucinich, and senior contributor at Axios, Margaret Talev.

And Margaret, let me just ask you the question that Jeff asked, which is the key one when you're talking about $166 million being spent in Texas, $300 million over the course of the entire GOP campaign. Is that money that could be spent elsewhere?

MARGARET TALEV, SENIOR CONTRIBUTOR, AXIOS, DIRECTOR, INSTITUTE FOR DEMOCRACY, JOURNALISM AND CITIZENSHIP, SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY (via Webex by Cisco): Yes -- very clearly yes, it is.

And when you look at some of the reporting in this great piece that Jeff was just talking about it is considerably more than Michigan and Maine combined, and it's up there with Ohio. Ohio could use -- the Republicans in Ohio could use that race. Republicans in Iowa could certainly use the money.

And when you look at the numbers all told, you're seeing Republicans outspending Democrats by either four to one or five to one, depending on the calculations. In Texas right now, I've seen astronomical numbers -- estimates that these races combined -- all the PACs on both sides and all the sides for an event -- for and against could reach like $450 million. Like that is an insane amount of money.

And some of it is that Texas is big. It's a statewide race. There's like 18 media -- you know, media ecosystems within the state. But a lot of it is just that it is so damn close for a race that Republicans say never should have been this close.

BERMAN: A good time to be a television station owner in Texas right now, I have to say.

And Jackie, one of the things that's remarkable --

TALEV: Yeah, (INAUDIBLE).

BERMAN: Yeah, that's a lot of money.

One of the things that's remarkable about this cycle is how many Republicans nationally and in Texas are willing to trash Ken Paxton, at least on the fundraising, at least on the type of campaign that he's run. Part of it's John Cornyn, whom he defeated in the primary. And, you know, he has legitimate sour grapes about losing to Paxton. But there are others too who say, look, Paxton's just not doing what he needs to do to raise money and to win this race.

JACKIE KUCINICH, WASHINGTON BUREAU CHIEF, THE BOSTON GLOBE (via Webex by Cisco): Well, and that's the thing. I mean, when you look at this entire cycle, I mean when Margaret is talking about Ohio and Iowa, I feel like I'm in a different cycle entirely. I'm in a time machine or something.

But this is all because of unforced errors, mostly by the president. His endorsement of Ken Paxton, who is someone who is well-known in the state of Texas, who's gotten himself in all sorts of trouble on lots of different levels in the state of Texas as an elected official, and you're hearing Republicans both anecdotally through reporting, but also publicly -- public officials saying don't vote for this guy.

Also, even more tellingly, you're hearing people who were saying, oh, just vote for the Republican ticket and not even mentioning Hassan, including his soon to be ex-wife, who is also an elected official in Texas. I mean, this is a deeply flat candidate.

Which is why you were seeing Talerico's campaign reaching out to disaffected Republicans and trying to bring them on board. He has endorsements from Republicans in Texas, and I think you're going to see more of that and more money being put -- being put into that effort as we go in this home stretch.

BERMAN: Yeah, look, and Paxton may still win in Texas, but the gripe most Republicans have is it's just way, way --

KUCINICH: Sure.

BERMAN: -- way harder than it should have been. And those quotes are not hard to get if you're a political reporter.

In terms of political spending, one way to go around campaign spending is to charge the government for ads that sure seem political, and now we have at least two.

I know -- and Margaret, I can see on your face there -- I'm still not sure I understand how this is happening with these ads, which really look almost exactly like campaign ads that the president has put out at the White House. And you see that line underneath there, it says, "Paid for by the U.S. government."

What repercussions --

TALEV: Yeah.

BERMAN: -- could there be here?

[07:40:00]

TALEV: I think that's what the president's asking himself, and he's decided there are actually none that would apply to him, and so he's going do it and say who is going to stop me? And, you know, we'll find out who's going to stop him. Maybe nobody. And what are the repercussions going to be? Maybe none.

If Democrats take back over the House, which certainly looks more likely, there will certainly be investigations. But you know, are they bring the president to heel? So I think it is yet one more major, major test of institutions and whether they really can constrain executive power.

