Return to Transcripts main page

The Situation Room

Blue Origin Launches Mars Mission; Interview With Ukrainian Ambassador to the United States Olga Stefanishyna; Megyn Kelly Under Fire Over Epstein Comments; College Sports Betting Ring. Aired 11:30a- 12p ET

Aired November 14, 2025 - 11:30   ET

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

[11:30:02]

WOLF BLITZER, CNN HOST: Officials say the scheme involved student athletes and the Lucchese crime family.

Here's what New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin told us just a little while ago. Listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MATTHEW PLATKIN (D), NEW JERSEY ATTORNEY GENERAL: So they were recruiting specifically agents and subagents, bookies, effectively, who were younger and had credibility with other students.

And then, essentially, they were acting as old-school bookies. They were taking bets either through electronic payments or otherwise and running a multimillion-dollar illegal sports ring using students and student athletes as their agents.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: CNN's chief law enforcement and intelligence analyst, John Miller, is joining us right now.

John, thanks for joining us.

What stands out to you from what we have heard, at least so far?

JOHN MILLER, CNN CHIEF LAW ENFORCEMENT AND INTELLIGENCE ANALYST: Well, what stands out is, what's old is new.

This goes back to -- we have the Lucchese crime family from New York City involved operating in New Jersey running a gambling ring here in a case that starts in another old stomping ground of organized crime, in the port of Newark and Elizabeth. That's where the first leads came in.

But what I think we need to focus on here is, is, this the tip of the iceberg? Once you have this recipe here, where you have the mob involved with family members and then recruiting student athletes who are taking bets, the next logical question is, did those student athletes recruit other student athletes to affect the outcome of whether it's a wrestling match or another kind of game, as we have seen in some of these other cases?

And that is part of the investigation that will continue.

BLITZER: How does law enforcement, John, go about investigating these kinds of schemes?

MILLER: Well, in the olden days, when you hit a betting parlor in a place like New York, they had all the bets on slips of paper. It was flash paper. You tossed a match into the bin. They all went up in a big conflagration and the evidence was gone. At least that's what they tried to do.

In this case, you have a long trail of very detailed digital evidence, from the phones of the kids taking the bets to where the bets were recorded in the computer systems of this ring. And you have to ask yourself. You have got FanDuel. You have got Caesars Sportsbook. You have got DraftKings.

What's the need for a rinky-dink organized crime-run betting ring? And that gets to the question of, well, if you win, are you paying taxes? If you don't pay, are you facing violence? And all the reasons why, after they legalized marijuana, they're still seizing thousands of pounds of cannabis and gummy from illegal sources.

There's always a way around paying -- doing it straight and paying your taxes.

BLITZER: If found guilty, John, what kind of sentence could these defendants be facing?

MILLER: You know, typically gambling is looked at as a nonviolent crime, but you're looking at people who are charged with state crimes under the first degree and the second degree. These come with sentences that can range from 20 years to 10 years. That's the kind of time that can convince people to cooperate, which can help the investigation go further.

So we will have to see if those charges stand on that level. But those people could be facing serious time.

BLITZER: Very serious indeed.

All right, John Miller, thank you very, very much -- Pamela.

MILLER: Thanks, Wolf.

PAMELA BROWN, CNN HOST: Thank you so much, John.

And just ahead: conservative commentator Megyn Kelly now getting flak from both sides of the aisle after appearing to question whether Jeffrey Epstein was actually a pedophile.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[11:37:05] BLITZER: As the White House prepares for a major congressional vote next week on releasing all of the files on Jeffrey Epstein, President Trump is going on offense.

BROWN: This morning, he took to social media to blame Democrats for pushing what he calls -- quote -- "the Epstein hoax," saying Republicans who vote to release the files are weak, soft and foolish.

And now he's calling for a slew of high-profile investigations into other people's also alleged ties to Epstein, including former President Bill Clinton, who has not been accused of any criminal wrongdoing.

Let's discuss more now with CNN political commentator Michael Smerconish. He is also the host of "SMERCONISH" airing Saturday mornings right here on CNN.

Michael, great to see you. Thanks for being here.

Your thoughts on Trump trying to turn this around and blame Democrats?

MICHAEL SMERCONISH, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: The resistance by the White House and Republicans only fuels further speculation.

I mean, stop and think about it, Pamela. Two days ago, 20,000 e-mails, they get dropped. A handful of them are embarrassing to the president by association with Jeffrey Epstein, but they're not criminal. There's nothing in there that suggests any criminal conduct on the part of the president.

