Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Trump Defends Hegseth Over Reported Follow-Up Strike On Boat; Soon: Opening Statements To Begin In Brian Walshe Murder Trial; Sen. Angus King (I-ME) On Congress' Investigation Of Reports Of "Double- Tap" Military Strike. Aired 7:30-8a ET

Aired December 01, 2025 - 07:30   ET

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

[07:30:00]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, (R) PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: It was fine -- and if there were two people around. But Pete said that didn't happen.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: All right. With us now CNN political commentators David Urban and Karen Finney.

Karen, first to you, because I counted five, sort of, parts of that response from the president there.

KAREN FINNEY, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR (via Webex by Cisco): Um-hum.

BERMAN: None of them were it didn't happen, categorically.

Number one, Pete says it didn't happen. Number two --

FINNEY: Correct.

BERMAN: -- you know, we'll investigate, he said. Number three was I wouldn't have done it like that. Number four is it was very lethal. Number five, again, was Pete says it didn't happen.

Why do you think such careful language there? Again, the president says he wouldn't have ordered a second strike. He says Pete says he didn't do it. But the President of the United States with presumably all the intelligence in the world didn't say categorically it didn't happen.

FINNEY: That's right, John. And that's an important parsing of, sort of, Trump speak because in Trump speak that is as clear of an answer that we will likely get for some time. It sounded more like he knew what he could not say or should not say but wasn't clear about what he could say and what the truth really is. And that makes you think either it's because he doesn't know.

If not, that's a big problem because he is the President of the United States of America. He's the one who has been authorizing the attacks on these boats so he should have all the information -- or he knows but he's trying not to quiet say yet as they're trying to decide from a legal perspective perhaps how to parse this out because my understanding if you talk to JAG officers is it's pretty clear the kill -- the "kill order" that Pete Hegseth is supposed -- is reported to have given -- that's pretty clearly a violation of the law.

And I think that's part of why you are seeing bipartisan concern and wanting to investigate this murder. And the president is going to have to come up with much better answers.

BERMAN: David Urban, again, I just want to show people, so they know how the Defense secretary is handling this. He put a post out on social media overnight seeming to mock the entire issue. It's of Franklin the turtle there targeting narco-terrorists, he says.

But David, there may be bipartisan investigations here. Mike Turner, a Republican in the House, says he wants to investigate it. Roger Wicker, in the Senate, says he's willing to investigate.

What questions do you think need to be asked here, David?

DAVID URBAN, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, FORMER TRUMP CAMPAIGN ADVISER, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: Yeah, John. You know, I served in the military and went to West Point. I actually served as the Article 32 hearing officer for the 101st Airborne Division, which means it's -- we are under the uniform code of military justice. There is no grand jury proceeding. There's an officer who sits to determine probably cause. And I served in that role for roughly a year hearing probable cause cases to determine whether or not people went forward for court martial.

There's a lot of information that needs to be determined here. What the exact order was that Pete Hegseth gave in the initial -- in the first place. Whether he said, you know, we want to make sure no one is left, or did he order a double-tap here, or was it -- you know, was it thought of that the people downstream in the chain of command thought that was the initial order that Pete gave way, way back when was leave no survivors. Go back and kill everybody.

I mean, there's a lot -- there are more questions than answers at this point.

As you point out correctly, bipartisan efforts in both the House and Senate. Wicker and Jack Reed, and then similarly in the House, have both sent letters to the Department of Defense saying we want more, we need more. The president said he's going to investigate.

I have a feeling this is not the last we're going to hear of it. There's going to be -- as you know, John, in these instances there is videotape. There are -- there are emails. There are, you know, classified memos that go back and forth -- all I feel which are going to be turned over at some point to get to the bottom of this. Because if, in fact, there was an order to go back and kill these folks and make sure they weren't alive, someone is going to be held accountable for it.

BERMAN: It sounds like, David, that you have concerns -- nonpartisan, frankly, concerns about the chain of events here.

