Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Lawmakers Split On Party Lines After Viewing Video Of Boat Strikes; Supreme Court Lets Texas Use Trump-Backed Congressional Map In Midterms; DHS: "Dozens" Arrested During New Orleans Immigration Operation. Aired 7:30-8a ET

Aired December 05, 2025 - 07:30   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[07:31:18]

KATE BOLDUAN, CNN ANCHOR: New this morning the U.S. military announced that it has conducted another strike on an alleged drug boat. This time it was in the Eastern Pacific, leaving four people dead.

And it comes on the heels of, as we know, the classified briefings the Navy admiral gave on Capitol Hill about the earlier double-tap strike that has caused so much controversy that killed two survivors on a boat in the Caribbean.

Lawmakers emerged from those briefings with wildly different interpretations over whether it was justified and also even what they really saw. Democrats say they were disturbed about what they saw and heard but I want to play for you what the top Republican on Senate Intel told John just moments ago about those survivors.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. TOM COTTON (R-AR): They were clearly not incapacitated. They were not distressed. One guy took his t-shirt off like he was sunbathing. They were trying to get the boat back up and to continue their mission of spreading these drugs all across America. That's what they were doing --

JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: Did they get the boat back up?

COTTON: -- and that's why Adm. Bradley ordered the second strike. Well, no they didn't because we killed them, and we were right to kill them. And Adm. Bradley was totally justified in the decision he made.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BOLDUAN: Joining me right now is Margaret Donovan, former assistant U.S. attorney for the District of Connecticut and former law -- a former JAG officer. It's great to see you. Thanks for coming in.

The interpretations as we saw very clearly of the video --

MARGARET DONOVAN, FORMER ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY, DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT, ATTORNEY, KOSKOFF KOSKOFF & BIEDER PC, U.S. ARMY VETERAN AND FORMER LAWYER IN JAG CORPS: Thank you.

BOLDUAN: -- differed pretty dramatically as these lawmakers came out of this briefing.

From the descriptions that you heard of the video that they saw, is the legal question still in the air?

DONOVAN: No. From the descriptions that I have heard, the legal question is not still in the air.

And I do want to back up just a moment to say from the beginning I and other individuals who have thoughts on whether or not we are legally in an armed conflict have been saying that we are not in an armed conflict at all. In fact, what we are seeing is the secretary of defense doing something that the U.S. Coast Guard has done for years without the national scandal and without the cost of however many Hellfire missiles we have wasted on these missions.

The secretary of defense has decided that it is strategic to use SEAL Team Six to kill drug mules -- low-level drug mules -- suspected low- level drug mules in the middle of the Caribbean as opposed to having the Coast Guard or the DEA handle that. So I don't believe that we're even in an armed conflict.

And a lot of the conversation that has happened over the past couple of days has been about whether or not this is a war crime, and so I'll talk to you about that in a moment.

But I just want to clarify it's murder. It is murder under domestic law. And to sort of give somebody the standard of a war crime would be lowering the standard for the use of force. Nevertheless, what we see here still would qualify as a war crime if we were actually in an armed conflict, and here is why. The justification that I have heard from lawmakers --

BOLDUAN: Well, let me -- let me jump to that. Let's get to that in just one second because I do want to ask you because you were kind of point -- getting to this in talking about the entire military campaign, which there has been -- there's now been some really interesting analysis from Charlie Savage of The New York Times included -- that suggests that the focus --

DONOVAN: Yes.

BOLDUAN: -- the focus of recent on this one strike -- this one incident on September 2 is actually somewhat missing the forest for the trees. The way that he put it is that when it comes down it, "...all of the scenarios consist of analogizing the actions of suspect drug runners to traditional combat activities. The comparisons are strained at best, legal experts say, because the laws of war were not written for and do not fit a drug smuggling situation" -- which you've gotten to.

But still, Tom Cotton -- let me play you something else he just told John Berman about really the entire military campaign and defending it -- listen. [07:35:05]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

COTTON: If those boats were loaded with bombs or missiles headed for the United States I don't think anyone would dispute that we had every right and, indeed, a duty to intercept them. But those drugs detonate like a bomb all across Arkansas and all across America killing hundreds of Arkansans and hundreds of thousands of Americans. Our government has a duty to protect our communities --

BERMAN: OK.

COTTON: -- from those drugs.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BOLDUAN: That is the rationale he says backs up a reason for this entire campaign.

What do you say to that?

DONOVAN: They are not carrying bombs, they are not carrying weapons, and we don't even know if they're headed to the United States as far as I understand it. The boats that are being interdicted don't even have enough fuel to get that far.

