Return to Transcripts main page
CNN's The Arena with Kasie Hunt
New: White House Says Trump "Stands By" Hegseth Amid Controversies; Exclusive: Signalgate Report Says Hegseth Risked Endangering Troops; House Dems Release Pictures & Video Of "Epstein Island"; Dem Rep. Henry Cuellar: No Deal With Trump For Pardon. Aired 4-5p ET
Aired December 03, 2025 - 16:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN HOST: -- raccoon that we've done.
[16:00:04]
And look at this little guy. He knows how to have a little time.
(LAUGHTER)
SANCHEZ: Let he who has not crashed through the roof of a liquor store and wound up just like that, cast the first stone.
BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: That's right. Let's go now to THE ARENA WITH KASIE HUNT.
(MUSIC)
KASIE HUNT, CNN HOST: Hi, everyone. I'm Kasie Hunt. Welcome to THE ARENA. It's wonderful to have you with us on this Wednesday.
The hits just keep on coming. But President Trump is standing by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, even as Hegseth comes under immense pressure on multiple fronts. CNN has exclusively learned that an internal Pentagon investigation found that Secretary Hegseth risked endangering American troops by sharing sensitive military information in a group chat on Signal.
That's according to four sources familiar with a classified inspector general's report. An unclassified version set to be released to the public tomorrow. This afternoon, the White House said in a statement, quote, "President Trump stands by Secretary Hegseth".
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REPORTER: Why were those details shared on Signal? And how did you learn that a journalist was privy to the targets, the types of weapons used?
PETE HEGSETH, DEFENSE SECRETARY: I've heard, I've heard that was characterized. Nobody was texting war plans. And that's all I have to say about that. Thank you.
(END VIDEO CLIP) HUNT: That was Secretary Hegseth back in March, shortly after a journalist was inadvertently added to a signal group chat featuring top Trump national security officials.
In it, Hegseth shared these texts describing the timeline for an upcoming attack on Yemen's Houthi rebels, including the note that at exactly 2:15 p.m., quote, "This is when the first bombs will definitely drop," end quote.
At the very same time, Hegseth is facing new questions over a so- called double tap strike on an alleged drug boat. Yesterday, Hegseth denied ordering the second strike, which sources say killed survivors on the damaged vessel. Tomorrow. The man, he says, gave that order, Special Operations commander, Admiral Frank "Mitch" Bradley, will meet with the leaders of the Senate Intelligence Committee to provide his side of the story.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. MARK WARNER (D-VA): I want to hear from Admiral Bradley. I think he will tell us the truth clearly. You -- you've had a -- if I don't know what -- this isn't a 180 from where Hegseth initially said all of these stories were false to then two days later being saying, well, they're not false, but it wasn't me.
SEN. RAND PAUL (R-KY): I don't like the secretary of defense blaming on, on a military commander. These commands came from him, and I think the buck stops with him.
SEN. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL (D-CT): Pete Hegseth says he has Admiral Bradley's back. He has Bradley's back just enough to push him under the bus.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: All right. Let's get off the sidelines. Head into THE ARENA.
My panel is here.
We also are joined by CNN's senior reporter, Zachary Cohen, who broke this exclusive Hegseth Signalgate reporting today.
Zach, walk us through what else your sources have told you about this report.
ZACHARY COHEN, CNN SENIOR REPORTER: The report itself is still classified, but sources are telling me and our colleague Jake Tapper, that the inspector general came to the same conclusion that many U.S. officials that we talked to before the report was finished also came to. And that is that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth risked compromising sensitive military information that could have endangered American troops and jeopardized the mission objectives that were at hand that in back in March, when this operation targeting the Houthis in Yemen was ongoing.
And look, these are messages that the I.G. also confirmed came from a document that was marked classified at the time that Hegseth shared the information in that signal group chat that also contains other top Trump officials, like CIA director John Ratcliffe, for example. Look, the repercussions of all of this, though, still are pretty murky. The inspector general did acknowledge that Hegseth, as secretary of defense, has pretty broad declassification authority.
And we're told by our sources that Hegseth told the inspector general that he made an operational decision in the moment to declassify this, though its interesting because the inspector general report apparently does not or reflects that there was no documentation to show that Hegseth made that decision. So, there's still a lot of questions here. And ultimately, I think the biggest one is what does this mean to the person who in this world matters the most? And that's President Donald Trump.
As you mentioned, Hegseth, not just grappling with the fallout from this inspector general report, but also the ongoing controversy around those boat strikes in the Caribbean, and the issue of Signal has also been something that has frustrated White House officials for months now. And not everybody believes Hegseth is the right man for the job. So, we'll have to see ultimately what this means for him and his status going forward.
As you mentioned, the White House saying in a statement that Trump is standing by Hegseth.
[16:05:01]
Sean Parnell, the Pentagon spokesperson, claiming in a statement hours after we published our reporting that the inspector general report exonerates Hegseth and that the matter is now closed. With all due respect, Sean, that's not really his call in this case. It really is up to one man, Donald Trump himself. So we'll see what happens. But really, some interesting revelations here.
