Return to Transcripts main page
The Source with Kaitlan Collins
Luigi Mangione Retains High-Powered New York Attorney; Trump On Mystery Drones: Inform The Public Or "Shoot Them Down"; Dem Rep. Goldman Backs AOC For Top Role On Oversight Committee. Aired 9-10p ET
Aired December 13, 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]
HARRY ENTEN, CNN SENIOR DATA REPORTER: --now, there's a big problem with that. There's a big problem.
Now, let's say you live in the City of Detroit. That means that in the winter, your sun won't rise until about 09:00 a.m. So, kids go to school in the dark. So, what happened was people turned against Daylight Saving Time, all year round. The majority opposed it. Very few favored it.
So, if we'd have to go to Daylight Saving Time all year round, I'm not sure people would necessarily like it.
JOHN BERMAN, CNN HOST, ANDERSON COOPER 360: Bottom line, people find a reason to complain. Harry Enten, not you though.
ENTEN: No, and I never complain about you. Only positive.
BERMAN: You're always welcome (ph). Thank you very much.
ENTEN: You're fantastic.
BERMAN: Have a great weekend.
ENTEN: You too, buddy.
BERMAN: You look good.
ENTEN: Thank you.
BERMAN: All right. The news continues. "THE SOURCE WITH KAITLAN COLLINS" starts now.
KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN HOST, THE SOURCE WITH KAITLAN COLLINS: Straight from THE SOURCE, tonight.
I have exclusive new reporting about Luigi Mangione's defense, the accused CEO killer now hiring a high-powered New York attorney, someone you've seen on this show before.
Also, as that mystery is growing in the skies, a part-time New Jersey resident says it's time to shoot them down. Is that even possible? And tonight, we're hearing from the Homeland Security Secretary, telling CNN, they don't know exactly what they are, but they're also not concerned.
An alarm in the medical community, tonight, over revelations that RFK Jr.'s attorney has been petitioning to get a life-saving vaccine revoked.
I'm Kaitlan Collins. And this is THE SOURCE.
Tonight, the accused CEO killer may be getting ready, to head here to New York, perhaps sooner than some expected. As I have exclusive new reporting about who will be representing him when he gets here. Tonight, I can report that Luigi Mangione has retained a high-powered New York defense attorney, Karen Friedman Agnifilo, to represent him, as he's facing a second degree murder charge, in the death of the UnitedHealthcare CEO, Brian Thompson.
Viewers of THE SOURCE will be very familiar with Friedman Agnifilo, who was recently a CNN Legal Analyst. But she's also a veteran of the New York criminal justice system. She served as the Chief Assistant District Attorney in the Manhattan D.A.'s office for seven years, before going into private practice. As one longtime New York prosecutor told me, tonight, she knows, quote, Every corridor, every judge, every clerk in the courthouse here.
And she will be taking this case on, at a time when investigators have amassed new evidence, in recent days. With police telling CNN, this week, that the 3D-printed gun he had on him when he was arrested, matches the three shell casings that were found at the crime scene in Midtown Manhattan. His fingerprints also matched those that investigators found on items near the scene.
This is all evidence that Friedman Agnifilo said before she was retained, I should note, could potentially be a problem.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KAREN FRIEDMAN AGNIFILO, HIGH-POWERED NEW YORK ATTORNEY: It looks to me like this -- there might be a not guilty by reason of insanity defense that they're going to be thinking about, because the evidence is going to be so overwhelming that he did what he did.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: At this hour, Luigi Mangione remains behind bars in Pennsylvania.
But just today, we heard from the Manhattan District Attorney, who said that he could waive extradition, meaning he could be headed here to New York, as early as Tuesday.
My sources tonight on the breaking news, are:
CNN's Chief Law Enforcement and Intelligence Analyst, and also the former NYPD Deputy Commissioner, John Miller.
Retired NYPD Captain, and Author of "The Guns of Antwerp," John Monaghan. As well as former federal prosecutor, and CNN Legal Analyst, Jennifer Rodgers.
It's great to have you all here, especially on this breaking news that now he has retained a New York attorney. Previously, he had Thomas Dickey in Pennsylvania, who we heard from this week. But everyone was kind of looking to see who was going to be representing him and taking this case on in New York.
Tell us what that means, as this comes at a time, as we're hearing from Alvin Bragg about potentially waiving extradition.
JENNIFER RODGERS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: Yes, well, the extradition piece in Pennsylvania, it's really a non-event. Most defendants waive it, because all it is, is proving that the guy that New York wants is the guy that Pennsylvania has. It's just an identity thing.
There's really no question here, when you see all the things that he was arrested with that tie him to the scene of the crime, et cetera, they have the right guy.
So really, what you want is a lawyer, who can take you through the real case, right, the pre-trial, and of course, the trial. And Karen is the sort of person, with all of her many years of experience, as a trial lawyer, and in this actual courthouse, and in this actual office. That's the sort of person you want.