URBAN: Yeah, John. There are -- we have rules, right? There are rules of war, right? There are rules. That's why America is better than every other country in the world is because we follow the rules. We play by the rules. The rules may not be, you know, played by our enemies and by others, but we play by the rules because that's what -- that's what Americans do.

There are rules of land warfare. There's the Geneva Convention. There are all kinds of things that govern how we conduct combat and what we do.

[07:35:00]

Listen, I would say this, John. Harken back to when President Barack Obama was in office and there was a drone strike, and President Obama killed a U.S. citizen in Yemen. He had converted to be a Taliban. He was radicalized but he was a U.S. citizen. He was taken down by a drone strike President Obama did and there wasn't this amount of outrage.

So I'm a little bit curious and suspect by that. I think everything Trump does is bad and everything that he does is bad, bad, bad. But there is some precedent for this in a bad way.

BERMAN: Well, listen --

URBAN: It (INAUDIBLE) good. That's -- you can -- you can -- you can look it up in the Google machine.

BERMAN: I actually want to shift gears quickly.

URBAN: Obama killed a U.S. citizen.

BERMAN: I want to shift gears if we can quickly. There was --

URBAN: Yeah.

BERMAN: -- a drone strike. There was a drone strike in Yemen under President Obama. I'll let David ask that question there.

But Karen, I do want to get you quickly to sort of set the groundwork for this Tennessee special election. You know, it's the Tennessee 7th congressional district here. It's a plus-22 Trump district that Republicans seem nervous about.

I mean, what's a win here --

FINNEY: Yeah.

BERMAN: -- for the Democrats?

FINNEY: Well, John, I think actually we've already won in many ways. I mean, Republican have spent, it's reported, at $2.5 million in this race, which I'm sure they were not anticipating having to do. And this race is now in double digits. I'll be really honest, though. I mean, I know my Democrats are really

hopeful. I'm really hopeful people turn out and should get out there and vote. But it's also a district where Democrats are going to have to flip some Republican voters in order to win it. Now we've seen that happen in these off-year elections that we just had a few weeks ago, so it's not impossible but we have to be realistic. It's going to be really tough.

BERMAN: Um-hum.

FINNEY: So far, Democratic turnout I the early vote has been very strong.

I will just say when people see --

URBAN: John?

FINNEY: -- stories like this it certainly makes people feel concerned. Because these types of elections also are about --

BERMAN: Yeah.

FINNEY: -- do I feel -- am I going to use my vote to make a statement or to send a message to the president that I need a check on this president.

BERMAN: We're going to have to leave it there, David. I apologize. I'm getting you again in the conversation.

URBAN: But John, I'll just say real quick -- real quickly, John.

BERMAN: (INAUDIBLE).

URBAN: I live -- I live in that district. I live there. I live there. It's a tough district. If she wins, I'd be very surprised. The gentleman is a West Point grad.

BERMAN: Yeah.

URBAN: I know him. The guy who left, Mark Green -- he was my classmate.

Karen is right. The Democrats are having a win here. It's an R-plus 22 district. The fact that they're making it competitive is a W for them.

BERMAN: David Urban, fingers everywhere. Karen Finney, great to see you this morning. Thank you --

FINNEY: I agree.

BERMAN: -- very much -- Sara.

SARA SIDNER, CNN ANCHOR: You managed to leave them both smiling, John. I'm kind of impressed.

All right. Happening today, opening statements are set to begin in the high-profile trial of Brian Walshe. He's accused of murdering and dismembering his wife Ana on New Year's Day of 2023. Now, Walshe admitted to dumping Ana's body and misleading police, but he has not admitted to her murder. Her remains still have not been found.

Joining me now is CNN legal analyst Joey Jackson, and criminal defense attorney; and CNN's Jean Casarez who has covered this case from the get-go.

Jean, give us some sense of what we are expecting to hear in court today in those opening statements.

JEAN CASAREZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: And that's what we want to know. We want to know what the defense is going --

SIDNER: Yeah.

