Return to Transcripts main page

CNN This Morning

Harvard in Court over Federal Funding Freeze; Elinda Labropoulou is Interviewed about the Death of an American Professor in Greece; CEO in Concert Clip Resigns; Calls for Maxwell to Testify; Trump Calls to Restore Sports Team Names. Aired 6:30-7a ET

Aired July 21, 2025 - 06:30   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[06:31:24]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. TIM BURCHETT (R-TN): This town does not give up its secrets easy. And it's -- it's just -- it's fighting and kicking.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ERICA HILL, CNN ANCHOR: A moment of unity in Congress. Lawmakers crossing the aisle to demand answers in the Jeffrey Epstein case.

Good morning on this Monday. I'm Erica Hill, in for Audie Cornish. Thanks so much for joining us on CNN THIS MORNING.

It's 6:31 now here on the East Coast. Here's a look at what's happening right now.

Republicans and Democrats hoping to force a vote in the House to release all of the Epstein files. President Trump requesting the DOJ release the grand jury testimony related to that case.

In a matter of hours, the former officer convicted in the Breonna Taylor raid will be sentenced. Brett Hankison was found guilty of violating Taylor's civil rights when she was shot and killed by police in her Louisville home. He is not the one who shot her. The Justice Department is requesting a one-day jail sentence.

Harvard University back in court today as a major funding fight continues in its battle against the Trump administration. The university warning the $2 billion freeze in federal funding has put much needed medical and scientific research on hold.

And with the start of a new school year just weeks away, the question, of course, is whether Harvard should possibly settle.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Yes, I think we're going to probably settle with Harvard. We're going to probably settle with Columbia. They -- they want to settle very badly.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: How much?

TRUMP: There's no rush. A lot of money.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HILL: So, as you see there, that was the president just about two weeks ago on July 4th. There's no word, though, on whether university officials are actually seeking a settlement. The administration, meantime, is escalating its pressure campaign on Harvard. ICE is serving administrative subpoenas to Harvard earlier this month, making demands for everything from communications records to other documentation concerning foreign students dating back to 2020.

The group chat is back now as we tackle this.

So -- so, pulling out what this is essentially about, in court today, Michael, is that the Trump administration has said they do not believe that Harvard -- or rather I should say they believe that Harvard failed to protect Jewish students on campus. Based on what we know publicly, is there evidence to support that claim?

MICHAEL WARREN, SENIOR EDITOR, "THE DISPATCH": It's -- it's certainly an argument that could be made. But we should underscore the fact that the Trump administration is trying to throw everything they can at Harvard. This is just the latest sort of hammer that they've picked up to try to hit this institution.

I think that you could make the case that Harvard has not done, and did not do, like many elite colleges over the last couple of years, everything they did, they could have done to protect students during all of these protests that -- that some of which turned violent. But I think that -- that Harvard is in a position where they're going to be able to say, look, the -- these are the sort of things that could be adjudicated. I think they are in a good place on a lot of these First Amendment questions, whether it comes to DEI or other of these claims that Harvard has violated civil rights statutes.

This is going to be sort of adjudicated in court. I would rather be Harvard on the legal question. But I think that question of settling is something that Harvard and a lot of other universities are going to be watching this very closely because Harvard is trying to move on and trying to, you know, claw back a lot of this very important funding. They don't want this fight right now. It's just -- it's just something that we're -- I'm not quite sure how it's all going to shake out in court, but that's -- that's what we should be watching for.

HILL: In terms of the position that Harvard is taking, what we're hearing, University President Alan Garber was on "Morning Edition" on NPR just a few weeks ago and -- and -- and was speaking a little bit to your point.

[06:35:02]

Take a listen. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ALAN GARBER, PRESIDENT, HARVARD UNIVERSITY: There are people who would like to see these universities brought down in some sense. We shouldn't be in an echo chamber. Everyone in our community needs to hear other views. It is a warning. They see this as a message that if you don't comply with what we're demanding, these will be the consequences.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HILL: Sara, he has been more outspoken. But I will say, what's been remarkable, and certainly I've had this conversation with a number of people is, as Harvard is maybe leading the charge here, some of their peer institutions are not as vocal. I mean you see Wesleyan maybe standing up, but some of the larger institutions like Harvard, there is almost a little bit of a wait and see approach and maybe even some concern to see how this plays out, acknowledging that it is, in fact, a bit of a warning, Sara.

