Return to Transcripts main page
The Source with Kaitlan Collins
Luigi Mangione Indicted For Murder As An Act Of Terrorism; Biden On Drones: "Nothing Nefarious" But "Checking It All Out"; Trump Threatens To "Straighten Out The Press" With More Lawsuits. Aired 9- 10p ET
Aired December 17, 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: That's what I love about this list. There's no film that's too highbrow or too lowbrow for it.
JOHN BERMAN, CNN HOST, ANDERSON COOPER 360: I'm not saying, "Up in Smoke" is lowbrow at all. I think it's genius.
Do you have a favorite in the list?
ENTEN: I love "Dirty Dancing." And part of the reason I love "Dirty Dancing" is it's about the Catskill Mountains. In fact, my Nana Esther ran a hotel up in the Catskill Mountains in the 1960s when "Dirty Dancing" took place.
Nana Esther, I love you wherever you are right now.
BERMAN: Well if there's one thing I did learn from "Dirty Dancing," it is that dancing can solve everything.
ENTEN: We're going to find that out after the show.
BERMAN: Harry, thank you for being here. I've had the time of my life.
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 on Capitol Hill, on a major day for Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s effort to get confirmed by the Senate. An update on where that stands.
As in New York tonight, murder charges were brought against the accused CEO killer, now being branded by prosecutors as a terrorist.
I'm Kaitlan Collins. And this is THE SOURCE.
There are major developments, tonight, in that murder case that has totally gripped the nation. Luigi Mangione, the accused killer of UnitedHealthcare CEO, Brian Thompson, now facing charges including first degree murder as an act of terrorism.
It's a rare charge in New York. But it's one that the District Attorney there, Alvin Bragg, says is warranted.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ALVIN BRAGG, MANHATTAN DISTRICT ATTORNEY: This was a frightening, well-planned, targeted murder that was intended to cause shock and attention and intimidation.
A killing that was intended to evoke terror, and we've seen that reaction.
It does help to take a step back and think about the proof in the case, some of the writings, and the actual reaction.
The intent was to sow terror.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Note there, Bragg mentioning that public reaction to the murder, and how that's played a role in these very serious new charges.
While you might think of first degree murder as a premeditated killing. In New York, charging first degree murder actually requires an aggravating circumstance. Terrorism is one of those factors. But there are questions, tonight, about how prosecutors will prove that Mangione intended to terrorize a civilian population.
In the week since Brian Thompson's killing, we have seen dark praise for the murder on social media and elsewhere, with some even celebrating it while expressing their anger at America's Health Insurance industry.
We're even just learning tonight about the support that Mangione is getting while he's behind bars. The Pennsylvania Department of Corrections tells CNN that Mangione has gotten 157 deposits into his prison commissary account, along with letters and dozens of emails.
The 26-year-old is set to appear in a Pennsylvania courtroom, for an extradition hearing, this Thursday. His new attorney, which you learned about here, first on THE SOURCE, on Friday night, Karen Friedman Agnifilo, says that her client is no longer going to fight extradition to New York.
There's also been another notable revelation about what Mangione's mom told police, before he was arrested.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOSEPH KENNY, NYPD CHIEF OF DETECTIVES: They reached out to Mangione's mother in San Francisco, very late on the 7th. They had a conversation, where she didn't indicate that it was her son in the photograph, but she said it might be something that she could see him doing.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: My legal sources tonight are:
Judge Jill Konviser, a former New York State Supreme Court Justice.
Jennifer Rodgers, a former federal prosecutor.
And David Schoen, a criminal defense attorney, well-versed in litigating cases against terrorists, joining us all here.
Judge, let me start with you. Because when you heard that prosecutors were using terrorism to charge first degree murder, is that something you would have done when you look at what you know about this case so far?
JILL KONVISER, RETIRED JUDGE: I think that charging terror is -- terrorism in this case as the aggravated factor, to make this a murder one, instead of a murder two, is the D.A. signaling that he's got a very strong case. I think that's true.
Look, the legislature crafted aggravating circumstances, terror being one of them. A police officer being killed, another two people killed within 24 hours. There's lots of aggravating circumstances. The legislature created this and has given the D.A. tools to do this, so they can do it. It is, as you said in the opening comments, extremely rare. It's rarely charged. But they're telling us, they got the goods on this guy.
COLLINS: Yes, what it says about the case, obviously, is the big question here.
I mean, David, you know how hard it is to prosecute cases against terrorists. When you look at this, and the landscape here, as they're alleging, he showed this intent to intimidate or coerce a civilian population. How hard is that going to be to prove?
DAVID SCHOEN, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: I think it's going to be hard to prove. In this case, they have some of his own statements, and apparently some of the books he was reading and that sort of thing.
[21:05:00]
But I think the risk that it has, the flip side is, I think it may be something that gives rise to a jury nullification. Remember, they just need one juror to say they are lined with him, they believe Corporate America should be struck.
Hard to believe, many people believe that you should use murder as a tool to strike at Corporate America. But you do see the phenomenon that you've spoken about. That is the sort of hero worship of this guy.
