Return to Transcripts main page
The Source with Kaitlan Collins
Republicans On Ethics Panel Block Release Of Gaetz Report; GOP Senator: No Way Gaetz Gets Confirmed If New York Times Reporting Is Accurate; Trump Picks Matt Whitaker As U.S. Ambassador To NATO. Aired 9-10p ET
Aired November 20, 2024 - 21:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[21:00:00]
NICK PATON WALSH, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: They announced $275 million more worth of aid today as well. It's all about all sides here, racing fast to get themselves in the best position possible ahead of what most think is a sea change in this conflict when President-Elect Donald Trump comes to power in January, he says he wants to stop the killing. Many are concerned here that he won't allow Ukraine to be in a position of strength, large enough, that it can get a good peace, a just peace, to quote President Zelenskyy here, out of Russia.
Anderson.
ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST, ANDERSON COOPER 360: Nick Paton Walsh, thank you.
And that's it for us. Thanks for watching.
The news continues. "THE SOURCE WITH KAITLAN COLLINS" starts now.
KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN HOST, THE SOURCE WITH KAITLAN COLLINS: Straight from THE SOURCE tonight.
We're live from the center of the political universe, near the President-Elect's Mar-a-Lago Club, about to speak with a source who was in the room when House Republicans blocked the release of the ethics report, on Matt Gaetz.
I'm Kaitlan Collins, live from West Palm Beach, Florida. And this is THE SOURCE.
Tonight, we are hearing from the President-Elect's most embattled cabinet pick so far, as a report that is threatening to derail Matt Gaetz's confirmation remains under wraps, this evening, after Republicans on the House Ethics Committee voted against releasing it, for now.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MATT GAETZ (R), U.S. REPRESENTATIVE-ELECT: It's been going great, uh, the Senators have been giving me a lot of good advice. I'm looking forward to a hearing. Folks have been very supportive, they've been saying we're going to get a fair process.
REPORTER: The ethics committee said they're not going to release their report after their meeting today, at least at this point, any response?
GAETZ: I'll be honest with you, I've been focused on what we've got to do to reform the Department of Justice.
I had a great time with the Vice President-Elect talking about how we're going to end weaponization at the Department of Justice.
REPORTER: Are you confident you can get confirmed by the Senate?
GAETZ: It was a great day.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: You see Gaetz there, on his way to another meeting, alongside Vice President-Elect JD Vance, as the two were personally lobbying Republican senators, hoping to make that confirmation process a bit smoother.
Tonight, one senior Republican on the Judiciary Committee, which will vet Gaetz, is revealing what he told him, during their meeting, with Senator John Cornyn, telling CNN that he warned, quote, "Everything's eventually going to come out."
But in the other chamber, on the Hill, that is an open question, tonight, because the Chair and the Ranking Member of the House Ethics panel are openly feuding over what was said publicly, about the two- hour private meeting that they had.
It began with the Republican leader of the committee.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REPORTER: Are you going to release the report? Is there a resolution?
REP. MICHAEL GUEST (R-MS): There was not an agreement by the committee to release the report.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Just a few moments after that, the top Democrat on that committee, outgoing Congresswoman Susan Wild, accused Chairman Michael Guest, that was who was in the middle of that gaggle there, of betraying the secretive process, not only by speaking about it, but also, as she accused him of mischaracterizing it.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. SUSAN WILD (D-PA): We had agreed that we were not going to discuss what had transpired at the meeting. But it has come to my attention that the Chairman has since betrayed the process.
He has implied that there was an agreement of the committee not to disclose the report. That is inaccurate. There was no consensus on this issue.
MANU RAJU, CNN ANCHOR AND CHIEF CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: The Chairman also said, the report is not done. Is the report done?
WILD: I haven't seen that statement, and I really don't care to comment on the status of the report, except to say that we were in a position to vote today.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: From there, CNN's Manu Raju tracked down the Chairman, for his response.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
RAJU: She said, you betrayed the process, betrayed the committee by talk -- by saying that.
GUEST: Then that's -- that's her -- her choice, if that's what she feels. I mean, you can ask her if she would like to comment further. Again, I made the only brief statement that I intended to make, on the meeting today, which was, we did not reach an agreement.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: The one thing they did agree on, apparently, was to meet again about this, in two weeks from now. They may not have two weeks, though, as Democrats are trying to force the release of that report, tonight, with what would be a high-drama vote in the House.
My Democratic source sits on the House Ethics Committee. California representative Mark DeSaulnier joins me now.
And it's great to have you here, Congressman.
Obviously, as we know, this is a secretive panel, as we just heard Susan Wild referencing there. But since both the Chair and the ranking Democrat have spoken about it now, what can you tell us about what did happen, inside the room today?
REP. MARK DESAULNIER (D-CA): I hate telling you this, Kaitlan, but I can't tell you anything.