And yet, at the same time those documents are being dropped, Lauren Boebert is reportedly being leaned on in the White House Situation Room by Kash Patel and Pam Bondi, and the president is playing phone tag with Nancy Mace.

If the damage has already been done because the documents are out, why do you need to speak to Boebert and to Mace unless there's something else out there that you're worried about? And if there isn't, then why all the resistance? Because I'm convinced, sooner or later, the public is going to get a look, as we ought to.

BLITZER: You know, it's interesting. The former FOX anchor Megyn Kelly, Michael, is taking a lot of criticism on social media today after appearing to suggest that Epstein may not have been a pedophile. She claims a friend told her Epstein was into the -- quote -- "barely legal type."

I want you to listen to what she said. Listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MEGYN KELLY, CONSERVATIVE COMMENTATOR: This is this person's view, who was there for a lot of this, but that he was into the barely legal type. Like, he liked 15-year-old girls. I don't know what's true about him, but we have yet to see anybody come forward and say, I was a -- like a -- I was under 10, I was under 14 when I first came within his purview.

Look, it's -- you can say that's a distinction without a difference.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: No, it's not.

(CROSSTALK)

KELLY: I think there is a difference. There's a difference between a 15-year-old and a 5-year-old. It's just whatever. It's sick, because every time we start talking about Epstein, it makes your skin crawl, right? The whole thing is just disgusting.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Totally.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: We have seen the release of these Epstein e-mails in recent days, and they amount to no more than a shrug from at least some in the conservative media. Does that surprise you after they spent years calling for these files to be released?

[11:40:04]

SMERCONISH: Well, let me say that the law does not differentiate between a 5- and a 15-year-old. There's an age of consent, and it's determined by states.

And below that age of consent, if there's sexual contact, if there's sexual involvement, you can't give consent. Automatically, it's a violation of the criminal code. I mean, that's the level of significance and severity that the eye looks at a minor and whether that individual is able to even provide consent.

So that differentiation makes absolutely no sense in the eyes of the law. That's the point that I would make.

BLITZER: Yes, good point.

BROWN: Michael, you also host a radio show, we should note. I'm just curious what you're hearing from your listeners about the fallout from the release of these Epstein e-mails.

SMERCONISH: You know, rank speculation. It's incredible. I just got off air. We talked about this case, because how could you not talk about this case?

And to the first point that I made, the resistance fueling speculation, I hear it in the telephone callers. I don't determine, I can't regulate what they're about to say. We take live calls. And I just heard an hour's worth of calls that the White House would not appreciate, because it's just people spitballing and coming up with things that they heard at the barbershop and so forth.

I think the White House could better manage this by getting out of the way of a train that I think is headed down the tracks. I mean, look at only -- how many? Four Republicans signed on to the discharge petition. They're going to be between 50 and 100 Republicans who I think are ultimately going to vote for the release of this information.

And then it's going to be really interesting when it gets to the Senate. Don't know what will happen there. But imagine if it then gets to the president's desk next week or the week after. How does he then exercise a veto on what kind of justification with all of the speculation taking place?

BROWN: Yes, we just had Congressman Don Bacon on, a Republican, who said he thought there could be a veto-proof majority on this vote in the House. So you're right. You make an excellent point.

Michael, thank you so much.

SMERCONISH: Nice to see you.

BROWN: You can catch "SMERCONISH" every Saturday morning at 9:00 Eastern. And if you're in the U.S., you can stream his show any time you want on the CNN app. You can also visit CNN.com/Watch for more.

Was that an OK tease?

BLITZER: Very good tease.

(LAUGHTER)

BROWN: All right, more when we come back.

BLITZER: By the way, "SMERCONISH" Saturday mornings, excellent, excellent show.

BROWN: Yes.

BLITZER: I'm a regular viewer.

BROWN: Loyal viewer right here.

SMERCONISH: Thank you, Wolf.

BLITZER: Yes.

(LAUGHTER)

BLITZER: And we will have more news right after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[11:46:06]

BLITZER: New this morning, deadly overnight strikes on the Ukrainian capital of Kyiv. Watch this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

(SIRENS BLARING) (END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: Local authorities say at least six people were killed and dozens more were injured, including children. Meanwhile, Ukrainian forces targeted and damaged a Russian oil depot overnight.