Second, the drugs that we are intercepting here are -- or that we are destroying here appears to be only cocaine up until now. So you tell me how, I don't know, a few dozen kilos of cocaine, which probably comes across our southern border every single day -- that interrupting that thousands of miles off the United States -- off the coast of South America -- how does that have any connection to a self-defense posture I think is what Tom Cotton was loosely alluding to. So he is discussing facts that are not in play and that are not known.

I have heard lawmakers' response to the video, and I agree with you, and I agree with Charlie Savage, and if people haven't read that article they should because it's very thorough that we are not in an armed conflict.

And it's good in some way that what happened on the second strike on September 2 has sort of alerted people to how unlawful this is and to the peril that we are putting -- the legal peril that we are putting U.S. service members in by being involved in something like this with very shaky legal footing when something bad happens. And, indeed, something horrible did happen on the very first strike, so it is good that we have brought attention to that.

But the idea that, you know, these people were of the same status that they were when we targeted them, Cotton and the other lawmakers' justification that well, they were still, you know, drug dealers at the time of the second strike, that absolves nobody of anything, and it was still illegal. It's been illegal from the beginning. And even if we're in the make-believe world of an armed conflict it would be illegal there too. BOLDUAN: Margaret Donovan, thank you so much for coming in. Leaning on

your expertise on this in an area where a lot of people are not familiar is quite important. Thank you -- John.

BERMAN: All right. The Supreme Court cleared the way for Texas to redraw its congressional maps to add probable Republican seats. A lower court had ruled that the map was unconstitutional because it discriminates on the basis of race. The White House has been pushing national efforts to change districts in favor of Republicans as Republicans face serious headwinds heading up to the midterms in November.

CNN's Alayna Treene is at the White House with the latest. Oh, a snowy White House. Look at that. Good morning, Alayna.

ALAYNA TREENE, CNN WHITE HOUSE REPORTER: Yeah, a bit of a winter wonderland over here this Friday, John.

But look, yeah, this is a huge win, this Supreme Court decision, for the White House and Republicans at large. And really, it's been a crucial strategy for this administration as well, which I should note has essentially been focused on the midterm elections next year since day one.

And that's, of course, because the president recognizes that he is in a very special position currently by having Republicans control both houses of Congress. But he also recognizes that after the midterms he does not want to become more of a potential lame duck president than he already may be, as being a president in his second term.

And I can tell you this as well, John. I know a lot of the people who are in the West Wing -- a lot of them worked on the president's campaign. They are political bloodhounds and this idea of redrawing the congressional maps in Texas but also across the country is core to their strategy of trying to be successful in next year's elections.

But let's get to this case specifically because Texas is really core to this push that we've seen from this administration and Republicans at large. And had Texas been blocked from using its map, it basically would have upended this entire strategy we're seeing the president and this administration try and deploy.

Now, the Supreme Court decision essentially blocks -- at least for now, we should note -- a lower court ruling that found that the new maps were likely unconstitutional racial gerrymandering. And this order comes just days before a December 8 deadline for Texas candidates to file. So this is actually a very interesting timing for all of this -- this decision landing when it did.

Now, in order for the -- in an order from the court, the majority wrote -- the majority opinion here -- that the trial court had "improperly inserted itself into an active primary campaign, causing much confusion and upsetting the delicate federal-state balance in elections."

Now one thing when I was just going through all of this that I found interesting is that the court's majority actually didn't sign it but we did see in an occurrence opinion from Justice Samuel Alito -- of course, one of the conservative justices -- that two others joined him on that as well -- Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas, also both justices.

[07:40:08]

But look, one thing very clear as well is that this could continue to be litigated in the lower courts. But this decision and the timing of it essentially means that this is going to be the map in 2026 and so keep that as mind. A huge win though for this White House and Republicans, John.

BERMAN: All right, and watching where it goes next.

Alayna Treene at the White House this morning. Stay warm. Go inside by the fire. Thanks very much --Sara.

SARA SIDNER, CNN ANCHOR: It looks very beautiful, but it can be very uncomfortable.

All right. Joining us now, CNN senior political commentator Van Jones. Also, senior adviser to President Trump's 2024 campaign, Brian Lanza. Thank you both for being here.

Van, you're here and I'm going to start with you. Are Democrats in big trouble because of what they're seeing come out of the Supreme Court in this case with Texas when you have other states, including Indiana, who is right now looking at redistricting, trying to push the chances for a Democrat to be put in office to the side?

VAN JONES, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, FORMER OBAMA ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Well, you know, right now, the count looks like it's going to be up for Republicans. Republicans are just going to hand themselves more seats in an unprecedented kind of mid-decade realignment. But that's not the worst. I mean, that's bad for Democrats but what's happening is actually bad for America.