The House rules, for good reason, require confidentiality. And if there is any statements, it's done by the Chair and the Ranking Member. And there's just the analogy to me, I'm not a lawyer, is like a grand jury. As you understand, this is a quasi-judicial process. We're investigating.
[21:05:00]
We started this, when Mr. Gaetz was a member, obviously. So, this is unusual circumstance, and we're working through the process, I think, in a bipartisan way, with some challenges, as you could imagine, are not fully unexpected, but maybe unfortunate from some people's perspective. But I really can't comment at all about what happened in the room. I can talk to you about the general process. But I hope you understand that. I'm not trying to be evasive. I'm just trying to comply with the rules.
COLLINS: Yes.
In that room, Democrats voted for releasing it. Republicans voted against it. It was split on party lines. How unusual is that for there not to be a consensus in that room?
DESAULNIER: Well, I can't, again, talk about votes, or what was happening in that room. But the committee's set up, as you mentioned in the lead-in, there are five Republicans, five Democrats. They are appointed by the leaders, in the Republicans' case, of the Conference, which would be the Speaker. In our case, our Leader in our Caucus.
So, it's meant, and it's -- in spite of criticism of it, I think it's done a very good job, by being bipartisan. We have robust discussions, but they're civil. And I think that group, I think of them as all friends. So, we're going to work through it.
But I can't comment on what actually happened in the room. Whether there were votes or what the outcomes were, I can't comment on that.
COLLINS: Were you surprised by what the outcome was?
DESAULNIER: Sorry.
COLLINS: I mean, we know what it was. But were you surprised by that?
DESAULNIER: I think we're working through the process, and I think we will continue. I have, as I've said often today, I have a lot of faith. I'm not naive. As you said, I've been here for a while. I've been in politics for a long time. So, I'm not naive.
But I'm very hopeful that we will work in a bipartisan way. The institution needs it right now. The country needs it. Republican and Democrat Americans, I really feel like they want to be able to trust us, and it's going to take a lot to regain that trust.
And in the Ethics committee's rules, and there are -- there's a reason -- there are good reasons for these, in my view. We're supposed to go through the process. I'm happy to talk to you about the process. I think it'll work in the end.
And I do think the committee has done really good work. In this session, we had Representative Santos. That was by consensus. We put a lot of work into that. And there have been other cases. So historically, we've been able to do it.
COLLINS: Yes.
DESAULNIER: This is a very unusual case.
COLLINS: It is very unusual. You noted, it has its challenges.
So what happens next year? Because you said you're confident the process is going to work. Do you think that means that in two weeks, there's another vote on this, and maybe that report is released ultimately?
DESAULNIER: Well, I've said for some time now that publicly, and checked with our attorneys, before I said it, my hope is that it will be released. There's some process questions, we have to make sure we get right. But I hope it will be.
I think the public, as Justice Brandeis said many, many, many years ago, when he was writing an opinion with Justice Holmes, about the First Amendment, he said, Sunshine is always the best disinfectant. And I think that is very true here.
The Senate will do its advice and consent. I hope there will be public robust discussions (ph) on all these appointees -- nominees, I should say. But when we get to that point, I'm really hopeful for the good of the country that the Ethics committee will act, as it has in the past, in a bipartisan way, to make sure that all of the truth is out there.
COLLINS: Do you think that there's a situation, where the whole House could vote -- force a vote on this, before the Ethics committee does?
Again, because, I saw you speaking earlier, with the Illinois congressman, Sean Casten, who is trying to force a vote on the release of this report, by moving to compel the whole House to vote on it. Do you think that could happen before the House Ethics committee decides to move on this?
DESAULNIER: Well, it's nice to know you're watching C-SPAN. I'll be aware of that in the future.
Yes, I was talking to Sean, when he was just about to present his privileged resolution. This is a way, the rules allow for a single member to get up and force a vote. The leadership's allowed two days, to set a time for that.
So, we are going on recess, tomorrow, for the Thanksgiving break. But my anticipation is when we come back on that, if not tomorrow, but I sort of doubt that, is that there'll be a vote on his, and that there'll be a debate. It'll be open, and it won't be subject to the Ethics rules, the way we are.
COLLINS: Yes.
DESAULNIER: But then they will have the information of what's transpired in there. So, that's an appropriate thing for him to do.
COLLINS: Do you--
DESAULNIER: And he also led a letter with 90 members, asking for us to release the information.
Sorry. COLLINS: Yes. Congressman, you can't tell us what's in the report. But do you feel that it's important, personally, that the Senate see that report?
[21:10:00]
DESAULNIER: I have, in all my years in state, local, and now at the federal level, and you said, I've been here for a while, I believe in the Brandeis quote. I think transparency is important. Due process is also important. But yes, I think everything we've investigated.
And the thing that's unusual about this case, as I understand it, and I've asked this question, is that, for -- in the history of the Ethics committee, when they didn't issue a report, it was because the member had resigned and never went on to other public office.