And John, one more last thing on the Texas ads. It is really important to note the content of some of these ads. There is a ton of AI slop being dumped into ads in Ohio and Texas right now around transgender stuff. We're not talking about it much because the money figures are so huge, but the ads themselves are actually quite shocking, and they do move the needle on our political communication.

I think after November, we actually will probably spend a lot more time deconstructing these ads. But if you're a voter and you're watching an ad that -- where the images look really insane, it's because they are. It's because they're invented by AI.

BERMAN: It's a great point. We've been focusing so much on the quantity right now, we haven't really had a chance to dive into much in the content.

But Jackie, on the -- on the government paid ads, one of the questions I just have is why? I mean, the president and his super PACs and whatnot, they have so much money. They can spend almost infinite amounts of money on their own. What do they possibly get out of pushing the systems like this?

KUCINICH: I mean, I think it's the president's own satisfaction. That's the only reason you have these ads being pushed out there. He feels like he is due credit for, you know, some situations in the country, not all of them, obviously, because he's deflecting on many things, including the economy.

But this is -- this is all about -- this is all about the audience of one. I mean, that's the only way you could look at this because no campaign consultant, no government official would be pushing this out there if it wasn't for the president. Even their response to when you ask, OK, why are you doing this? They're saying it's not political. It's like pushing any government initiative, except there's no government initiative. It's just the president himself.

BERMAN: Yeah. And look, our Kristen Holmes and others CNN are reporting the president is deeply involved in getting these ads out.

Jackie Kucinich, Margaret Talev, great to see both of you --

KUCINICH: Yeah.

BERMAN: -- this morning. Thanks so much.

And I should note, if you have any questions about the midterms, specifically this week, the role that AI -- and you just heard Margaret talking about that right there -- AI is playing in so many ways in these midterms, whether it be data centers or regulation or whatnot. We're going to talk about it tomorrow night at 7:00 p.m. on "OFFICE HOURS." Harry Enten and Hadas Gold will be here. Send us your questions now. Send us your questions live at cnn.com/officehours.

SARA SIDNER, CNN ANCHOR: It's a good time. All right, thank you so much, John.

All right. This morning, the attorney for the woman who says she was gang raped for hours by several members of a fraternity at Cornell University told CNN her life has been destroyed. The woman, identified only as Jane Doe, filed a lawsuit alleging she was drugged and sexually assaulted in 2024 inside the Chi Phi fraternity frat house. Now, Doe accused seven members of the fraternity of participating in the assault while she was unable to consent.

But now the local district attorney says a grand jury will review the case and determine whether criminal charges are warranted. Now this comes after the original investigation ended without charges because the D.A. says her story was different than what is now alleged.

Attorneys for at least two of the accused students are denying the allegations. Doe's attorney said Cornell expelled two of the accused, while the others received lesser punishment, including suspensions, workshops or written essays.

The university has responded, saying essays were not the "sole consequence," adding other sanctions, including suspensions and expulsions.

Joining me now, CNN's Gloria Pazmino and CNN legal analyst Joey Jackson.

Gloria, let's start with you. This has taken on many different facets online. Certainly --

GLORIA PAZMINO, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yeah.

SIDNER: -- everybody is weighing in. But what are the facts that we know at this point?

PAZMINO: Well, I think that's very important and I think it's -- I want to start with something you said just now, Sara, and that is the ability to consent. I think that is going to be a crucial part of all of this because we know two things, at least for now.

We know that back in 2024 when the incident allegedly took place, Jane Doe provided a sworn statement to campus police where she detailed what happened that night. Those details include the fact that she willingly consumed alcohol and drugs. She also talked about how she had been drinking prior to arriving to Chi Phi's fraternity house.

[07:45:00]

The reason that is important is because now, three years later, we're getting this civil lawsuit and once again, this is being raised along with the behavior of the fraternity members in that house. The fact that they apparently participated in a group chat where they were allegedly discussing the sexual assault as it was taking place, inviting other members to partake. All of this. As the night went on, Jane Doe was consuming more alcohol, more drugs until she eventually passed out early in the morning hours.