I think -- I personally think it's an overcharge in the case. This may be the new domestic terrorism. But I think a second degree murder would have been sufficient. I think, with the first degree murder, they want to possibly get life without parole, or they have a mandatory life minimum of 20 years before parole can be considered. That may be part of it, and for maybe plea bargaining purposes. COLLINS: Jennifer Rodgers, is that how you see this, that maybe this is an overcharge, and that it could -- in terms of jury nullification. We've seen how people have reacted to this, and we've talked about what assembling a jury here is going to look like, and what the risk could be, given there has been such an outpouring of public support for Luigi Mangione.
JENNIFER RODGERS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: Yes, I don't know if I'd call it an overcharge. It's definitely an aggressive charge. I think that they may be setting up for plea bargaining power.
But I do agree with David. If they do get to trial, and they have to prove this part of the first degree murder? I would be worried about the nullification even more so than with the case in general.
Because just poking around anecdotally on social media, tonight, there were so many people saying, Wow, this is an overcharge, this guy's a hero. Just kind of plays into this notion that, They're going after this person, who struck a blow for all of us, if you will.
So, I think that's a very real concern for prosecutors, and could be even worse, if they do go forward with this first degree murder at trial.
COLLINS: Judge, I wonder how you see it, in terms of whether it could work for jury nullification. Or is it a tactic at all, when it comes to negotiating for any kind of a plea agreement here by chance?
KONVISER: I mean, it could. But let's remember something. Just because murder in the first degree, with terror being the subject and the aggravator is charged, doesn't mean that murder two is not a verdict that can be reached. Murder two is charged in this case.
But as someone said it on your panel, and they're absolutely right, that the difference is that murder one carries the dreaded life without parole, as opposed to 15 to 25 to life, which is what murder two.
So, in terms of jury nullification, I'll tell you this. I've presided over a lot of felony jury trials, in both New York County and Kings County, and I spoke to every single juror after those convictions or acquittals.
And jury nullification is something we all talk about, as lawyers. But it's rare. Jurors, in my view, and the ones I've spoken to, do the right thing. They follow the law. They strive to do that with which is right, and how they are instructed. And we can only hope they'll do that, here, in this case as well.
COLLINS: Yes, and obviously we've seen the evidence here, and what that looks like.
I mean, David, when you look at that in terms of what all they have here. The NYPD Commissioner was talking about the public support and the level of, you know -- obviously, there are a lot of people who have condemned this, and said, Murder is never the answer to your frustrations.
But I want you to listen to what the Commissioner said today about what we've seen from people.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JESSICA TISCH, NYPD COMMISSIONER: There is no heroism in what Mangione did.
It was a cold and calculated crime that stole a life and put New Yorkers at risk. We don't celebrate murders, and we don't lionize the killing of anyone. And any attempt to rationalize this is vile, reckless and offensive to our deeply-held principles of justice.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: But I heard from Mangione's other attorney, in Pennsylvania, last week, Thomas Dickey, who said, they were getting public offers of support to help pay for his legal bills. We've learned tonight, he's gotten 157 deposits in his commissary account.
How unusual is that?
SCHOEN: It's unusual. But we see it in a lot of these high-profile cases, especially. People get married in prison. There's this hero worship. It's an unusual phenomenon.
But I would say this about the comments by the public officials. There's a great public need-to-know, in all of these cases. But they have to be careful, ethically and as a matter of fairness. We don't want to disclose all of the evidence in public, and try this case, from Alvin Bragg or from a police commissioner.
He's entitled the presumption of innocence. That sounds odd, in a case like this. I'm not just talking about factual innocence. I mean, if he has, for example, under Penal Law 40.15, he has a mental defect defense, an insanity defense by reason of mental disease or defect? That may be applicable here.
This is a 26-year-old kid, on top of the world, Ivy League student, and so on, and something may well have snapped. So, we must keep the presumption of innocence in mind, no matter what we know the evidence to be.
[21:10:00]
I'll say this also. I think he made a good choice with Karen Friedman Agnifilo. I don't think there's anybody who knows that District Attorney's office better than she does. She knows the personnel there. She knows their mindset.
COLLINS: Yes.
SCHOEN: And she's talented.
COLLINS: Yes, she worked there under the last District Attorney, Cyrus Vance Jr. She has -- someone told me she knows every clerk, every courtroom in there.
And Jen, on that point. The other thing we learned tonight that struck me from the District Attorney, Alvin Bragg, and the other officials, is talking about police getting it -- when they got a tip, and they were seeing these pictures.
His mom had filed that missing persons report in San Francisco, remember. And they called her. And she apparently did not indicate it was her son in the photograph, but said it might be something she could see him doing.
What did you make of that?
RODGERS: Yes, it's hard to know what to make of that. I mean, honestly, it's no surprise that a mother would want to protect her son, and so wouldn't come clean about, Yes, that's him. But then to say, He might have done that. We know, she filed a missing persons report that he had gone dark and wasn't in contact with her family. So perhaps that was just a kind of honest statement.
