Return to Transcripts main page

The Situation Room

Testimony Resumes in Brian Walshe's Murder Trial; Accused National Guard Shooter Held Without Bond; Colombian Family Files Over Deadly U.S. Strike in Caribbean; Strikes on Targets Inside Venezuela to Start "Soon". Aired 10:30-11a ET

Aired December 03, 2025 - 10:30   ET

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

[10:30:00]

PAMELA BROWN, CNN ANCHOR: Happening now, court is back in session in the trial of Brian Walshe, accused of murdering his wife, Ana, on New Year's Day back in 2023. The Massachusetts father admits to disposing of his wife's body after finding her inexplicably dead in their bed that night. That's what he says. But he insists he did not kill her.

WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: Prosecutors have shown the jury pages of evidence showing Brian Walshe searched online for information on how to dispose of a body and how to clean up bloodstains around the time his wife disappeared. Ana Walshe's body has never been found.

Let's go live right now to CNN's Jean Cazares, who's covering all of this for us. Jean, what's happening so far this morning and what can we expect to hear in the coming few hours?

JEAN CAZARES, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, a lot has been happening this morning. Cross-examination by Brian Walshe's lead defense attorney with the forensic expert for the digital aspect, all those searches. And he's really trying to neutralize the searches by saying that when he started searching about the smell of the body and even dismembering the body. There wasn't anything about murder, not until six hours later was there's a search that involved the word murder, but not specifically murdering someone.

Also talking about that in the days before all this happened, when he was researching divorce, he was also researching buying a four-carat diamond, also researching buying a Porsche. And he had said that that Ana actually wanted a Porsche.

Well, while that is going on, he did not cross-examine on photos that the jury saw yesterday. We want everybody to see this because the trash bags, 10 trash bags were found in the dumpsters around town. There is a man resembling Brian that was throwing them in.

Here is one of the contents. Look at this. You've got Ana Walshe's boots right there. Those are Hunter boots. Her Gucci purse, her Prada purse is there. Her COVID card, her black jacket. That's what was in one of the trash bags. So, the question is, if she died in her sleep, like the defense is saying, why is that all in the trash? Why?

Well, when Brian -- no answer to that. While Brian was being interviewed four different times, January 1st through January 7th with law enforcement, he was asked, could there have been a fight? Was there anything that just happened and your wife was dead? I want you to listen about how he answers if he perpetrated violence on his wife.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BRIAN WALSHE, SUSPECT: Never hurt my wife. I mean, I love her. And (INAUDIBLE) I think about my kids too. She's a wonderful mother on top of being a wonderful wife. And to take that that away from that, I mean, I just couldn't even imagine something like that. That's not -- I'd never do anything to hurt my wife. I wanted to spend the rest of my life with my wife. I still -- I'm still going to.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CAZARES: Today for the rest of the day, a lot of law enforcement is going to take the stand, but you never know what they're going to enter into evidence. And many things we had not heard about before, but we do know there was a bloody knife found in the basement that was damaged. How will that come in and what will be said about it?

BROWN: All right. Jean Casares, thank you so much. Don't miss a moment in court, live coverage of the Brian Walshe trial is streaming now on the CNN app. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:35:00]

BROWN: Well, the Afghan man accused of shooting two National Guard members near the White House will make his next court appearance in mid-January after pleading not guilty from his Washington hospital bed. The judge ordered Rahmanullah Lakanwal be held without bond on charges of murder and assault.

Joining us now is CNN Legal Analyst Carrie Cordero to discuss all of this. So, the defense attorneys, Carrie, say prosecutors waited too long to charge him. What do you make of that argument?

CARRIE CORDERO, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: I think they'll be OK. He was injured in the incident itself. He did his initial appearance from his hospital bed. This particular case, this is brought by the U.S. attorney's office in D.C., which is actually serves in a hybrid function where the case itself is in D.C.'s superior court. And right now, he's only charged with murder, but they also handle federal cases in D.C. And so, eventually I think the Justice Department will see if there's additional federal charges that he can be charged with.

But I don't think as a matter of proceeding with this particular case that it's going to get too gummed up in terms of the process so far. There's going to be a lot of physical evidence. He was apprehended at the scene. He was shot in the altercation.

[10:40:00]

BROWN: So, guard member Sarah Beckstrom tragically died and the other one, Andrew Wolfe, is fighting for his life. Do you expect other charges to come?

CORDERO: I think that's the question at the federal level, whether or not the Justice Department is going to bring additional charges. I think certainly based on the statements of the attorney general and the U.S. attorney in D.C., Jeanine Pirro, that they would like to be able to do that. They've talked about potentially bringing federal terrorism charges.

