Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Paramount Launches Hostile Bid For Warner Bros. Discovery; Testimony Resumes in Brian Walshe Murder Trial; Zelenskyy Meets With European Leaders; Supreme Court to Expand Trump Control?. Aired 1- 1:30p ET

Aired December 08, 2025 - 13:00   ET

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

[13:00:01]

SEUNG MIN KIM, AP WHITE HOUSE REPORTER: But he said, she's my friend. I will have more to say at a later time.

TAMARA KEITH, NATIONAL PUBLIC RADIO: Yes, it's -- when you do a mid- decade redistricting process, everything gets scrambled.

And I think that one of the real questions I have looking at Texas going forward is, did Republicans really draw themselves five more Republican seats, or did they draw some seats that may be hard if it's a wave year?

DANA BASH, CNN HOST: Right, which is why the Democrats are trying to recalibrate and find places where they can still win.

KEITH: Yes.

BASH: Thank you all. Appreciate it.

Thank you for joining INSIDE POLITICS.

"CNN NEWS CENTRAL" starts right now.

BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN HOST: A major test of presidential power at the Supreme Court, justices hearing a case that could overturn a 90-year- old president and hand the White House even more expansive powers. We're following the latest there.

Plus: turning hostile, Paramount launching a takeover for Warner Bros. Discovery after Netflix struck a deal to buy the company. More on the strategy and what it could mean for consumers.

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: And on the run, a manhunt under way for the last of three inmates who escaped from a Louisiana jail, the escapees using sheets to scale a wall.

We're following these major developing stories and many more all coming in right here to CNN NEWS CENTRAL.

SANCHEZ: Today, the Supreme Court hearing a critical test of President Trump's executive power. The question at stake, can the president fire the head of an independent agency, despite a federal law designed to protect them?

What the justices decide today could reverse how several key government agencies have been operating for 90 years. At the crux of this case is President Trump's decision last March to fire Rebecca Kelly Slaughter from the Federal Trade Commission, at the time, the president calling her service -- quote -- "inconsistent with his agenda."

The move, because of the FTC's independence, igniting a firestorm of legal criticism. Today, the Supreme Court's liberal justices sounding the alarm over what they describe as a snowball effect this could cause and, in their words, give the president unchecked power.

The conservative justices, though, pushing back for the last 2.5 hours to tamp down those concerns.

We're joined out live by Corey Brettschneider. He's a constitutional law professor at Brown University.

Here is some of the sound, Corey, from Justices Elena Kagan and then from Brett Kavanaugh. Let's listen.

(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)

ELENA KAGAN, U.S. SUPREME COURT ASSOCIATE JUSTICE: The result of what you want is that the president is going to have massive unchecked, uncontrolled power, not only to do traditional execution, but to make law through legislative and adjudicative frameworks.

D. JOHN SAUER, U.S. SOLICITOR GENERAL: The president is going to have all the executive power, which the Constitution dictates.

BRETT KAVANAUGH, U.S. SUPREME COURT ASSOCIATE JUSTICE: You have used the phrase chaos and disruption if you lose and don't strike down the entire agency. I think you used that phrase. I don't think that's what would happen if you lost. And I think you would agree with what I'm about to say, which is, if you lose on the merits, the proper remedy is simply to sever the for-cause removal provision, not to get rid of the FTC. Do you agree with that?

AMIT AGARWAL, PLAINTIFF'S ATTORNEY: I agree with part of it, but not all of it.

(END AUDIO CLIP)

SANCHEZ: Corey, what is your read on this? What happens if the court sides with the president?

COREY BRETTSCHNEIDER, AUTHOR, "THE PRESIDENTS AND THE PEOPLE: FIVE LEADERS WHO THREATENED DEMOCRACY AND THE CITIZENS WHO FOUGHT TO DEFEND IT": Well, this is a big moment.

It's up there with the court's reversal of Roe v. Wade, with its immunity decision, which was a radical departure from what it had said before. And for a long time, going back really to the creation of the Federal Trade Commission, as you said, 90 years, the principle of separation of powers has governed.

And what that says is that Congress can create executive independent agencies that have independence from the president's political firing, that they're protected from political firing. And what's at stake now is, the Supreme Court looks like it likely will overturn the precedent in Humphrey's Executor and others, other precedents as well, that really say, no, the president's power is not unlimited.

What's at stake? It's really separation of powers, the idea that Congress can create agencies and protect them from political firing. And in this context, with a president who has done so much to claim power, to use it corruptly, it's an especially dangerous moment for the court to be handing over power as it is here.

SANCHEZ: How do you see other government agencies being impacted by this?

BRETTSCHNEIDER: Well, this is about this case -- specifically, it's about the Federal Trade Commission. But one of the most important questions, which has come up repeatedly in this oral argument, is, if the Congress can't create legislation that insulates the chair of the Federal Trade Commission from political firing, can it create a Federal Reserve that after all has a Fed chair that's insulated from political firing?