CASAREZ: -- to do in their opening statement, if they give an opening statement. They don't have to give an opening statement in Massachusetts at this point if they don't want to. But we think they're going to --

SIDNER: Um-hum.

CASAREZ: -- because he has pleaded guilty already to intentionally misleading a police investigation. He has pleaded guilty to conveyance of a human body, which I studied the law intently on this. It is movement of the body. There is nothing in the statute that talks about dismemberment. So it's sort of is he pleading guilty to dismemberment or moving that body?

SIDNER: Hmm.

CASAREZ: But the defense will go somewhere. Will they say it was a tragic accident? Will they say it was an intruder? Did she die in her sleep? Will they say nothing and pose just reasonable doubt that the prosecution, without a body, is not proving their case?

I also looked up the law in self-defense. It says in the statute that in Massachusetts, defense must give 21 days after the pretrial hearing -- there have been many pretrial hearings -- to tell the court they're going to have the affirmative --

SIDNER: Ah.

CASAREZ: -- defense of self-defense. Then the prosecution can respond, but the judge also can make a determination. So --

SIDNER: This is so -- I'll --

CASAREZ: -- I'll leave it to Joey now to --

SIDNER: I will go to Joey because I had a question about the fact that he has already pleaded guilty to these two things, one of which is removing the body. I'm just trying to understand why her body still remains missing. Can't the court say you need to reveal where this body is? JOEY JACKSON, CNN LEGAL ANALYST, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY, FORMER PROSECUTOR: Yes, Sara. Good morning to you. Good morning to you, Jean. No. You have a certain Fifth Amendment right against self- incrimination and you cannot compel a defendant to do anything.

[07:40:00]

Now, as to the pleading guilty to these charges -- lying to police with regard to where his wife is. Number two, moving the body, as Jean mentioned. I think it was a strategic move. They have tremendous evidence -- that is, law enforcement -- as to him engaging in those activities. What activities? Lying. Suggesting that his wife left early to go back to work because she had pressing matters to attend to.

SIDNER: Right.

JACKSON: That didn't pan out.

But yet, they have him on surveillance getting all these supplies and cleaning things, et cetera. Have him on surveillance dumping things which, by the way, has his body -- has his wife's body DNA. A hacksaw, et cetera. Blood in the basement. So you admit what you have to admit and deny what you have to deny.

But very quickly, Sara, the play is this -- first-degree murder. First-degree murder gets you life without parole.

SIDNER: Right.

JACKSON: And so Jean was talking about it and I'm very curious too. What will the defense be? It's not a slam dunk by any stretch of the imagination for the prosecution to establish first-degree murder. Why? You have to show premeditation.

Now there are all these Google searches of how to dispose of a body, how long before a body smells, et cetera.

SIDNER: A lot of circumstantial evidence.

JACKSON: Yes. But that goes to him -- his knowledge as to her death.

SIDNER: Oh.

JACKSON: It doesn't go to Google searches as to how I kill my wife. What do I do after I kill her. They have to do that. Prosecutors have to show premeditation.

Any thing the defense can do to wither away on that, even suggesting that he killed her, guess what? Not first-degree murder. He's eligible for parole. Maybe it's heat of passion, which is manslaughter. Guess what? He's eligible for parole.

So I'm interested, as Jean is interested, in knowing what the play will be.

SIDNER: Where they're going to go.

I do want to talk to you quickly about another high-profile case -- that of Luigi Mangione. He's accused in that brazen murder of the UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson. He's expected in court and his attorneys are now trying to get some really key evidence thrown out, which includes his diary.

What is the defense arguing here to try to keep that from the jury?

JACKSON: Yeah. So what happens, Sara, is that you have these pretrial proceedings. No jury there --

SIDNER: Right.

JACKSON: -- just the judge. And the judge has to make a determination prior to trial as to whether or not evidence should be admitted, right -- that is, the jury sees it -- or excluded. That means it's suppressed, and the jury does not see it.