COLLINS: Yes, and she does have a wealth of experience, and as we were talking about what that looks like. I mean, she was about to be intimately familiar with this again, John, because we've been talking, based on your reporting, of just the evidence that they are amassing, and what kind of case they're already building behind-the-scenes.
JOHN MILLER, CNN CHIEF LAW ENFORCEMENT & INTELLIGENCE ANALYST: I mean, they have a gun on him in Pennsylvania, allegedly, that matches to the ballistics at the scene.
They have a three-page letter on him, which the police are describing as a claim of responsibility, where he talks about the what and the why.
They have fingerprints that are on his fingers that allegedly match fingerprints that are on a phone discarded at the scene, a water bottle and a power bar wrapping.
[21:05:00]
So, when you get to the elements of a good prosecution, forensic evidence, motive, means, opportunity, as Karen framed in her interview, before she was representing him, it's all there. Now, it doesn't mean it can't be challenged. That's what a trial is about.
COLLINS: Yes, well, and obviously being intimately familiar with that, well how will that serve her potentially, as in terms -- or serve him, I should note, as the client here, as he's going to be. If this delay that they're having with him getting from Pennsylvania to New York is about to be over, what do the next steps in this process look like for him?
JOHN MONAGHAN, RETIRED NYPD CAPTAIN: Well, they're going to extradite him, and it was just a matter of time. And now, it's just a matter of transporting him over there, and getting him into the New York City system.
I'm just very disappointed that we didn't have a chance. If you notice, there was a delay in charging him, when he was first arrested. They didn't level the charges in New York until that evening. That was to give our detectives a chance to get in the box with him and speak with him.
Because once you file it, you know this, Jen, once you file an accusatory instrument, the absolute right to counsel attaches. Now, we can't question him without his attorney sitting there. There was a window--
COLLINS: But you could have before.
MONAGHAN: Yes, that's why we don't charge right away.
You look at the timing. Pennsylvania locked him up. They tried to talk to him. He lawyered up. They charged him an hour later. It's exactly how that works.
So our guys come in, we didn't charge him right away. Now he has the right to counsel out of Pennsylvania, because they filed charges. We didn't file charges yet. So we want to get an experienced detective in a box with him, and see if he'll talk.
And if you get a real good experienced detective in that box, this kid, I think, wanted to talk. It's a shame that we missed that window. They must have tried for a few hours, because they didn't charge him and file accusatory instrument, which attaches to right to counsel until that evening. There's a lot we could have gotten.
But now, for the New York case, like the science didn't catch this guy. We only had partial prints. We had ballistics that matched absolutely nothing, because the gun didn't exist. Police worked that photo of the person. That's how they caught this guy.
Now that we have a subject, now we can take his prints, match it to the partial. We can take his gun, match it to the ballistics. This is all evidence, going forward, in the trial.
MILLER: Take his DNA, match it to the DNA.
MONAGHAN: Right, right, yes.
COLLINS: Which is what they're -- what they're doing.
But on that note, on that point, about being able to have a chance to talk with him. He was initially cooperative. And then, later, we learned, I think, pretty quickly on, he stopped being so. I mean, that could have been incredibly valuable for them.
RODGERS: It is. But, you know -- the thing that always boggles my mind about this case is why he had all this stuff with him.
I mean, in some ways, he obviously was an intelligent kid. He had all of this education, high marks, and so on. He committed this crime. The execution of it showed a lot of planning. He's a sharp kid. And yet, he is found in McDonald's with all of these things on him, right, these papers, the gun. Why he didn't ditch that stuff right away, it's beyond me.
He must have just, at some point, once he gets caught, he realizes what's happening, he knows he needs to be quiet. I mean, you don't have to be that smart to realize, you need to ask for a lawyer.
COLLINS: And the warrants they're getting now.
MILLER: Yes.
COLLINS: He was on a laptop when they found him in the McDonald's. He had a phone.
As they've been sifting through that, John, where does that stand, one? And two, have they figured out yet who he was on the phone with, that day, that morning, when we saw him walking to be -- outside of the Hilton hotel.
MILLER: That would be the focus of the search warrant to get into the burner phone.
I don't know at what point they either did or failed to get into that phone. But the team that does that is pretty experienced, and that phone is probably easier than most. So, don't know that.
The warrant to get into the laptop is going to be critical. Because, as we reported, he was on that laptop in the McDonald's. So, you really want to know what was he doing. Arranging his escape? Tracking his next victim? Looking at CNN.com to see if there was reports about either his crimes, or that police were closing in? It would be interesting to get in there.
The other warrant they did was, and this is counterintuitive, they got a search warrant for Brian Thompson, the victim's hotel room.
Because at the earliest stage of the case, while they wanted to know who this guy in the video, who is he talking to on the phone, and who is he? They wanted to know, is there something in Brian Thompson's room, a note, a message that says, Meet me downstairs at 06:44? Or a number or a name? And that's what, what they were trying to do.