I don't know what is going on with him, on the kind of the spur of the moment like that. So, I'm not sure. But obviously very painful for his family as well. Of course, the family of the victim.
COLLINS: Yes, absolutely.
A lot of updates. We'll keep a close eye on all of them, including that extradition hearing.
Everyone, thank you for sharing your expertise with us.
Up next, here on CNN. We have a bombshell new report, tonight, on Elon Musk, who has become a fixture at the President-elect's side. Why the Feds are looking into his ability to protect national secrets, and what that means.
Plus, here on Capitol Hill, Trump's embattled Cabinet pick, RFK Jr. was here, meeting with more senators. What the incoming Republican Senate Leader says he's going to have to answer for, before he can be confirmed.
[21:15:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: Tonight, The New York Times is reporting that federal agencies have opened at least three reviews of Elon Musk and SpaceX, looking into alleged repeated failures to comply with government protocols that protect highly-sensitive U.S. state secrets.
The Defense Department's continuous vetting mandate for security clearances is pretty clear. Musk and SpaceX are to report itineraries and meeting notes during their foreign travel. Instead, The Times reports tonight that Musk and SpaceX have repeatedly left out details, or even the mere existence of meetings that he has had abroad. Musk is also required to report the use of even prescription drugs. And the government bans the use of federally-prohibited ones, like marijuana, which is why you cannot smoke if you have a security clearance.
It made us recall a moment that happened in 2018, with Joe Rogan, when Musk's security clearance was still under review for an unusual length of time.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOE ROGAN, AMERICAN PODCASTER: There's tobacco and marijuana in there. That's all it is.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: The New York Times says that Musk reportedly surprised Defense officials, when he posted in 2023 online, announcing his occasional use of ketamine. This new report raises questions and some concerns about Musk's interactions with world leaders, at a time where he has very deep influence in the President-elect's inner circle.
He responded to The Times piece, writing, quote, "Deep state traitors are coming after me, using their paid shills in legacy media. I prefer not to start fights, but I do end them."
My source tonight was Trump's longest-serving National Security Advisor, during his first term. Ambassador John Bolton is here.
And Ambassador, it's great to have you.
Because when you look at these reviews and what is alleged, a failure to disclose these details, how serious is that?
JOHN BOLTON, FORMER TRUMP NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER, FORMER U.S. AMBASSADOR TO THE U.N.: Well, first, let's start with a proposition. This is a news story, and it's not a Holy Writ. So, further evidence may be forthcoming.
But Musk's response to it, I think, is really irresponsible. The defense contractors take this continuous vetting process very seriously. Their contracts can depend on it. And given the amount of contracts that Musk has with the federal government, it's very important that he and his company comply with these obligations, just like everybody else.
This may sound very intrusive. But when you contract with the federal government, especially the Defense Department, they have what they call an Open Kimono policy, which is they know everything about you. If you don't want to contract with the government, don't contract with the government. But that's what they worry about, so that critical national security information doesn't get to our adversaries.
And I think the real concern here is China, and some of the things that Musk has said about China, his quite large investment in Tesla in China. And I think that's probably what's at the bottom of many of these Defense Department concerns.
COLLINS: Yes, and he is a major contractor.
But in this process of continuous vetting, where you're letting the government know, Here's where I'm going, Here is what -- who I'm meeting with. For that purpose of, you know, as they are continuing to check and see if someone should have this contract.
With security clearances, I thought about something else that The Times reported, which was, they said, the Air Force recently denied him high level security access. They said there were potential security risks, and that several allies like Israel had expressed concerns that Elon Musk could share sensitive data with others.
I should note, a federal agency has not accused him of disclosing classified material.
[21:20:00]
But you know as well as I do that Trump previously overruled intelligence concerns, to give people security clearances, like Jared Kushner.
BOLTON: Yes. Well, we'll see whether there's one rule of law in the country, once Trump becomes president.
This leak, potentially, of classified information to China is serious. I mean, if you go back to Loral Space Communications, for example, which made satellites, at the end of the 1990s, the end of the Clinton administration, was accused of helping the Chinese launch their missiles more effectively, so they didn't blow up and destroy their satellites. And they ended up paying a $20 million fine, I think it was, to the Defense Department. That was 25 years ago, almost.
And China has considerable leverage over Musk, given the Tesla -- level of Tesla investment in China. And he's said some pretty strange things. At least a lot of people would consider them strange. Musk said that Taiwan should be a special administrative region of China. Not very popular on Taiwan. Not American policy either.
So look, he has to comply with these regulations. They are burdensome. There's no doubt about it. His company has to comply. Other defense contractors comply. As I say, if you think they're too burdensome, don't contract with the federal government. But if you do, do what everybody else does, and follow the regulations.
COLLINS: Given those ties to China, and the comments that you just referenced, how do you think Marco Rubio -- Senator Marco Rubio, who is up for Secretary of State, or Mike Waltz, who is going to potentially -- or is going to have your old job, how do you think that they are approaching something like that?