HUNT: All right. Zach Cohen, thanks very much for that reporting, sir. Really appreciate it.
My panel is here, CNN political analyst, investigative reporter at "The New York Times", David Fahrenthold, CNN political commentator, Republican strategist and pollster. Kristen Soltis Anderson, CNN political commentator, former director of public affairs at the DOJ, Xochitl Hinojosa, and former communications director during the Trump administration, Mike Dubke.
We're also joined by the former NATO supreme allied commander, General Wesley Clark.
General, thank you so much for being here. I do want to start with you.
The idea that the secretary of defense put in a chat on a commercial app that a journalist was inadvertently added to at exactly what time bombs were going to drop. What, in your view, are the implications of doing that GEN. WESLEY CLARK (RET.), FORMER NATO SUPREME ALLIED COMMANDER: Well,
there were several mistakes here in handling the data. First of all, there was the people on the chat had no need to know any of these details. And secondly, we had somebody on the chat, a reporter who certainly wasn't intended to be on the chat. A third, when you use a commercial phone, you have to understand that if you're in a prominent position like secretary of defense, that potential adversaries have your number, they're monitoring it.
They may or may not be able to break Signal. It depends on what resources they commit to it. They may or may not have injected some kind of malware on your phone. We don't know if his phone was cleaned or not.
So, there are all these elements create risk. And the information of course was very sensitive information as to exact timing of the -- of the strikes. And so if you were an adversary and you passed it to the target, they would alert their radars, have everything standing by, and you could see that that's a risk.
Now, is it a great risk? Did it happen? We don't have any indication that they broke it, that anybody was listening to it. But it's a failure to follow sound procedures for handling very sensitive classified information.
HUNT: Sir, we've seen in the last couple of days the president and the secretary of defense naming the admiral that was involved in the double tap strike in Venezuela. If someone in a position like that, admiral, someone in the armed forces were to do something like what Secretary Hegseth did in this Signal chat, use this commercial device, put this specific information in it, what would the consequences be for that individual?
CLARK: Probably someone would know it. Someone would report it up the channels into the intelligence system. And he would -- he would probably receive some kind of warning or reprimand, probably wouldn't be fired from the first time he did it, but he certainly it would certainly be a black mark against him.
And you just don't expect a senior person to make these kinds of mistakes. People have been in the military for a long time who've been around this. They know exactly how to deal with classified information. They don't do things like this.
So, it's that simple. And this admiral would never have done that. Neither would a general. Neither would a colonel. They all told not to do this. They wouldn't do it.
HUNT: That is the perfect segue to the political piece of this conversation, David Fahrenthold, because, of course, one of the major criticisms that critics of Hegseth have had is that he does not have the kind of experience that a typical defense secretary comes to the table with. But that does not seem to be, at least at this writing, facing President Trump.
DAVID FAHRENTHOLD, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: It's hard to know the thing that we learn about both these things, the controversy over what happened in Venezuela and the Signalgate is something about his character. What kind of person is he is somebody who takes command and takes responsibility, which he should, because he's in a pretty prominent position. And Signalgate, you can see this sort of insecurity coming through those texts like, hey guys, you'll never guess what I got. I know just when the bombs are going to drop. Who says that?
And especially who says that if you're the defense secretary. The same thing with this admiral. Either the admiral did what Hegseth wanted, in which case Hegseth stands behind him, stands behind those orders, or he didn't, in which case he's in trouble, sort of leaving it ambiguous.
And in shoving the admiral out to take the flak, it seems like a real abdication of responsibility, which is that he's in charge. He gives the orders and he controls. He controls what's happening at the Pentagon.
HUNT: Mike Dubke, I mean, at what point does the White House say enough is enough when it comes to --
MIKE DUBKE, FORMER TRUMP WHITE HOUSE COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR: In many ways, this is a very typical Washington scandal. You know, you've got the charges.
HUNT: Is it though? Is it? It is like the secretary of defense on Signal with a reporter, 2:15, the bombs are dropping.
(CROSSTALK)
[16:10:00]
DUBKE: Okay. You counter that right after. I think it's typical in the sense of in the -- in the way that you've got a -- an official who says one thing and the media is going after and going after, and drip, drip, drip. We got Signalgate, we've got the second strike, we've got all of these things happening and you've got an administration that needs to decide, do we stand by this person or do we give up on them and go through a litany of Senate confirmation?
HUNT: Sorry, we have some breaking news here. The president is speaking and we have to listen in. Let's watch.
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Thank you. If you look at our numbers, the drugs coming in through sea are down 91 percent. I'm surprised there's 9 percent. I don't know who's doing the 9 percent, but it's down 91. And we're going to start very soon on land. And I'm sure you're thrilled to hear that.