[13:05:11]

And, as we know, Donald Trump really wants to claim the Federal Reserve as his own, to use it for his own political purposes. And the question of whether or not the law that prevents him from doing so, longstanding as well, is really a question.

There also is a question about the protections against political firing for so many of the civil servants throughout our government. The federal government is enormous. There are more than two million employees in the executive branch.

Many of them are protected under the Pendleton Act and under law, other laws, from simply being fired because President Trump doesn't like them. Well, if they move towards what's known as the unitary executive theory, the idea that the president has complete control over hiring and firing, that might be gone as well.

So it really is a restructuring of the federal government that we're looking at. And it is nothing less, really, than what we learned in grade school, the idea that we have separation of powers. It's subsuming all of these powers under the executive. That's the danger here.

SANCHEZ: Yes, and a decision from the court on today's arguments is expected next year.

Corey Brettschneider, we appreciate you sharing your point of view.

BRETTSCHNEIDER: My pleasure.

SANCHEZ: Brianna.

KEILAR: Ukrainian President Zelenskyy has just wrapped up a high- stakes meeting with European leaders in London, where he says security guarantees and territory remain the biggest sticking points in any peace plan with Russia.

As the meeting got under way, the German chancellor said he was skeptical of the peace plan proposed by the U.S. The European show of unity playing out as President Trump is venting his frustrations with Ukraine. He says he's disappointed with Zelenskyy, accusing him of not even reading the latest version of the U.S.-backed plan.

I'm joined now by retired Air Force Colonel Cedric Leighton, who is a CNN military analyst.

No doubt Zelenskyy has read the plan.

COL. CEDRIC LEIGHTON (RET.), CNN MILITARY ANALYST: Exactly, yes.

(LAUGHTER)

KEILAR: I think we can say that. And when you hear Zelenskyy saying territory and security guarantees are yet to be resolved with the U.S., there's really nothing else to work out.

LEIGHTON: That's -- yes.

KEILAR: So what does that tell us?

LEIGHTON: Well, it tells us that all of these efforts in Miami or in Florida with the Trump negotiators and the Ukrainians, all of this was really fruitless, because the Ukrainians have some vested interests. They have got -- they have to protect their territory.

It is their sovereign duty to do that. In terms of their military, they must maintain the size of their military, if not increase it. This idea of capping the Ukrainian military to 600,000 or 800,000, whatever the figure is going to be, is ridiculous, given the threat that Russia poses and, basically, Russia's unlimited manpower.

Ukraine has limited manpower, and that's going to be a significant factor. Plus, the idea of NATO membership. NATO membership absolutely has to be something that the Ukrainians can achieve at some point in the future. That is the real security guarantee that they're looking for, no matter what else is being said in public.

KEILAR: The Trump administration had this national security strategy out last week, and, today, the Kremlin spokesperson was just pouring praise on it.

And I suppose we're not surprised, right, because it says -- quote -- "The Trump administration finds itself at odds with European officials, who hold unrealistic expectations for the war perched in unstable minority governments."

It says, among the main objectives, reestablishing strategic stability with Russia, ending the perception and preventing the reality of NATO as a perpetually expanding alliance.

LEIGHTON: So this is the exact opposite of what the Biden administration did. When you look at the expansion of NATO under President Biden most recently, where you added Sweden and Finland to the list of NATO countries, now what the Trump administration appears to want to do with this national security strategy is limit the size of NATO.

That only serves Russia's interests. That does not serve U.S. interests. It does not serve European interests. And it certainly doesn't serve Ukrainian interests.

KEILAR: How do you see this strategic alignment? I'm curious, because as you see the U.S. sort of -- I mean, it's not been a good relationship with Europe, but really codifying it in that strategy and looking obviously to future wars.

I just wonder how you think this serves U.S. national security interests.

LEIGHTON: It really doesn't, Brianna.

And one of the things that's really interesting about this, if this national security strategy becomes reality, and there's always a question about that, but if it does, then you're going to run into a situation where we will have overturned over 80 years of U.S. policy.

Since 1945, you have had the U.S. squarely on the side of the Western Europeans. We poured a lot of money into Europe after World War II in the form of the Marshall Plan and other things. We stationed troops there for decades in order to protect the Europeans and also our interests.

They only went back after the Berlin Wall fell and Germany was reunified. So what you see here was, in the Cold War, we had a lot of success eventually in achieving our aims. We freed the Eastern European nations from the shackles of communism.

[13:10:05]

And all of that, they're going to throw out the window. It may not be communism that's in charge in Russia right now, but it is certainly something, a form of government that is antithetical to U.S. interests. And the idea that we're going to align ourselves with a government that is antithetical to us interests is really, really dangerous.