SARA FISCHER, CNN MEDIA ANALYST: That's right. But one thing I would warn Harvard's peers is that what we've seen in the past in adjacent sectors is that just because one organization settles and sets a precedent, doesn't mean that those other organizations aren't impacted. I think about the media industry in which I cover. You had ABC settle for $15 million last year. You'd think that sets a precedent? It does. CBS comes and they have to settle for $16 million. Same thing with Meta settling with the president. Same thing with X.

And so, I think if Harvard were to settle, you're -- it doesn't mean that these other institutions are off the hook. It just means that it sets sort of a precedent for what kind of settlement that they should be expecting if they were to take legal action.

One thing I will say here, Erica, about this president becoming more vocal, they think that they have a really strong First Amendment argument here. So, it makes sense that they want to use their voice and explain their point of view as a part of the support of that argument, basically saying, look, Donald Trump is penalizing us because of the way that we teach and because of our academic point of view, not because we did anything wrong.

HILL: Stick around. Much more to discuss ahead here.

Today, of course, is also the deadline for five suspects to enter a plea deal in the murder of an American professor in Greece. That professor was shot multiple times while walking toward his ex-wife's house in Athens, on his way to pick up their young children. One of the suspects involved has now been revealed to be the ex-wife's new boyfriend, and now the ex-wife is charged with orchestrating his murder. She is denying those claims.

Joining me now to discuss, journalist Elinda Labropoulou, who's joining us from Athens.

There are -- there is so much to the headlines here. What more are we learning today?

ELINDA LABROPOULOU, JOURNALIST: Well, the five are presenting their pleas today at this courthouse in Athens, right behind me. We understand that the main suspect, the alleged murderer, has actually testified and he has confessed. We had some leaked confessions before. So, we know that he has said that he is the one who has actually committed the murder.

Now, we're waiting for the other four. What is very important here is to find out what is going to happen with the ex-wife of the professor. Until now she's been pleading not guilty, and her lawyer spoke to the media this morning.

Let's take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ALEXANDROS PATSIAS, LAWYER FOR EX-WIFE OF PRZEMYSLAW JEZIORSKI (through translator): We continue to maintain her innocence. Based on the case file and what we will present both in our written submission and during the oral proceedings, we will highlight the key points that prove she had absolutely no involvement.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LABROPOULOU: So, what we're going to find out today is whether these five, or some of the five, will be remanded in custody.

And what's particularly important is what's going to happen with the ex-wife, simply because right now, and until now, she's had the custody of the children. The professor had had visitation rights. And if she is remanded in custody today, then it makes it possible for the family of the professor to apply for custody themselves. So, this is what we're really waiting to find out today. And a trial date will be decided later, Erica.

HILL: All right, really appreciate the update. Thank you.

Still ahead here, it is the kiss cam moment seen around the world.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CHRIS MARTIN: Woah, look at these two. Either they're having an affair or they're just very shy. I'm not quite sure what to do.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HILL: That viral video from a Coldplay concert in Boston last week has now been viewed millions of times across social media. Now, the man who you see in that moment, Andy Byron, has resigned as CEO of the tech company Astronomer. He's seen there with the company's HR director in that now viral clip. The company releasing a statement over the weekend to address the video, saying in part, "our leaders are expected to set the standard in both conduct and accountability, and recently that standard was not met."

As for Coldplay, well, not changing the show, but offering up a bit of a warning at their concert over the weekend. A warning for fans.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Because we're going to use our cameras and put some of you on the big screen.

[06:40:10]

So, please, if you haven't done your makeup, do your makeup now.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HILL: So, what is it about this moment that seemed to not only capture everybody's attention, but has really united around a conversation?

The group chat is back.

Isaac, I'm going to let you kick things off here first time around. It's -- look, there are a number of threads here, right? Let's start with the first one. We've certainly seen a lot of backlash recently when it comes to CEOs, when it comes to people in position of power, when it comes to those power dynamics and when it comes to money. Is that why this has become, you think, such a moment that people are continuing to talk about days later?

EDWARD-ISAAC DOVERE, CNN SENIOR REPORTER: I mean something like this is a moment for a lot of reasons. And, obviously, it has jumped out all over the place. Some of it is just that it -- their reaction is objectively hilarious when they sort of try to jump out of the shot and underneath things.

But, look, this is a CEO who obviously was making a lot of money and playing a little bit by his own rules. He was with the HR manager for his company. That is from my understanding of what HR usually frowns on, a frowned upon thing, given that he was her boss and married.

