Return to Transcripts main page

CNN This Morning

Alexander Acosta to Testify on Epstein Case; Disney Execs on Suspending Kimmel; D.C. Arrest Cases Getting Dropped by Federal Judges; Charlie Kirk Memorial Planned in Arizona. Aired 6:30-7a ET

Aired September 19, 2025 - 06:30   ET

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

[06:30:00]

AUDIE CORNISH, CNN ANCHOR: Thank you for joining me on CNN This Morning. I'm Audie Cornish. It's half past the hour, and here's what's happening right now.

The CDC advisory panel will vote on changes to the U.S. childhood vaccine schedule today. Yesterday, the committee voted against recommending the combined MMRV vaccine to children under the age of four. They're recommending making it two shots. Today, they'll decide on hepatitis B shots for newborns, as well as COVID vaccines.

The Senate is set to vote today on competing Republican and Democratic bills to keep the government funded through mid-November. It's unlikely either measure will reach the 60-vote threshold needed to pass. The House is also scheduled to vote on a GOP bill with a shutdown looming in just two weeks.

And the House Oversight Committee will hear from Alex Acosta today. In 2006, as U.S. Attorney General in Florida, Acosta cut a non- prosecution agreement with Jeffrey Epstein. On Tuesday, FBI Director Kash Patel accused Acosta of limiting the government's ability to hold Epstein accountable.

And Jimmy Kimmel hasn't yet publicly responded to being yanked off the air, but not for lack of trying. Apparently, he planned to address comments by FCC Chairman Brendan Carr on his Wednesday night show, and he shared those plans with Disney Entertainment co-chair Dana Walden. But according to our reporting here at CNN, show staff members began to receive death threats after Carr's comments about Kimmel, and it became a safety issue for employees and the show's advertisers. In the meantime, with Kimmel off the air for now, FCC Chairman Brendan Carr says there's more to come.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BRENDAN CARR, FCC CHAIRMAN: I don't think this is the last shoe to drop. We're going to continue to hold these broadcasters accountable to the public interest. And if broadcasters don't like that, simple solution, they can turn their license into the FCC. There's other things that we can do with it.

(END VIDEO CLIP) CORNISH: Joining us now to break it down, Sara Fischer, senior media reporter at Axios. Welcome back, Sara.

SARA FISCHER, CNN MEDIA ANALYST AND SENIOR MEDIA REPORTER, AXIOS: Hi, Audie.

CORNISH: So, I understand that in this case, Walden, right, this executive, spoke with Disney CEO Bob Iger before they both decided this, you know, this decision to suspend the show indefinitely. Can you tell me more about what you're learning about how this went down and like the crisis mode that they're probably in figuring it out?

FISCHER: Yes. So, Jimmy Kimmel wanted to address this on air. Specifically, what we're being told is he wanted to kind of, you know, address any confusion potentially about how he thought his words were being misinterpreted, particularly by the MAGA movement. Disney executives were concerned that that would only fan the flames, not just because of all of the regulatory pressure that they are facing and affiliates are facing around consolidation, but also safety of the staff, as you mentioned, staffers getting death threats, concerns.

And so, ultimately, the decision to temporarily or to indefinitely sort of suspend Jimmy Kimmel came very quickly as a way to sort of mitigate any risk, as opposed to, you know, trying to figure out a First Amendment fight right there and then.

CORNISH: Can you talk about the business part of this? We've been hearing about all kinds of deals because the industry is consolidating. So, they have a lot of business before government entities like the FCC. How is that coming into play in all this?

[06:35:00]

FISCHER: Yes. So, once the Jimmy Kimmel comments were made, there were not just complaints from staffers and advertisers, but there were also complaints from affiliates, so big broadcast groups that broadcast ABC's content. And they were concerned they were hearing feedback about Kimmel's remarks.

One of those affiliates is a company called Nextstar. It's the biggest local news conglomerate in the country, Audie. Nextstar just a few weeks ago announced a $6 billion dollar plus merger with the third largest broadcaster in the country called Tegna. It's important to note that during the Biden administration, Tegna couldn't get deals done because of the regulatory approval process. It was too stringent. Nextstar is very hopeful that under Brendan Carr and a Trump FCC, it will be able to get deals done.

But their concern was after Chairman Carr had basically called out ABC and called out local broadcasters for carrying that programming, that if they didn't do something about it, they weren't going to get their deal approved. That's why Nextstar was the first affiliate to say that we are going to yank this programming. Shortly after, Sinclair, another local broadcaster that's looking to possibly do divestitures, also made the same call. And so, you could see how these local news companies trying to get deals done are essentially yanking this coverage, essentially to ensure that they get the regulatory approval that they need from Chairman Carr. And by the way, I say Chairman Carr because the commission is two to one Republican. I spoke to the FCC commissioner, who's a Democrat, Anna Gomez, yesterday. She basically said that, you know, she doesn't really get as much of a say in a voice here. Her dissent matters. But ultimately, those Republicans have the majority and they're going to do what they want to do.

