Return to Transcripts main page

The Situation Room

Judge: Mangione Prosecutors Can Use Alleged Murder Weapon, Notebook; Court Docs: Trump Dropping $10 Billion Lawsuit Against IRS; Rep. Don Bacon (R-NE), Is Interviewed About Lawmakers Slam Pentagon For Canceling Troop Deployments. Aired 11-11:30a ET

Aired May 18, 2026 - 11:00   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[11:01:18]

WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: And welcome to our viewers here in the United States and around the world. I'm Wolf Blitzer with Pamela Brown and you're in The Situation Room.

And we begin this hour with the breaking news. A judge has ruled that key evidence, including the alleged murder weapon and a notebook, can be used in Luigi Mangione's murder trial. He's accused of killing UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson back in 2024.

PAMELA BROWN, CNN ANCHOR: The judge ruled that some evidence found in Mangione's backpack at the time of his arrest will be excluded from his upcoming trial. Here's the judge's ruling last hour.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So both parties should have received a copy of the decision this morning which grants the defendant's motion in part and denies it in part and which lays out the findings of fact and conclusions of law.

So I'm just going to give a brief summary of the conclusions. So as to the map issues, I find that the search of the backpack at the McDonald's was improper warrantless search, that the backpack was not within the immediate control or grabbable area of the defendant, and further the people failed to demonstrate exigent circumstances. Therefore, those items found in the backpack during the search at the McDonald's will be suppressed.

However, the people have established that the subsequent search of the backpack at the station was a valid inventory search and therefore the items recovered at the station will not be suppressed. So as to the Huntley issue, I find that the defendant was not in custody until about 9:47 a.m. So any statements before that will not be suppressed.

However, as Miranda warnings were not given until some seconds after 9:48 in the morning, those statements made shortly before that in response to improper custodial questions that were not merely a request for pedigree information will be suppressed. (END VIDEOTAPE)

BROWN: All right, CNN's Kara Scannell is right outside the court and CNN anchor and chief legal analyst Laura Coates is also standing by. But Kara, I want to go to you first. You were right inside that courtroom during this. Walk us through how this went down.

KARA SCANNELL, CNN CORRESPONDENT: So the judge came on the bench. He read this ruling. And at the same time, those of us in the courtroom were able to see the written order, which goes into much greater detail than he did in that clip you just played where he kind of described the top line. So what his ruling means is that the search of the backpack at the McDonald's, he said, was illegal. So the items in that backpack that they found at the time cannot come into evidence in the case.

That includes ammunition, a magazine. It includes his cell phone, his passport, as well as a computer chip and his wallet. But the judge said that the search of his backpack, a further search back at the station, was conducted pursuant to an inventory search. And he said that that search was legal. And so the items found there can come in. And that includes some of the key evidence in this case, the alleged murder weapon, as well as a red notebook, a diary of his writings in which he expresses his frustration with the health care industry.

He says the target is insurance. And he references wanting to target the bean counters. And he's accused of gutting down the UnitedHealthcare CEO on a Manhattan sidewalk just before the CEO was about to address the investor conference. So that is a key piece of evidence for the prosecution as it would go to his state of mind as they try to prove this case. That was the key part of the evidentiary ruling on the evidence. And the judge also made some key rulings on the statements.

[11:05:03]

He said that any biographical information that Mangione had given to the officers was fine and fair to use. But he said that the officers, once they gave Mangione that Miranda warning around 9:42 a.m., that Mangione indicated he didn't want to talk to them. The questions they asked him, his answers could not be used. There were two questions in particular.

He was asked by officers why he lied about his identity. He had initially given them a fake driver's license in the name of Mark Rosario. That is the same name that was used to check into the hostel that authorities believe the shooter of the CEO had stayed in in the days before the shooting, and also was asked why he had a fake I.D. on him.

His answer to those statements cannot go before the jury. However, the judge said that any statements he gave to officers while he was in custody after that, because they were spontaneous, they weren't in response to questions, the judge says that those can come in. And during, while he was in a holding cell, correction officers testified at a hearing in December that Mangione had voluntarily said certain things to them, asking about media coverage.

He was discussing with them the difference between private insurance and public insurance, national insurance, and that he also had volunteered to one of the corrections officers that he had a 3D printed gun and foreign currency in his backpack. Those statements can come in, Pam.

BROWN: All right.