Because Elon Musk has a lot of influence with Trump, right now. I talk to people, who say, they are always together. He's always around at Mar-a-Lago. He sits in on job interviews. He's got -- he's got a heavy influence on Trump, at the moment. BOLTON: Yes, well, he has a propensity to post on X, the way Trump posts on -- used to post on Twitter, including sensitive information.
I remember one tweet that Trump put out was a picture of a Iranian ballistic missile that had blown up on the launchpad, that was given to him just a few hours before he posted it, and he was told specifically not to do it. So being careless with national security information is a problem Trump has, as we know from the famous Mar-a- Lago documents case.
So, I think it will be a legitimate question, for all the people who require Senate confirmation, how much do they care about security precautions in the federal government?
And a lot will change after noon on the 20th of January. Right now, Trump is still a private citizen. But after he becomes president, talking to people like Musk, the whole DOGE operation, could well become, probably will become, subject to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, not the most famous statute in the world, that could have a big impact on its activities.
So, I think this is a legitimate subject of concern. And as I say, this is a news article. And even in The New York Times, it's not always a 100 percent correct. But one thing I noted that was very interesting was they cite complaints by SpaceX employees themselves--
COLLINS: Yes.
BOLTON: --saying that they've not been able to report what they should be reporting to the government. That's pretty serious.
COLLINS: Yes, and they say they're more worried about it now because of the influence he has on Trump and the proximity to him. We'll see how those reviews go.
Ambassador John Bolton, as always, thank you for your time.
BOLTON: Glad to be with you.
COLLINS: Up next. RFK Jr. was here on Capitol Hill, tonight, facing more questions from Republican senators, on his vaccine and abortion positions. And soon, he is going to be meeting with Democrats.
My next source will meet with Kennedy, in just hours from now. We'll talk about it after a quick break.
[21:25:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: Breaking tonight. We just heard from President-elect Donald Trump announcing another pick of his. He is selecting the former NFL star, and Heisman Trophy winner, and also failed Georgia Senate candidate, Herschel Walker, to be his Ambassador to the Bahamas. We are getting updates from Trump almost by the minute of these picks. But speaking of another nominee, who is also going to be facing Senate confirmation, as Herschel Walker will, RFK Jr. spent the day up here, on Capitol Hill, working to convince Republican senators to confirm him as the next Secretary of Health and Human Services.
One of them is the incoming Senate Majority Leader. That's John Thune that you see here. He said he does expect that Kennedy will face tough questions on comments that he's made, advocating for the debunked link between vaccines and autism.
A lot of those questions could also come from Democrats. Democrats who, I should note, Kennedy has not started meeting with yet, but says he plans to do so after the recess in January.
My source in the Senate tonight, is one of the Republicans he will also be meeting with. North Carolina's senator Ted Budd.
And it's great to have you here.
You're meeting with RFK Jr., tomorrow.
SEN. TED BUDD (R-NC): That's right.
COLLINS: What kind of -- what are your biggest questions that you have for him that you'd like to have answer?
BUDD: Well, first of all, we've been meeting with a lot of these nominees. And these nominees, they're going to get confirmed. So, I think we have to look at it with that framework. I ask him all the questions.
COLLINS: You think they all get confirmed?
BUDD: I think they all get confirmed. I do.
And I've had great meetings with him. I've asked all the tough questions. I said, Hey, I think the Democrats are going to ask you this. Tell me how you're looking at these questions. So, I'll ask Bobby Kennedy some tough questions, tomorrow.
[21:30:00]
I come from an agricultural state. So, I'm going to ask him about traditional agriculture. It's the biggest industry in North Carolina. I'm going to ask him all sorts of things. We've got hog farmers that are going to ask him, Do you support our industry? Are you going to hurt North Carolina?
But let's remember, at the end of the day, this is Trump's nominee. And it's not really his history. It's not his policies. It's Donald Trump's policies that he's going to have to end up supporting.
COLLINS: Yes, and I'm glad you bring up the agricultural industry in North Carolina, because the pork production is one of your biggest things. I mean, I believe North Carolina is like the number third state on that matter. And so-- BUDD: At least give us a number two, right.
COLLINS: When you ask -- well, I think it's Iowa--
BUDD: Yes.
COLLINS: --and Minnesota are the two above you, unless the numbers have changed. We'll see.
But on that, RFK is someone who once told people in Iowa that hog producers are the greatest threat to the U.S. and U.S. democracy, greater than Osama bin Laden. I mean, are you going to ask him if he still holds that view, given, of course, how much it matters to your voters?
BUDD: We're going to have that conversation. And again, I'm very protective of the agriculture in North Carolina. But it's not RFK's policies. It's going to be Donald Trump's policies.
And if you look at his first term, as the 45th President of the U.S., he was very supportive of agriculture. I was there with him in Asheville when he -- during COVID, when he supported agriculture. So, he has been consistently, from day one of January, 20th of 2017, all the way until now, very supportive of agriculture. And I know that he's going to continue to be. We don't have to continue--
COLLINS: So your--
BUDD: We don't have to guess about his policies. He's going to be pro- agriculture.