REPORTER: On Ukraine -- on Ukraine, Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner were there last night with Vladimir Putin. Can you give us an update about those talks? It sounds from what the Kremlin is saying, that they're not going to compromise. Can you tell us what you've --
TRUMP: I don't know what the Kremlin's doing. I can tell you that they had a reasonably good meeting with President Putin. We're going to find out.
It's a war that should have never been started. It's a war. If I were president, we had a rigged election. If I were president, that war would have never happened. It's a terrible thing.
But I thought they had a very good meeting yesterday with President Putin. We'll see what happens. It's, you know, when I was in this office and I talked to you about no cards, I said, you have no cards.
That was the time to settle. I thought that would have been a much better time to settle. But they, in their wisdom, decided not to do that. They have a lot of things against them right now, but you have President Putin had a very good meeting yesterday with Jared Kushner and with Steve Witkoff. What comes out of that meeting? I can't tell you because it does take two to tango.
You know, Ukraine -- I think we have something pretty well worked out with them. Very satisfied, considering. But the sad part is, if I were president, no war would have ever happened. They would have had 100 percent of their territory. Nothing would have happened. It's a -- it's a very sad situation.
So, think of this. Last month, 27,000 soldiers, 27. That's like you take a stadium, a football stadium, not an arena, and you cut it in half, 27,000 people died young, mostly young soldiers died last month, in one month.
And that's the only reason I'm involved. You know, we're not spending any money in the war. We're selling to NATO. We're not being ripped off like we were under Biden. Biden was handing everybody everything we had, giving us, giving them all the missiles, everything they wanted, free, no charge, just he had no idea what he was doing.
They're paying top dollar, full price for everything goes to NATO, and then NATO distributes it. NATO pays us.
So, we're not -- it's not money. We would all I think I can speak for everyone behind here. The politicians I know and the auto manufacturers are good people. They don't want to see 27,000 people die for no reason whatsoever. And that's the only reason I'm trying to help.
Yeah, please.
REPORTER: Mr. President, switching to Venezuela for a second. Have you checked back with President Maduro? I mean, is your pressure campaign working, and do you think -- well, how's your responding to demand that he leave the country?
TRUMP: It's not pressure campaign. It's much beyond that, I think. But I spoke to him briefly, just told him a couple of things. We'll see what happens with that.
Venezuela sends us drugs, but Venezuela sends us people that they shouldn't be sending. They sent us. They emptied their prisons into our country. They sent us killers, murderers. They sent us drug dealers at the highest level.
They sent us gang members. They sent us people from their mental institutions. They emptied their mental institutions into our country.
And so did other countries, because we had stupid people running this country -- really stupid people. And I think probably some stupid ones, and yet some smart ones. But there were bad people, too, because nobody -- not all of them were stupid. You can't cheat on elections like they did and be stupid, okay?
REPORTER: Mr. President, if you --
(CROSSTALK)
REPORTER: You talk to him a second time or just that one time?
TRUMP: What's that?
REPORTER: President Maduro, did you speak to him again?
TRUMP: No, I didn't.
REPORTER: Mr. President, if you do find --
REPORTER: When you spoke with Mr. Witkoff and with Mr. Kushner --
TRUMP: Last night.
REPORTER: Last night, did they give you the sense that President Putin still wants to end the war, still wants to make peace?
TRUMP: He would like to end the war. That's what they -- that was their impression. Now, whether or not, you know, that was your impression. You know, their impression was that they'd like to see -- he would like to see the war ended.
I think he'd like to get back to dealing a more normal life. I think he'd like to be trading with the United States of America, frankly, instead of, you know, losing thousands of soldiers a week. But their impression was very strongly that he'd like to make a deal. We'll see what happens.
[16:15:00]
REPORTER: Mr. President, the boat strike, if it is found that survivors were actually killed while clinging on to that boat, should Secretary Hegseth, Admiral Bradley or others be punished?
TRUMP: I think you're going to find that this is war, that these people were killing our people by the millions, actually, if you look over a few years. I think last year, we lost close to 300,000 people were killed. That's not mentioning all the families. Have you seen what happens with the families of not only the people killed, the people that are trying to get their son or their daughter off of this poison that they've been fed? I think you're going to find that there's a very receptive ear to
doing exactly what they're doing, taking out those boats. And very soon, we're going to start doing it on land, too, because we know every route, we know every house, we know where they manufacture this crap, we know where they put it all together. And I think you're going to see it very soon on land also.
Yeah, please?
REPORTER: So, to be clear, you support the decision to kill survivors after the --
TRUMP: No. I support the decision to knock out the boats and whoever is piloting those boats, most of them are gone. But whoever are piloting those boats, they're guilty of trying to kill people in our country.
Yeah, please?
REPORTER: The House Judiciary Committee has subpoenaed Jack Smith to ask about his investigation of you. I wondered for a deposition. I wondered if you'd prefer to see that as a hearing. So that the American public can see the questions and the responses more easily.
TRUMP: I'd rather see it probably at a hearing. Look, Jack Smith is a thug. He's a failed prosecutor.