CORNISH: I want to play one thing for you. Colbert had a lot of people on his show last night. Obviously, his show is about to be canceled. He had our own Jake Tapper on. And they had sort of a lighthearted moment as they were talking about real issues, about their concerns regarding the First Amendment. Let's see if we have that for you.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JAKE TAPPER, CNN ANCHOR: Guess who this is. Under Donald Trump's leadership, we may disagree with your views, but we will fight to defend your right to offer it in the public square. Guess who that is?

STEPHEN COLBERT, HOST, "THE LATE SHOW WITH STEPHEN COLBERT": Is that Brennan Carr?

TAPPER: That is J.D. Vance, our vice president.

COLBERT: Oh, OK.

TAPPER: They're doing --

COLBERT: Are you saying that J.D. Vance sometimes says one thing and does the other? You sound like a guy who doesn't want a TV show anymore.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CORNISH: OK. They're laughing in that moment, but it occurred to me you as media reporter are probably getting the panic texts or slacks or conversations from people across the industry about being fearful in this environment, especially when your job is to talk about things that are going on in the culture and what people are saying about them.

FISCHER: There's so much fear, Audie, and I'll tell you why. There's sort of two ways you can go after the media. One is you can try to pull political levers, as we saw when Donald Trump pushed Congress to defund NPR and PBS. But those levers are very hard.

The more effective tactic that the administration seems to be taking is just bullying and harassment campaigns. And the reason they're so effective is because they essentially create a chilling environment that people don't want to report things out that they think are going to be critical of the administration that could threaten their jobs or their bosses' jobs. And that chilling environment goes against everything that the First Amendment and that the Fourth Estate stands for.

So, there is definitely a very big fear and concern amongst journalists and the entire media industry. You know, we're talking about comedians right now, but it's something that we hear from with everybody, movie producers, poets, musicians, journalists, people in the news. Anyone that has a voice and a platform and uses it should be concerned right now.

CORNISH: Sara Fisher, thank you so much for your reporting.

FISCHER: Thanks, Audie.

CORNISH: All right. Now, to the person who's the face of Trump's D.C. crime crackdown, Jeanine Pirro, Trump's new top prosecutor in the district. Federal prosecutors have now dropped nearly a dozen cases related to Trump's takeover of the D.C. Police Department. And we've been hearing about how crime numbers have fallen in D.C. So, now we're going to talk about what happened after those arrests.

We're here with our own Elliott Williams for Lawyer Up. Thank you here, Elliott.

ELLIOT WILLIAMS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR AND FORMER DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS: Thank you, Audie.

CORNISH: Thank you for being here.

WILLIAMS: Of course.

CORNISH: So, I wanted to talk to you about this because we heard crime is going down. There are arrests. And then, all of a sudden, I start seeing in the papers here and there, case dropped.

WILLIAMS: Right.

CORNISH: Jury not interested. No grand jury indictment returned. So, what am I looking at?

WILLIAMS: It's not just the mere fact that it's 11 cases. That number means nothing. It's 11 out of 50, nearly a quarter of the cases that have been brought since that period have been dropped in some way. That's either by the office deciding not to proceed with charges or a grand jury or a judge saying they're not valid.

CORNISH: Because like the sub guy, I think, the person who threw the sub sandwich.

[06:40:00]

WILLIAMS: Well, that was lowered. He was still charged with a crime ultimately, but he was charged with a felony that largely made no sense looking at D.C. law. And look -- and to be clear, prosecutors ought to be bringing cases aggressively. They ought to be trying to charge people. But within the confines of the law. And Jeanine Pirro was asked about that specific point. And she said, you know, about bringing these weak cases. Are you going to keep doing it? She said, damn right. My job is to prosecute.

CORNISH: I think she also said, I don't care about the numbers.

WILLIAMS: I don't care about the numbers. That was actually what preceded that quote. And OK. Fine, your job is to prosecute. But the U.S. attorney manual, which she is the guidebook for her job makes clear that prosecutors need to bring what are called readily provable offenses. If they don't think they can win, they shouldn't be bringing the case. And so, she's acknowledging that some of these cases that they're bringing are just junk.

CORNISH: What else did you see this week that you're like, people should actually pay attention to this?