So, that -- that's part of what's going on here. It's a -- it's a rich guy who they had very good seats. And I think that's part of what it is. But this is a data management CEO who's been upset about how his data was managed here. And I would say it's -- I was even at a flea market over the weekend and saw these two little stuffed dogs, old dogs, and they put a sign on it that said "Coldplay couple." So, for Coldplay, it's broken through like nothing since "A Rush of Cold Blood to the Head."

HILL: It is -- it has really been something. There -- there is also an important component to this, which is the collateral damage, if you will, Michael. And I know you've addressed this. The fact that there are other people involved here who are now being dragged into it. And -- and those are family members.

WARREN: Look, I'm -- I'm not going to lie and say I haven't laughed at some of the memes that have come out of this moment. I also, full disclosure, I'm a Coldplay fan. Some people won't want to admit that, but I will. So --

HILL: I will admit it with you. I'm a big Coldplay fan, and there's no shame in that game.

WARREN: The -- the first two albums are fantastic. It starts to fall off after that. But that's all right.

But, look, I think -- so it's all in good fun up to a point. But there are families. There are children that are involved in this that have been dragged into this by their -- their stupid parents, you know, getting involved in this affair and having it blow up like this. And -- and I just think it's something we shouldn't forget about. And it makes me feel a little icky to even be talking about it given that they're going through all this pain that they didn't ask for. They don't deserve.

HILL: Yes.

WARREN: And -- but it's obvious why it's gone viral. And -- and it's -- it's sort of amazing that it's had this kind of sticking power.

HILL: Yes, Sara, we're a little tight on time, but is it also the -- the fact that people need a break?

FISCHER: I definitely think it's been a chaotic news cycle. And so, this allows a meme-filled story to hit all of mainstream.

I also think, Erica, it touches on something that we all are impacted by, which is just like the lack of privacy nowadays. There's a camera every single place that you go, and this is just a reminder that when you leave your house, you've got to conduct yourself as if somebody's watching, because almost always somebody is.

HILL: Yes, and likely from multiple angles.

All right, still to come here this hour, a tourist boat sinking off the coast of Vietnam. How a ten-year-old was able to survive the upside-down ship.

Plus, MAGA wants answers in the Jeffrey Epstein case. Now his attorney says there is one person who could be key to those answers, Ghislaine Maxwell.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ALAN DERSHOWITZ, JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S FORMER ATTORNEY: She knows everything. She is the Rosetta Stone. She knows everything. She arranged every single trip with everybody.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[06:48:25]

HILL: Nearly 48 minutes past the hour here with your morning roundup.

A tourist boat in Vietnam caught in a storm, causing it to flip over. Dozens of passengers were killed. A ten-year-old boy, however, did manage to survive. He found an air pocket that had formed under water and was able to hold on until rescue teams found him. The boy is expected to be OK. There were 53 passengers in all on board.

The brother of late NFL star and U.S. Army Ranger Pat Tillman taken into custody early Sunday morning for allegedly driving a vehicle into a northern California post office. Police say Richard Tillman did that deliberately. He's now being held without bond. He's due in court on Wednesday.

WNBA stars standing together to demand more money. At the WNBA all- star game over the weekend, the players wore matching shirts during warmups, reading, "pay us what you owe us." This comes after more than 40 players met with the league in the latest round of negotiations over their salary structure.

As the scandal -- pardon me, the fallout continues over the Epstein scandal, Epstein coconspirator Ghislaine Maxwell could testify in front of a congressional committee. Maxwell, you may recall, was sentenced to 20 years in prison for carrying out a year's long scheme to groom and facilitate the sexual abuse of underage girls. Well, now a former lawyer for Jeffrey Epstein is pushing for her immunity in exchange for testimony.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ALAN DERSHOWITZ, JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S FORMER ATTORNEY: She knows everything. She is the Rosetta Stone. She knows everything. She arranged every single trip with everybody. She knows everything. And if she were just given use immunity, she could be compelled to testify.

And there'd be no reason for her to withhold any information. So, I don't see any negative in giving her the kind of use immunity that would compel her to testify.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

[06:50:09]

HILL: CNN legal analyst Joey Jackson joining me now.

Good to see you, my friend.

So, practically speaking, should there be some sort of a deal, should she agree to testify here, what more do you anticipate we would learn from Ghislaine Maxwell?

JOEY JACKSON, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Yes, Erica, good morning to you.