He's a bad man. He's a bad -- he's an evil man. He hurt a lot of people.
Forget about me. You know, I do this stuff, but I got indicted many times by a guy that -- they were dismissed. He's a bad guy. He's a sick man. There's something wrong with him, actually.
I think Jack Smith is a sick man. There's something really wrong with him. I'd rather see him testify publicly, because there's no way he can answer the questions.
But Biden knew this was going along. Kamala knew it was going along. And there's a lot of things happening right now that they don't like. One of the things is the autopen everything. He signed almost with the exception of the pardon of his wonderful son, Hunter, one -- just about everything he signed was not signed by him. He had no knowledge of it. He didn't know what it was.
People sitting around the beautiful, resolute desk knew exactly what it was. And those people are guilty, in my opinion, of a major crime. Everything that was signed by that autopen, he -- the man operating the autopen. And I'm sure there are more than one, because I think some of the people can operate it themselves. Some of the high-level people operated themselves.
They would just go in and sign his name with an autopen onto very important documents, not only pardons, but policy, maybe CAFE standards, okay, as an example, who signed CAFE? If you ask Biden, what's a CAFE standard, he would have absolutely no
idea. He'd say, where's the cafe located? The guy didn't know anything.
Look, that just shows you what a rigged election can be. But you understand what I'm saying. Thank you.
(CROSSTALK)
REPORTER: You had conversations --
TRUMP: I did with Jensen.
REPORTER: Right. So --
TRUMP: Smart man.
REPORTER: In your conversations with him, have you kind of given a sense of where you are with export controls and the types of chips that Nvidia can give to China?
TRUMP: Sure. He knows. He knows very well. He's a -- he's done an amazing job. Nvidia, very good. Yeah?
REPORTER: Mr. President, when do you expect for phase two of the Gaza peace plan to be implemented? And --
TRUMP: Well, it's going along well. You know they had a problem today. I understand with a bomb that went off and hurt some people pretty badly. Probably killed some people. They're telling me, just happened.
But it's going very well. We have peace in the Middle East. People don't realize it. We have tremendous support, 59 countries. There's tremendous support. But we'll -- phase two is moving along. Yeah, it's going to happen pretty soon.
REPORTER: Mr. President, Mr. President, did you speak with House Republicans --
HUNT: All right. We have been listening to the president there taking questions from reporters. We are going to continue to monitor that.
But a couple of the things that he walked through there, perhaps chief among them, he was asked whether he would release the video that shows this so-called double tap strike on this alleged drug boat that, of course, would, if it exists, perhaps show the killing of survivors.
Now, here's what the president said. He said, quote, "I don't know what they have, but whatever they have, we'd certainly release. No problem."
So that seems like a commitment to release a video that he would not confirm, does or does not exist. He was also asked if he supports the decision to kill survivors in a second strike against that boat. He said he supports the decision to knock out boats, something sort of bypassing kind of that initial question.
Kristen Soltis Anderson, what do you take away from the way the president is handling this? Because he is being pretty careful in how he is addressing, saying what he would or wouldn't do and, who -- around especially who gave these orders.
KRISTEN SOLTIS ANDERSON, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: I mean, it feels to me like he has been advised by someone on his senior team that this is not something that you mess around with, that these allegations are very serious, that this does constitute if it is as was described in the reporting, would be a pretty serious breach of norms. And it's the sort of thing that you can see.
He's normally a little bit reckless in how he approaches things. Its clear somebody on his team has told him this is really serious, Mr. President, you need to tread carefully here.
HUNT: Yeah.
XOCHITL HINOJOSA, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: That's right. Well, and also at the White House briefing yesterday, you saw Karoline Leavitt also walk the line, read from a transcript or read from something that probably the lawyers gave her because there are legal ramifications here.
What could end up happening is I think there are several routes here. One, Congress has said that they are going to do oversight. There will be a video. I'm sure there's video. It will be produced to Congress. I would think so.
There will also -- hopefully, there's an inspector general investigation around this. One thing that I was keeping my eye on when the inspector general report actually is released on Signalgate. One thing that the inspector general could do is refer to the Justice Department for prosecution on the classified docs matter, or if they believe that there was a war crime committed, the Justice Department can prosecute when it comes to war crimes. If they believe that there was enough evidence there to show that they killed -- willfully killed someone who was hanging on the boat, et cetera, based on the video.
So, I think that is why the White House is being very careful. Whether or not the Justice Department will prosecute their own, I think is a different question. And I think in a normal justice department, they would, but I'm not sure about this one.
HUNT: Mike Dubke, how big of a problem do you think that this is for the White House broadly and then for Pete Hegseth specifically?
DUBKE: So, coming back to why I was saying typical is because this until the president decides to give up on Hegseth, he's going to be there. Theres too many other things that are too difficult to do in the Senate. If you have to go through a confirmation hearing, the problem the White House has right now is that they've got a Senate and a House that doesn't trust its own Pentagon, that Hegseth has lost Republicans, Democrats and Republicans on Capitol Hill from his actions and also the actions of the policy secretary and others. And that's what they need to navigate. And that's the difficulty for
the White House.