COLLINS: But the Cabinet obviously has deep influence. I mean, you've seen these Cabinet meetings, especially with Trump, they go on for hours. He listens to RFK Jr., and clearly is very influenced by him, as he himself has talked about their conversations.
So, you're not worried that any of his views on this industry could influence how Trump governs?
BUDD: We ask the questions, and then we say, At the end of the day, it's going to be Donald J. Trump's policies, which are proven already, and how much in alignment with you -- with Donald Trump are you going to be? And I expect it's going to be a 100 percent.
We've already seen them clarify some previous thinking, not just Bobby Kennedy, but others that are going to be clarifying previous positions, to say that they're in alignment with Donald J. Trump.
COLLINS: Yes, I just think on the hog farmers thing, especially. I mean, he once implied, in your state, that every public official there was corrupted by the pork industry.
And given how much it matters, are you going to ask him about that?
BUDD: We'll ask him all the questions. I don't pull any punches in these meetings. We have great discussions. But the end of the day, it's Donald J. Trump's policies, and he deserves the policies to be foot forth. He deserves the candidates that he's nominated for them to be confirmed. And I believe they will be confirmed.
COLLINS: So there's nothing he could say that would change your mind on how you're going to vote on him, essentially?
BUDD: I fully expect that he's going to be on board with Donald J. Trump's policies. And those are the policies that he's going to support over the next four years.
COLLINS: A lot of focus has been on what he has said about vaccines, I think understandably so. And certainly, your Democratic colleagues have had questions about that as well.
But abortion has been an issue that I've heard from people, when they -- when they speak to RFK Jr., that is one of their greater concerns, given his past views.
I want you to just listen to what he has said about the issue recently.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ROBERT F. KENNEDY JR., PRESIDENTIAL-ELECT TRUMP'S PICK FOR SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES: I wouldn't leave it to the states.
SAGE STEELE, HOST, "THE SAGE STEELE SHOW" PODCAST ON YOUTUBE: Wouldn't right.
KENNEDY JR.: Oh I would -- I--
STEELE: You would say completely it's up to the woman, by the--
KENNEDY JR.: you know, my belief is that we should leave it to the woman. We shouldn't have government involved.
STEELE: Even if it's full term?
KENNEDY JR.: Even if it's full term.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: He's saying that decision should be up to women. Obviously, you have been very proud of your record--
BUDD: Yes.
COLLINS: --fighting for abortion restrictions.
BUDD: Right.
COLLINS: You two differ on that greatly.
Are you comfortable with someone, who holds that view, being the HHS Secretary? BUDD: Well, it's not those policies that are going to be implemented. It's Donald Trump's policies. And he's been very consistent. Whether it's, what we talked about a moment ago, agriculture, or whether it's abortion, it's going to be the most pro-life president, I think, in our history, and that's Donald Trump. And he's going to be president again. And it's going to be those policies that are going to win the day.
I think you need to actually flip it around and ask the Democrats, who of the nominees from President Trump are they going to be supporting? I really think that's probably -- rather than having me here -- you know I'm going to support Donald Trump's policies and his nominees. But what about the Democrats?
Remember, these folks, they recently were Democrats, until they got rejected, until their party went so far left that they had to go and become Independent, and now support a Republican president.
COLLINS: Well, I don't know if that would be RFK Jr.'s case. But obviously, he dropped out of the race. He was running against Trump and then endorsed him.
BUDD: Well, yes, then my colleague from the House, Tulsi Gabbard.
COLLINS: But you know you have--
BUDD: Right?
COLLINS: You're talking about the tough questions you've asked these nominees when you meet with them.
You've also asked tough questions to some nominees in public. I mean, Biden's FAA nominee. You certainly haven't voted for -- or Republicans have not, at large, voted for all of Biden's nominees. So, I guess the question that some people may have is, Are you only applying scrutiny to nominees of another president, and not just because it's your own president?
BUDD: Well, remember, it was Biden's policies that they were ultimately supporting, which was -- which brought me great concern.
[21:35:00]
But when they support Donald Trump's policies, that gives me great hope. And that's why people support him. I mean, even more than they popularly elected him just a few weeks -- months, weeks ago, they are supporting him even more to the tune of 59 percent. If you poll our whole nation, they say 59 percent of the people are supportive of Trump's nominees.
I just got off the phone, about an hour ago, with thousands of folks in North Carolina. I did a tele-town hall, and I polled them with this question, and said, How many of you support Donald Trump's nominees? And 80 percent came back and supported him.
COLLINS: Well, right. But your job, obviously as a senator, is advise and consent, to make sure they're qualified, not just that they -- obviously, Trump won the election. That's why any president is picking--
BUDD: Right.
COLLINS: --any Cabinet nominees, because they won, and are there for that position.
So, is there anything that could come up in any of this that would make you think twice about that, given you do have a really powerful decision here, as a U.S. senator.
BUDD: Well, they're going to get confirmed. I ask the tough questions. I listen for concerns.