This case is unique, in that way, because the investigation started by the Ethics committee, by a House member. He resigned, but he's about to take the most powerful position in the Justice Department. That's (ph) on my mind.
COLLINS: Congressman Mark DeSaulnier, thank you for sharing what you could with us. I really appreciate your time tonight.
And my inside source tonight, here with me, in Palm Beach, Florida, on the political battle, behind-the-scenes, is Marc Caputo, who's a National Political Reporter, and the Author of The Bulwark's "MAGAville" Newsletter.
You have reporting on what we just saw former Congressman Gaetz and Vice President-Elect JD Vance up on the Hill. What he is saying to these senators behind closed doors?
MARC CAPUTO, NATIONAL POLITICAL REPORTER, THE BULWARK, AUTHOR, THE BULWARK'S "MAGAVILLE" NEWSLETTER: He's got three messages.
But number one, he's saying, as you heard in that clip a second ago, he doesn't want to weaponize the Justice Department.
And he's sort of beginning with almost an ice-breaker joke. He's saying, Look, I'm not going to go in there, and throw Liz Cheney in jail. We're not going to have Stormtroopers go into MSNBC, and we're not going to try to execute Anthony Fauci in the first week. And it's like, Well, in the first week, he's then asked. He's like, No, not ever, like, We're not doing that.
And then he proceeds to say, Look, I didn't get indicted by the Justice Department, because there was no evidence and there are uncredible, non-credible witnesses. And therefore what you're seeing in this House investigative report is just not going to be true.
And then the last thing he has is a number of reforms that he wants to implement at the Justice Department.
COLLINS: And what are those reforms? I mean, is he trying to essentially argue, Here's what we would be focused on-- CAPUTO: Right.
COLLINS: --that's appealing to you, as a Republican senator.
CAPUTO: Correct. It's a similar thing that you're hearing with, for instance, RFK, like, Don't talk about vaccines, talk about childhood obesity, right?
So, with Matt Gaetz, it's, Don't talk about the investigation. Talk about immigration, talk about fentanyl, talking about overhauling the Civil Rights Division, so it pursues more anti-Semitism, and more voter fraud, and does less in going after states like Virginia for cleaning its -- cleaning, I should say in air quotes, its voter rolls.
COLLINS: Is he addressing the investigation, though, at all? I mean, it's obviously looming over.
CAPUTO: He has to.
COLLINS: It's the reason they're meeting.
CAPUTO: Well, he has to. Like, for instance, Cornyn, he said what he said to you guys, for a reason. It's coming up. It's the elephant in the room, and not in the room that everyone's talking about.
COLLINS: Yes, and what are you hearing about how the senators are responding this? Are they taking this pitch well, or?
CAPUTO: Allegedly they're taking well. But remember, these are senators on the Judiciary Committee. So they're--
COLLINS: Republican senators in the Judiciary.
CAPUTO: Correct, Republicans. And they're sort of hardwired to say, Well, of course, we're going to give him a fair hearing. And there is one aspect that Gaetz is counting on, which is Republican mistrust of the media and the way it's been reported.
COLLINS: Wow. Marc Caputo, great reporting.
CAPUTO: Thank you.
COLLINS: Thank you for that. Thank you for sharing that with us.
My other Republican source here tonight is CNN Political Commentator, and former Congressman, Adam Kinzinger, who was the first congressional Republican, calling Gaetz to resign in 2021, when federal officials were first initially investigating sex trafficking allegations, which, as Marc noted, did not ultimately result in any charges from the Justice Department.
But Congressman, it's great to have you here.
Because when you hear Marc's reporting, about the pitch that they are making to senators, behind closed doors, how do you -- how do you think something like that's going over? ADAM KINZINGER, (R) FORMER U.S. REPRESENTATIVE, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: I mean, it's hard to tell.
I think there's a lot of Republican senators that are desperate for this to go away. They know in their heart that Matt Gaetz could never be attorney general. They don't want to say that publicly, because they don't want to turn the ire of MAGA against them, or Donald Trump against them.
So, I think there's a lot of people that are secretly hoping that he makes a decision to withdraw his own name from nomination. It doesn't appear that that's going to be the case, though. So yes, I mean, we're going to have to see.
This is going to be -- I mean, the thing to keep in mind, this isn't like going to happen in a week. We're months away from him even getting the hearing. So, you can imagine how this will continue to grow legs. And if I was a Republican senator, I certainly would not want to be in that kind of position.
COLLINS: Well, and it was notable what Vice President-Elect Vance posted today. He was obviously there, during those meetings held, kind of acting as a Sherpa, during them.
He tweeted about Republicans, who were riding on Trump's coattails, saying that Trump's "Coattails turned a 49-51 senate to a 53-47 senate," and that "He deserves a cabinet that is loyal to the agenda he was elected to implement."
