Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Maduro Calls on Americans for Peace; Trump Briefed on Venezuela Options; Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-MA) is Interviewed about the Epstein Files; Poll on the Battle for Weed Legalization; Jim Higdon is Interviewed about Hemp Ban; Storm Hits Southern California. Aired 8:30-9a ET

Aired November 14, 2025 - 08:30   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[08:30:08]

JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: All right, this morning, a CNN exclusive. Venezuela's president, Nicolas Maduro, with a message for Americans as President Trump mulls potential military action inside Venezuela.

CNN contributor Stefano Pozzebon is in Caracas with the latest.

Good morning, Stefano.

STEFANO POZZEBON, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Yes, good morning.

I think that the value of the exchange that we had with Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro yesterday here in Caracas is not on the message that he sent, not what he said, because we have heard this type of speech, these messages of peace towards the United States before. But it's the fact that he was out on the street and surrounded by, frankly, regular people, regular Venezuelans and the supporters of his government. The exchange was in a march just outside the Miraflores presidential palace. I was able to ask him what is his message for President Trump. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

POZZEBON (through translator): What is your message to the people of the United States president?

NICOLAS MADURO, VENEZUELAN PRESIDENT (through translator): To unite for the peace of the continent. No more endless wars. No more unjust wars. No more Libya. No more Afghanistan.

POZZEBON (through translator): Do you have a message for President Trump?

MADURO (through translator): My message is, yes, peace. Yes, peace.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

POZZEBON: I think that -- it's important to highlight the context of that exchange. Maduro is not only the sitting head of state here in this country, but he is also, according to the White House, the White House accuses him of being the leader of a narco trafficking cartel. And they even put a $50 million bounty on his head just a few months ago.

For months, we have seen, especially we have heard from the White House, messages of Maduro being afraid, of Maduro being willing to negotiate. I think that yesterday's message from him was a, frankly, a loud catch me, come and get me, I'm here in Caracas surrounded by my people. They didn't want to show that he's afraid, just as much as somebody in the White House perhaps wants him to be.

And that is why it was so important, I think, for him to be seen outside, to be seen outside of the presidential palace, for, I think, the first time in a few months and the first time that he accepted questions from journalists since these new deployment of warships from the United States began up until three months ago.

BERMAN: All right, Stefano Pozzebon, in Caracas for us this morning.

Stefano, thank you for your reporting.

With us now, chief -- CNN's chief national security analyst Jim Sciutto, who's laughing at me right now, and CNN military analyst, retired Colonel Cedric Leighton.

Jim, I want to start with you here because you've got new reporting on this, and it's complicated, right, because the U.S. is involved right now in these active strikes against drug boats.

JIM SCIUTTO, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: Yes.

BERMAN: What the administration says are drug boats in the water. At the same time, you've got reporting on the president being briefed on land action --

SCIUTTO: Yes.

BERMAN: That could be connected to regime change. I mean there's a lot going on here.

SCIUTTO: This is what Zach Cohen and Kevin Liptak and I are told, and that is that the president was briefed this week on multiple military options for Venezuela, up to and including strikes on land. And including not just striking drug targets, but also potentially military targets. I'm told that South Com, Southern Command, has set up cells for developing these strike options, these strike packages, which have then been presented to the president, Pete Hegseth, the Defense secretary, and Dan Kaine, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Now, the president hasn't decided to exercise these options. And our reporting is that the president hasn't decided how far he wants to go and, frankly, has reservations about going to full scale military action there. That said, they've at least developed the options for him. And given

that range of options, it shows you at least what they're considering, right? And they certainly, with all these pieces in place there, including the biggest warship in the U.S. Navy, right, the Gerald Ford, they have the capability to carry out these options.

BERMAN: And again, we're showing these strikes against what the administration says are drug vessels.

SCIUTTO: Yes.

BERMAN: And this is connected, but slightly different than what you're talking about here. And I'm going to talk about the military implications of this with Cedric in a second.

But, Jim, from a political and diplomatic perspective here, explain to me that subtle difference between when you're talking about strikes on military targets in Venezuela versus the video we keep showing of the boats here.

SCIUTTO: Well, to date, the administration has gone after what it says are drug smugglers here. These deadly strikes. Of course, there are those who question that that they know this, including some of our closest allies.