Now there are certain things that have to happen. If you're going to take someone's backpack you have to have a search warrant, right, unless there are certain conditions that are met. Maybe it's in the grabbable area, such that they can grab it. It poses a risk. It's called a search incident to a lawful arrest. In that case, it's all good.

The didn't get a warrant is the suggestion of the defense.

SIDNER: Right.

JACKSON: And by virtue of not that warrant, they're saying everything should be suppressed.

And what did it have in it? Had the gun in it. Had his I.D. in it, right? Had the manifesto in it with regard to why he would have done this.

Now, prosecutors will say hey, we would have inevitably discovered this anyway, meaning the evidence therefrom, and so they're saying you're not throwing it out. If they do get it out it's a big deal, right, but they still have a lot of compelling evidence in the case.

SIDNER: You know what's compelling? Having you two -- two lawyers. Both of you work also as correspondents. You do it all. It's so good to see you.

CASAREZ: Thank you.

SIDNER: There is so much going on with these two different cases, and I know that everybody will be watching.

JACKSON: Following your great lead.

CASAREZ: That's right.

SIDNER: Oh, here you go. You're also really good with the judges. This is how you work the room. I see it. All right. Thank you, guys.

JACKSON: Thank, Sara -- thank you.

SIDNER: All right. Over to you, Kate.

KATE BOLDUAN, CNN ANCHOR: So new this morning -- oh, there's a little tease. You can watch more of that on the CNN app. Live coverage continues. Don't miss a moment of that trial.

Also this. New this morning the numbers are in, and Americans turned out in big numbers for Black Friday, spending billions online and in stores despite making clear that most everyone feels badly about the economy right now.

Also up, though, prices. On average, up seven percent from last Black Friday.

So what does this then mean for Cyber Monday, which is upon us, and the whole holiday shopping season?

Matt Egan is tracking this for us. What are you seeing in the numbers?

MATT EGAN, CNN SENIOR REPORTER: Well Kate, at the surface, Black Friday looked pretty solid, right, despite really low consumer confidence. Americans are still spending, right. They're going to the malls. They're shopping online. Eighteen billion dollars of online shopping on Black Friday alone. That's up by three percent from last year.

I mean, that's pretty solid given all the gloom and doom that you're seeing in the polls that would sort of have you believe that, I don't know, everyone's laptops were closed, and stayed home from the mall, and they all resorted to bartering, right? Not the case.

However, when you dig into the numbers a little bit they don't look quite as great because of the thing that's causing all the gloom and doom -- those higher prices --

BOLDUAN: Right.

EGAN: -- that you mentioned, right?

Average selling prices, according to Salesforce, were seven percent higher than last year -- seven percent. That's more than twice the overall rate of inflation and that's well more than average. Wages are up and order volume was down. And Salesforce also --

BOLDUAN: So people are taking home less --

EGAN: Yeah.

BOLDUAN: -- right?

EGAN: They're spending more, Kate --

BOLDUAN: Right. EGAN: -- but they're actually getting less.

[07:45:00]

And what's interesting is that Salesforce -- they pin the blame for a lot of this on tariffs, right? Notice they pointed out that price increases really accelerated as the year went by and that some of the categories seeing the biggest price increases are -- yes, they're exposed to tariffs. Six percent increase on clothes, seven percent on electronics, and 24 percent on appliances.

So you put it altogether and, yeah, people are spending more money but that's in part because prices are higher.

BOLDUAN: So this is from Black Friday --

EGAN: Yes.

BOLDUAN: -- and now we're on the other big, highly promoted deals day of the holiday season. What's expected for this Cyber Monday?

EGAN: Yeah. Some solid increases are expected. Adobe Analytics is projecting a six percent increase for Cyber Monday -- U.S. online sales to $14 billion. But again, that does not factor in prices, so let's wait and see how the prices actually changed year-over-year.