But Donald Trump's smart. He knows how to pick people and put good people around him. He was good in 2017 through 2020 -- early 2021. He's even better now. He's had four intervening years, to think about this, and figure out how he would run his administration, even better. He's a person throughout his life that's constantly improving. And at 78-years-old, he's going to do even better now than he did the first term.
COLLINS: And you've made very clear, tonight, you are going to confirm all of his nominees. Nothing withstanding could change your mind. You believe that they should be supported.
Some of your colleagues are not, as you know, full-steam ahead on all of these nominees. They've had some serious questions and some skepticism about some of them.
If one of your colleagues votes against one of the nominees, does not feel that they should be in that position, do you think it's fair that they should be primaried because of just that decision?
BUDD: I can speak for me. I mean, I can speak for me and the way that I represent North Carolina. Others are free to do. I mean, they were elected by their states. But I can only focus on, for me, North Carolina.
COLLINS: But do you think it's fair for them to be primaried?
BUDD: Well this is an open process.
COLLINS: Do you want to be primaried for voting no?
BUDD: Now -- I mean, nobody wants a primary, but it's certainly people's right to do so.
But I want to go out there, and I want to support the President, who was popularly elected. Even more people that on November 5th voted for him are now approving of his nominees. I asked North Carolinians, an hour ago. 80 percent supported him.
So people like what he's doing. They don't want businesses -- this is a beautiful city. But people in America don't like the way this place is run, and they don't like the way it's influenced their lives.
COLLINS: Can I ask you, just quickly before we go on, on North Carolina. Obviously, your state has been dealing with so much. I know disaster relief has been a big conversation up here on the Hill. What is the state of the recovery, right now?
BUDD: Well, again, thank you for asking, and your focus on this. And that's the greatest fear in this western counties, is being forgotten. And I want to let them know, I'm going to do everything I can to get them the support that they need, and that we won't forget them. And I appreciate you asking.
COLLINS: Yes, and please keep us updated. Obviously, we've covered that a lot.
BUDD: Sure.
COLLINS: Senator, thank you for your time tonight. Great to have you here.
BUDD: Thanks, Kaitlan.
COLLINS: Up next. Breaking news, as President Biden is making his first comments, tonight, on the mysterious drone sightings. And a classified briefing that happened, here on Capitol Hill. That update, right ahead.
[21:40:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: Moments ago, at the White House, we heard from President Biden giving his first answer, on those mysterious drone sightings that have been seen in the skies over several states.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOE BIDEN, PRESIDENT, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: There's nothing nefarious, apparently, but they're checking it all out. I think it's just one -- there's a lot of drones authorized up there. I think just one started and they all got in -- everybody wanted to get in the deal. But I'm -- we're following it closely. So far, no sense of a danger.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: That comment, sounding similar to what we heard from members of the House Intelligence Committee, after they received a classified briefing today, from the intelligence community.
My congressional source, tonight, was in that briefing. Illinois Democrat, Congressman Raja Krishnamoorthi joins me now.
Nothing nefarious, apparently? That's -- I don't know if that's satisfying to a lot of people. Did you get a better answer in your briefing today? REP. RAJA KRISHNAMOORTHI (D-IL): Yes, I think that what they were trying to convey to us is that they could explain away the vast majority of the 5,000 incidents that were referred to them.
What I have said is they need to be more forthcoming about that information to the public. So, if you believe that something is a manned aircraft or amateur recreational drone, then why don't you share that with the public?
There are about a 100 incidents that they're still digging into. So, we need to still hear about those. But overall, I didn't hear evidence of a foreign power threat or some other nefarious activity.
COLLINS: So they don't think it has anything to do with an adversary?
KRISHNAMOORTHI: Correct.
COLLINS: Because I want you to listen to what Mike McCaul, a Republican, colleague of yours, had to say today to reporters.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. MICHAEL MCCAUL (R-TX): I believe they're spy drones. And the PRC and Chinese -- communist China is very good at this stuff. And we know they've bought land around military bases. This would be very consistent with their policy over the last couple of years.
We're not getting answers, and I think it's because our government does not know who is behind them.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Does that line up with what you heard in the briefing, or?
KRISHNAMOORTHI: Not exactly. But I think that, as I said, there are about a 100 incidents, where we are still awaiting information.
I think one thing that really stood out, in this particular briefing, is that there's both a lack of technology, as well as resources, for both drone detection and takedown by different law enforcement and other agencies. And also, there's a lack of legal authorities and rules and regulations to enable them to do what they have to do, to protect the homeland.
COLLINS: How worried are you about those 100 or so incidents that they're still digging into? How worried did they seem about those?
KRISHNAMOORTHI: They didn't seem concerned.
COLLINS: OK.
[21:45:00]
KRISHNAMOORTHI: But that doesn't mean that we shouldn't follow-up. And that's what we're going to have to do. COLLINS: Do you believe that briefing should have been classified at all? Why is it classified if they're saying it's manned aircraft or hobbyist?
KRISHNAMOORTHI: Well, I think because of the foreign adversary issue. Being able to ask candid questions about, Did this adversary have anything to do with this, or did this other one, and how do you know for sure?