It used to be if you wanted to figure out what will the Supreme Court do, you'd say what does the case law say. What is the legal precedent? What does the precedent say? Now it's what does the president say. What does Trump say. You're in a different country when the Supreme Court is basically just straining itself to do whatever the president says, not what the precedent says.

It's bad for Democrats and it's bad for the country.

SIDNER: Brian, I do want to ask you this. If Republicans and the Trump administration is so confident about its ideas and its policies to, as he says, make America great, why do you need to gerrymander?

BRIAN LANZA, SENIOR ADVISER, TRUMP 2024 PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN (via Webex by Cisco): It's a time-honored tradition. Democrats do it. You have regions in this country -- regions in this country, the United States, where you don't have a single Republican -- you know, congressional member. SIDNER: They both do it. And I guess the question is -- but they do both do it.

LANZA: Correct.

SIDNER: That is fair. But not like -- not like this.

LANZA: It's not in the middle of a decade. It's not in the middle of a decade.

SIDNER: But the question --

LANZA: Thank God, we both do it, by the way.

SIDNER: But why? Because some --

JONES: Not in the middle of a decade -- never, no. Democrats have never in the middle of a decade done anything like this. This is completely unprecedented. And that's -- and I just think just acknowledge you're doing something that's never been done before and then defend that. Don't pretend like it's normal.

LANZA: Sure.

JONES: Don't try to sanewash this.

LANZA: So it actually -- it actually has been done, Van. It's been done in Texas during the Bush administration when we had mid- redistricting. So it has been done.

But my point is, is gerrymandering is a 200-year-old tradition, right? And states have -- in certain regions of this country there's no representation of Republicans even though 40 percent of the electorate votes Republicans. And we're going to have the reverse in other parts of the region. That's the way the system was created to work. And, you know, if people don't like, you know, they have -- they can always change the Constitution, but the Constitution is pretty clear. They can gerrymander this all they want.

SIDNER: All right. Let me move on to the revelations on that September deadly double-tap boat strike in the Caribbean. Members of the Intelligence Committee have now seen the video. Republican Tom Cotton just described it to John Berman -- what he saw -- which was a very different version of events that we heard from the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee. I want to let you listen to how they both saw the same exact video.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BERMAN: Do you see any evidence of them trying to use a radio in the video you saw?

COTTON: Well, I saw lots of evidence of them standing on the boat that had been capsized trying to get it back -- trying to get --

BERMAN: That wasn't my question. Did you see any evidence of them trying --

COTTON: -- it back up.

BERMAN: Did you --

COTTON: -- Trying to flip it over.

BERMAN: Did you see any evidence of them trying to use a radio?

COTTON: No, I didn't, John. No, John, but they were clearly not incapacitated. They were not distressed. One guy took his t-shirt off like he was sunbathing. They were trying to get the boat back up and to continue their mission of spreading these drugs all across America.

REP. JIM HIMES (D-CT): You know, and we observed them for a long time. And the commanders involved said that they believed that there might be some chance they would be rescued. That there might be some chance that the cocaine on board could be recovered. But these two individuals, to anyone looking at this thing would say are moments away from slipping under the waves. The decision was taken to kill them and that is, in fact, what happened. And that was pretty hard to watch, I must say.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SIDNER: I guess the question to you Van is how can two people come away from watching the same exact video and have these completely different takes? I mean, is this just politics at play, plain and simple?

JONES: I mean, it seems to me that people are kind of looking through their partisan lenses, but what are they looking at? These are human beings. This is not a videogame. The level of -- we've become so desensitized to seeing these images over and over again. This is not the way that Americans tend to deal with drugs.

The senator also tried to pretend like well, if they were coming here with bombs then we'd be able to do something about it. Well listen, if you had 100 pounds of drugs in Times Square and 100 pounds of explosives in Times Square, the cops would treat you completely differently.

[07:45:08]

SIDNER: Right.

JONES: And so we're coming up with -- we're stretching, we're straining to justify what is clearly acts of murder not justified by law. Not justified by any necessity. The Coast Guard can deal -- the Coast Guard can deal with those boats. They've been dealing with those boats for a very long time. This is murder as theater in pursuit of some political agenda not validated by the law.

SIDNER: Brian, how do you see it, and do you think that the video just needs to be released to the public so the American people can see what is being done in their name? LANZA: Uh, yeah. I do think the video does need to be released to the public and people can make that judgment. I think partisan lenses take over everything that we see in Washington and that offers a distorted view. So I think people should see the video.