COLLINS: Did they find anything from that from what you've heard?
MILLER: Nothing of substantive value that I'm aware of that led to the identification of the suspect.
COLLINS: Yes. MILLER: He had all the stuff to prepare for his conference there.
COLLINS: And the other interesting detail today that came from the San Francisco Chronicle, is San Francisco police identified the suspect four days before he was captured and arrested. They passed that information on to the FBI.
Eric Adams, on Saturday, seemed to indicate that they kind of knew who this was. But obviously, it wasn't until a few days later that they actually arrested him.
What happens there, in terms of police in San Francisco, pass along this tip. Obviously, they're getting a lot of stuff. But this was who it was, actually.
MONAGHAN: Right, and, of course, they didn't know that. And they had, as John and I were talking, before we came on, they had hundreds of tips similar to that. But this one came from a cop who, as you said, interviewed his mother. A mother knows her son.
[21:10:00]
COLLINS: When she filed the missing persons report?
MONAGHAN: Right, right. Apparently, filed it in San Francisco, because that's where he was last seen.
Well, I won't say it's shocking. But I understand the way FBI works, in comparison to where the local police department works. There's a lot of bureaucracy there. Like, if I have something on my case that came up? Oh, Jen needs this for her case? I can just lean over and hand it to her. The FBI has got to go three flights up, two hallways down, three flights down. They can't -- they have rules of engagement with each other.
So, that information was properly sent from the FBI San Francisco office, to the FBI New York office, and it was being processed. And then we caught him before they alerted us.
It's kind of cumbersome. It's a bureaucratic nightmare. But no one ignored it or dropped the ball on it. It was being processed in accordance with their rules.
MILLER: And it did make its way over to the squad. So, it comes out of San Francisco P.D., Friday. It goes to the San Francisco FBI office. They ship it to the FBI New York office, who does a work-up on it, on Saturday. Sunday, the NYPD detectives have it. But then it's in the pile of 200 similar leads.
And what Eric Adams was talking about was, We don't want to let the person know we know. That was an entirely different suspect who, at that time, was the top suspect, who has since washed out. But that's how -- that's the nature of these cases.
COLLINS: Wow.
MILLER: Needles--
COLLINS: Yes.
MILLER: --haystacks, and moments of destiny and luck, after a lot of hard work.
COLLINS: Yes, clearly.
Commissioner. Captain. Jennifer. Great to have you all, with your expertise, here at the table.
Up next. We're going to talk about another mystery, as those drones in the sky, over New Jersey and beyond, are raising real questions. We're hearing from President-elect Donald Trump weighing in. He's skeptical the government does not have more answers.
And speaking of skeptical. An adviser to RFK Jr. is asking the FDA to revoke approval for the polio vaccine. We're hearing a response tonight from Senator Mitch McConnell, a polio survivor, on that. We'll bring it to you.
[21:15:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: What is going on? That is the question that a lot of people in New Jersey, and the surrounding areas, have tonight.
And apparently, so does the President-elect Donald Trump, who posted it today, and I'm quoting him, "Mystery Drone sightings all over the Country. Can this really be happening without our government's knowledge? I don't think so. Let the public know, and now. Otherwise, shoot them down."
Earlier tonight, Wolf Blitzer asked Homeland Security Secretary, Alejandro Mayorkas, about this growing frustration that we're seeing, from residents and officials, across several states.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS, HOMELAND SECURITY SECRETARY: Let me calm those nerves. We have not seen anything unusual. We have not seen any unusual activity. We know of no threat.
That's not to say that there aren't drones, you know, flying in the air. But we have no concern, at this point, with respect to a threat or any nefarious activity.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Of course, that raises the question we had last night. How can you say you don't know what they are exactly, while at the same time you do not have concern about what they are?
My source tonight is the former Deputy Director of National Intelligence, Beth Sanner. So, we're hoping you can answer some of our questions that we have about this.
Because a lot of people might hear that and say, That's not a fulsome enough answer for me. Maybe you know -- Just trust me on this is--
BETH SANNER, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST, FORMER DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE: Sure.
COLLINS: --not really what people want to hear.
What's your view of what we've been hearing from top officials today?
SANNER: I, you know, I think that presentation there, I mean, I -- you know, I don't want to be critical. But that doesn't really calm people's nerves to say, Trust me, you shouldn't be worried.
I do think we have to learn how we can talk about these kinds of things, a little bit more detail and precision, and what we don't know.
But I think that the types of things that are being seen, what he's saying is like, These aren't, like, Shaheds flying over Ukraine, and about to blow up a building. These are surveillance probably at most. And in some cases, they're probably a bunch of hobbyists that are joining in on the fun.
But we have a serious problem with drones over our military installations. So like, no kidding, that's a thing. And kind of pooh- poohing what's going on now is, I think, confusing things.