HUNT: All right. General Wesley Clark, who's been standing by and hanging out with us throughout this, thank you very much. The rest of our panel is going to stand by.
Coming up next in THE ARENA, the top Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee will be here live. Senator Jack Reed reacts to our exclusive reporting on the investigation amid growing bipartisan outrage over another action involving Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. And of course, that's what we have been talking about, that controversial September 2nd boat strike in the Caribbean.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. RAND PAUL (R-KY): Their latest explanation is they weren't blowing up the people. They were blowing up the boat. If those darn people were just wouldn't cling to the wreckage, they would be fine.
So, if they're swimming, they're okay, we won't bomb them. But if they're clinging to the wreckage, we're bombing the boats, and we have every right to bomb boats. That's ridiculous.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:28:03]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MANU RAJU, CNN CHIEF CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Do you have concerns about the secretary's leadership right now with all these controversies? This the Caribbean boat strikes Ukraine. Do you have concerns about his leadership?
SEN. ROGER WICKER (R-MS): Well, we're continuing to get the facts. But based on this particular allegation, which is now several months old, I think the secretary is in a pretty good position on that.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: That was the Senate Armed Services chairman, Republican Roger Wicker, declining to tell our Manu Raju if he has confidence in the secretary of defense, Pete Hegseth, amid several high profile controversies. Of course, that follow up strike on an alleged drug boat back in September.
Just a few minutes ago in the Oval Office, President Trump says he would support the release of a video of that second strike. If such a video does exist. Separately, there are also new revelations from an inspector general report on the highly sensitive war plans that Hegseth shared in a Signal group chat with his wife and a journalist back in March. That inspector general report was sent to Congress for review last
night. An unclassified version is set to be released to the public tomorrow.
Joining us now, Democratic senator from Rhode Island, Jack Reed. He is the top Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee.
Senator, thank you so much for joining us.
SEN. JACK REED (D-RI): Well, thank you.
HUNT: Let's start with this Signalgate report. Have you seen the report? Did Secretary Hegseth endanger the lives of American troops?
REED: Well, I've seen the report. It's still classified. But what is emerging in the press are suggestions -- more than suggestions. Statements by people that, in fact, he did endanger troops. And regardless of the report, I think that was the case.
I think he demonstrated extremely poor judgment talking about very sensitive information on a non-classified system signal about pending attacks.
[16:30:02]
And the result could have been and the danger was there that American servicemen and women could be killed in action. That is the worst thing a secretary of defense can do. It shows again, his poor judgment. And anyone else, I think would be charged with a criminal offense if they did that.
HUNT: Do you think he should be charged with a criminal offense?
REED: That is going to be up to the, authorities. And I don't think, given the fact the president is the ultimate authority, that that will happen. But we've seen instances where classified information was misused by people and they were convicted of that misuse, and they served time in prison.
And, you know, this is along those same lines, but ultimately, it's about poor judgment and about jeopardizing the troops. And that's what he did.
HUNT: Do you think he should resign?
REED: I did not support his nomination in the first place. And I was very, very blunt and very candid. I didn't think he had the competence, the temperament, the experience to run the Department of Defense. And I think he's proven my observations correct over the last several months.
HUNT: Do you think he's reckless with the lives of our service members?
REED: I think so. I think he has a sense that -- you know, soldiers are sort of sort of bit players in his big drama about making the military lethal and all those things. And he what he forgets is that, you know, the American soldier is always represented, first, defense of the constitution, not individuals. Second, to conduct themselves in a way that follows the law of war and appropriately so. And we do that for self-interest, because if we don't respect the law, how can we expect opponents of ours to treat our prisoners or wounded or those that are not -- no longer hostile, how to treat them fairly and according to the law?
HUNT: So, speaking of the law of war, there are, of course, has been so much focus on this second strike that reportedly killed survivors of a previous strike on an alleged drug boat. Both Hegseth, the defense secretary, and the president have talked about Admiral Bradley as the man who was executing, giving and having his men execute these orders.
Do you on the armed services committee expect to hear from Admiral Bradley?
REED: Yes, we do. Hopefully. Very shortly, perhaps even tomorrow. And we have obviously a long list of questions about what exactly happened.
We have been requesting on a bipartisan basis. And I must commend Chairman Wicker because he recognizes the necessity to get this information so we can do our jobs. But we've requested for months information about the execution orders, about the operating techniques, what exactly happened, the release of the full videos detailing all the events, not just selected snippets of the activities.
And they've refused. And in many cases, they're refusing to give this information that by law, we are entitled to.
HUNT: So, the president just seemed to say that if the video exists, he'll put it out. You're saying you've asked for it. They won't give it to you.
REED: We've asked repeatedly for it. They won't give it to us. Maybe at this point they feel they have to.