BLITZER: All right. And CNN anchor and chief legal analyst, Laura Coates, is joining us as well. Laura, so what do you make of this ruling?

LAURA COATES, CNN ANCHOR AND CHIEF LEGAL ANALYST: Welcome to a law school criminal exam. This is exactly the sort of meandering and the flow chart you have to engage in order to understand the importance of the Fourth Amendment and the importance of when you can be searched and when you cannot be. The law recognizes that you have every right to have your property, your own, to be personalized, to not have somebody able to go through it at their whim. You have those rights.

You also have, of course, everyone can recite the Miranda warnings if you watch any episode of "Law & Order." Why this particular timeline is so important to the judge is because certain statements this carer has laid out are going to be consequential about when he said them, about credibility, and what the government is trying to prove. But they have to abide by those constitutional rights.

And if they don't do so, they are not going to be able to have the full benefit of all of those statements. So the timeline here is so important. If he gave statements prior to being Mirandized, they're not going to be able to come in. If they searched his backpack in a way that they did not have a reasonable suspicion to do so, or some threat of harm, and having an urgency in doing so, it's not going to come in. But of course, there's the inevitability arguments that come into play here.

Eventually, these documents, these packages, excuse me, these backpacks, it was searched, so that will be able to come in. The most important thing here is the spontaneity of statements, though, as Kara has already outlined. Because although the government has this extreme burden, of course, of proving cases beyond reasonable doubt and honoring one's constitutional rights, if you are spontaneously or voluntarily offering information, you can't hold that against the government, provided that they have done everything else right. This mixed ruling is a bit of a mixed bag.

If I'm the prosecutor in this case, I like the ability to bring up certain statements and eventually be able to bring up what was found in that backpack. But if I'm the defense team, I am thrilled to know that that timeline is going to be honored. And anything I said prior to that Miranda will not come in.

BROWN: Right. Because, Kara, a big part of today's rulings hangs on when officers read Mangione his Miranda rights. Tell us more about that. SCANNELL: Right. So when Mangione was first approached in the McDonald's by the officers, they had talked to him, just two officers there, and he had presented with them the fake I.D. where he'd given his false name. Once there were additional officers on scene and it was more apparent that he was in a custodial type of situation, he couldn't leave or anything. He was then given his Miranda warnings around 9:42 a.m. And they said that any statements that came after that warning, Mangione indicated he didn't want to talk to them, that those couldn't be used.

But, you know, there was this fine line here of that. There were a number of statements that Mangione also said in McDonald's that were volunteered by him. He's made references to his puffy coat. He made other statements that, you know, may seem innocuous, but because they were made voluntarily and spontaneously, those are allowed in. It's really the two that the judge had singled out were Mangione's answers to the questions of why did you lie and why did you give us a fake I.D.? Those cannot come in.

BLITZER: All right. Kara Scannell and Laura Coates, the both of you, thank you very, very much.

BROWN: All right. Still ahead here in The Situation Room, the global scramble to contain a new Ebola outbreak in Central Africa as the U.S. works to relocate several Americans who might have been exposed.

[11:10:02]

BLITZER: But first, Congressman Don Bacon joins us live here in The Situation Room. I'll ask him about the future of his Republican Party as President Trump looks to push out anyone not fully aligned with him.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[11:14:58]

BROWN: And we have some breaking news to turn to. President Trump is dropping his $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS. That's according to court documents. This could also signal that the administration will go ahead with a plan to set up a massive new fund to compensate people who believe other presidential administrations targeted them in unfair investigations.

CNN chief legal affairs correspondent Paula Reid is here with us in The Situation Room. So walk us through this lawsuit and this potential new fund.

PAULA REID, CNN CHIEF LEGAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Yes. This fund is getting a lot of attention because we're talking about potentially $2 billion in taxpayer money that could be doled out to the President's allies and other people who believe they were wrongly investigated by the Justice Department. Look, we know that retribution, taking care of his allies, grievances against federal law enforcement. These are all big priorities for the President, but it's unclear if taxpayers are going to be willing to dole out money related to these complaints. This all started earlier this year when the President and his two older sons sued the IRS for $10 billion over the leak of President Trump's tax records in his first administration. Now, look, the judge overseeing this case took one look at this and was really skeptical about the merits of this case. But we've reported that the Justice Department has been in talks with President Trump's personal lawyers looking for a way to settle this.