COLLINS: Yes. And so, what is the situation here, in terms of how you respond to this, as a U.S. government official? Because that's a pretty big scale of hobbyists joining in, to actual surveillance, which could be quite damaging.
SANNER: Right.
COLLINS: Of course, we've see this become a much bigger concern.
Trump is saying, Just shoot them down.
But we heard from Mayorkas on this. Listen to what he said on that precise question.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
WOLF BLITZER, CNN HOST, THE SITUATION ROOM WITH WOLF BLITZER: Do you have the authority to shoot down drones?
MAYORKAS: Our authorities are very limited. That is precisely why we have gone to Congress to expand those authorities.
We have various authorities that are discrete to the particular missions. We can't just shoot a drone out of the sky.
BLITZER: But do you know--
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SANNER: Yes.
COLLINS: What exactly does that mean?
SANNER: Yes. So, what this means is that our rules, our regulations, our laws and authorities, which means who gets to do what, who has legally the right to do what, were built, like, in the 1950s. And they are not fit -- fit for today's world and today's threats.
[21:20:00]
So, we have the FBI, we have DHS, we have FAA, we have the U.S. military. And we have lots of gaps in between, kind of who does what when. And there're things on paper. But when it comes to actually something happening, there are seams there.
And so, look, does the U.S. military have the right to shoot down a drone in self-defense? Yes. But these are very limited circumstances, and they even have to be coordinated with the FAA.
But put on top of that, Kaitlan, the idea of where this is. If you do this, what we would call, like a hard-kill option, which means, like, bang, bang, bang, shoot it out of the sky? Somebody's going to get hurt. And if you're paying attention at all to what happens in Ukraine. A lot of times, the people that are hurt or killed are killed from the debris of shooting down a drone. So, these hard-kill options are really not feasible in an urban area.
And then, the other options are more limited, soft-kill. They're like, electronic warfare, GPS jamming. Everybody recognizes the term, GPS. This is how our Uber driver finds out where we're going to go. It also is how our commercial aircraft fly through the most congested air corridor in the country, which is in the same area.
And so, again, we are not really ready for this. But we're getting there. And there are things that are happening. I don't want people to think that nothing's going on. There are things happening.
COLLINS: Yes.
SANNER: We're just not ready yet.
COLLINS: Yes. Obviously, raising a lot of questions about what this looks like, and still a lot of questions.
Beth Sanner, as always, it's great to have your expertise. Thank you.
SANNER: Thanks, Kaitlan.
COLLINS: Up next. RFK Jr. says he will not get rid of vaccines, if he's confirmed to lead the nation's Health department. But new reporting, tonight, reveals that someone very close to him has asked the FDA, to do just that. [21:25:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: The bulletin that quite literally changed the world came down at 10:20 Eastern Standard Time on April 12th, 1955. The headline, Polio Vaccine Is Safe, Effective and Potent. The news triggered celebrations across the country, and the breakthrough by Dr. Jonas Salk has been called one of the greatest medical advancements of the 20th Century. The New York Times called it a medical classic.
Now, fast forward seven decades later, and that very same New York Times is reporting, and CNN has now confirmed, that a top attorney for Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who worked with Kennedy, during his campaign, has been petitioning the FDA to revoke the vaccine's approval. He says, the push is on behalf of his clients.
The paper is also reporting that Aaron Siri, who is helping RFK Jr., according to The Times, pick Health officials for the incoming administration, is also trying to pause the distribution of 13 other vaccines.
That is an alarming prospect for a lot of people in public health, especially those who remember just how devastating the polio epidemic was. Before the vaccine, it killed or paralyzed more than half a million people each year. Many of them were children.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (voice-over): Parents lived in fear of polio's sudden attack, and the tragic aftermath. Thousands upon thousands of children and adults fell prey to the Crippler.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Of course, the most severe cases kept people attached to the so-called Iron Lung machines, because those patients could no longer breathe on their own.
It took generations of Americans getting vaccinated to eliminate natural transmission, just within the United States. And since the late 1980s, it is estimated to have saved 20 million children from being paralyzed.
Raises the question, Why, then, someone in such a position of influence would be pushing to get rid of it?
My source tonight is Dr. Megan Ranney, an emergency physician and the Dean of the Yale School of Public Health.
And it's great to have you here tonight, Doctor.
Because the polio virus is still around. I mean, we saw that happening just in Gaza, with a man in the U.S. recently. What would happen theoretically, if the FDA did revoke approval of the polio vaccine? DR. MEGAN RANNEY, EMERGENCY PHYSICIAN, DEAN, YALE SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH: Theoretically speaking, if approval of the polio vaccine were revoked, it would mean that children being born would not be able to get the polio vaccine. And as the years passed, we would start seeing polio spread in the United States again.
We would be in the same situation that Afghanistan and Pakistan are in, right now, where polio is spreading amongst the population.