BERMAN: Yes.

SCIUTTO: To date, that has been as far as they go. But there is discussion, at least consideration, of going bigger, right, with possibly even the intention of trying to push Maduro out of power.

[08:35:01]

Now it's our understanding that Trump's hope, to some degree, is that this show of force might encourage others inside the country to abandon him, right, and, in other words, do America's work for it, right? Short of, you know, no one's talking about a full-scale invasion. But, of course, it's not clear that that's going to happen, right? That might just be a hope and ambition. And, at some point, the president might decide to apply more military pressure.

BERMAN: So, Colonel Leighton, to you. What's the difference, from a military standpoint, of continuing to hit these boats, which, again, the administration says are drug boats, and then striking on the ground at potential state targets inside Venezuela.

COL. CEDRIC LEIGHTON (RET.), CNN MILITARY ANALYST: Yes, that's a considerable difference and would represent, John, a very big escalation in this effort. So, any type of campaign of this type requires a great deal of planning. And one of the things that I'm comparing it to is the operation back in 1989 against Panama, Operation Just Cause, as we called it. So, in that particular scenario, it took almost two years to plan that operation and to actually take out the then leader of Panama, de facto leader of Panama, Manuel Noriega. And he was implicated in drug trafficking as well. So, there are certain parallels here. But in that particular case, there were certain precipitating actions

on the part of both the Panamanians and the U.S. that led to Operation Just Cause actually being executed. And when it was finally executed, we employed about 26,000 troops to actually make that happen.

So, when it comes to this particular operation against Venezuela, we don't see -- we see a major buildup. And certainly with the Gerald Ford, you know, making its way toward Venezuela, it's a very big, you know, use of force, about 100,000 tons, actually, is the weight of that ship. It's going to be a very big show of force, but it really won't be enough to go after that particular country to effect regime change. So, it's kind of in line with what Jim and the other colleagues are reporting. And it is a very big effort that would need to be done to even go after the Venezuelan state. And it would definitely be an escalation if that were to happen.

BERMAN: Yes.

Jim.

SCIUTTO: Well, just a point on the legal factor here, because, as you know, the Trump administration has come up with what it believes to be legal justification for these strikes on drug boats, narco terrorists, et cetera. Our reporting is that the administration does not yet believe it has the legal justification for military action against the regime. It doesn't mean they won't get there --

BERMAN: Right.

SCIUTTO: But that is yet another hurdle to get over before the president issues such an order.

BERMAN: The legal issues in questions here are so fascinating.

SCIUTTO: Yes.

BERMAN: And in some ways, uncharted territory here.

And, Cedric, just again to your point, the USS Gerald Ford, which is the country's biggest aircraft carrier in service right now, that's not a weapon you use against these drug boats, correct?

LEIGHTON: That's right. That's exactly right. And it's -- it's like taking a sledgehammer to a gnat. And that's the, you know, that's really the difference. When you look at the laws of proportionality to, you know, look at the legal aspect of this, just as Jim was doing, the laws of proportionality in warfare really require you to use proportionate force. This is extra proportionate to say the least. And it's going to really indicate -- to me at least it indicates that there is a an effort to do something else besides going after the narco terrorists, you know, that that are out there, that are reportedly out there doing this. So, they need a lot of intelligence justification, and they need to make the connection, both internally to the planning process, as well as for the public, that this is actually exactly what -- what the mission is, that they're going after the narco traffickers and that the Venezuelan state is directly connected to those people.

BERMAN: Colonel Cedric Leighton, Jim Sciutto, in person, great to see you, as always.

All right, the hemp industry now under fire. You know, the seltzers that are so widely popular that people are buying and it's like a multibillion dollar industry right now. Well, because of the vote ending the shutdown, it could all go away, all of it, within one year.

And a humanoid stumbles out of the gate. I don't even know what's going on here. A robot there. I bet you the robot was supposed to walk, and it didn't. I promise you, we'll explain why.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[08:44:40]

OMAR JIMENEZ, CNN ANCHOR: This morning, is the split inside the GOP over Jeffrey Epstein growing wider? That is a dynamic to watch after a small group of Republicans forced his hand. House Speaker Mike Johnson is now fast-tracking a vote on releasing all the Justice Department's files in the case. And the GOP is expecting mass defections from its side of the aisle.