And sources told me over the weekend this fund is one of the ideas that they have. But of course, there are so many concerns about how this is ethically possible, right? We're talking about the President's personal lawyers, talking to lawyers in his own administration about doling out taxpayer money potentially to his allies. So this is absolutely, if it is announced, if this is what they're going to do, this is going to face legal challenges and could become a political liability for the President.

BROWN: And they're saying it's not going to go to Trump directly, right?

REID: Exactly.

BROWN: And also, how are they going to decide who's been unfairly targeted? I mean, could this include the January 6th rioters?

REID: Yes, possibly. I had some questions because originally sources were saying it would just be people who were investigated by the Biden Justice Department. Now, we know the January 6th investigation began and the first Trump administration continued into the Biden administration. But the President also has allies who were investigated under his first term by his own Justice Department. It was unclear over the weekend exactly who would qualify or how these claims would be vetted.

But there are a lot of concerns, again, ethically about using taxpayer money in this way. The President's associates have said, sources have said that they've done similar things at the Justice Department. But the only comparable things we can find are funds related to Native Americans. Nothing like this. So we're waiting to hear an announcement, see more details if this is what they choose to do. But this is certainly going to set off a lot of litigation.

BROWN: Paula Reid, thanks so much. Wolf?

BLITZER: Excellent explanation. Thank you very, very much.

And we're also following other breaking news. Iran's foreign ministry now says it has sent a response to U.S. criticism of its latest plan to try to end the war, confirming it received corrective points and considerations from Pakistani mediators. President Trump rejected Iran's previous 14-point plan. He called it, and I'm quoting him now, totally unacceptable.

Joining us now, Republican Congressman Don Bacon of Nebraska. He serves on the Armed Services Committee. He's also retired -- a retired U.S. Air Force Brigadier General. Congressman, thanks so much for joining us. How hopeful are you that the war gets resolved --

REP. DON BACON (R-NE): Thank you Wolf.

BLITZER: -- and actually improves the situation in the Middle East?

BACON: We all want to see the war get resolved with Iran. However, it can't be where they're allowed to have a nuclear weapon or a nuclear capability five years from now or 10 years from now. That's the way ahead of the JCPOA. And so we have to ensure that we negotiate a good deal, a deal that will ensure that Iran never does get a nuclear weapon and threaten Israel, its neighbors, or the United States.

And I think we have to be clear. If Iran could have struck New York or Washington, D.C., they would have done it. And so they are a threat. We've got to limit those capabilities for the future. And there's no doubt that once we shake hands on any given deal, Russia and China will be right back in. Iran will help them rebuild their military. So we've got to ensure we do this right.

BLITZER: President Trump, as you know, has held off on deciding how to proceed with Iran during his recent state visit with the Chinese leader, Xi Jinping. In your view, Congressman, was that a missed opportunity or was it a strategically savvy decision?

BACON: Right now, Iran's will is not broken. And that's why I'm going to support an authorization, a limited authorization, to use more force. I don't know if the President wants to work that through Congress, but I think he should. But in the end, as long as Iran has this will to resist, to fight back, I think the history shows us over 47 years, they will not negotiate in good faith. They're just going to draw this out. So I believe that a military force will have to be used again in a limited way until they get the message that they need to not meet us halfway. They need to meet us like nine tenths of the way on our side of the field.

[11:20:17]

BLITZER: Several Republicans, as you know, on a separate issue, Congressman, several Republicans on the Armed Services Committee, including yourself, recently voiced frustration with the Trump administration over the Pentagon's decision to cancel a U.S. troop deployment to Poland, Poland, a NATO ally. Why is this change in plans so significant to you? And have you received any sort of explanation from the White House?

BACON: This concerns many Americans. It's a bipartisan concern. And it seems like it's a small minority position within the Pentagon that has the President's here to do this. And the vast majority of Republicans do not support it, let alone across the aisle with the Democrats. We have received no assurances from the White House or the Pentagon on what is going on here. They're being very secretive what this all means. And it's wrong. It's wrong to Congress. It's also wrong to our ally, Poland, who is a model ally. They spend roughly 4.8 percent of their GDP on defense, significantly more than we do.

And they've been leading the way and doing the things that we've been asking. And this is what concerns, in a bipartisan way, members of the committee. Earlier, when it was last year, the Pentagon decided to withdraw an armored brigade from Romania. There's three brigades that were forward deployed. So that took us down to two. Now they're not going to replace the brigade in Poland.