How do you think that goes over with skeptical Republican senators?
[21:15:00]
KINZINGER: Well, I mean, to an extent, he has a point, which is, yes, actually, for the first time in Donald Trump's electoral history, he had coattails. Usually, he ran behind people that ran in their districts or ran for the state. So, he does have a point in that.
But the difference is this. I mean, it's one thing, if you're talking about -- I don't know, well, let's even take Pete Hegseth, who I don't think is qualified to run DOD. But saying, OK, well, that's Donald Trump's preference, let's say, without these assault allegations against him. By the way, it seems like that's an everything.
This is different, though, because this isn't talking about Donald Trump and his agenda. This is talking about a guy that has been credibly accused of sex with a minor. Let's not -- it's not even sex with minor. It's statutory rape. At the number one law enforcement position in the country.
So, look, JD Vance can go out there and say whatever he wants to do. But a senator's job is not to do what the President of the United States, even if they are in the same party, tells them to do. A senator's job is to be a check and balance on the Executive, not just a check and balance on the executive of a different party. So it's like we've forgotten what the Constitution is and what checks and balances is -- are, if it's our guy.
COLLINS: So, what do you think, as you're watching this, ultimately happens here? Because, I mean, Trump is lamenting. Trump was saying today that anyone he picks that they're -- they get destroyed and spit out by Democrats, and was saying that, This is why we must win, as he phrased it. I mean, he seems publicly to be not faltering on these selections.
KINZINGER: Yes, I don't think he is. And look, I mean, yes, like, if you put qualified people in there, I think you'd have an argument to make, if they were just opposing them because they were a Republican or they agreed with your agenda.
Ultimately, I don't think Matt Gaetz gets confirmed. I would be blown away, if he does.
But here's the issue. All these senators that can vote against him, how many times can they stand up to Trump? Again, they're not a check and balance on the presidency like the Constitution actually demands them to be. So if they use that no-votes, say, on Matt Gaetz, are they going to have the courage to oppose Tulsi Gabbard, or oppose Pete Hegseth, or RFK Jr.? Probably not.
And so, we'll see what happens. I don't think Gaetz is in there, but a lot of other bad people will be.
COLLINS: Yes.
Adam Kinzinger, thank you so much for your time tonight.
KINZINGER: You bet.
COLLINS: Up next. A Judiciary Committee member, who is going to be voting on Gaetz's confirmation, and other Trump picks, is here, with plans, and how they're responding.
Also, a new announcement from the President-Elect, tonight, that surprised some, I should say, by choosing his former acting Attorney General for a major foreign policy post.
[21:20:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: As I noted, Matt Gaetz was on Capitol Hill today on the hunt for Senators, with the soon-to-be Vice President JD Vance at his side, as they are trying to build up support, in the Senate, for his very uncertain confirmation tonight.
This comes as this evening, The New York Times has published a report about a chart that they say was compiled by federal investigators, of reported payments that were made from Gaetz to women, to associates, to friends.
That was part of their investigation that did not result in charges from the Justice Department, I should note. But it is something that the House Ethics Committee has apparently gotten its hands on, as part of its investigation.
Tonight, a Republican senator responding this way.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. MARKWAYNE MULLIN (R-OK): I don't think there's any way he could get confirmed if -- if this is -- is this is accurate. And I will tell you, I don't -- I will say, Matt, when he's been confronted about this, has denied it over and over and over again.
And it was already a very -- it's already a hard push to get Matt confirmed, to begin with. This is -- this is -- this will make things very difficult, if it comes out that it's actually true.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: My source tonight is a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Delaware senator, Chris Coons.
Senator, it's great to have you here.
Just first, on this news from The New York Times reporting on this chart, it was something from the DOJ investigation that did not result in any charges here. But it's something that is speaks to what the House Ethics Committee has been looking at, according to The Times, as they're putting together this report that may or may not come out.
Just what is your reaction to that, right off the bat?
SEN. CHRIS COONS (D-DE): Well, Kaitlan, as you just heard, from Republican Senator Markwayne Mullin's, former Congressman Matt Gaetz has denied and denied that he had anything to do with paying for sex with -- sex with a minor, with illicit drug use.
And there's a lot of relevant documentary evidence that was compiled, both by the Department of Justice and by the House Ethics Committee. And I think it will eventually, in one way or another, come out.
I think it is important that we, on the Senate Judiciary Committee, have an appropriate opportunity, to review those materials, and find out whether or not the nominee, to be the senior law enforcement officer, for the entire United States, the Attorney General, the man in charge of the Department of Justice, has been publicly lying over and over.
Let's also, Kaitlan, not be too distracted by the more salacious aspects of this nomination, by these allegations about Matt Gaetz personal conduct. We also need to remember the substance of it.