COLLINS: I want to ask you about something else, the President-elect has said in recent days, which is talking about TikTok having a warm spot in his heart.
Obviously, you wrote the bill. You introduced the law that would force the Chinese parent company to sell it, or face banishment in the U.S., coming January 19th, the day before Trump takes office.
Are you worried that Trump is not going to enforce that ban?
KRISHNAMOORTHI: No, I actually met with his incoming National Security Advisor, Mike Waltz, who is my colleague and friend. And the sense that I get from them is that they don't want to see a TikTok controlled by the CCP.
So, the best way to both preserve TikTok, and make sure that it's not controlled by the CCP, is to have ByteDance sell TikTok. And so, now they need to accept the law and make that happen.
COLLINS: Trump met with Shou Chew, yesterday, who is the CEO of TikTok. I understand Mike Waltz, the incoming National Security Advisor, saying one thing. But if Trump comes into office and doesn't enforce it, what will Democrats do? And also, what will you want your Republican colleagues, who voted for that, to do?
KRISHNAMOORTHI: Well, the only way that this law is going away is if he encourages and then gets it repealed. That's not going to happen. 360 votes in the House for this particular bill, huge majority in the Senate. And so, I think it's going to continue to be the law of the land, as the D.C. Circuit Court said last week.
COLLINS: Let me ask you about a leadership fight that's been playing out inside your party, for who is going to be the ranking Democrat on top committees, in your party, that are going to have a lot of influence, potentially, over a Trump administration, or certainly responding to it.
Gerry Connolly beat out Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Do you think that's the right person to lead the House Oversight Committee?
KRISHNAMOORTHI: I think Gerry is a very able leader. I think Alex Ocasio-Cortez is excellent too. I thought we had an abundance of talent, competing today. And I think that he's going to do a great job.
COLLINS: Some of the arguments we heard was that it was maybe time for generational leadership change, in terms of who is in charge of these committees, that there is no term limit as Mike McCaul, the Republican there, knows he's term-limited out.
KRISHNAMOORTHI: Right.
COLLINS: Do you think that there should be term limits for Democrats on these committees?
KRISHNAMOORTHI: Well, I think seniority is no longer the defining kind of characteristic or trait that's going to decide these leadership elections, as you can tell.
And I think now we're in a new world, right? I mean, Donald Trump won the presidency. And so, now we have to obviously put our best foot forward. And whoever is the best person to take the baton in any given committee should get elected.
COLLINS: And do you believe Gerry Connolly is that person?
KRISHNAMOORTHI: I think Gerry definitely was a very, very good candidate.
COLLINS: Who did you support?
KRISHNAMOORTHI: I'm not going to say, at this time. But I'm going to say that I was supportive of both Gerry and Alex being elected.
COLLINS: That sounds like you may not have supported Mr. Connolly.
KRISHNAMOORTHI: I very much, very much supported Gerry's candidacy in the end, becoming the Chair of the committee -- Ranking Member of the committee.
COLLINS: Congressman, great to have you here. We look forward to talking to you in future. Thank you very much.
KRISHNAMOORTHI: Thank you so much.
COLLINS: Up next here. Trump won Iowa resoundingly, of course, as we saw. But the President-elect is still going after that final poll there that showed he was trailing Harris badly. He is now filing a lawsuit over it, and warning that there is more to come.
[21:50:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: Tonight, Donald Trump is escalating his legal threats against the media before he takes office. With the President-elect now suing The Des Moines Register, its parent company, Gannett, and renowned pollster J. Ann Selzer, all over the one poll that the paper published, right before the election, showing him trailing Vice President Kamala Harris.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP (R), FORMER U.S. PRESIDENT AND CURRENT PRESIDENTIAL- ELECT: Their newspaper, which had a very, very good pollster, who got me right all the time. And then just before the election, she said I was going to lose by 3 or 4 points.
In my opinion, it was fraud and it was election interference.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Now, that poll was wrong. Trump ended up winning Iowa by 13 points.
But fresh off winning a $16 million payout from ABC News, as he settled a defamation case, we are seeing Trump saying that he wants to open up his legal playbook against the media.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: I feel I have to do this. I shouldn't really be the one to do it. It should have been Justice Department or somebody else. But I have to do it.
But we have to straighten out the press.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: My sources tonight are:
Sarah Matthews, former Deputy Press Secretary in the first Trump administration.
And Elliot Williams, a former federal prosecutor.
Elliot, on this, Trump said, it's election interference.
Now, the poll was wrong.
ELLIOT WILLIAMS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: Yes.
COLLINS: It was very wrong.
But is it election interference, is it fraud, as Trump is alleging?
[21:55:00]
WILLIAMS: It is not fraud.
He is suing under Iowa's Deceptive Practices Act, which you would use to sue a business that was lying. If a hotel were to say, We don't have bedbugs here. And then you go there and they do? That's the kind of thing you would sue over.