What they're going to need to do before they can, though, is they really need to establish the investigation piece that predates the actual incident. So, what were his motives? Are there ties that they can establish to an international terrorism organization? Can they explore what his motive was, whether he had -- you know, just whether this was a mental issue of an individual who engaged in an act of violence, or whether there really was a political motivation to what he did that would then underlie terrorism charges?

BROWN: And you --

CORDERO: So, I think they have to conduct more investigation to be able to bring those more serious charges.

BROWN: Right. And that would factor in on whether they pursue the death penalty, right? Because U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro said that would be up to the attorney general to decide that.

CORDERO: It would, again, because that would -- D.C. being -- you know, the U.S. attorney's office, having this hybrid role, that would end up being in the federal charge aspect of things. The U.S. attorney, she's in a unique position because she oversees the prosecutor's office, which functions as a D.A.'s office when they're in superior court in the District of Columbia, but then also brings federal charges in federal court when needed.

BROWN: All right. I want to ask you about this other case, and I need to just lay it out for our viewers to understand. So, there's the family of a Colombian man believed to have been killed by one of the U.S. military strikes in the Caribbean that has now filed a case, a complaint, the first complaint we know of against these deadly strikes that the U.S. has been carrying out.

It filed it with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, and it claims that the U.S. violated Alejandro Carranza's human rights when it carried out an extrajudicial killing by targeting his boat off the coast of Colombia in September. Now, the family says he was just doing his job. He was a fisherman. This was his vocation. The president of Colombia did admit that he had prohibited goods on his boat. But what's at stake here, and how do you see this playing out?

CORDERO: So, the way that I look at this case, based on how it's been filed so far, so as you mentioned, it's with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. So, this is not a complaint that's filed in a U.S. court of law, a civil case or a criminal case, anything like that. What this is, is this is a complaint that's filed with an international commission. I think this case will mainly serve to raise international awareness about these strikes that are taking place primarily in the Caribbean by the U.S. military.

There's a bigger geopolitical issue here, which is what is the justification under U.S. law, of course, but then also under international law as to whether these strikes are lawful as a matter of international law and whether or not these individuals who are being targeted are combatants, which is actually a justification under the law of armed conflict, that they would need to be targeted in this way.

So, I think this particular case will just serve as primarily a vehicle for the international community to engage more seriously and to look at the United States' actions. But as a matter, I don't think the U.S. government is really going to react in any significant way to this particular case.

BROWN: What would need to be proven to show they were combatants? And where would the accountability come from if this was indeed a war crime?

CORDERO: So, a couple different things. So, number one, on the war crimes piece, so that pertains to the specific alleged so-called double-tap against the one particular boat where there apparently were two individuals, according to reports, who had not been killed in the first strike. That's where the issue of a potential war crime, and that's what we're seeing the hearings that are going to take place in Congress.

There is an entirely separate or companion issue with respect to these strikes overall under the law of armed conflict. And that pertains to, under executive authority for the president, a president generally under our constitution has a lot of authority to engage in military activities. But those have to be limited, they have to be targeted, and there needs to be some justification.

For strikes to continue in a repeated fashion, the way that we are seeing these strikes in the Caribbean against the boats take place, there needs to be what is called an armed conflict. And that's the question that all of the national security legal experts that I engage with frequently have, and myself have, in terms of the administration's lack of explanation for why these individuals who are on these boats are combatants.

BROWN: All right. Thank you so much, Carrie. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:45:00]

BROWN: Happening now, escalating tensions between the U.S. and Venezuela. President Trump once again is saying that he will soon begin striking targets inside Venezuela, saying it will be, quote, "much easier to strike targets on land." Lawmakers from both parties are questioning the administration over a follow-up boat strike after an initial attack on September 2nd did not kill everyone on board.

Joining us now is CNN military analyst and retired Air Force Colonel Cedric Leighton. So, there are a lot of outstanding questions surrounding the boat strike controversy. Let's just start with how did this all go down?

COL. CEDRIC LEIGHTON, CNN MILITARY ANALYST AND U.S. AIR FORCE (RET.): Yes, Pamela, this is right here we have video of the first boat strike. This is the strike on the 2nd of September. And you can see the boat has basically been blown up here at this point in time.

[10:50:00]

And when Secretary Hegseth talked about the fog of war, that was what he was talking about. He was referencing, you know, how difficult it is to actually see what is going on as sort of -- you know, as part of the secondary piece. So, once they had this strike happen, they decided then to go ahead and actually strike, restrike the vessel. And that's where those two extra people were killed as part of that.