President-Elect Trump has chosen someone, who has shown himself to be an unflinching loyalist, willing to do virtually anything he's asked by the President-Elect, because he wants to use the Department of Justice to go after his political enemies. This is an agency charged with keeping us safe, with counterterrorism work, with national security work, with enforcing federal law. And it's a large and complicated agency.
I think we should be asking as many questions about, why is this a good idea? Is this what the American people voted for, in this election, as we spend talking about whether or not Matt Gaetz did or didn't pay for sex.
[21:25:00]
COLLINS: Well, you just heard Marc Caputo reporting that what Gaetz is pitching to Republican senators, from your -- from the Senate Judiciary Committee, with you, today was that they're not actually going to weaponize the Justice Department, that that is not his agenda, going in there, to go after Dr. Fauci, or these other people that Trump has threatened.
What do you make of that?
COONS: I wouldn't believe it, frankly.
I think it would be a huge relief if in fact, President-Elect Trump abandons what has been an agenda that he's talked about over and over in his campaign.
He said hundreds of times, I am your retribution. And he has talked about putting former Republican Congresswoman Liz Cheney in front of a tribunal, about charging those who testified against him in a variety of different settings on trial for treason. I don't think it's healthy. I think that violates some of the foundational rules of our system.
And frankly, I think a lot of the folks, who voted for President-Elect Trump, were voting for him to lower prices, to strengthen the economy, and to move forward, rather than to dedicate so much time and energy to grievances and looking backwards.
But this is a decision, senators will hopefully get to make, in a confirmation hearing. Hopefully, our Republican colleagues here, in the Senate, won't consent to a recess confirmation--
COLLINS: Yes.
COONS: --and simply allow him to be pushed through without a confirmation hearing.
COLLINS: Yes. Senator Lindsey Graham called on your colleagues not to join what he referred to as the lynch mob, and he said, "After years of being investigated by the Department of Justice, no charges were brought against Matt Gaetz."
Is that a fair argument in your view?
COONS: Of course. I mean, that's factually true. But it's not dispositive. We are considering a different issue here in the Senate. It's not, Can we get a jury to convict him for criminal conduct? It's, Is he an appropriate person to lead the U.S. Department of Justice? These are different questions, and looking at different evidentiary standards and different considerations. Obviously, there is a common question about whether or not former Congressman Gaetz has the appropriate character to be the attorney general.
But when the Department of Justice looks at charging someone with a crime, their core question is, Can we convict them? Because in overwhelming -- in an overwhelming majority of the cases, where they charge, they secure a conviction. That's a very high standard of proof.
Here, the question is, Do we think he's done things that are arguably of a quality in nature, that he couldn't pass a background check, and he shouldn't be entrusted with the forces of the Department of Justice.
COLLINS: Yes, of course. Big questions about the background checks here as well, for these picks.
Senator Chris Coons, thank you for your time.
COONS: Thank you, Kaitlan.
COLLINS: Up next. The first incoming, newly-elected and openly transgender House member is now responding to a bathroom ban that was just imposed on Capitol Hill, by the Speaker today.
[21:30:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: Today, on Capitol Hill, House Speaker Mike Johnson banned transgender women from using women's restrooms at the Capitol. His statement announced, quote, "All single-sex facilities in the Capitol and House Office Buildings... are reserved for individuals of that biological sex."
This came after last night, you saw this report here, Republican congresswoman Nancy Mace introduced a bill with that ban. And of course, this is all happening two weeks after the first openly transgender person was elected to Congress. Democratic Congresswoman- elect Sarah McBride.
McBride responded to House Speaker Johnson today, saying, quote, "I'm not here to fight about bathrooms... I will follow the rules as outlined by Speaker Johnson even if I disagree with them."
I want to bring in my political sources tonight.
An S.E. Cupp, I just want to start with you, because I think my first question, looking into this, was how is Speaker Johnson going to even enforce something like this?
S.E. CUPP, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, you're getting to the silliness of this. And some of this is just performative. As you know, every House member has their own personal bathroom, and there are unisex bathrooms all over all of the buildings on Capitol Hill. So, some of this is just performative.
And it is unenforceable, unless you're relying on staffers and members of Congress to turn each other in, which I don't think is the kind of environment you want to create.
But listen, there are real concerns among average Americans about some of these trans issues, around biological men and boys playing sports against biological women and girls. That does not make them bigoted for having those concerns. There are concerns around gender reassignment surgery for children. People aren't bigots, for having those concerns.
We should have civil, good debates about policy. The problem is Republicans aren't doing that. Republicans are using a very complicated and emotional issue, to create a wedge, and to create a punitive and cool (ph) attack on a new member who, as she pointed out, doesn't want any of this. This is not why she was sent to Congress, and it's not what she wants to do, and occupy her time with, as a member of Congress.
But that's sort of what Republicans do on these culture war issues. There could be a grain of truth, or a majority of Americans with them on an issue. But they go to the cruelty to make a point, instead of a policy.