You know, what do I -- what do I think about these? Listen, I think the Trump administration has an opinion from counsel that some -- from White House counsel or from Justice Department counsel that has made their case of why they think they can go forward. What I would like to see is that opinion released too. I mean, I think -- I think sunlight is good on these situations.

I think Van is right, you know. We -- the Coast Guard has been doing this for decades, but Van didn't go further. The Coast Guard has failed at their job for decades. So that's why I suspect some people in the American public and this administration want to have the military involved because of the decadeslong failure in trying to stop the flow of illegal drugs into the United States.

JONES: Then change the law. That's all. If the American people feel that way --

LANZA: I agree. I agree.

JONES: -- then change the law. But the law has not been --

LANZA: Yeah.

JONES: -- right now and these are unlawful acts on the part of the American government.

LANZA: Also Van, if the American people really -- if the American people really disagree with this, they'll vote -- you know, they'll vote Republicans out of office in the House and Senate in November. I mean, if that's when the judgment comes on these things.

JONES: Just not --

LANZA: It's not (INAUDIBLE) in Congress making noise.

JONES: But it doesn't bring people back to life. We're killing people. We're murdering people. We're broadcasting it around the world. We're acting like a lawless regime. That is not good for America and it's not good for the world. There's a -- there's a right way and a wrong way to do anything.

If people -- if American people want to change the law to say you can go and kill people around the world if they have drugs on them, pass that law, sign it, and then let's live in that world. But that's not the world we live in right now.

SIDNER: Van Jones, Brian Lanza, we got some agreement today, which Republicans and Democrats have a hard time doing, so I am appreciative of that this morning -- Kate.

BOLDUAN: So today a key panel of vaccine advisers is back at it and expected to vote on whether to scrap longstanding recommendations around the hepatitis B vaccine and newborn babies. This vote was actually expected to happen yesterday but there was real confusion and disagreement among Secretary Robert Kennedy Jr.'s handpicked panel over the language of what they were actually voting on.

This vote would be the most significant change yet to the childhood vaccine schedule under Secretary Kennedy.

CNN's Meg Tirrell is at the CDC headquarters in Atlanta where this meeting is taking place. Why the delay? What happened?

MEG TIRRELL CNN MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT: Yeah, Kate. I think everybody is kind of trying to figure that out. There was just a lot of confusion. There was a lot of disagreement yesterday about the language that they were voting on. And so as this meeting gets underway in just a couple of minutes from now behind me, I think there are questions.

We've seen new voting language posted on the CDC's website, so is that the language they're going to vote on today about whether to change this universal recommendation for the newborn dose of the hepatitis B vaccine? Because there was disagreement even among the committee members themselves about the language that they should be voting on. And there was not universal agreement among these members that they should remove this universal recommendation.

However, it doesn't need to be a unanimous vote. It's really the majority of the members that will influence the recommendation that then goes to the CDC director who can decide whether to accept it or not. If the director accepts it, it becomes CDC policy.

So Kate, just a reminder of how significant a move this would be, this is a recommendation that's been in place in the United States since 1991, and experts say there is a more than three-decade track record of safety using this vaccine at birth. It has brought down the number of hepatitis B infections in kids by orders of magnitude.

And one of the parts of the vote that they could take today is whether to recommend delaying that birth dose to at least two months of age if moms test negative for hepatitis B and decide not to get the birth dose. And there has been modeling done to see what the implications of that would be. And one study found that delaying the birth dose to at least two months old would lead to more than 1,400 hepatitis B infections among children every year, more than 300 cases of liver cancer, and almost 500 hepatitis B virus-related deaths.

And, of course, this is a disease that can be preventable with a vaccine -- guys.

BOLDUAN: All right. Much more to learn here. Something's going to happen today. We'll be right back to you, Meg, when it does. Thank you so much -- John.

[07:50:00]

BERMAN: All right. An out-of-control car narrowly misses an officer right on an icy road. There we go.

And police recover a priceless Faberge egg stolen and swallowed by a suspected thief at a jewelry store. When I say recovered -- yes, all things must pass.

(COMMERCIAL)

SIDNER: New this morning, the Department of Homeland Security says it has made dozens of arrests in a sweeping immigration operation in the New Orleans area. DHS officials say the goal is 5,000 arrests and that they are going after immigrants who they saw were released after arrests for violent crimes. But critics say the operation appears to be racially profiling people.

New video showing masked agents detaining a father in front of his children, according to the woman who shot the video. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Don't do that to him! Don't do that to him! He's -- (bleep) you. That is a good man! You have no warrant. You have no warrant.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SIDNER: Terribly distressing.