I think this could be extraordinarily significant. The answer to your question is, everything. Why do I say that? She's known, certainly, as we see in the pictures there, to be a person who was close to Jeffrey Epstein, to be his girlfriend, to be his enabler, to be whatever it is that people might classify her to be. At the end of the day, though, we know she was there when the deal was made and hand is shook, so to speak. She can tell you the who, what, when, where, how, why, et cetera. And, therefore, I think she would be a wealth of information in the event there was a deal struck, and she presented testimony before Congress, Erica.

HILL: What about to this push for this -- the grand jury testimony and what that would actually reveal, which is far less?

JACKSON: Yes, so I think that's a complete farce. It's disingenuous and it's ridiculous, quite frankly. Why do I say all those things? We have to keep in mind that a grand jury sits, and they don't determine guilt or innocence, they just determine two things. Number one, whether there's reasonable cause to believe that a crime was committed. And, number two, that the subject of that proceeding committed it. There are 23 grand jurors. A simple majority, that is 12, can vote out an indictment.

When you're a prosecutor bringing forth a case before the grand jury, as I have, what you do is you just present enough legally sufficient information to give them an indictment. And that means that you give them bare bones. And as we look at that picture there, and that information is specific as to the defendant, you're not being all inclusive to present information which the public wants to know with respect to who else might have been involved, what were they doing, where were they, how were they? So, it will not give you the breadth of information. I think that that's something that's a shiny object, but it's a shiny object that's a distraction and it's not fair, I don't think, to the American people, particularly, Erica, when the motion saying, hey, release the grand jury minutes talks about transparency.

If you want transparency, guess what, there's a file in the Department of Justice, or is there, because according to the memo, there's not, after they said there was. But if you want transparency, release that document. That will tell you what needs to be done. It'll tell you who was where, what was where, what was why, who was involved, if anyone. And I think that's the information you need. And you could do it in terms of redacting. That is, really blacking out information that would be harmful to any potential victim.

HILL: You know, to that point, Joey, is there a broader impact that either you are seeing or that you are concerned you may see when it comes to, not just the Department of Justice, but, frankly, to legal cases moving forward, that may have an outcome that people don't like, right? You don't have to like it or agree with it to have it be a finding.

I mean, is there a broader impact here based on what we've seen, the -- the back and forth from the Justice Department?

JACKSON: So, there always is, Erica, right? I mean law is based on precedent. And you have to be careful what you do because it sets a precedent for tomorrow, next week, next year, the year after. But at the end of the day, what courts are about is they're about justice. And why you would release information, and a file, is about that very issue. If you look at the motion, it's predicated on the standard. Why would you release secret information? Because there's a public imperative. Because it fits into the interest of justice. Because inquiring minds want to know.

And in a democracy, this is not about secrets. This is about doing what's fair, what's adequate, what's appropriate. And you have a number of people who are clamoring for information.

So, right to revert back to the point, why not, according to, right, Mr. Dershowitz, give her use immunity. What is use immunity? Use immunity is anything Ms. Maxwell might say before Congress couldn't be used against her. Any information derived from any statement couldn't be used against her. I think that could be certainly something that's compelling.

Last point, Erica, and that's this. Of course she'll be assailed because she's an interesting -- interested witness. She's doing 20 years. She's' appealing before the Supreme Court. But there's an interesting thing in law, Erica. It's called corroboration. So, everything she says, if you vet it, right, whatever you say, is there a text message to support it, is there an email, is there surveillance, is there a photo, is there a document, are there flight records? All of that stuff, are there other witnesses? I think information could be vetted such that you could determine if there's a grain of truth. And if there is, let the truth and justice lie where it may.

HILL: Joey Jackson, always appreciate it, my friend. Thank you.

JACKSON: Thanks, Erica.

HILL: President Trump is pressuring the NFL's Washington Commanders to change their name back to what, of course, was long considered a deeply offensive, racist name. And if the team doesn't agree, the president is now threatening to restrict their deal to build a new stadium in D.C.

[06:55:04]

It's unclear how exactly he would do that.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I wouldn't have changed the name. But that's there. It just doesn't have the same -- it doesn't have the same ring to me. But, you know, winning can make everything sound good. So, if they win, all of a sudden the Commanders sounds good, but I wouldn't have changed the name.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HILL: So, there's that too.

Meantime, the president also taking issue with baseball's Cleveland Guardians. He wants that team to restore its former name, which is also seen as racist. Posting on Truth Social, in part, quote, "our great Indian people in massive numbers want this to happen. Their heritage and prestige is systematically being taken away from them."

The group chat is back.