WILLIAMS: Well, I mean, all of that. I mean, certainly the free speech stuff. The --

CORNISH: Yes. Which I asked you earlier. Like, can anyone sue?

WILLIAMS: Right. No. And I think -- you know, back to Jeanine Pirro, to be clear, the president is entitled to his people. He is entitled to put people in office that are likely to carry out his vision, his mission, his plans. That's what presidents have done since the dawn of time. I think what you've seen in the D.C. U.S. attorney's office is now two successive U.S. attorneys who, number one, did not have experience with the office. Number two, didn't have experience as federal prosecutors. And number three, don't have the support of the people working for them and are firing all of them.

CORNISH: Yes.

WILLIAMS: So, if you wonder why the office isn't working well, it's because there's no morale because the leadership has ruined it. That's the problem there.

CORNISH: I want to ask you one more thing. I know we've been talking about free speech today, et cetera. But I noticed that on Trump's state visit to the U.K., there were four people who were arrested for projecting those images onto Windsor Castle of Trump with Jeffrey Epstein.

WILLIAMS: Yes.

CORNISH: And, I mean, those images went all over the world. Talk to me about these arrests, because there's obviously different standards in the U.K. versus here.

WILLIAMS: Controversial over there as well, and there's been a backlash to those arrests. But the interesting thing is our entire system of free speech is based on the United Kingdom's going back hundreds of years to Blackstone. However, there is no First Amendment in the United Kingdom.

And many of the protections there actually lay less on the side of the person doing the speaking and more on the aggrieved person. So, for instance, it's a lot harder to win a defamation suit in the U.K. And so, it was an impressive bit of trolling, I must say. But, you know, the -- how you can get arrested in the U.K. is a little different than how you can get arrested here. But, again, on both sides of the pond, we're having these profound conversations about speech.

CORNISH: We are. And even the -- I feel like J.D. Vance and others have weighed in on Europe's laws, accusing them of censorship culture wise. Have you heard this as well?

NOEL KING, CO-HOST AND EDITORIAL DIRECTOR, "TODAY, EXPLAINED" PODCAST: Yes. When J.D. Vance was in Europe. In Germany, was it? Earlier this year. He made reference to the U.K., a woman was arrested for protesting outside an abortion clinic. I mean, he was really specific. And he -- Europeans were shocked. You guys remember that. Everyone was like, how dare he come over here and lecture us about free speech. And he's response was, well, we're the free speech presidency. So, again, maybe we're not shocked by Vice President Vance at this point. But I'm still willing to be a little shocked at the sharp reversal here.

CORNISH: OK. Elliot, thanks for lawyering up with us. That's my lawyer up.

WILLIAMS: That -- this --

CORNISH: Yes, exactly. There's a little bit of a saddle up. OK. Next on CNN --

WILLIAMS: Squabble up.

CORNISH: Squabble up. Foods on the ground in Afghanistan. Again, this topic is coming up because President Trump says he wants to take Bagram Air Force Base back from the Taliban.

Plus, we've got Arizona Democrat Greg Stanton. He's joining us as lawmakers struggle to find a way to keep the government open.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[06:45:00]

CORNISH: CNN has learned President Trump has been quietly pushing his national security team to get Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan back from the Taliban. Now, the Taliban took over the base following the collapse of the Afghan government and the U.S. military's withdrawal in 2021. Would an attempt to retake it mean U.S. boots on the ground again?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: We're going to leave Afghanistan, but we're going to leave it with strength and dignity. And we're going to keep Bagram, the big air base that -- one of the biggest air bases in the world. We gave it to them for nothing. We're trying to get it back, by the way. OK. That could be a little breaking news. We're trying to get it back because they need things from us. We want that base back. (END VIDEO CLIP)

CORNISH: Joining us this morning is Congressman Greg Stanton. He's a Democrat from Arizona. Congressman, thank you so much for being here.

REP. GREG STANTON (D-AZ), HOUSE FOREIGN AFFAIRS COMMITTEE AND CHAIR, NEW DEMOCRAT COALITION'S IMMIGRATION TASK FORCE: Thank you.

CORNISH: I know you deal with some foreign policy issues in Congress as well. Can you talk about whether or not you agree with this idea? And do you think -- how could it work?

STANTON: I disagree with the idea. I think the vast majority of the American people do not want American boots on the ground back in Afghanistan. We made an important policy choice, a bipartisan policy choice, to leave Afghanistan and let them govern themselves, if you will, and going back in that direction.

Look, this comes on the heels of him suggesting we're going to invade Greenland and go after the Panama Canal. And now he's talking --

CORNISH: You put that in the same column?