CNN's Ryan Young joins us now from New Orleans. You've been there since the beginning of this operation. What are you seeing, and what has been the reaction that you are also seeing on the streets there?

RYAN YOUNG, CNN SENIOR NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, we're starting to get some diversity of thought here in terms of some people are saying these operations are needed in some communities. We even have one local sheriff who says he wants more officers in his area to do these arrests.

[07:55:00]

This is the building here where they're doing the operation out of and, of course, we've seen extra security around here. But throughout the day yesterday we saw video being posted and Department of Homeland Security action telling us they've caught dozens of people in the last 24 hours. So even a man who was wanted for murder. So there are some people who are basically saying these are the kind of people who need to be taken off the street.

But when you watch videos like the ones that we've seen in the last 24 hours you can understand the fear in the community.

Take a listen to one man who says he's worried about the children in this community and the folks who are documented who believe they're going to be racially profiled anyway.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) MELQUISEDEC CASTILLO, ASSOCIATE PASTOR IN NEW ORLEANS: It's heartbreaking. So much suffering. This is unprecedented. But my people are resilient. They - especially the community over here in New Orleans from Honduras -- largely from Honduras. We've been through Hurricane Mitch, Hurricane Katrina, COVID, name it -- authoritarian governments, and now this. This is unprecedented. My people are resilient but it's really, really hard, especially on the kids.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

YOUNG: Yeah. We talked to some businessowners yesterday who were actually seeing less people show up to work because of this. They are scared. There's also been talk in the community about people skipping school because they are scared about maybe their parents being picked up while they're being dropped off.

But we want to show you what happened in City Hall yesterday. We were there to cover a protest that was there and as the protest started going on the people in the crowd got louder and louder. And at one point the City Council members had to leave the room as the police tried to clear the City Hall council chambers. This went on for about 10 minutes of the chanting as police tried to push these people out.

Once they got them outside one thing that we noticed is it didn't seem like anybody was arrested or detained, or anyone injured in this. But you can feel the pain from some of these folks as they're trying to get their voices heard.

This operation continues and we'll continue to watch it and see if we get new numbers today, Sara.

SIDNER: All right, Ryan Young. Thank you so much for your reporting there for us in New Orleans -- Kate.

BOLDUAN: Police in New Zealand say they have recovered a Faberge egg, but they did it -- the way they did it is kind of insane. They had to basically watch and monitor the suspect for six days because they believed he had swallowed it. Officials say they were then able to recover the pendant naturally from said suspect.

The limited edition pendant was inspired by a James Bond film and it's worth $19,000. It is one of only 50 made and opens to reveal an 18- carat yellow gold octopus nestled inside -- beautiful.

A seal walks into a bar and the story writes itself. Take a look at this video and what people had to deal with here in New Zealand. This week a baby seal galumphed, to use a technical term, into a bar called the Sprig + Fern, shocking everyone -- understandably shocking everyone. The staff was able to ultimately lure it out with, ingeniously, some salmon. And rangers then rescued the little pup, which was nicknamed Fern, and released her on Rabbit Island, considered a safe spot for seals to roam -- John.

BERMAN: He just wanted a good meal and a drink.

All right. BOLDUAN: I mean, don't we all?

BERMAN: Don't we all.

We're standing by for new testimony in the murder trial of Brian Walshe who admits to disposing of his wife's body but not killing her. And Walshe came face-to-face in court with the man who has having an affair with his wife before she disappeared. Now, Walshe is accused of killing and dismembering her around New Year's Day in 2023.

CNN's Jean Casarez, following every twist and turn of this, joins us now. Good morning.

JEAN CASAREZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: This was a big witness, William Fastow. This is the man that Ana was having the affair with in Washington, D.C. at the time that she died. And it's so big because the prosecution will use this, we believe, to show motive to commit premeditated murder.

So he took the stand. He didn't want to be there -- it was obvious. He said that he, as a real estate broker, had sold her the townhouse in D.C. right when she moved to Washington, D.C. for the very big job that she had just gotten with Tishman Speyer.

He said they instantly became close friends, they became confidants, and they became intimate. And he said that began to have them together all the time. And they went to dinner. They went to the movies. They went to bars. They did sporting events together. He took her out on his boat in Annapolis sailing.

But she didn't want any of her friends to know about him. His friends knew. He was married. He had just separated from his wife about a month before. She was obviously still married. They both had children.

And he talks about how that she was just very concerned about her husband Brian in all this. Take it.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

WILLAM FASTOW, HAD AFFAIR WITH BRIAN WALSHE'S WIFE ANA: Ana felt it was really important that when Brian were to -- was to find out about the relationship that he would hear it from her.