But I think again, if this video showed an operation that exonerated their position, it would have been out in minutes and they would have, you know, attacked the media for fraudulent stories, et cetera, and showed the video holding it suggests to me and we'll see that there's something on there that they don't want the public to see and the Congress to see.
HUNT: If this did happen, this second strike, who should be held accountable, and what should the consequences be?
REED: Well, the Secretary Hegseth has said from the very beginning that he was in charge of these strikes. He was directing them. He was, you know, he was taking great pride standing next to the president about the effectiveness and about how the lethality of the strikes, et cetera., the operational commander was Admiral Bradley. But when you get to a situation like this, there's a duty to, as my colleagues like Mark Kelly and Senator Slotkin have said, not to follow illegal orders.
So, you can't give an illegal order. And that might have emanated from Hegseth, I don't know, but you certainly can't follow an illegal order. And if that was done, then Admiral Bradley might be in in that line, presumably.
[16:35:03]
And others might be also, because it's the obligation of every member of the armed forces to resist an illegal order.
HUNT: All right. Senator Jack Reed, very grateful for your time today, sir.
REED: Thanks.
HUNT: It's great to have a conversation. Thank you.
All right. Coming up next here in THE ARENA, never before seen pictures and video from that infamous island of Jeffrey Epstein's. What House Democrats say they show as lawmakers demand an update from the A.G. over the release of the case files. Plus, deal or no deal, what a Texas congressman is telling CNN after his federal bribery indictment is wiped away today by a presidential pardon
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
RAJU: What were you conversations like with the White House ahead of this pardon?
REP. HENRY CUELLAR (D-TX): I just saw it right now.
RAJU: Huh?
CUELLAR: I just saw it right now. I didn't know that this was coming.
RAJU: You didn't talk to the president or the White House at all?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
HUNT: All right, welcome back.
Today, new movement on several fronts of the Jeffrey Epstein story. Earlier this morning, Democrats on the House Oversight Committee released new photographs and videos of Jeffrey Epstein's opulent private island provided to the committee by the attorney general for the U.S. Virgin Islands where Epstein's property was located. The island, of course, was the place where, according to his accusers, Epstein brought girls as young as 11.
The disclosure coming two weeks after President Trump signed legislation to force the release of Epstein files. Today, a bipartisan group of lawmakers requested the attorney general, Pam Bondi, brief them on the status of the Department of Justice's efforts to release those files.
The Justice Department has a total of 30 days to do so.
Joining me now in THE ARENA to discuss, Democratic congressman from Illinois, Raja Krishnamoorthi. He sits on the House Oversight Committee, which has released these documents.
Congressman, thank you so much for being here.
I want to start with these pictures that the committee has released. One photo shows a blackboard and some of the words on it, power, deception, plots, political. What do you know about what's on that blackboard and what else we have learned from these images you've obtained?
REP. RAJA KRISHNAMOORTHI (D-IL): We're still trying to get our arms around these photos, trying to understand and make sense of what's going on. But suffice it to say that those words that you had mentioned evoke kind of the darkest kind of suspicions about what happened on that island and in Jeffrey Epsteins home.
Look, Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell in my book are monsters. They perpetrated, perpetrated this child sex trafficking ring against more than 1,000 victims. And those girls have now become middle aged women, and they still have not had justice for the crimes that were perpetrated against them. So that's in part why I think people are resolved to get to the bottom of what happened.
That's why we're going after these files. That's why we're sharing these files with the public as well as these images. And we're going to continue to until we do justice for these survivors and find out how we prevent this from ever happening again.
HUNT: Let me ask you about some of the redactions that our viewers will see. There's a photo of the phone -- of Epstein's phone, apparently. And then you can see on this blackboard right now, there are some redactions. Did Democrats decide what to redact here? How were those decisions made? And what is being concealed?
KRISHNAMOORTHI: Well, what I understand is what I understand that we tried to basically, conceal or redact any information that would lead to someone's personal identifiable information or that somehow would expose victims or survivors who have already been traumatized. That's generally the rule that has governed the redactions on our side.
HUNT: And are you comfortable with the way these redactions were made? Because it will likely generate questions.
KRISHNAMOORTHI: I'm comfortable. Obviously, you know, as we kind of continue with the investigation, lawmakers on both sides will be able to view the materials in an unredacted form if they have further questions, and they should be able to ask further questions on top of the ones that might emerge right now. But I think that at the bottom of the -- at the end of this particular day, I think that we have to make sure that we share as much information as we possibly can with the public, because they have a right to know. They need to know exactly what's in the files and what are in these images.
HUNT: Can you tell us any more about additional material you may have? Is there more material that Democrats on the committee have received that the public has not yet seen? And can you characterize that for us? As a general matter.
KRISHNAMOORTHI: I think the biggest trove of documents that were going through right now are the financial records that have been disclosed by these institutions. There were more than $1 billion in transactions in this particular sex trafficking scheme, and we need to follow the money. We need to be able to know who paid whom for what.