STANTON: Yes, this is just Trump talking. I don't think it's serious. And the American people really, really do not want more American boots on the ground in Afghanistan.

CORNISH: I want to turn to some of the issues of the day. We've been talking a lot about First Amendment issues on the show, but you're from Arizona. This week will be the funeral and then later the memorial for Charlie Kirk. Are you attending any of those events?

STANTON: Well, today we're doing a resolution for Charlie Kirk and really offering condolences to his family, Erika, and the children. A horrific, violent incident that we're -- we condemn all political violence in the United States of America.

[06:50:00]

I'm traveling, so I will not be in Arizona during the time, but it's going to be a very large event at State Farm Stadium where the Arizona Cardinals play, and I'm expecting it to be fully -- a full attendance for that sad event.

CORNISH: There's also been two things going on as a result. One, a lot of self-identified liberals online posting their jokes, posting their memes, maybe even just posting their, here's Charlie Kirk's words, and that means X, Y, and Z. Some of them have been fired. Do they deserve that?

STANTON: Well, look, when you have an employer, you have a responsibility to act in a responsible way online. So, whether or not someone should be fired for a particular, I'd have to look at any particular posting that they make, but if a member of my staff put inappropriate things, almost celebrating the death of a person like Charlie Kirk, I would certainly take action against that person, a punishment of some sort. You know, so, I think people have a responsibility to act in a responsible way.

Look, these are -- it's protected by the First Amendment, so you shouldn't take any government action against them, but someone dealing with an employment setting, breaking the standards of what their employer puts forward about responsible use of the Internet. And I just think, look, personally, this is a tragedy of what has occurred. Political violence can never be acceptable.

CORNISH: But are Democrats responding that way, and how should they? Meaning, if you are a public leader on the Democratic side, are you turning to your followers, let's say, and saying, look, I don't need your buts in these sentences, right? That, like, Charlie Kirk was ex- but kind of thing, that that's not helpful right now, you shouldn't talk about that right now, or do you support the people who are saying, you cannot tease apart this conversation from the legacy of the person themselves and their words, and therefore this dialogue needs to happen?

CORNISH: Yes, we should have a healthy discussion and debate in American politics about the key issues of the day. There's nothing wrong with that.

But I think what you're suggesting was people engage in almost celebrations of the death of Charlie Kirk, and should an employer have the ability to punish an employee for that, this -- we're a capitalist society, of course they can punish someone. As a leader myself, I want to model good behavior, and that is to express my condolences to his family and to condemn any form of political violence. Political violence has no place in the United States of America, whether it be from the left or the right or anywhere in between. And we have to be clear about that.

CORNISH: This is Lulu.

LULU GARCIA-NAVARRO, CNN CONTRIBUTOR AND NEW YORK TIMES JOURNALIST AND PODCAST HOST: Yes, hi. I just have a question. How do you feel about your colleagues, representatives on the right, who have actually explicitly asked for their constituents to report these people, go out and say, you know --

CORNISH: Dox them.

GARCIA-NAVARRO: Dox them, et cetera, et cetera. And we've seen that in Florida. We've seen that in a number of other states. I mean, obviously employers have the right to do whatever they want, but elected officials actually getting involved in that, I mean, how do you see that particular?

STANTON: Well, first off, it's wrong. It shouldn't -- they shouldn't be doing that. We -- this is -- what happened, this horrific violence that we saw, political violence. We're still -- the investigation is ongoing. So, we still don't know all of the details, particularly the specific motive. We're just -- you know, we're learning about that. We should take the time to learn about that, and to learn about what happened online and how this -- the person, the shooter, was radicalized. We need to learn that so we can take steps, hopefully, to lessen that in our society, but sort of exploiting the death of someone like Charlie Kirk for political advantage one way or another, that's just wrong.

CORNISH: So, they're not just -- their argument is, we are seeking accountability. Like, we're drawing attention to this person so that their employer will take action. You don't think lawmakers should be involved in that sort of siccing the online crowd against someone.

STANTON: That's exactly right. We have so many important issues in Washington, D.C. that we have to be focused in on that to be engaged in that type of behavior I don't think is appropriate.

CORNISH: The implications of this have also gone even broader. If the president is saying, we're going to go after radical left groups, and they start delineating their definitions of that, and it spreads to nonprofits, left-wing donors, or fundraisers, how are people in your world preparing for that? What do you think of that?

STANTON: It's totally unacceptable. You know, the president of the United States went on television shortly after the tragic assassination of Charlie Kirk and sort of blamed one side for this, stoking fear and the doxing that you described. I think it's totally inappropriate for the president of the United States to engage in that.