We'd be in the same situation that my parents were in, when they were little kids, where we'd have to worry, each summer, about the spread of polio at the beach, and where we'd see generations of children, and their friends, experiencing disability and death, thanks to this virus.
COLLINS: And as The New York Times is digging into this tonight. The complaint that Aaron Siri, this attorney, seems to be arguing, is saying it's because it hasn't been tested against a placebo.
Can you just walk us through why that is for the modern polio vaccine?
RANNEY: So, let's be clear on what a placebo trial is. It's when you compare a medication to no medication. We do that when there is no treatment or no prevention, if we want to show that something is better than nothing.
[21:30:00]
But at this point, across the world, we have given hundreds of millions of polio doses. We have eradicated polio, again, from all countries, except for Afghanistan and Pakistan, thanks to distribution of the polio vaccine. We know that it works.
It would be unethical, no physician or public health professional would be willing to engage in a placebo-controlled trial of nothing versus the polio vaccine, because it would be exposing children to infection and would be creating unnecessary risk.
COLLINS: So, it's not nefarious. It's just because it would -- it would put those children at harm.
RANNEY: That's exactly right. The only reason, the only ethical reason, to do a placebo-controlled trial is if you don't know whether there's anything that works, to prevent or to treat a disease.
In this case, we know that the polio vaccine, and we have two types of polio vaccines, we know that both of them work tremendously well. And we know that both of them are quite safe. So giving kids nothing would be, frankly, dangerous.
COLLINS: On this front, if RFK Jr. is confirmed as the HHS Secretary, he'd be overseeing the FDA. They review the vaccine petitions each year.
I mean, how much leeway would he have, when it comes to interfering in that? Because they've argued, We're not going to take away the vaccines from anyone. But if they are successful here, and asking regulators to withdrawal, or suspend approval, I mean, that vaccine would not be available.
RANNEY: It's a great question, and time is going to tell what happens. I think that the worry of many of us is two-fold.
The first is that misinformation or distrust of vaccines has become one of the major health threats, globally.
Let's be clear. We know that vaccines against childhood illnesses work. We've saved over 150 million lives, most of which are amongst children, over the last 50 years, worldwide, thanks to vaccines. I don't want people to think that there is question about childhood vaccines, because there isn't, and most Americans know that.
So that's the first fear, is that folks start to question something that we shouldn't be questioning.
COLLINS: Yes.
RANNEY: The second fear is that it dissuades vaccine manufacturers from providing vaccines. Listen, vaccines are not profitable. Many pediatric offices can't afford to give vaccines. There have been studies showing that pediatricians will stop giving vaccines, because they actually lose money based off of them.
And so, the worry becomes that the bureaucratic red tape, the cost of getting vaccines approved, and into people's arms, becomes prohibitive. And so, that's really where a lot of us are concerned--
COLLINS: Yes.
RANNEY: --right now.
COLLINS: Dr. Megan Ranney, as always, thank you.
RANNEY: Thank you, Kaitlan.
COLLINS: We also have our political sources, here tonight, to weigh in on this.
Former deputy assistant to President Biden, Jamal Simmons.
And Republican strategist, Doug Heye.
Doug, we heard from Mitch McConnell, tonight, a polio survivor himself, obviously. And he didn't mention RFK Jr. by name.
But in this statement, he said, "The polio vaccine has saved millions of lives and held out the promise of eradicating a terrible disease. Efforts to undermine public confidence in proven cures are not just uninformed -- they're dangerous. Anyone seeking the Senate's consent to serve in the incoming Administration would do well to steer clear of even the appearance of association with such efforts."
DOUG HEYE, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST, FORMER RNC COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR: Mitch McConnell, you know this from covering him, when he puts out a statement, it is fascinating to go through the hieroglyphics of what he says and what he doesn't say, who he mentions, who he doesn't mention. One word can mean everything. An omitted word can mean even more.
And what McConnell is saying, very clearly here, is, I can be a block to this nominee.
RFK Jr. or any of the nominees that we've talked about, over the past few weeks, have a narrow path to victory, because there's a narrow Senate majority. And if all of a sudden somebody who should be an automatic layup, a conservative Republican, like Mitch McConnell, to a Trump nominee? Your nominee has problems, because it's not just one vote. That gives permission for other senators to vote no, as well.
RFK doesn't have a large loyal following in the Republican Party. His last name is part of why. It makes what Mitch McConnell is saying here, I think, very, very interesting, and what the implications can be on this.
COLLINS: But what about -- you know, a lot of these nominees, some of them will not have any Democrats vote for them.
We actually have seen some openness, though, from Democrats, on Capitol Hill, to RFK Jr. saying they like some of the policies that he's pushing, talking about making Americans healthy again, what he wants to do with the FDA in terms of food processing and whatnot. But they seem to be skipping over things like this.
JAMAL SIMMONS, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, CO-HOST, "TRAILBLAZE" PODCAST, FORMER DEPUTY ASSISTANT TO PRESIDENT BIDEN: Yes, this is a dragon killer, right? This is one of these things, in the moment.