KEILAR: That's where we are right now.

Cedric, great to have you and your analysis on this. Thank you. Thank you so much.

LEIGHTON: Thank you, Brianna.

KEILAR: Still to come: week two of testimony under way in the trial of Brian Walshe, who is the man accused of murdering and dismembering his wife. Ahead, we will see what a medical examiner had to say about bloody evidence recovered by investigators.

Plus, lawmakers set to vote this week on whether or not to extend expiring Obamacare Act tax credits and prevent health insurance premiums from skyrocketing for millions of Americans.

And a new low for the Louvre. As if this year's brazen heist wasn't enough, now flooding at the museum has damaged hundreds of historic books. We will have the details coming up on CNN NEWS CENTRAL.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:15:30]

SANCHEZ: Testimony resumed today in the Brian Walshe murder trial, the Massachusetts man who admits he disposed of his wife's body, but denies killing her.

Jurors spent part of the day viewing more videos and photos that included bloody carpet images. And they heard testimony about the items recovered from trash dumpsters near the apartment complex where Walshe's mother lived. The jury also heard from former colleagues of his wife, Ana, about their conversations with Brian Walshe regarding his wife's disappearance back in 2023.

We're joined out by Mark Eiglarsh. He's a trial attorney and former prosecutor with SpeaktoMark.com.

Mark, thanks so much for being with us.

So prosecutors presented these text messages that were apparently sent from Brian Walshe's phone to Ana Walshe's phone after she was found to have died. What are they trying to prove by showing these messages?

MARK EIGLARSH, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Well, the whole idea that he really loved her somehow goes out the window if he's sending these things after the fact.

There's no question that, after the fact, he's already admitting that he committed heinous offenses. Chopping his wife's body up is hardly the response, although I'm not being judgmental, of someone who allegedly finds your healthy 39-year-old wife suddenly dead next to you.

That really absolutely looks nefarious.

SANCHEZ: I appreciate the restraint on judgment there, Mark.

I do wonder what you make of the defense attempting to discredit parts of the investigation, specifically the kinds of data that the investigators gathered. Is that an effective route for the defense?

EIGLARSH: I think they're doing an effective job because they took the worst evidence, which would to the average person prove overwhelming guilt, and said, hold on one second. Second. We don't know how she died. You can't prove it, prosecution, because he chopped up the body, by the way. You can't prove that it wasn't sudden death. And, by the way, even if

you're not believing it was sudden death, OK, is it first-degree murder, second-degree murder, manslaughter? I mean, there's a difference legally. And I remember those jurors in the Casey Anthony case, many who cried when they had to find her not guilty because they knew she was involved, but they just didn't know what degree felony it was.

Which one was it?

SANCHEZ: That's a really good point.

I also wonder whether you think it would be worthwhile to have him testify. I imagine that prosecutors would want him to, the defense likely not, right?

EIGLARSH: Yes, I try to keep my clients off the stand. The fish who kept his mouth shut never got caught.

But this is one of those cases where the only one who is going to claim that she suddenly died, a healthy 39-year-old, is going to be this guy. And this guy is already a convicted fraudster who sold counterfeit paintings to people. He's already $500,000 in the hole. So there's his motive.

I mean, they're really hoping and praying that on this jury are people who believe that, when you swallow gum, it stays in your stomach for seven years, the ones who believe that the Nigerian prince really needs your account numbers. That's what they're counting on.

SANCHEZ: I also wonder what impact do you think it might have on the jury that they don't know that he's already pleaded guilty to inappropriately dismembering her and disposing of her body? I mean, it seems like, if they knew that, it would potentially change their calculus.

EIGLARSH: Oh, sure, absolutely.

And if he testifies, everything comes in. So my prediction is, the defense will raise these hypothesis of innocence, right? They will put it out there. And then the state has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that what they're saying is not accurate, that they can prove that it's first degree or second degree or third. And that's their problem.

There's motive. There's a lot of evidence that tends to show guilt. But as we have learned in many high-profile cases, probably guilty is not enough.

SANCHEZ: Yes.

Mark Eiglarsh, thank you so much for sharing your point of view.

EIGLARSH: My pleasure.

SANCHEZ: Still plenty more news to come this afternoon. Paramount not taking no for an answer, the company just launching a

hostile takeover bid for Warner Bros. Discovery after it was beat out by Netflix.

[13:20:00]

And we pick up our phones for just about everything, looking at directions, answering calls, taking pictures. CNN just tested out some new technology that could change all of that.

Stay with us. We will be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KEILAR: Paramount CEO David Ellison is turning up the heat, launching a hostile takeover bid for Warner Bros. Discovery after losing the bidding war to Netflix.

Paramount is now going straight to WBD shareholders with an all-cash offer that it says is more valuable than Netflix's deal. Paramount was widely expected to be the front-runner for Warner Bros. Discovery, which is the parent company of CNN.