Now the good news though is that there are still deals to be had. Salesforce is projecting that you're going to see significant discounts in appliances and other home goods. Home and beauty, 35 percent discounts on average expected. And clothing, 37 percent. I think the bigger question though is whether or not these discounts are going to be big enough to lure in the customers who are hurting right now from higher prices.

And just one last point from these surveys. It doesn't tell us who is spending money, right?

BOLDUAN: OK.

EGAN: And we know that higher-income Americans have planned to ramp up spending, but it's really lower and middle-income Americans that are planning to cut back.

BOLDUAN: All right. We will see.

Great to see you. Thank you so much, Matt.

EGAN: Thank you, Kate.

BOLDUAN: Sara.

SIDNER: All right. Ahead, the FDA is planning to change the vaccine approval process. The new details revealed in an internal memo obtained by CNN. We'll tell you what is in there.

And the word of the year might totally annoy you. Just warning you. That's also coming up.

(COMMERCIAL)

[07:51:07]

BOLDUAN: So this morning a rare show of bipartisanship on Capitol Hill. Democrats and Republicans now suggesting that American military officials might have committed a war crime in the Caribbean in carrying out President Trump's campaign against alleged drug trafficking boats.

Leaders in both parties are now promising to investigate after reports that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth ordered everyone on board a vessel targeting September 2 to be killed, which led to the U.S. military launching a second strike, reportedly, called a double-tap when some on board survived the first hit.

The growing concern from both sides of the aisle summed up by Republican Congressman Mike Turner yesterday.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. MIKE TURNER (R-OH): This is completely outside of anything that has been discussed with Congress. Obviously, if that occurred, that would be very serious, and I agree that would be an illegal act.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BOLDUAN: And joining us right now is Independent Sen. Angus King of Maine who sits on both the Armed Services and Intelligence Committees. Senator, thanks for being here.

Do you see a war crime here?

SEN. ANGUS KING (I-ME): Good to be with you, Kate.

It's all about the facts, Kate. The law is clear. If the facts are as have been alleged that there was a second strike specifically to kill the survivors in the war -- in the water, that's a stone-cold war crime. It's also murder. So the real question is who gave which orders, when were they given, and that's what we're going to get to the bottom of in the Congress.

As you point out, bipartisan interest in this. Roger Wicker, the chair of the Armed Services Committee, has said we're going to -- we're going to dig into this. So it's really a factual question. The law is totally clear.

BOLDUAN: Which means it is knowable. It is gettable. This can be resolved rather than it being a matter of perception. Your point is this will be figured out and decided?

KING: Yes, ma'am. I think we're going to see some interviews of people up and down the chain of command. The question is what order did the -- did the Secretary of Defense give and what -- how was that executed? And it's -- we're going to be talking to people, as I say, all the way up to the top of the chain of command and down to the people that actually triggered that attack. So it's a -- it's a very serious matter, Kate.

And ironically, this comes at this moment where we've just been through this hysteria at the -- at the Pentagon about Mark Kelly and others advising soldiers that they should not follow illegal orders. And here is an example of just what the concern was that provoked that video.

BOLDUAN: And what will the Congress do? What do you -- I know I'm making an assumption. If you -- if you go ahead and work through this hypothetical and there are facts here that you say that the law is clear, what can and will the Congress do, do you think, if a war crime is found?

KING: Well, at that point, it's not really up to the Congress. It would be up to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. It would be up to the military chain of command themselves. They enforce these laws. Conceivably, it could be a criminal case in the American court system, but I would think that this would be handled.

And again, Kate, one of the problems here is that one of the very first things this administration did -- I'm talking about within the first couple of weeks -- was fire the senior judge advocate general, the senior lawyers in the Defense Department. They then illegally fired the inspector general, which is supposed to oversee the activities of the department. And then they transferred 600 JAG officers out of the Pentagon to do immigration judge cases.

[07:55:05]

So they have really diminished the capacity for the Defense Department to take cognizance of what the law is in these cases, and that's what's -- that's what's really concerning beyond this particular case. When you take those series of steps and follow the breadcrumbs it sounds like illegal orders might be in the offing.