Olga Stefanishyna is Ukraine's new ambassador to the United States. She's joining us now here in THE SITUATION ROOM.

Ambassador, thank you so much for joining us.

Ukraine's defense minister met with the European counterparts yesterday, as you know -- earlier today, I should say. Are there any diplomatic talks under way with the Russians or Russian allies to finally end this brutal war?

OLGA STEFANISHYNA, UKRAINIAN AMBASSADOR TO THE UNITED STATES: Well, at this point Russia demonstrates also with the nightly deadly strikes that they are not in a position to even be ready for any negotiations.

And we are trying to mobilize desperate police assistance for air defense, making sure that we can secure the lives of people. But these attacks are becoming more frequent, frequent, more deadly, and ballistics is almost every time there.

BLITZER: And despite all of President Trump's efforts to try to convince President Putin to stop these deadly attacks on civilian targets in Ukraine, Putin keeps going. Why do you think that's...

STEFANISHYNA: Well, I think it's the way how we all should read Russians. Maybe Putin thinks that he can and he has to scale up his aggression and to kill more people to be recognized as a conqueror.

But it's not a war between states. It's not a conquering war of 17th century. It's the aggression against big European democratic nations, against people, and it's absolutely criminal.

BLITZER: Does Ukraine still want those U.S. Tomahawk cruise missiles? How big of a priority is that right now?

STEFANISHYNA: Well...

BLITZER: There are long-range missiles that could hit various targets, sensitive targets deep inside Russia, beyond even Moscow.

STEFANISHYNA: Yes. Well, today, our defense minister have had a conversation with other ministers. So it's not only the longest-range capability, but also different types of weapons.

But, definitely, having Tomahawks or any other type of long-range missiles would make these attacks almost impossible, because the capabilities through which these launches and this hundreds of drones are attacking our state would be not existing anymore.

BLITZER: Is this priority number one for you right now, as the new Ukrainian ambassador in Washington, to try to convince the Trump administration to make these Tomahawk cruise missiles available to Ukraine?

STEFANISHYNA: Absolutely. Absolutely, mobilizing all the financial capabilities to procure as much weapons from U.S., enabling the air defense and securing our cities, is a vital priority.

It's a humanitarian need, I would say, but also enabling to attack the enemy from within, depriving him from the ability to kill Ukrainian people, is vital.

BLITZER: And if the U.S. were to make these Tomahawk cruise missiles with more than 1,000 miles capability available to Ukraine, would it be OK, from the U.S. perspective, for Ukraine to launch these missiles against various targets deep inside Russia?

STEFANISHYNA: Well, I don't think we really have to think in that terms.

We have to think in terms of what we can do to prevent people from dying, from civilians. It's not actually -- the video you showed, it's not actually the battle line. It's not actually the war zone. It's actually the city of Ukraine, which is the capital of Ukraine.

So, I would say whatever works to secure Ukrainian cities across all the territory should be applied and should be done.

BLITZER: So you really want those Tomahawk cruise missiles. I don't blame you.

[11:50:00]

Do you believe that Putin will ever listen to President Trump, who keeps on saying he wants the killing to stop, too many people are getting killed?

STEFANISHYNA: Well, I think it's important for Ukraine -- and my president has said it multiple times. It's very important that the president of the United States has a personal commitment to end the war.

And whatever serves this purpose should be done. Ukraine has been a long-lasting ally, saying that we are committed to peace. We are committed to whatever negotiations or format President Trump would consider workable. At this point, we only see that Russia is only feeling that they are empowered to make aggression, more crucifying, more deadliest.

So probably we should look for the options which work the best. It's just looking at their military agony and forcing them to be collapsing under the sanctions pressure.

BLITZER: Russia is now claiming, as you probably know, to have foiled a Ukrainian assassination plot against a high-ranking Kremlin official inside Russia. CNN has not independently verified those claims.

Is there anything you can tell us about that? STEFANISHYNA: Absolutely not, and definitely not something that

should be commented. There's no information I'm aware of so that I could really provide publicly.

BLITZER: There's also new information that Russia appears very close right now to capturing Pokrovsk, a strategic city in Eastern Ukraine. Some military analysts and Ukrainian commanders are worrying that Kyiv may be repeating past mistakes by hanging on too long.

What do you think?

STEFANISHYNA: Pokrovsk -- Pokrovsk is the city.

BLITZER: Thank you.