[08:45:00]

Just moments ago, we spoke with Gloria Allred, the attorney who has represented dozens of Epstein survivors, and she says this vote is a long time coming.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GLORIA ALLRED, ATTORNEY FOR EPSTEIN VICTIMS: The more there's resistance to releasing all the files, the more there's political pressure at play, the more suspicion there's going to be by the survivors that once again, they're not going to win any kind of justice or accountability. So, let's remove the veil from all of this.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

JIMENEZ: Joining me now is Congressman Stephen Lynch, a Democrat from Massachusetts. He's also on the House Oversight Committee, which released a trove of 20,000 pages of Epstein documents this week.

Congressman, thank you for being here.

As I'm sure you saw, an attorney for the Jeffrey Epstein estate is pushing back after Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche said the estate hid some of these latest Epstein files that have just been released, saying they've always complied with document production obligations. But with what's been released from your committee so far, is there something more you're looking for with the potential release of additional documents?

REP. STEPHEN LYNCH (D-MA): Well, we want to be complete. And there has been this drip, drip, drip of, you know, pieces of selective information. And there's been a clear resistance on the part of the administration to give us access to all the files. So, the more information we get in, the better. The more thorough our investigation is, the wider the panel of witnesses that we may want to interview. And it appears, Omar, that we finally found a point at which Republicans will not bend the knee to Donald Trump. This is the first time. It's, you know, it's remarkable that, you know, pedophilia is their floor. This is the point that they will not, you know, go any further with, you know, the administration.

I'll take it, because this is disgraceful.

JIMENEZ: Well --

LYNCH: These women -- these women deserve justice. And it appears that at least, at least a critical mass there within the Republican caucus will actually support us to get this information.

JIMENEZ: Well, I was going to say, it seemed like even prior to President Trump being elected, part of his re-election campaign was to release these files and some of his support came from that promise or at least that that push to do so.

You know, Speaker Mike Johnson now has decided to schedule that House vote on an effort to force the release of all these files for next week, but he also said the House Oversight Committee, again of which you are a member, has been working on its own investigation. Can you just -- what is the status of that investigation and does any of the work you all are doing effects what might be released through a vote?

LYNCH: Well, in terms of us getting documents, there's been -- there's been, as I said, a drip, drip, drip. We've been getting, you know, partial transcripts and, you know, emails, things like that, flight manifests. So, there's been small pockets of information that's been given to us, but not nearly enough. More recently you've seen large troves of information being given to us, but that's been done somewhat reluctantly.

We just want to be complete. We want to make sure that we get every single, you know, document and have access to every witness. You know, I think that the Acosta interviews and some other people who have never been investigated in connection with what happened in Florida or what happened in New York was very frustrating to some of the attorneys representing these women. And so we're getting -- we're getting more information, but not nearly as quickly as we would like.

JIMENEZ: Yes. You know, I want to shift topics before we go here because we're now a few days removed from the end of the shutdown. And as government services are ramping back up here, Speaker Mike Johnson still hasn't committed to a vote on health care subsidies, which obviously was at the heart of this shutdown as far as what was motivating Democrats at the very least. Considering where we ended up here policy wise, without that commitment, are you satisfied? Was this shutdown worth it in your eyes?

LYNCH: I don't believe we got anything. And this decision by the group of senators to cave in to the administration. There's no -- we got a promise to consider, you know, bringing something up. But there's nothing tangible there.

So, no, I was extremely disappointed in the decision by those -- that group of senators to cave in.

[08:50:07]

I think we had great support for people who knew why we were fighting, and who knew that we were fighting for Medicaid and Medicare, that we were fighting for 24 million people who were going to lose their health insurance. I think it was a terrible mistake to cave in to the administration and to the Republicans and put this bill forward.

I have zero trust that -- remember, they fought us at every step. Even though they had money in the contingency fund to feed children, they refused to do so. They kept appealing judges' decisions that said feed the children. So, why would you trust people that you know took that position?

So, no, I'm furious with the senators who decided to bail on us. There may be another opportunity in January when this CR expires.