Sara, you're up first on this one. I mean there are real questions -- legal questions, right, about whether Donald Trump would have the authority to even get involved here when it comes to the stadium, but it speaks to perhaps a -- a larger practice that we see from the president, which is putting these threats out there. And really, I think, which speaks to just how broad he believes his authority is in this country.

FISCHER: Correct. This is not something that he has authority over. I think that the Commanders would have a very strong First Amendment argument here, especially given that this is like a D.C. city council decision. They're the ones that have to figure out whether or not the stadium gets approved regardless of the name. It has nothing to do with the federal government.

But I think about what has happened between the AP and the president. You know, Donald Trump's White House barring the AP reporters from go -- entering certain public spaces because they refuse to change their editorial guidelines to, say, Gulf of America instead of Gulf of Mexico. Of course, they're appealing that decision on First Amendment grounds. That case could set a precedent for others in which the president is saying that they're not adopting my language the way that they want to. So, I'm curious to see how that goes. But I just think that this is a way that Donald Trump pressures organizations. I don't think he has the legal authority to actually do anything here.

HILL: There's the pressure campaign, Isaac, and then there's also the attempt at yet another distraction when he can't get the Epstein -- Epstein story to go away. I mean, how much of this, just based on, you know, if past is prologue, based on what we've seen from the president in the past, how much of this could be a distraction play?

DOVERE: I mean, look, with Donald Trump, everything is a distraction from a distraction from a distraction. But I do think that you hit on the important point here, which is that it's not so much about this particular issue of whether he can change the name of the football team or what. But it is the larger approach that we see from the president, even in other things we've been talking about this hour, whether Harvard should operate in the way that it has operated, whether the Epstein file should be released. Donald Trump sees his job as president as whatever he wants people to talk about, that's what they talk about. Whatever he doesn't want them to talk about, they don't talk about it. Whatever he wants them to do, he says they should do. And he will use every element that he can of either the bully pulpit pressure campaign or legal action or administrative action to try to force that to happen. And that is what's going on here throughout, not just on the football stuff.

HILL: Michael, there's also a -- an amount of whitewashing happening here, right, which speaks to the push against DEI, but also the push against just recognizing the reality of this country and what it actually looks at and what the actual makeup is.

WARREN: But look, this is the super power of Donald Trump, which is, he takes advantage of things in which the -- maybe there should be nuance. There certainly maybe more nuance on these kinds of questions. I think, you know, whether it's Redskins and the -- and the -- and the hate behind that term, Indians, I think a lot of that was based on the logo and the mascot. Those things are pretty much settled. And the fan bases are pretty settled on those questions, too.

There's -- but there is some nuance, you know, are you going to start taking away college mascots that are named after Native American tribes, in which there are good relationships? For instance, the Florida State Seminoles. I mean, that's where Donald Trump's able to kind of throw out these things and set the conversation to his own terms. This really has nothing to do with what the president does or can do or has any authority to do, but it is kind of what Donald Trump envisions himself as, as kind of the agenda setter for the country.

And again, I feel like I'm sort of playing into his game here by even having this conversation. And -- and -- but this is where we are, and this is really what he's a master at. We should try to avoid playing into that game as much as possible. But here we are.

HILL: Here we are.

Real quickly, before I let you all go, we have about a minute to go.

Isaac, what are you watching today?

DOVERE: Well, look, this whole hubbub about Stephen Colbert and his cancellation, it's been on a lot of people's minds. He -- that was announced Thursday afternoon. He didn't tape a new show on Friday. He is recording today. So, I think a lot of people, me included, will be tuning in to see what he has to say about what's been going on.

HILL: Yes, stand by for some of that tomorrow on CNN THIS MORNING.

Sara, what's -- what's on your radar?

FISCHER: Well, from the media perspective, we had a strong showing for "Superman" a few weeks ago. But now we've got DC Comics rival Marvel showing up this week.

[07:00:03]

We got a new Marvel movie, "Fantastic Four," debuting in theaters, and it will speak to the health of the movie industry and whether or not the box office continues to have a strong summer.

HILL: And, Michael, you get last one.

WARREN: Scottie Scheffler winning the British Open. That's his third major. He's just one away from winning that grand slam, next year's U.S. Open, if he can do it. Just an incredible player, kind of at the top of his game. A year after Rory McIlroy wins his own grand slam, it'd be really exciting to see Scottie do that as well.

HILL: Well, thanks to all of you for waking up to be a part of the group chat today. Thanks to all of you for tuning in as well.

I'm Erica Hill. Stay tuned. "CNN NEWS CENTRAL" starts right now.