Because every parent takes their kid to the pediatrician, and the pediatrician starts giving them vaccines. It starts very early, in the early parts of the child's life. So, you start saying to parents, You're going to not give vaccines to their children, and they could be subject to having some of these really life-altering diseases and perhaps even death for some of them? That's something that parents know and they get.
[21:35:00]
So some things -- people voted for disruption, when they voted for Donald Trump. And so, if tariffs happen and we tank the American economy? That's something we can probably figure out how to come back from, if inflation goes up too high.
If we stop vaccinating kids for polio? In six, seven years from now -- four or five years from now, we start seeing a bunch of kids with polio. That's going to alter people's lives. I just don't think -- why would a Republican put themselves in jeopardy, to vote for somebody, who would do such a thing.
COLLINS: But what I was struck by is we had Howard Lutnick on here, who's going to be the Commerce secretary, if he's confirmed. He was running a lot of the transition.
He had a meeting with RFK Jr. about vaccines, and he seemed convinced by some of the arguments he made, especially when it pertains to autism and this link between them, which has been studied and debunked, and doesn't have any basis for that. And there's been conversations, obviously, about that, with Trump.
Trump did "Meet the Press," over the weekend, and he was asked about this, and he seemed to be kind of convinced by the argument.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENTIAL-ELECT: Hey, look, I'm not against vaccines. The polio vaccine is the greatest thing. If somebody told me to get rid of the polio vaccine, they're going to have to work real hard to convince me.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: That's what he said about the polio vaccine. Then he also talked about this, this link of why more kids are being diagnosed with autism. Obviously, there's no -- no one's been able to study why autism happens. It's thought to be maybe genetic.
But what does that look like, if he is in such a position of influence? Can he change people's minds on something that is not backed up?
HEYE: Well, potentially so, because one of the things that we see from Donald Trump so often is many people are saying, or the last person that Donald talks -- Donald Trump talks to, is the person who really helps him make up his mind.
But let's remember. Donald Trump's biggest accomplishment, probably, as president, was something called Operation Warp Speed, and it was getting the COVID vaccine in the arms, literally in the arms of Americans, throughout the country, much faster than anything we've ever seen before. It was a key accomplishment for Trump. One of the things that reopened schools, reopened businesses, got the economy back on track and saved lives. Donald Trump should be proud of his record with vaccines.
COLLINS: Yes.
SIMMONS: RFK Jr. is a pro-choice Democrat. I just don't know why a lot of Republican senators would risk their political careers just to take care of this guy.
COLLINS: You sound like Mike Pence. That's what Mike Pence has said.
HEYE: He often sounds like Mike Pence.
COLLINS: Jamal Simmons--
HEYE: I say that all the time.
COLLINS: Jamal Simmons and Mike Pence have a lot in common. I didn't know that.
Doug Heye. Thank you both for being here.
Up next. Democrats are duking it out for a top job on Capitol Hill. The future of the party, what does that look like 38 days from now, when Trump is back in office? We're going to talk to a Democrat about that after a quick break.
[21:40:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: Tonight, the question of how Democrats confront the incoming Trump administration is exposing some divides within the party. The frontlines for any resistance on Capitol Hill could be based in the House Oversight Committee. And there's now a very public battle playing out over who is going to lead Democrats there.
Today, we heard from a group of over 100 centrist Democrats coming out against electing progressive Representative, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, to their party's top spot on that committee. Instead, they said they were endorsing Congressman Gerry Connolly.
My next guest is Congressman Dan Goldman, a Democrat who sits on House Oversight, so the perfect person to join us tonight.
Who do you think should be leading the House Oversight Committee for your party?
REP. DAN GOLDMAN (D-NY): Look, I think it's a really interesting battle. I think both of them are very talented, very qualified, and truly excellent messengers, excellent members. And it does reflect a little bit of this generational shift, at least challenges from the next generation.
And so, I really have no idea who's going to come out on top, although I think they're both supremely qualified.
COLLINS: But you'll be deciding this in the coming days. I mean, who would you put your support behind?
GOLDMAN: Well, I have put my support behind AOC, who's my neighbor here in New York. And we've had some very good conversations about the direction to take the Oversight committee. And I feel comfortable that it will be a committee that is representative of the full caucus, and I think that's very important for any Ranking Member.
COLLINS: And why do you think she would be better than Gerry Connolly, who is someone I should note, for people who aren't familiar, she's got the -- he's got the backing of Nancy Pelosi and other top Democrats like that.
GOLDMAN: Look, I love Gerry. I think Gerry would be great.
And I think part of it is a different style. Part of it is who we are reaching as a party, how we are messaging, how we are conveying what our beliefs are. And I think that AOC is one of the best messengers that you will find. And I've built up a really nice working relationship with her, here in New York. And so, that's why I'm putting my support.