This is not a lawsuit that's going anywhere. The problem is that people still have to defend these lawsuits. They've got to spend lots of money, getting lawyers. They've got to maybe sit for depositions. And it has a chilling effect on media organizations. That's the problem here, just the work that people have to put in.
COLLINS: Well, and we heard from this pollster before Trump's lawsuit came out. I mean, he had been complaining about it. He was quite upset about it.
Sarah, I want you to just listen to what Ann Selzer had to say.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ANN SELZER, POLLSTER: The allegations, I take very seriously. They're saying that this was election interference, which is a crime.
To suggest, without a single shred of evidence, that I was in cahoots with somebody, I was being paid by somebody? It's all just kind of -- it's hard to pay too much attention to it, except that they are accusing me of a crime.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Now, as Elliot was saying there, maybe it doesn't have much merit and legal standing, in terms of how far it will go.
But is the punishment the kind of the process here, what Trump is ultimately seeking, that there could be a lot of legal fees, she will have to fight this, and what that looks like.
SARAH MATTHEWS, FORMER DEPUTY PRESS SECRETARY FOR PRES. TRUMP: It does seem like the punishment is kind of the purpose here.
It looks like they want to punish her for putting out this unfavorable poll to him. When in actuality, this did more harm to her reputation than anything. She would not have risked her reputation and her record to put forth this poll, if she didn't believe that it were to be true.
But obviously, she stood by her outdated methodology. We know that she kind of stood by it, because she said Iowa's population, it was in line with the methodology that she used, an older, predominantly white population. Obviously, those methods caught up to her in 2024. And she put out this poll. It ended up being terribly wrong, and she's the one who has to deal with that.
And so, it does seem really petty then, for Trump to have to go after her, and try to inflict more pain, put salt in the wound here. Because she was right at the end of her career, kind of noted as this renowned pollster. And then they are pursuing this lawsuit for what? The guy won the popular vote. He won the election. It just seems silly for him to go after her. But it just kind of proves, in my view, that he's like the smallest man who ever lived.
WILLIAMS: To me, really important point there, that there's a market solution to this, which is that if The Des Moines Register makes mistakes in its reporting? Then consumers and readers can make their choices as to where to get their media. That's not a legal question. People get issues wrong, all the time.
She laid out her methodology. There's simply nothing legally actionable about that. It's -- so going to the courts and attempting to get the kind of solution he has, just has no basis in law.
COLLINS: And we've seen, obviously, Trump file a lot of lawsuits before, even ones where he's had to ultimately pay the legal fees, and fines at times, because judges were frustrated he was filing.
WILLIAMS: Yes.
COLLINS: But this comes after a very important moment, which is the settlement of that defamation case with ABC News, where they are ultimately donating $15 million to basically the Trump library, and paying a million dollars of his legal fees.
Given that, and after working for him, and seeing it up close, do you think he feels emboldened by that move?
MATTHEWS: I think he does. I think that the result of that lawsuit, him winning the popular vote, he feels like he's emboldened. He's a little bit drunk on power, and so he wants to go after his critics.
And he wants to -- the point of this lawsuit, for example, with Ann Selzer, is because he wants to discourage negative polling for himself. And so, it might silence others from doing so and putting out bad or unfavorable polls to him. And so, it just does seem like that's the purpose here, and why they're doing this.
COLLINS: But this comes at an important moment when, obviously, Trump is a little over 30 days away from regaining power. We've seen what his top picks, who, as Senator Ted Budd there, just said he's voting to confirm every single one of them, that Trump has nominated, have said they want to go after conspirators and the -- conspirators in the media.
What does that look like, when Trump is back in power, in terms of the avenues he has to pursue more than just filing lawsuits?
WILLIAMS: There aren't a lot of avenues. Now, certainly, if it's a question of going after quote-unquote, "Conspirators," he could use Congress or work hand-in-hand with Congress. The simple fact is, you have to have a basis for opening an investigation.
And even if -- so, for instance, if the FBI with Kash Patel as head, were to attempt to go after media organizations, the issue, to some extent, is the hassle that it causes them. For charge--
COLLINS: The people that they go after.
WILLIAMS: The people that they go after. For there to be charges filed, these would have to go to courts. They would have to go in front of juries or whatever else. So, there are checks in the system.
But certainly, the strain on the individuals, who are investigated, that's the real problem here. And as Sarah had mentioned, there's a chilling effect, well -- behavior starts changing, when they live in constant fear of being investigated.
COLLINS: Yes, we'll see what that looks like.
WILLIAMS: Yes.
COLLINS: Great to have you both here. Thank you for breaking that down for us.
[22:00:00]
I should note, tomorrow night, here on THE SOURCE, we have an exclusive interview for you. Trump's incoming border czar, Tom Homan, is going to join me here live. Obviously, a lot to discuss about what Trump's plans are for immigration, and the mass deportations that he pledged on the campaign trail. Don't miss that. Tomorrow night, here, 9 o'clock Eastern on CNN.
As always, thank you so much for joining me live, from Capitol Hill tonight.
"CNN NEWSNIGHT WITH ABBY PHILLIP" is up next.