And so that set of documents needs to be gone through right now and then released to the public as well.
[16:45:01]
But I think that that is potentially the most fruitful area of further investigation at this point.
HUNT: Do you think that those financial documents might implicate some banner names who worked at those banks, for example?
KRISHNAMOORTHI: Possibly. I think that we should, you know, basically look at not only, you know, who in the scheme may have been initiating and receiving the money, but why is it that these financial institutions allowed for these transactions to happen in the first place? You and I have to jump through all kinds of hoops through their know your customer obligations to even open a checking account.
And yet these transactions happen willy nilly without anybody knowing the purpose of the transactions or the destination, or who initiated them. That just it just stretches, you know, the bounds of credulity, in my opinion.
HUNT: How would you characterize -- how are you feeling about how your Republican counterparts on the committee are interacting with this information? Do you feel like they are also committed to transparency?
KRISHNAMOORTHI: I think so, for the most part, I think that a lot of them, at least in private, express the same concerns that I do. And, you know, when we met with these survivors, I think that really did make a change in terms of people's attitude and approach to this whole situation. There were real people that had been affected, real lives that had been forever traumatized.
And I think -- I feel that that infuses the work that were doing right now on a bipartisan basis.
HUNT: And finally, sir, Ghislaine Maxwell, of course, the longtime associate of Jeffrey Epstein, now serving time in prison, is petitioning for her release. What is your response to that?
KRISHNAMOORTHI: No way. No how. I actually have a resolution that would basically call for the president not to give any form of clemency, any leniency to Ghislaine maxwell. She is a monster, as far as I'm concerned.
What she did in hurting so many people forever. And she should not be given any leniency in her sentence. And I'm continuing to ask people to join to join my resolution against any kind of pardon or clemency or any leniency.
HUNT: All right. Congressman Raja Krishnamoorthi, thank you very much for your time today, sir. I really appreciate it.
KRISHNAMOORTHI: Thank you so much.
HUNT: All right. Coming up next is a House Democrat really thinking about switching parties? What that congressman and leaders are saying about that possibility after today's presidential pardon?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. HAKEEM JEFFRIES (D-NY): I think Congressman Cuellar is a highly valued member of the House Democratic Caucus, and I expect that he'll continue to remain a highly valued member of the House Democratic Caucus.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:52:33]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REPORTER: Are you concerned that you made a vulnerable Democrat, perhaps less vulnerable with that decision?
TRUMP: It didn't matter. It was a -- he's a respected person. He was treated very badly because he said that people should not be allowed to pour into our country. And he was right. He got indicted for speaking the truth.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: President Trump just a few minutes ago, defending his decision to pardon Texas Democratic Congressman Henry Cuellar. Cuellar and his wife were indicted last year for allegedly accepting more than half a million dollars in bribes from an Azerbaijani oil and gas company and a Mexican bank.
In announcing the pardon, the president blamed former President Joe Biden for, quote, weaponizing the justice department. Cuellar insisted he made no deal, backroom or otherwise, with the president or the White House.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
RAJU: What were your conversations like with the White House ahead of this pardon?
CUELLAR: I just saw it right now.
RAJU: Huh?
CUELLAR: I just saw it right now. I didn't know that this was coming.
RAJU: You didn't talk to the president or the White House at all?
CUELLAR: Well, I'll -- I'm going to go to the White House Christmas party next week. And I will thank the president personally.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: The congressman, who has denied any wrongdoing, wasted no time in officially filing for reelection today as a Democrat. Joining our panel in THE ARENA, CNN contributor, "New York Times" journalist, host of "The Interview", Lulu Garcia-Navarro.
Lulu, does the president -- would the president ever do anything like this without expecting anything in return?
LULU GARCIA-NAVARRO, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Absolutely not. He is the fairy godmother of pardons, and he does this out of the warmth of his own heart. He sees a Democrat like Representative Cuellar, and he just wants to help, Kasie.
No, of course he wants something in return. We just don't know what it is.
HUNT: David, you cover this stuff all the time, hmm?
FAHRENTHOLD: Yeah. This is so much like the Eric Adams situation earlier this year. Trump, in that case, wanted Eric Adams help. And letting immigration officials come and arrest people in New York. In this case probably he wants to switch parties. And Cuellar already represents an area that went for Trump in the last election. So he's already perhaps on the fence.
He's looking for somebody to shore up the House Republicans majority. And I wouldn't be surprised if Cuellar is open to it.
HUNT: Because they're frankly, at risk of potentially even losing their majority before the midterm elections if things were to go south in the wrong way.
Xochitl, what do you know about what it was that Cuellar was indicted for?
[16:55:05]
I mean, what the what the problems were that he was facing, what the president has wiped away here?
HINOJOSA: Yeah, absolutely. Full disclosure, my sister is running for governor of Texas, but I'm going to put my DOJ hat on here. And just flagging that, like the -- what happened here is this is a very serious case. This is the bread-and-butter Justice Department cases that the public integrity section used to handle, which is bribery, right? There were two allegations of bribery that he took $600,000, in this matter and that his wife was involved, too. So, this also applies to his wife. And --
HUNT: Which makes me wonder if anyone has called Bob Menendez?