[13:25:10]

SANCHEZ: But WBD opted for Netflix, calling the deal it was offered more lucrative.

Here's Paramount CEO David Ellison this morning.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DAVID ELLISON, CEO, PARAMOUNT, A SKYDANCE CORPORATION: But, again, I think the most important thing to go back here is look, we're sitting on Wall Street, where cash is still king. We're offering shareholders $17.6 billion more cash than the deal they currently have signed up with Netflix.

And we believe, when they see what is currently in our offer, that that's what they will vote for.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SANCHEZ: Joining us now is Sara Fischer. She's a CNN media analyst and media correspondent for Axios.

So, Sara, what happens now?

SARA FISCHER, CNN MEDIA ANALYST: So, today, the Paramount folks announced that they're going to do a hostile takeover, basically appealing to shareholders directly, trying to say that you should take our bid over Netflix's.

The challenge, though, is that these are two very different offers. Paramount wants the entire Warner Bros. Discovery company, which includes its cable networks like CNN. Netflix only wants its streaming assets and its studio.

Paramount is essentially saying, look, if we buy the whole thing, we're going to put a premium on those cable networks than you would if you had to spin them out separately. It's now going to be a very messy battle ahead, by the way, because both of these bids have various regulatory concerns that they're going to have to overcome.

And this is something that the board and shareholders are all going to have to consider.

KEILAR: And you have some news on the SEC filing. What did you learn?

FISCHER: Yes. So when they put out the press release this morning, it made it seem like this was a very clean cash type of bid.

But when you looked at the SEC filings, it said that there were three sovereign wealth funds that are contributing $24 billion in debt in the Paramount bid, as well as Jared Kushner's fund, of course, the son-in-law of the U.S. president.

Now, they are structuring that cash to meet the threshold of U.S. national security regulators, basically saying, look, we're not going to give those people board seats. We're not going to give them voting control. So you shouldn't be worried about foreign influence.

But at the end of the day, why would somebody put $24 billion into a company if they're not going to get voting control? It's because they want soft power influence.

SANCHEZ: Well, the president was asked about a potential deal. Here's what he said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Well, that's got to go through a process, and we will see what happens. Netflix is a great company. They have done a phenomenal job. Ted is a fantastic man. I have a lot of respect for him, but it's a lot of market share. So we will have to see what happens.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SANCHEZ: The argument from the Ellisons up to this point has been that, with them, the regulatory process is easier for a number of reasons. I mean, how do you imagine these deals potentially going through Trump's government?

FISCHER: No matter what, both deals would have gotten investigated or are going to be investigated.

The question becomes, does Trump's DOJ sue to block these deals? Now, the conventional wisdom is that he was less likely to suit a block Ellison's deal because he's friends with Larry Ellison, the CEO of Oracle, who is the father of David Ellison, the chairman of Paramount, and he would be more likely to sue the block the Netflix deal. But in either of those situations, if the Justice Department tries to

suit a block a deal, ultimately, it comes down to an independent judge to make the final call. So the president doesn't really have sway over whether or not these deals get approved.

I will tell you where he does have sway, when it comes to getting things approved by CFIUS, which is the committee for foreign investment in the United States. Although this Paramount deal, they say, is structured to not trip up any CFIUS concerns, CFIUS is ultimately a group that is led by Trump Cabinet members and Trump gets the final say.

So that is one area where he might have a little bit of control. But the rest of this, Boris, really comes down to an independent court.

KEILAR: And Ellison appealed today to consumers. He appealed to the industry. He told CNBC the Netflix-WB deal would spell the death of the theatrical movie business in Hollywood. Explain that.

FISCHER: All right. So Netflix likes to release movies only just enough to get awards show consideration. Otherwise, they want to put their movies on their streaming servers first. And that's always frustrated the movie distributors.

Last week, when they announced this bid, they said, look, we're committing to keeping Warner Bros. Pictures' business model intact. We're going to continue to release things in theaters. Ted Sarandos, the co-CEO, said, we think long term that the theatrical window will probably shrink because that's what's best for consumers.

David Ellison came out and made an appeal not just to Hollywood, because the studios are a little bit freaked out that they're going to have less people to sell films to, but also to President Trump. He said, films are some of America's best exports. And we are going to promise to continue to put them in theaters.

So that was a double audience when he made that commitment today. They said that they will commit to releasing at least 30 films in theaters.

SANCHEZ: On the subject of the Trump-Ellison friendship, the president lashed out at Paramount's ownership over the weekend partly because of "60 Minutes" specifically and CBS.

It was all over an interview with Marjorie Taylor Greene.

FISCHER: Yes. He basically said, why did you give them a platform, going after the company.

What this shows, Boris, is, if you settle with the president, $16 million, you could have as many meetings with the White House.