COLLINS: Yes, and it's not just happening on the House Oversight Committee. We saw it recently with House Judiciary as well, between Jamie Raskin and Jerry Nadler.
Is it overall, do you think, a time for generational change, for Democratic leadership, on Capitol Hill, in terms of what that looks like, on these committees, and how they're pushing back against the majority?
GOLDMAN: Well, you saw a generational handover from Nancy Pelosi, and Steny Hoyer, and Jim Clyburn, to Hakeem Jeffries, Katherine Clark, and Pete Aguilar. And so, I think that that is an example of how it should be done. And it can be done. And they're all -- they all remain in Congress, as tremendous advisers for all of us, younger members.
[21:45:00]
And so, I do think at some point, if you're not going to have term limits, like the Republicans do, there needs to be an open process to reevaluate who should be the leader of any given committee. And I think that's the process that we're going through right now.
COLLINS: Do you think there should be term limits for those leaders?
GOLDMAN: I'm not a huge fan of term limits, per se, as long as there's an encouragement and openness to run in a democratic way.
COLLINS: Yes. And you made your name as the lead counsel on the impeachment for Trump. Obviously, those are very public hearings. We saw that playing out.
I was listening to something a top pollster for Harris said, Molly Murphy. She's well-known within Democratic circles. She argued that your party should not focus on every outrage from Donald Trump, going forward. But instead, say, He's hurting voters' pocket books, he's not doing what he promised on the economy. And her quote was, The 2025 playbook cannot be the 2017 playbook.
Is that how you're viewing how to handle Trump?
GOLDMAN: Absolutely. I think one of the things we learned from the first time around is a couple things. Donald Trump throws so many crazy ideas out there, many of which, I think, are designed to be a distraction from the real things that he's trying to do and accomplish.
And so, this time around, we can't chase every statement he makes, every threat he says. We have to really focus on what are the things that he is doing. What are the things that he's doing, either to undermine the rule of law and our democracy, including some of his nominees, and what are the things that he's doing to fulfill his promise to help working Americans who are suffering from an affordability crisis.
And so, if that's our lens that we're focused on, then we need to make sure that we're not straying so far from the things that we learned from this election, and the things that are dangerous about Donald Trump.
COLLINS: So, how do you do that? Like, what does that look like in everyday practice?
Because what Molly Murphy was arguing, was focusing on the nominees. And the transition is not it. The voters aren't -- you know, they actually like it, and they're energized by it, and they don't see that as a huge thing. And focusing on erosion of norms, that that's not something that rings true to voters.
GOLDMAN: Well, this is where I disagree a little bit, because the nominees are the first step in a domino effect.
So, if you have Kash Patel, who actually gets confirmed to run the FBI, based solely -- his sole qualification is that he has declared his subservience to Donald Trump, in his effort to get retribution and revenge against political adversaries and journalists. So, Kash Patel takes over, he does Donald Trump's bidding, and he goes after political enemies and adversaries, and completely corrupts the rule of law and corrupts our apolitical, non-partisan law enforcement system? That's just the first step.
Because then what happens is every other investigation that the FBI does is undermined. Its credibility is called into question. Which means, the entire organization is called into question. Which means, our entire system of criminal justice is called into question. Which means, our entire rule of law is undermined. And that's how you go from a democracy to authoritarianism, is you do not have a rule of law. You have no faith in the system that we've built.
And so, part of what we have to do is explain that, Sure, it may seem just one nominee. But given what he's promised to do, if he does actually execute doing that? That's how our democracy is dismantled.
COLLINS: Do you think Democrats are doing a good enough job of making that argument?
Because, over in the Senate, John Fetterman has argued -- he met with Pete Hegseth. He said, I'm going to go through the process, I'm going to listen to him.
Elizabeth Warren has said, Why would we meet with someone -- she said, We should not be talking about confirming people who have been credibly accused of rape, who have these non-disclosure agreements.
I mean, that is a very split view, within Democrats, of whether to even meet with the nominees.
GOLDMAN: Yes, and you're going to see different views from different people. And I tend to think that we should certainly consider allegations of sexual harassment, of too much drinking, in connection with the job that the person is being asked to do.
Is Pete Hegseth qualified to be the Secretary of Defense based on his experience? No. But what makes it even more dangerous is that if he gets a 02:00 a.m. phone call, of some kind of military operation that needs to happen, and he's been drinking all night, do you want that person at the top of the list?
[21:50:00]
And so, I don't really care whether Pete Hegseth enjoys drinking or not. But I care whether our Secretary of Defense--
COLLINS: Yes.
GOLDMAN: --drinks a lot. And so, it's that kind of an angle where we have to be, I think, targeted.
Look, Marco Rubio, Doug Burgum, there are a number of nominees who are qualified. And I certainly, if I were over in the Senate, I would have no problem voting for them.
But it just goes to show that Donald Trump knows how to pick good, qualified nominees. And so, it becomes very intentional when he picks dangerous, unqualified nominees, who are -- whose only qualification is that they are sycophants for Donald Trump, and that they will do his political bidding.