HINOJOSA: Has anyone called Bob Menendez? But also what I -- what I would say this.
DUBKE: That seems paving this right now.
HINOJOSA: Exactly. And what I would say about this is that there is no public integrity section now, after the Eric Adams case, whenever they drop those charges, a lot of people quit, people have been fired, et cetera.
So, this is sending a clear message to anyone who is out there that white collar crime cases, or if you're an elected official who news flash, they sometimes commit crimes that you can do this and get away with it or get a pardon from Donald Trump later on. So, this doesn't send a good message when it comes to politicians and public corruption. Here is where we -- this is where were at.
DUBKE: All right. I'm going to go against the entire panel on this one and say that this has more to do with who made the accusation and the prosecution of the member than anything else. So, you may be right if --
HUNT: Explain.
DUBKE: If Joe Biden's Justice Department was the group that filed the charges against you, I think Donald Trump -- and lawfare is a real thing within this administration, and with Republicans, Donald Trump will take a good long look at your -- at your situation and think about a pardon. That is the -- that is the one --
HINOJOSA: I'm sorry, lawfare in this administration, you're saying there is lawfare in the last administration?
DUBKE: Absolutely.
HINOJOSA: Yeah. That is not true. Anyway, we --
DUBKE: Well, we can --
HINOJOSA: We indicted Republicans and Democrats and we investigated Joe Biden.
HUNT: So, let's I want to stick with the part in question for a second because you said, okay, he's taking a long, hard look. Let's put it up on the screen. The number of pardons that the last five presidents -- presidencies have seen. Okay?
George W. Bush, 189. Obama, 212, over the course of two terms; 144 pardons in President Trump's first term. Joe Biden, 80 pardons. I would note that the Hunter Biden pardon was an exceptional case that maybe deserves more than one entry on that list, but there you have it.
This time, President Trump, 1,500 pardons. Has he possibly had enough time in the day to look long and hard at --
DUBKE: I think we can --
HUNT: -- each 1,500 --
DUBKE: I think we can all agree that one month in a Trump presidency is like one year in a normal presidency.
HUNT: Well, his last presidency was more normal, 144 pardons.
DUBKE: Yes, but this is -- I mean, this president is moving at such a speed that 1,500 doesn't sound that.
GARCIA-NAVARRO: Oh, come on, come on.
DUBKE: Look --
GARCIA-NAVARRO: Listen, he is abusing the presidential pardon. He -- I mean, let's -- let's -- let's not even look at Cuellar and let's just look at the president, the former president of Honduras, who was drug trafficking to this country.
You know, the problem here is, is that this is completely not opaque. We don't know why he is giving these pardons. If there is some sort of quid pro quo. Is it just because he is moved that day?
And it does send a message that anyone who is in prison, including Ghislaine Maxwell, frankly, to bring in something that we were just talking about before, can go and ask for his blessing. So, you know, the presidential pardon has always been used extremely sparingly, as those numbers show. This is not reviewed in that way.
DUBKE: And I really am not trying to be flippant here, but if you want to draw a parallel through 15 -- very many of the 1,500, I think you're going to see the Biden DOJ --
GARCIA-NAVARRO: They're all criminals. You're right. They were all criminals.
HUNT: It's worth pointing out, a lot of them are related to January 6th.
DUBKE: Exactly, and that was the big chunk.
HUNT: I mean, that is -- that is part of why the number is as inflated as it is. But it does show --
DUBKE: The same through line.
HUNT: -- David, that -- I mean, that this is a power that this president is using in a way that we have not seen in recent memory?
FAHRENTHOLD: And I think the concern is that you're sending a message to people that there's two classes of people in this country. There's people who have something Donald Trump wants, and those people can do whatever they want. They can -- if they can commit a crime, they can get convicted of a crime, and they can get out.
And there's people who don't have something Donald Trump wants, and those people are going to face the same justice system. So that idea that there's a parallel justice system for the friends of the president and for everybody else is a very dangerous thing for people to start to believe about this country. It undermines faith in the federal government.
And the justice system more broadly, and put in more crass terms. I think it's a dangerous situation for Republicans and President Trump, to the sense that they're creating an unfair system that helps the president's friends and nobody else.
HUNT: There definitely is. I mean, one of the through lines, and especially the Epstein situation also, is this idea that Donald Trump, who was once seen as this populist who could you know, support the average -- average American, is now one of these powerful elites who separate out.
All right, guys, thank you so much for joining today. Always wonderful to have you.
Don't forget, you can now stream THE ARENA live. Catch up whenever you want in the CNN app. Just scan that QR code below. You can also catch up by listening to THE ARENA's podcast. You can also follow us on X and Instagram.
"THE LEAD WITH JAKE TAPPER" starts right now.