So that takes us down to one. So they've removed two out of three, or in the process of removing two out of three of these armored brigades. It sends a terrible message to Russia. They're giving zero concessions while we're unilaterally withdrawing forces from Eastern Europe. This causes grave concern to Poland, who count on this brigade as a deterrence. Also causes great concern to Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, who are on the front lines and very vulnerable.

If we're going to pull armored brigades out of Eastern Europe, there should be concessions from Russia. To do this unilaterally, it looks weak. And the way it was done with no warning to Poland, it's also embarrassing. I know the chairman of the committee is angered about this and will probably put more restrictions in the NDAA to prevent these kinds of things happening in the future. We shouldn't have to do this, but they're forcing our hand.

BLITZER: What's the argument those at the Pentagon and the administration are making to limit the U.S. military involvement in Poland?

BACON: Well, they're claiming they've done an analysis, that they're not needed. But it's the vast majority in the Armed Services Committee disagree. Russia has invaded Ukraine, right? It's proven itself to be a threat. They've been threatening Estonia in recent weeks, putting more forces on the border. And you just got to look at what will happen if, let's say, Ukraine falls. Moldova will definitely be the next country to fall, perhaps Georgia. General Petraeus recently said the Baltics will probably be attacked because Russians don't believe in America's resolve here.

So we got a real issue in our hand. And part of providing confidence to our allies is to have these three, four deployed armored brigades, because if Russia does invade, they know they're attacking Americans, and this creates deterrence. By withdrawing them, it makes Eastern Europe and NATO and actually United States in the long run more vulnerable. They're not making a case, Wolf, that's the problem.

BLITZER: Poland is right next to Ukraine, too. It's a significant, strategically important country, as we all know. On the domestic front, Congressman Louisiana Senator Bill Cassidy became the first Republican senator this weekend to lose his primary in nearly a decade. I want to play some of his concession speech. Listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. BILL CASSIDY (R-LA): It is the welfare of my people and my state and my country and our Constitution to which I am loyal. And if someone doesn't understand that and attempts to control others through using the levers of power, they're about serving themselves. They're not about serving us. And that person is not qualified to be a leader.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: Senator Cassidy voted to convict President Trump in his second impeachment trial and faced the Trump-endorsed challenger in his primary race. What do you take away from his loss?

BACON: Well, the President has a lot of leverage in the primaries. There's no doubt. He did come after me in 2022. I was able to prevail. But for the most part, the President has had tremendous success in the primaries. The problem is it doesn't translate one-for-one anyway in the general election. Right now, I saw polling today where he's at 37 percent and the generic polling showing the Democrats are up about 11 points. That is a recipe for a very hard November for my party. And what I think most voters want is they like a lot of the President's policies, but they don't want a rubber stamp.

[11:25:21]

They want some checks and balances, as the Constitution put us there for that purpose. And right now, they're not really seeing that checks and balance. They're seeing sort of a yes-man mentality. And I think that will hurt us. You know, Senator Cassidy, I have a lot of respect for. I hate to see him lose. I also know Julia Letlow. I think she's a great congressman from Louisiana. But I do think the President wants blind loyalty in Congress from Republicans.

He's not the only President to have demanded this in the past. But I don't think it works for him in the long run. Some independent thinking and feedback would make him stronger. And I believe if Congress would step in more on tariffs and on Ukraine, our favorables would be much higher.

BLITZER: Very quickly, before I let you go, Congressman, I want to ask you about this reported $1.8 billion fund, taxpayer money that the Trump administration is setting up to try to compensate those who believe they were subject to unfair Department of Justice investigations under previous administrations. Do you have any concerns about who could receive money from this fund?

BACON: I think the whole thing stinks. It looks terrible. I wouldn't advise it. There's got to be some kind of legal arbitrator if this does occur. So it doesn't look like it's the administration negotiating with the administration on how much money is going to be paid out. That would look terrible. I think it doesn't look good at all, Wolf, and I wouldn't advise it.

BLITZER: All right, good point. Congressman Don Bacon, thanks as usual for joining us.

BACON: Thank you.

BLITZER: Pamela?

BROWN: All right, Wolf, coming up here in The Situation Room. First in the Situation Room, the head of Volvo, one-on-one, and where he says cars are headed. We'll be right back. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)