COLLINS: Yes, Jamal, looking at McBride's response to this, saying, This is not what I'm going to be focusing on. This is not why I'm here.
[21:35:00]
Of course, you can't ignore how all of this started, which is from Congresswoman Mace. And seeing what she said today. She was the one, who introduced this bill, and then wanted Mike Johnson to put it in the packages rule.
But I want to point you to something that is still up on Mace's House website, even today, where said, quote, "I strongly support LGBTQ rights and equality. No one should be discriminated against." She said, "I do believe... religious liberty, the First Amendment, gay rights, and transgender equality can all coexist." She talked about her own friends who identify as LGBTQ.
Now look at that, and then compare that with her Twitter feed today, and look at how much she has posted about this, in just the last 24 hours alone. This is a small snapshot, if you're looking through her X feed on this. And I just wonder your view of that, Jamal.
JAMAL SIMMONS, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, FORMER COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR TO VP HARRIS, CO-HOST, "TRAILBLAZE" PODCAST: Well, what's happened is Donald Trump got elected president. And since Donald Trump's got elected president, we've normalized cruelty. We've normalized things that we just really wouldn't do otherwise.
What's interesting about this. In 1990, we passed the Americans with Disability Act. When my former boss, Max Cleland, who was in a wheelchair, got to United States Senate, in 1997, there was not an ADA-compliant bathroom. So, you know what he did? He used the bathroom -- he used the women's room, because the women's room in the Senate was the only one that was ADA-compliant. The men's room was not ADA- compliant.
So, the Senate was able to figure this out, 20 something years ago. And now, here it is in the House, we're doing it, just because it's cruel.
And I bet you, just like me, I'm sure you know, right now, in America, this weekend, there will be nightclubs all over America, where women are tired of standing in line, and they choose to go into the men's room to go to the bathroom.
Americans can figure this out. This is just something that's cruel that's being done on behalf of Nancy Mace. And she should be ashamed of herself.
COLLINS: Well, and S.E. Cupp, Mace's former comms director has been criticizing her, online.
CUPP: Yes.
COLLINS: She posted and once -- and said, "If you think this bill is about protecting women and not simply a ploy to get on Fox News, you've been fooled."
CUPP: Yes, Nancy Mace really likes TV time. She likes being at the center of these. And I don't know if it's for, to curry favor among MAGA, or just because she wants attention. But she's done this before. And she's glommed onto an issue that she thinks works for her.
But that's the point. This is a policy issue. And I'm not just talking about the bathroom in Congress. I'm talking about this entire issue of trans rights. It is an issue, and it's an issue that deserves some serious attention to policy, and we should do that with compassion and understanding.
I've been in the gay rights and LGBT community, as a supporter and advocate, since I'm a child. And I know from experience that the way you move people, on these issues of progress, is not at the barrel of a gun, and it's not by yelling at them, screaming at them, telling them they're awful and bigots. That's not it.
You got to wait until people meet these people. When you meet a gay person, when you meet a trans person, that's when the conversations sort of start to change.
So, on the left, they can't force this issue on Americans, who don't find some of this stuff very popular. But on the right, they are hoping that the cruelty is going to move people on this issue too. And that's just not how it works either. That's not -- that's not getting it.
SIMMONS: And Kaitlan, before we take off--
COLLINS: Yes -- go ahead, Jamal.
SIMMONS: I just want to go back really quickly to the Matt Gaetz situation. Look, I think there's something that we aren't talking about here.
I've been through two separate background checks, working in two separate presidential administrations in my life. One of the things they do in a background check is they see what you feel sensitive about, what is in your background that you're concerned about.
The fact that Matt Gaetz is so sensitive about whatever happened in these allegedly Diddy-style freak-offs, or whatever he was doing, down in Florida, the fact that he's so sensitive about it that he's not going to tell people, tells me there's a vulnerability there.
So, for those of us who are concerned about how America is competitive, and how we stand up against our adversaries. Our adversaries know what happened. They know what's in this report. And if he doesn't tell the American public, if we don't -- if we don't air this out, in the United States Senate, he's going to be a very vulnerable cabinet member, in a very sensitive job, in the United States government.
COLLINS: One, I should note, I mean, he's denied that. And the Trump expectation from their team is that he'll deny it publicly at a confirmation hearing, if it gets to that point. We'll see if it does.
Jamal Simmons. S.E. Cupp. Thank you both for being here.
Up next. The President-Elect has nominated someone else today, another loyalist. This time, it is a former law enforcement official, who is going to a critical foreign policy role. We're going to talk about that with my next source, who once held that position, after a quick break.
[21:40:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: Welcome back. We are live in West Palm Beach, Florida, tracking the Trump transition.