BOLDUAN: Hmm.

Senator, today is December 1, and this is the month that the Senate is supposed to be voting on extending the expiring health care subsidies. You were one of the critical final votes for the shutdown deal based on the promise of a vote on health care subsidies this month.

Trump's economic adviser Kevin Hassett -- he said just yesterday that the White House has a solution here. The way he put it is "We have a solution. The White House has a solution for cost-sharing."

Have you seen that and do you know when there will be votes?

KING: Well, I laughed when you said that because I've been waiting for Donald Trump's health care plan for about, I think, 10 years, nine years. It's going to be a big deal. In two weeks we're going to have the plan. No. The answer is no, I haven't seen it. I don't know that anybody has seen it. And the problem is we don't really have the time to talk about a major

new plan -- a new alteration of the Affordable Care Act and new kinds of -- the way the money will be handled. These tax supports expire automatically at the end of this month. Automatically, they just -- they just disappear. Congress doesn't have to do anything.

So my view is what we ought to do is extend them for a year and then we can talk about various options to deal with what are perceived to be the problems with the -- with the enhanced tax credits or the Affordable Care Act. But to try to do something brand new and significant in the next two weeks, next three weeks I think is impractical, and I suspect the White House knows that too.

The simplest thing -- extend for a year and then let's have a debate about where the provisions should be, what the rules should be, and whether there should be reforms. We can do that, but we can't do it in the next couple of weeks.

BOLDUAN: Yeah. To say that these are critical weeks before the new year when it comes to the tens of millions who are facing these skyrocketing health care costs I guess would be an understatement right now. But everyone is watching the Senate.

KING: Kate --

Go ahead, Senator.

KING: Kate, let me -- well, let me add something there. It's important, as you note, that the deal to end the shutdown involved a guaranteed vote by the majority leader, which is very unusual to a -- for a bill that the Democrats will draft. That was the deal. That was the agreement.

So around a week or so from now -- a week and a half from now there will be a vote. It will be a vote on a bill that the Democrats advance. Now, put the White House aside for a moment. There are bipartisan discussions going on. They're sort of talking around the edges of this about a much less ambitious set of reforms. But we're going to get that vote and then people will know exactly where the members of the -- of the Congress stand on whether these exorbitant premium increases are going to go into effect, affecting millions and millions of Americans and knocking a lot of people off of health insurance altogether.

BOLDUAN: Senator Angus King. Thank you for your time, Senator -- Sara.

SIDNER: All right. And the word of the year is "rage bait." Oxford University Press somehow made two words the word of the year. I'm pretty sure none of us need the definition but just to make you rage a little bit more here it is. It is defined as "online content deliberately designed to elicit anger or outrage by being frustrating, provocative, or offensive." Officials at Oxford say the phrase has tripled in usage over the past year and reflects a shift in how we talk about attention online.

Last year, Oxford also gave two words as the word of the year. Last year it was "brain rot" which I think I might be having right now -- John.

BERMAN: Or maybe there are because they can't count to one -- one word. Word of the year.

Anyway, new this morning, the FDA says it plans to change how vaccines get approved. In an internal memo obtained by CNN it's pointing to 10 childhood deaths that it claims are linked to the COVID shot.

CNN's Meg Tirrell is here with the details. What are you learning, Meg?

MEG TIRRELL CNN MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT: Yeah. So this was a memo that was sent late last week by Dr. Vinay Prasad. He was appointed in May to oversee the center at FDA that regulates vaccines. And in it he talks about these pediatric deaths that they say are linked to the COVID vaccine. And we should note outside experts haven't seen these analyses and are questioning exactly what they are. They want to see more details before knowing, you know, exactly what's going on here.

But as part of this memo they say they're going to take swift action on COVID-19 vaccine safety without detailing exactly what that action means. They also say they're going to take a different approach to other vaccines, including requiring more data before approval.