So, President Trump, he talked about this in one of his Truth socials. And one of the key things here is that he's basically designating this as a foreign terrorist organization. So, this is key right here in terms of the designation of the organization. And they're making the case that those people on this boat were members of that.

Now, we've not seen any proof of that, but that's basically what they're saying, that they're transporting illegal narcotics. They're doing that, you know, hitting it to the United States. And this is basically a warning to anybody who is engaged in this kind of activity, the United States is going to go after them and to take them out. That's basically what he's saying in this.

BROWN: Why is that so important to say that they're part of a foreign terrorist organization? And has the administration specified what that organization is?

LEIGHTON: Yes, they've basically talked about the -- they're calling it the Tren de Aragua. So, it is -- this is basically the -- it's known by the abbreviation -- well, TDA right there. And what it does is it is designed to be an organization that is kind of an umbrella organization of all of the government officials in Venezuela that come into, you know, the basic narco-trafficking economy, in essence. And that is also connected to the Cartel de los Soles, which is a Cartel of the Sun. That's where those government officials come together. And there is a connection allegedly between them and TDA.

So, that that is how they're justifying this, whether or not all of that is true. And there's intelligence to back that up is a completely different question, because we really don't know that at this point.

BROWN: Yes. The administration has not shown proof and the administration's response to the second boat strike in response to reporting from the Washington Post, as well as CNN, it has been confusing. First, you had the Secretary of War Pete Hegseth slamming the reporting saying that it was, you know, inflammatory and derogatory. Then you had the White House press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, confirming that the second strike happened. Then the -- Pete Hegseth for his part at cabinet meeting yesterday did confirm that it happened, saying that it was the admiral who made this decision and that the admiral was correct in it.

But it was interesting, too, because President Trump had previously said he wouldn't have authorized the second strike.

LEIGHTON: That's exactly right, Pamela. And, you know, that's actually a key distinction here, because when President Trump said he wouldn't have authorized that second strike, that is actually something that is in conjunction with this.

So, let's take a quick look here at the Naval Handbook, because what it says very specifically, and this is all naval officers get this, and there's similar manuals in the other services, combatants, whether lawful or unlawful, who are hors de combat, that's French for outside of combat, are those that are -- that cannot and do not cease to -- cannot cease -- and they cease to participate in hostilities due to wounds, sickness and shipwrecks.

So, here's the phrase. This was definitely a shipwreck. And the obligation is that you pick those people up. They are still alive, that you need to render medical aid to them. That's the kind of thing that actually needs to happen in a case like this, because the laws of war, the maritime laws are rules of engagement all basically say that when you get into a situation like this where there are survivors, you need to take care of those survivors.

BROWN: Because a month later, there were survivors.

LEIGHTON: That's right.

BROWN: And the U.S. let them go, right?

LEIGHTON: That's right, exactly.

BROWN: So, do you think there was a change in administration policy? How do you make sense of that?

LEIGHTON: Yes, so this is actually video from that strike. So, what we're seeing is a subversive bull that is going to be struck here by U.S. drone strike. And what that means is yes, there was absolutely a change in policy. Now, the U.S. has basically said the government -- and here's the strike right here. The government has said that there was no change in policy, but the fact of the matter is the way they changed their rules of engagement and their rules of actually reporting these things and of treating these people clearly shows that they realized that they had made a mistake in the first strike -- the first series of strikes on the 2nd of September.

BROWN: We also know, as all this is going on, the commander in charge of the region announced in October that he will be retiring at the end of the year. How do you read into that?

LEIGHTON: So, this is Admiral Alvin Holsey. He is currently the commander of U.S. Southern Command, not to be confused the commander of U.S. Special Operations Command, which is known as SOCOM. This is known as SouthCom.

[10:55:00]

He's been here in this role since November of last year. He's going to retire on the 12th of December. And his basic idea is that this was one of the things that we see a basic dispute between Secretary Hegseth and Admiral Holsey. He wasn't moving aggressively enough to combat the drug traffickers in the Caribbean.

And the key thing here, though, is that SouthCom, the commander himself, they were concerned that this might not be lawful. And that is probably why the admiral, this admiral, has decided to retire. Because quite frankly, if you conduct operations and there is criminal liability for something where you are violating the laws of war, you could be charged. You could be brought up in front of a court-martial, if you're a military officer. There could be sanctions from international courts. There are all kinds of things that could happen to you, whether you're in political office or whether you are in the military.

BROWN: All right. Colonel Cedric Leighton, as always, thank you so much. Wolf.

BLITZER: All right. Pamela, coming up, the highly anticipated report on Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's use of the so-called Signal app, it's now in the hands of lawmakers. But when, when could the rest of us learn what's inside? We're taking a closer look. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[11:00:00]