He has an opportunity to unite this country. And obviously he has not done that. That's part of the role of the president of the United States is in moments like this, is try to bring the country together. And it's really unfortunate that we just haven't seen any of that from this president.

CORNISH: Now, every time I talk to a lawmaker, I say, and what can you do? And we've done that to a lot of people. Tim Burchett this week, one of your colleagues, was asked this question. I want to play for you what he had to say.

STANTON: Sure.

[06:55:00]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. TIM BURCHETT (R-TN): It's never going to change, ma'am, until we have a real revival in this country. And that hopefully would happen someday. But right now, it looks like it's going to be more of the same. It's clit bait. It's getting reelected. It's red meat. And that's what politics is about today. And that's frankly what it's always been about. We can have these talks and we can have these professors come on and of political science and sociologists and all this and talk about that, but that's not what's going to happen, ma'am. America is so tone deaf to all that. They want the heat, and that's what politicians bring.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

STANTON: Well, look, he's correct in that under the current modern system in politics, there are sort of perverse incentives to try to be as bombastic as possible, come on television shows and be bombastic, you know, get as many Twitter followers as you can by being bombastic. That's how you become, I guess, famous in politics.

My suggestion is we can improve upon this. We can improve the dialogue. The Republicans in Congress, they're my adversaries in, you know, policy debates. We want to win this election and take over the majority. And we're going to have one heck of a challenging election. But they are not my enemies. We just have disagreements about politics.

CORNISH: But he was saying the incentives to do it. I mean, I realize, yes, you're not giving bombastic. We joked about your Twitter and your TikTok. So, I understand that. But he's saying that, like, it ain't there, that you, the voter also are not responding. You're responding to the people who bring the heat.

STANTON: Well, I would agree that that is accurate in terms of where we are in politically in the United States of America, that these people that try to cross the line or go to the extremes get the most attention. That's how you get ratings in television and get the more social media followers. But I am telling you, as someone who tries to model different type of behavior, which is just, look, we're going to have some real Donnie Brooks in American politics. We've got some really challenging issues that we have to deal with.

But in terms of the language that we use, we need to make it absolutely clear as leaders that our political opponents are our political adversaries, but they are not our enemies.

CORNISH: All right. I want to bring something to you about Democrats, because I know one thing Democrats love to talk about is the last election. And Kamala Harris surprised many when she revealed that she wanted Pete Buttigieg to be her running mate in the last election, including Pete Buttigieg, because he says, after hearing about new excerpts from her book, "107 Days," Harris says that she felt it was too big of a risk to run as a black woman alongside a gay man. And she feared voters would not accept them.

And Buttigieg told Politico he was surprised to learn she had considered him. And he went on to say this, I just believe in giving Americans more credit. Do you?

STANTON: Well, look, I don't want to litigate the last election. We lost that election. And Democrats are not election deniers in any regard. We can go back and learn from that election. One thing we should have learned is that Joe Biden should never even begun running for a second term, that our party would have been better off with a full primary, a full debate. Pete Buttigieg may have won that primary if it was a full and open primary.

CORNISH: Yes. But it's relevant because the ongoing discussion is in order to draw a more centrist voter, maybe a white working-class voter, that you need a certain kind of candidate who will do that. And that's pertinent going forward, right? Because then you are going to make more cautious decisions-based kind of on the identities of your candidates.

STANTON: Look, I think that as vice president and the presidential candidate, she needed to pick the person who thought, number one, could replace her if anything were to happen, to pick the best person. And an individual's sexual orientation should have nothing to do with it. And do I think the American people would be willing to vote for someone who happens to be gay? I do. I do. If he's the right person.

Pete Buttigieg is an incredibly talented person. I work -- he was a mayor when I was a mayor of Phoenix, Arizona. And I think -- you know, she made her own choice. But if she had chosen Pete Buttigieg for that position, I think he would have done an outstanding job.

GARCIA-NAVARRO: I think ultimately, though, whoever the VP pick is doesn't really help the main candidate, right? So, I mean, I think it's interesting that she was making those calculations. And I think it's really important to have that window. But I think ultimately who she chose as her VP wasn't -- didn't -- you know, she chose a white man from the Midwest and she didn't win the election. So, we'll just leave that there.

STANTON: I think her biggest challenge was her failure to distinguish herself from President Biden. And if she had come clear that they had different policy positions, that she was her own person in that regard, I think that would have served her very well.

But when she was asked about her policy differences, she was not willing to come forward with any of that. I think the American people were looking for that exact issue. What were you going to do different than your predecessor? And each candidate has an obligation to do that. And in that regard, she was not successful.

CORNISH: And I think people, unfortunately for you, are going to keep talking about this, right?

[07:00:00]