So the issue of consent I think is going to be central to this investigation.

And I want you to take a listen to what Jane Doe's attorney told us yesterday regarding consent and why she eventually went to the police. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

THOMAS P. GIUFFRA, ATTORNEY FOR JANE DOE: I don't know how anybody who was grossly intoxicated and drugged can consent to anything. I mean, the fact is she went to the Cornell University police to file a complaint because she believed she was a victim of a crime. If this was consensual -- she did -- wanted to participate, she wouldn't have gone to the police in the first place.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PAZMINO: So I think that really leaves a significant gap between what Jane Doe says happened back in 2024, what she swore to, and the sequence of events of that night, right?

The other crucial point -- question here, and I think this is the last point I want to raise, how this district attorney handled this investigation, right? We also heard from the district attorney yesterday. He told Jake Tapper that his office is in charge of charging crimes, not conducting investigations. That's raising a lot of eyebrows.

And lastly, also the fact that he admitted that his office was in possession of these text messages, these group chats, but that it was not part of their initial analysis, even though they -- the team at the D.A.'s office was in possession.

SIDNER: All right. Let's consider what we are -- we have just heard here to you, Joey Jackson. When you look at this and you see her attorney saying, you know, how are we supposed to understand that she goes and makes this complaint to the police -- it's a -- I think it's six pages, single spaced. She makes the complaint and then he says there was never any follow-up.

I mean, is that a normal thing to happen in an investigation such as this one?

JOEY JACKSON, CNN LEGAL ANALYST, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY, FORMER PROSECUTOR: Absolutely not. Good morning, Sarah. Good morning, Gloria.

The fact is, is that prosecutors have the ability and certainly the responsibility to exercise due diligence. What does that mean? Of course you rely upon the police. They are essential partners. But you can't say we charge, right, but we don't investigate. Guess what? Facts drive every case.

In order for you to charge, you must investigate, and oftentimes it requires you working with your partners in law enforcement to do follow up. Maybe you're not as resourced because you're a smaller D.A.'s office with the investigators that others have. But you ask your police officers by interviewing them.

Have you considered the following questions? Where was this particular event? Who initiated the event? Who was there? What specifically do we know? What drugs, if any, were in her system? How much of it did she have? Did she have the capacity to consent or not? Was there anything else involved?

These are the questions that you get answers to, and if you don't get them yourself, then you rely upon other people to get them.

Now, having said that, yes, it's appropriate that this has been reopened and will be going into the grand jury. Why wasn't that done in 2024? You don't go to the police, Sara, to say nothing happened and I just want to tell you a story. You go to the police for assistance, and you expect that assistance with regard to an investigation and a result thereafter.

SIDNER: The D.A. says that the original account did not establish a lack of consent while Doe's attorney says, look, the information in the new lawsuit is not materially different. And now there are these group chat messages that the D.A. has now said yes from your reporting. He said yes, we had those, but they were not part of our initial investigation.

I mean, how significant could this new evidence be in taking it to the grand jury?

JACKSON: So, overwhelmingly significant.

Now just very quickly in terms of process, right? The grand jury is a proceeding that's controlled by prosecutors. They present the flow of information --

SIDNER: Yeah.

JACKSON: -- and then they present the law to the grand jurors. They instruct them on the law and if the law meets the facts, they'll indict.

But with each of these seven, conduct is going to have to be attributed to them that rises to the level of a crime. But they don't have to present, prosecutors, all of evidence -- just bare bones evidence, right, to establish is there reasonable cause to believe that a crime was committed and that these particular people committed it.

And they're going to have to go through the different timeline, who was there, what specifically they did, and let's see what the grand jury does because if they indict, which grand jurors generally do, now you have a trial. The evidence is challenged and any inconsistencies at that time will be brought to bear.

[07:50:00]

SIDNER: Gloria Pazmino, thank you for your reporting. Joey Jackson, thank you for your analysis. I really appreciate it -- Kate.

JACKSON: Of course.

BOLDUAN: So a place for rare bipartisanship in the Senate right now, college sports. The bill that just passed that they say could fundamentally change what has now become this multibillion dollar industry of college sports.