JIMENEZ: Yes.

LYNCH: But I'm not sure this experience has stiffened their spine. They should worry more about the people they represent than, you know, the Republican speaker or the White House. That would help.

JIMENEZ: Well, we will see if that dynamic changes at all, as opposed to what we saw ended this shutdown versus, again, a potentially that other opportunity in January. And then we'll see what comes out of this expected vote on the Epstein files as you all continue your work on the Oversight Committee.

Congressman Stephen Lynch, appreciate you being here.

And next hour tune in as we speak with House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries.

John.

BERMAN: I am here. I am here. And I was listening when you were saying that. Yes.

All right, new this morning, a hugely popular industry that says billions of products completely upended. So, in the bill that reopened the government there, Stephen Lynch was just talking about this. What he wasn't talking about is that lawmakers passed this measure that would basically criminalize a huge number of the THC seltzers and other products that have become wildly popular.

CNN chief data analyst Harry Enten is here.

HARRY ENTEN, CNN CHIEF DATA ANALYST: Hey, John.

BERMAN: Now, we're not talking about that exactly, although you go anywhere now and these things really are everywhere. ENTEN: Yes.

BERMAN: And when they go away, I think there are going to be a lot of people who are surprised.

That said --

ENTEN: Yes.

BERMAN: Where's the momentum? And THC is slightly different than full on marijuana products.

ENTEN: Correct.

BERMAN: Where has the momentum been in the issue of legalization of marijuana?

ENTEN: Yes. And the issue of legalization of marijuana, John, it sort of hit a wall. You know, we had this great momentum at the beginning part of this decade. States that newly legalized marijuana. From 2020 to 2021 it was eight new states. 2022 to 2023 it was six new states. In the last two years it's zero. It is zero. There were 24 states that legalized marijuana from 2012 through 2023. And then in the last two years, it has been absolutely zero. And, in fact, there were three ballot measures back in 2024 that failed. We had all the success for ballot measures on marijuana from 2012 through 2023, and then, in 2024, boom, it hit a wall. There's been at least some sort of backlash against legalization of marijuana, and we're stuck at 24 states.

BERMAN: And when you dig into the numbers, what do they tell you?

ENTEN: Yes, why? Why? What is going on here?

Well, take a look here. Marijuana has a positive effect on users and society. Look at this. In 2022, 53 percent of Americans said that marijuana had a positive effect on users, 49 percent it had a positive effect on society. You jumped to 2024. Look at this. The numbers went down. They went down. As more people encountered folks who, in fact, had used marijuana, it turns out there was a bit of a backlash. In 2024, 43 percent of Americans said that marijuana had a positive effect on users, down ten points from 2022, and 41 percent said it had a positive effect on society, down eight points from 2022 in 2024.

So, what we've seen is, as more people have gone out there, as weed has become more public, more people smoking it in public, we have seen that there's been a bit of a backlash and people are not so hot to trot on weed as much as they once were.

BERMAN: What about the partizan breakdown, at least among Republicans?

ENTEN: Yes. OK. So, you know, I think this is part of it, right, this effort, this sort of backlash, this especially happened in red states. Marijuana had not really been much of a partizan issue. But, look at this, marijuana should be illegal or illegal. Among Republicans, 55 percent in 2023, according to Gallup, said legal, 45 percent said illegal. Look at this, a giant switcheroo by 2025. Now, 58 percent of Republicans say it should be illegal, up 13 points in just the last two years. And that legal percentage dropped 15 points in just two years, back down to where we were in the 20 teens (ph).

So, we've seen this real backlash. It has been especially true on the right as Republicans have moved against marijuana. We've sort of had this rise and then all of a sudden this fall, a backlash against marijuana legalization.

[08:55:00]

BERMAN: This is a complete flip, and that's just two years.

ENTEN: That is just two years, John.

BERMAN: All right, Harry Enten, thank you very much.

ENTEN: Thank you, my friend.

BERMAN: Omar.

JIMENEZ: Quite the big rise and fall by Harry. I'm not going to try to recreate that.

Joining me now to discuss is the co-founder of Cornbread Hemp Jim Higdon.

Jim, thank you for taking the time.