STEFANISHYNA: So I can give you a little bit of the statistics.

Over the last week, we had over 1,100 combat engagements. And Pokrovsk is one of the spots there. Definitely, the communication around that made by Russian Federation is victorious because they're trying to send a signal here to the United States that they're winning in a smaller, smaller spot.

But the position of our government, our president is that this is a military process. Ukrainians are holding, but it is not something that should be done just to win the narrative. If it will be vital to save the people, the decisions will be taken.

BLITZER: Ukrainian ambassador, the new Ukrainian ambassador to the United States, Ambassador Olga Stefanishyna, thank you so much for joining us. We hope you will be a frequent visitor.

STEFANISHYNA: Thank you. Thank you for inviting me and speaking about Ukraine. That's really important.

BLITZER: Welcome to Washington.

STEFANISHYNA: Thank you.

BLITZER: Thank you very, very much -- Pamela.

(CROSSTALK)

BROWN: Thank you so much.

Coming up here in THE SITUATION ROOM: landmark launch, Jeff Bezos' other big company takes a giant leap as it competes with SpaceX.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[11:57:07]

BROWN: Happening now: a new mission to Mars. Jeff Bezos' Blue Origin launched the massive New Glenn rocket from Cape Canaveral, Florida, and it carried a pair of satellites that are on their way to the Red Planet. BLITZER: And Blue Origin recycled its rocket, landing it on a

platform offshore.

CNN's Tom Foreman is here with us in THE SITUATION ROOM.

So what's the goal of this new mission?

TOM FOREMAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, let's talk about the science goal first, right?

What this thing is going to do is, it's taking off. It's going to what's called a Lagrange point. There are several of them around Earth. Basically, it's a point of equilibrium out in space just beyond the moon, about a million miles away, where it can sort of sit around for a year. It's going to study space weather.

And then -- and then, after about a year, it's going to whip around the Earth and it's going to take off to Mars. Why are they delaying like that? Because you only get really good alignments of Earth and Mars about every two years.

One of the ideas here is, if you can start exploiting these Lagrange points to put craft out there and then send them on, you can launch along a large a larger range of time and then just have them line up like a flight pattern in an airport and then send them off to Mars.

In any event, what it's going to do once it leaves L2 over there on the right -- that's the one that it's going to park in -- once it leaves, it's going to go out to Mars, take about 10 months to get there, kind of normal. And then it will release identical satellites, a blue one and a gold one, about the size of this desk, blue and gold for U.C. Cal Berkeley which is the science lab behind this.

Each one will be about the size of this desk right here and they will orbit Mars looking at the solar weather of Mars and the magnetic field of Mars to try to figure out why Mars lost its atmosphere. I think years ago it had water and a lot of things, but the atmosphere slowly bled away, so they'd like to find out why.

BLITZER: How long have they been working on this specific mission?

FOREMAN: Oh, like all space missions, it goes on for a long, long, long time.

What they have achieved here, though, that the space community is very excited about is that re-landing of the rocket. SpaceX has been doing that for years with its Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy, but it's been able to re-land. This is a bigger rocket. It's about as long as a football field.

And this is the first time another company's been able to do it. That opens the door for more affordable space and really brings the potential for more competition with SpaceX, which has dominated this launch area, although I will note that SpaceX's Starship is even bigger than this one.

BLITZER: Really?

FOREMAN: So, a lot of space people excited about that, saying -- mixing it up a little bit more.

BLITZER: Good. I'm looking forward to getting more information on this, and we will keep watching your reports.

FOREMAN: Yes, well, they won't leave the moon and head out there for about a year. But then we will get reports as to what they find out as they orbit around Mars and try to figure out some mysteries out there that are always...

BROWN: Isn't that fascinating?

FOREMAN: Fascinating.

BROWN: There's a lot out there we don't know.

FOREMAN: There's a lot out there we don't know, but we're going to find out.

(CROSSTALK)

BROWN: Obviously, we're one speck and one galaxy of billions of galaxies.

FOREMAN: One step at a time.

BROWN: All right.

BLITZER: Tom Foreman knows a lot more than we do.

BROWN: Yes, he does.

FOREMAN: I don't know if I would go that far.

BROWN: He's tracking it all.

Tom Foreman, thank you so much.

FOREMAN: Thanks.

BLITZER: And thanks to our viewers for joining us this morning,

"INSIDE POLITICS" with our friend and colleague Dana Bash starts right now.