And tonight, the President-Elect has chosen Matthew Whitaker to serve as his U.S. Ambassador to NATO. You may remember Matt Whitaker, from Trump's first term in office, where he served for about three months, as the acting Attorney General. That was after Trump had fired his first attorney general, Matt Whitaker's boss at the time, Jeff Sessions.
Now, Whitaker is not bringing foreign policy experience when he is going to Brussels, in this role. But he is instead known, inside Trump-world, for his loyalty to the President-Elect.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MATTHEW WHITAKER, TRUMP'S "U.S. AMBASSADOR TO NATO" PICK: Stacked against the President.
All of these judges and all these prosecutors should -- should dismiss these cases, give President Trump a clean slate.
Nobody knows the weaponization of the Department of Justice and the legal system more than Donald Trump. He has been the target of these ridiculous novel legal theories.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[21:45:00]
COLLINS: Because of comments like those, some people had thought he would be getting a job at the DOJ. Now, we've seen with this, Whitaker has backed up Trump's demand that NATO Allies spend more on their defense. He could now be working with an alliance that Trump has threatened to withdraw from, at worst, and been skeptical of, at best.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP (R), FORMER U.S. PRESIDENT AND CURRENT PRESIDENTIAL- ELECT: One of the presidents of a big country stood up, said, Well, sir, if we don't pay, and we're attacked by Russia, will you protect us?
I said, You didn't pay, you're delinquent? No, I would not protect you. In fact, I would encourage them to do whatever the hell they want.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: My next source tonight is the former U.S. Ambassador to NATO himself, Ivo Daalder.
And it's great to have you here, Ambassador. Because you're someone who held this job for four years, during the Obama administration. Obviously, Obama and Trump have very different foreign policy views.
But on this role, and knowing what it needs, what does Trump's selection of Matt Whitaker say to you?
IVO DAALDER, FORMER U.S. AMBASSADOR TO NATO, CEO, CHICAGO COUNCIL ON GLOBAL AFFAIRS: Well, I mean, on one hand, it's good news, because having an Ambassador to NATO means that at least Donald Trump is not planning to withdraw from NATO immediately. After all, why send an ambassador to an organization he's no longer going to be a part of?
But on the other hand, it says something about how he thinks about appointments. Apparently, expertise is no longer a requirement for the job that you're supposed to be filling. Loyalty is.
I think Matt Whitaker is probably going to be the first U.S. Ambassador to NATO, and in the long range, since 1949, since we had our first U.S. Ambassador, who has had absolutely no experience in foreign or defense policy. And the U.S. Ambassador to NATO is unique. Reports not only to the Secretary of State, but also to the Secretary of Defense. It's an important job for an important organization. And it says a lot that the President decided to put loyalty above expertise, in this case, as he has in his other appointments.
COLLINS: Well, on your first point, I will say, I mean, yes, he is appointing someone as the Ambassador to NATO. But he did also appoint an Education secretary, even though he has vowed to abolish that department.
But on what Matt Whitaker's job is going to be here, if he's confirmed by the Senate, how do you think Brussels is looking at something like this?
Because, I was there at the summits before, where Trump put a lot of pressure on the Allies to increase defense spending. He has actually touted that you have seen some of them increase their defense spending, over the last few years.
But what does that task look like, for Matt Whitaker in this role?
DAALDER: Well, of course, you're going to find a NATO that is deeply worried about where the United States is going. This is a very different NATO and a very different time than when Donald Trump was last president. This is now a NATO that is actually in a continent that is at war. It is at war with Russia.
Russia is fighting a land war in Ukraine, and a hybrid war against much of Europe, and indeed against the United States. It is assassinating people. It is blowing up weapons depots (ph). It is being suspected of cutting lines of communication between -- underneath the seas. It is trying to poison the water supply at military bases. It's putting explosives on our airplanes that are meant to go to the United States.
That is the kind of thing that Russia is doing each and every day. And NATO exists to provide security for all of its members.
And instead, I think what you're going to find is that Ambassador Whitaker, if he is indeed confirmed, will be spending all those time talking about the Allies needing to do more, on defense spending, and calling into question America's commitment to their defense.
Now, the Allies do need to do more. It's something that everyone agrees to it. My sense is, in Europe, they're going to say, We'll do more no matter what happens, because it's not clear we can rely on the United States any longer, in the way we have, over the last 75 years.
COLLINS: Yes, you just mentioned that he has to be Senate-confirmed for this role. If you were a senator there, Republican or Democrat, what would you ask him?
DAALDER: Well, I would ask some deep-knowledge questions about NATO. I wanted to know whether the ambassador to an organization, of which the United States is a founding member, actually understands how the organization works, what it is there for, what it under -- what it -- what it does, in order to bring some deep knowledge to the -- to the question. That's first.
Second, I would really want to be interested in, to know what he would know about our Allies. These are countries, we work with them, day in and day night -- day in and day out. Whether he understands how it is important to build coalitions that the United States is looked at as a leader in this organization, to bring together parties who don't always agree, in order to move forward.