COLLINS: They're all going to be getting those confirmation hearings, right after he's inaugurated. Are you going to go to the inauguration?
GOLDMAN: I don't know. I would be happy to go to it. I think -- I have a lot of respect for the Office of the Presidency.
Donald Trump, whether we like it or not, is the President. And I think what we have to do, as Hakeem Jeffries always says, is where we can find common ground and help the American people and help working Americans, we will do that, because we are there to try to deliver for the people. Where he goes rogue and tries to undermine our democracy, or undermine the rule of law, or weaponize the government to go after his enemies, we will fight hard against that.
And so, I have -- you know, he's the president, like, I respect the president. But I do not respect someone who will act unconstitutionally and try to undermine our democracy.
COLLINS: Congressman Dan Goldman.
GOLDMAN: Thank you.
COLLINS: Thank you for being here tonight.
GOLDMAN: Thank you. COLLINS: Up next. My next source has been digging into the person that Trump just picked to be his Middle East adviser. Tiffany Trump's father-in-law, was billed as a billionaire businessman. But he is actually a small-time truck salesman. What that means for what he's about to do. That's next.
[21:55:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: President-elect Trump has lauded his incoming Middle East adviser, Massad Boulos, as a dealmaker and leader in the business world.
Boulos himself has even fueled his reputation as a business tycoon, by telling reporters that his company is worth billions.
But according to a closer look, by The New York Times, at Boulos, who, I should note, is Tiffany Trump's father-in-law, it reveals that he's actually spent the past two decades selling trucks and heavy machinery, in Nigeria, for a company that his father-in-law controls, valued at about $865,000. Boulos' stake, according to filings, is worth just over $1.50.
My source tonight is Charles Homans, The New York Times reporter, who broke the story.
And it's great to have you here.
Because the story around him -- and I should note, that people in Trump's orbit really like him. They say he's very nice and likable. They weren't surprised when he got this job.
But is that he is this amazing dealmaker. What did the actual records and numbers that you looked at show?
CHARLES HOMANS, REPORTER, THE NEW YORK TIMES: Well, one of my colleagues went and looked up some of the filings in Nigeria, where he says the business that he's involved in is based.
And we found that actually the one publicly-recorded company that we could find, where he was listed as chief executive, had actually quite modest revenues. The annual profits were in the tens of thousands of dollars. Not millions, let alone billions of dollars.
COLLINS: And so, when you looked into that. And he himself -- you had talked to him about, going through his biography, Are you a billionaire? And his response was?
HOMANS: Right. So, I talked with him about this during the campaign, when I met him, when he was working in Michigan, sort of informally on behalf of Trump. And I asked him.
Because it had been widely reported, a lot of details about his business, and his business reputation--
COLLINS: Yes.
HOMANS: --have been out in the press for a long time. And he's not suggested they weren't correct or anything.
But I asked him, Are you a billionaire?
And he kind of demurred and said, I don't like to describe myself that way.
He didn't say emphatically that he was not a billionaire, but he did kind of discourage that impression.
And then, I asked if, as it had been reported, that the company that he runs is a multi-billion dollar company?
And he told me that, Yes, it's quite a large company.
COLLINS: But it's not a multi-billion dollar company?
HOMANS: It is not a multi-billion dollar company.
COLLINS: And obviously, what he's going into is, it's not based on the value of his company. It's also based on his relations in the Middle East. He's taking on a really complex job, in one of the most difficult areas, before the war that was happening in Gaza, much less what we're seeing happening now there, and in Lebanon.
In terms of his credentials there, you reported, he hasn't visited the region in quite some time. I mean, what does that prospect look like, in terms of how well-positioned he is to take on this job?
HOMANS: I do think that's a good question.
He, by his own account, grew up in Lebanon. He moved to the United States, to Texas, as a teenager, and lived here into his late 20s, at which, when he moved to Nigeria, to go work for his father-in-law's company.
He's really not lived in Lebanon for quite a long time, and he told me he'd not been back in years. He wouldn't specify how many, but not recently.
[22:00:00]
It is worth asking some of these jobs, a special adviser position may be somewhat ceremonial. They might be substantial. We don't really know. I mean, the history of Trump's Middle East policy, certainly, is that people who are just close confidants of his have had very important and transformative roles in his Middle East policy, in his first term.
COLLINS: Yes.
HOMANS: And as you say, he, you know, Mr. Boulos is well-liked in Trump's orbit. So, that could be the case now. We don't really know.
COLLINS: Yes. We'll see what it looks like. It's not a Senate- confirmed position. We'll see what that portfolio does look like.
Great reporting on your account. So thank you very much to you and your colleagues.
HOMANS: Thank you.
COLLINS: Thank you all so much for joining us tonight.
"CNN NEWSNIGHT WITH ABBY PHILLIP" is up next.