And this crash was no accident. Why police say the driver intentionally smashed into the store.

And for more of the stories you need to get your day going, my show "FIVE THINGS" is streaming right now and every morning on CNN All Access.

(COMMERCIAL)

[07:55:25]

BERMAN: Overnight, the Senate passed a bill that could reshape the future of the multibillion dollar college sports industry, particularly for the college athletes who have benefited really only for the last few years.

Let's get to CNN's Amanda Davies for the latest on this -- Amanda.

AMANDA DAVIES, CNN SPORTS ANCHOR: Yeah, good morning, John. Potentially huge ramifications and one for the next generation very much to keep an eye on.

The NCAA and major athletics conferences have backed this bill, being dubbed a big win for Senator Ted Cruz and his supporters as they try to work through what he's described as the chaos in the wild west of college sports contracts to set national standards for how college athletes can profit from their name, image, and likeness. It's an effort to control university spending on athletes, limit players to a one-time transfer, and to close the window of college eligibility for players to five years.

Now, President Donald Trump praised the Senate's action, calling it "a really big deal" in a post on Truth Social. He said, "It will not only save college sports, it will save the colleges themselves."

But Sen. Cory Booker, who played football at Stanford, slammed the bill, saying it is for the large, wealthy interests that have been controlling college sports for a long time.

Interestingly, after more than five years of lobbying, this is the first bill on the topic to pass through either chamber of Congress. It now moves to the House to be considered after the November midterms.

Elsewhere, "MONDAY NIGHT FOOTBALL" and Case Keenum had been waiting a very long time for this moment. The 38-year-old in his first NFL start in almost three years, and boy, did he make the most of it against the Philadelphia Eagles. The Chicago Bears' third choice quarterback, a veteran of 14 years in the league, stepping in for the injured Caleb Williams for his first-ever start for the Bears -- his first game since appearing for the Houston Texans on Christmas Eve back in 2023.

He passed for two touchdowns and was 24 for 34 for 247 yards as his side dominated Jalen Hurts and the Eagles to win 27 points to seven. An emotional night for Keenum with his wife and children there watching on. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CASE KEENUM, QUARTERBACK, CHICAGO BEARS: Hopefully, they didn't fall asleep over there. We kept it exciting for them, yeah. Golly, I'm gonna -- I'm gonna have fun -- I'm gonna have fun watching. There they are. I'm gonna have fun watching the game with them tomorrow on the couch or probably just "BLUEY." But they probably don't want to watch it again. They're like, we saw it one time already, dad.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

DAVIES: I think daddy definitely beats "BLUEY" in this scenario, doesn't he?

But ahead of his record-extending 24th season, a man who needs no introduction, or maybe he does.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LEBRON JAMES, FORWARD, PHILADELPHIA 76ERS: You guys know who I am, right?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

DAVIES: Yeah, he doesn't need the name tag.

The same LeBron James in his new colors at the Philadelphia 76ers media day, wearing the number 23, the official start of his tenure in Sixers blue after his move from the Lakers. And he's made it clear he is not there to mess around.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JAMES: We have to be comfortable with being uncomfortable. That is the best way to expedite being great. If we don't do that, then we would be like, oh, man, it was a great team on paper, and we had a lot of great talent, and then we lost in the second round. Like, I don't want to do that. I didn't leave my family to lose in the second round. I know that for sure, so --

(END VIDEO CLIP)

DAVIES: He means -- he means business, doesn't he? But it's going to take some getting used to LeBron in the blue.

BERMAN: Yeah, you can't always get what you want, either.

Amanda Davies, thank you very much for that -- Sara.

SIDNER: Watch out for those Sixer fans, John.

All right. On our radar in Wisconsin, a group of skydivers jumped out of their plane early to help people on board a different plane that had crashed into a cornfield. The skydivers saw the single-engine plane go down, and their pilot immediately alerted air traffic control. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Use your discretion if you want to drop jumpers over the area.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes, I'm going to drop a couple of them. Yeah, we'll just drop them right now.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SIDNER: This is just really good luck.