[21:50:00]
This is an organization that is based on consensus. You can't move forward unless everyone agrees. How is he going to do that? How is he going to bring everybody together? Is it all with threats? Or is it also going to be with some diplomacy and some skill? Those are the kinds of questions I'd be asking him.
COLLINS: We'll see what he gets asked.
Ambassador Ivo Daalder, it's great to have your expertise on the show tonight. Thank you.
DAALDER: My pleasure.
COLLINS: Speaking of Ukraine, they are now accusing Russia of carrying out psychological warfare, so serious that the U.S. closed its embassy in Kyiv, something it has not done in years.
A new provocative essay by an exiled Russian journalist, he is going to weigh in next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[21:55:00]
COLLINS: Tonight, Ukraine is accusing Russia of conducting psychological warfare after spreading panic across Kyiv.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
(VIDEO - AIR RAID SIRENS, IN KYIV, UKRAINE)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Those air raid sirens rang out for hours as residents rushed into their shelters. The U.S. even closed its embassy there, in Kyiv, for the first time in more than two years, after warning that Russia might be prepared to launch a significant air attack. The Greek, Italian and Spanish embassies all followed suit.
But Ukrainian officials later said it was Russia that was behind the mayhem, and had spread a fake warning of a massive attack, purporting to be from Ukraine's Defense Intelligence.
My source tonight is the exiled Russian journalist, Mikhail Zygar. And it's great to have you here.
Because obviously, this is not the first time we've seen the Kremlin try to -- try to wage psychological warfare, not just in Ukraine, but in other places. But what is the impact of something like this?
MIKHAIL ZYGAR, EXILED RUSSIAN JOURNALIST, AUTHOR, "WAR AND PUNISHMENT," AUTHOR, "ALL THE KREMLIN'S MEN": I think it's -- it was a very important news for Russia, and for Kremlin, the decision of Biden administration to allow Ukrainians to use additional forces, additional weapons, against Russia.
They know that -- they consider it to be very temporary, because they think that it's going to be over by January. But yes, they are reacting the way they know, and it's just the matter of time.
COLLINS: What do you mean, Over by January?
ZYGAR: They consider the new -- the new American policy, to be very temporary, because, actually, there is some kind of celebratory mood in Kremlin. They think that the American policy towards Ukraine and towards Russia is going to change after Trump's administration.
So, they think that everything what's happening right now is just the precondition, and like the preparation for the next negotiations that are going to start in -- are going to start after the inauguration of President Trump.
COLLINS: Yes, you kind of lay this out, from your reporting, in an Op- Ed in The New York Times, where you talk about that enthusiasm, inside the Kremlin, over Trump's win, not necessarily just because of his policies, and what they'll look like, but because you say that, you know, as you quoted it, saying that they basically view this as the end of America, the end of that coming, that you believe Putin is firmly committed to that.
But what stood out to me was you said that high-ranking Russians took an interest in a movie, starring Kirsten Dunst. It's called "Civil War." And that it generated immense excitement in Russia's ruling circles.
Why did it generate that excitement?
ZYGAR: Yes, there is something ridiculous, that belief -- yes, they truly believe that the United States are doomed to collapse, the same way as Soviet Union collapsed, several decades ago.
But in the beginning of that belief is, there is some kind of assumption that, as Soviet Union was based on this ideology, which was social -- communist ideology, the (inaudible) United States (inaudible) and as the population of Soviet Union, they say, stopped believing in communism, back in the 80s, they feel that right now, the population of the United States stopped believing in liberal democracy.
And they see the results of that, the recent presidential election, as the proof for that, that ideology, that used to be so sacred, for the American population, is not (inaudible) any longer.
And as they say, Mikhail Gorbachev was a Soviet leader, who embraced Western ideology. And in the same way, Donald Trump could be the American leader, who can embrace the current Russian ideology, which is pragmatic cynicism. So current--
COLLINS: Yes.
ZYGAR: --current Putin's ideology is--
COLLINS: Yes.
ZYGAR: --the only principle is no principles. The only value is no values. You should not believe in anything.
COLLINS: Right.
ZYGAR: Any dictator should have a right to kill as many people as he wants. It should be business as usual, just business--
COLLINS: Yes.
ZYGAR: --between different nations, between different states--
COLLINS: And Mikhail, we saw that--
ZYGAR: --without a--
[22:00:00]
COLLINS: Yes, and we saw that in the -- in the -- we also saw those comments reflected in the Zelenskyy interview that he just did, about what this looks like going forward, and how this is.
It's a fascinating Op-Ed. Mikhail Zygar, thank you for joining tonight.
Thank you all so much for joining us here, live from West Palm Beach, Florida.
I'll be back here reporting, for you, tomorrow night.
"CNN NEWSNIGHT WITH ABBY PHILLIP" is up next.