Look, you're the perfect person to talk to this morning because, obviously, Cornbread Hemp, THC infused products that you all work with heavily affected by this potential full total ban here. I mean it could take away hundreds of thousands of jobs, which would alter local economies across several states. Just, what was your initial reaction to the inclusion of hemp restrictions in the bill? And help us understand exactly what is being restricted here.

JIM HIGDON, COFOUNDER, CORNBREAD HEMP: First of all, Omar, thank you for having me and paying attention to this really important subject.

Hemp products have become incredibly popular in America in a low THC dose in, you know, seltzers and also in, you know, non-intoxicating full spectrum CBD products. We see real popularity, you know, especially among older adults for the CBD products. And, you know, this is no surprise that this could have been coming. Senator McConnell made his intentions well known over the summer. We've been working with his office trying to ameliorate the worst of it. And, unfortunately, we were unsuccessful.

JIMENEZ: You know, and one of the criticisms that Senator McConnell has really, I guess, used as the focus this move was that when it was born out of the 2018 farm bill, that that bill created this sort of loophole where companies could take legal hemp and then use it to convert it to intoxicating products, which did help lead to the gummies, drinks and other products we see on the market now. But some argue that dynamic can be abused. Are there -- you said you were working with Senator McConnell's

office. Are there other steps available you would have wanted to see taken before getting to this point to potentially get at some of -- some of those concerns?

HIGDON: Sure. I mean, you know, some of these loophole products, like Delta-8 THC are easily taken care of, THCA flower, smokable hemp flower. A lot of people criticize that as a loophole. That could have been taken care of while still protecting non-intoxicating CBD products and low dose THC seltzers.

Unfortunately, the bourbon industry, who, you know, funds McConnell's efforts, don't like the beverages, especially because they're popular. So, the opportunity to save beverages was not on the table because, you know, it's the beverage's popularity that was the greatest threat to the bourbon industry.

JIMENEZ: And, you know, there are a lot of people who say along those lines that if you're going to ban hemp, the drink products, you should hit the alcohol industry as well. I mean, do you agree with that dynamic here? I mean why do you believe maybe there's less focus on alcohol, which some might argue is more dangerous in many contexts, versus, you know, looking at percentages, I mean we're talking 0.3. 0.4 percent here in terms of hemp and cannabis?

HIGDON: Sure. I mean, if you look at the numbers in the public health space, it's -- there's no comparison. We have 180,000 deaths per year attributed to alcohol and none attributed to hemp and cannabis. So, you know, there's no question that the public health numbers far, you know, outweigh, in the negative sense, on the alcohol side. You know, that's just the reality of the world that we live in. And the reason why they've been more successful than us is they have a 95 year head start on the -- on the politics of this. And they know how to work the political system. And the hemp and cannabis industries are the, you know, the Island of Misfit Toys when we get to Capitol Hill. We're not aligned. And we got picked apart.

JIMENEZ: And I know, just based on your track record at this point, you all will keep pushing before this potential near ban goes into effect.

But, Jim Higdon, I got to leave the conversation there for today. Thank you for being here.

John.

BERMAN: All right, this morning, a powerful storm hitting the West Coast. Let's get right to CNN's Allison Chinchar for the latest.

Allison.

ALLISON CHINCHAR, CNN METEOROLOGIST: Yes, that's right. We take a look at the rain. It's much needed, especially after last night. We had the Pack Fire that kind of blew up essentially over near Mammoth Lakes, California. Now they are finally getting some relief in the form of rain and even some snow in some nearby areas. But a lot more rain is headed into portions of southern and central California. And that's where we have the greatest threat for flooding. Excessive rainfall is going to be at a level three out of four, not only today, but also into Saturday as well. And in a lot of the same areas. So, a lot of these places are going to get continual rain over the next 48 hours.

Here you can see, unfortunately, evening rush hour tonight around L.A. and San Diego is definitely going to be a soggy one. Not ideal timing right there. It's going to continue. Very heavy rain through the overnight hours and into very early Saturday morning. Again, you've got a lot of these oranges, yellow colors indicating on the screen. That just kind of really just goes to show you the volume of moisture that is funneling into these areas.

[09:00:03]

And also too up into the higher elevations. You could be looking at snow measured in feet rather than just a few inches.