Return to Transcripts main page
The Source with Kaitlan Collins
Hegseth Under Fire Over Boat Strike, Signal Report; Trump Says He Wants Jack Smith To Testify Publicly But House GOP Is Pushing For Private Testimony; Kennedy's Handpicked CDC Advisers To Weigh Major Change To Childhood Vaccine Schedule. Aired 9-10p ET
Aired December 03, 2025 - 21:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[21:00:00]
ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST, ANDERSON COOPER 360: --well you can watch the full episode right now at CNN.com/AllThereIs, or listen wherever you get your podcasts.
Also, join me for my companion streaming show, All There Is Live, every Thursday night, at 09:15 p.m. So there'll be one live show, tomorrow night, 09:15. That's also at CNN.com/AllThereIs.
That's it for us. The news continues. I'll see you, tomorrow. "THE SOURCE WITH KAITLAN COLLINS" starts now.
KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, CNN HOST, THE SOURCE WITH KAITLAN COLLINS: Tonight, a U.S. government report finds that Secretary Pete Hegseth put U.S. troops at risk, potentially, by putting sensitive information in a not-so-sensitive group chat. A Senate Republican is going to respond to that report, here tonight.
I'm Kaitlan Collins. And this is THE SOURCE.
And we start tonight with breaking news here, in Washington, as multiple sources are telling CNN that a highly-anticipated report from the Pentagon's watchdog finds the Defense Secretary, Pete Hegseth, could have put U.S. troops in danger by using an app to share highly sensitive military attack plans.
A classified report on what has been informally dubbed Signalgate is now in the hands of Congress tonight. The unclassified version of that report is expected to be publicly released tomorrow.
And it comes as the already-embattled Secretary finds himself embroiled in another widening investigation tonight. That one is into the U.S. airstrike in the Caribbean that killed survivors who did not die in the initial strike on an alleged drug boat, but instead, as the result of a second one on the wrecked ship that they were clinging to. Members of both parties, here in D.C. tonight, have said that that strike could constitute a war crime. It's a serious allegation.
And both of these events tonight have amplified concerns about the Secretary himself, even from some prominent Republicans on Capitol Hill. On the Signal front, you may remember, it was a huge story, when someone on a group chat of top government officials, mistakenly added a reporter, as they were talking about an imminent U.S. attack in Yemen.
The Secretary responded tonight by posting, quote, "No classified information." "Total exoneration." "Case closed."
But Secretary Hegseth's messages included material from documents that were marked classified, at the time. And while he has the power to declassify information, of course, we have not seen evidence that he did.
The Secretary's real-time tracking on the Yemen mission, however, offers a pretty stark contrast to what happened with the boat strike that happened months later. Secretary Hegseth says that he stopped watching the live feed before that second strike was ordered to kill survivors.
And when President Trump was asked today, if he believes that anyone should be punished for targeting survivors, this is what he said from the Oval Office.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REPORTER: If it is found that survivors were actually killed while clinging on to that boat, should Secretary Hegseth, Admiral Bradley, or others, be punished?
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: I think you're going to find that this is war, that these people were killing our people.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: That was the President's answer.
We wait to see what Admiral Bradley has to say, because he's got a slew of meetings, on Capitol Hill, with leaders from both parties about what exactly went down. You can expect Congress to push for messages that were exchanged before that strike happened, what were the directives, what happened during the strike, and, of course, what came after, along with the full video and audio of those strikes.
The President today, when he was asked by reporters if he supports the release of the second strike, so everyone can see what that looks like, said, yes.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REPORTER: You released video of that first boat strike on September 2nd, but not the second video. Will you release video of that strike so that the American people can see for themselves what happened?
TRUMP: I don't know what they have, but whatever they have, we'd certainly release. No problem. You know, we stopped -- every boat we knock out, we save 25,000 American lives.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: And I'm joined now by Republican senator, Thom Tillis of North Carolina.
And thank you, Senator, for being here. Welcome to THE SOURCE.
SEN. THOM TILLIS (R-NC): Thank you.
COLLINS: When it comes to this Inspector General's report, the conclusion is that, in part, that Secretary Hegseth did put American forces at risk by sharing this information in a Signal group chat. Do you agree with that conclusion?
TILLIS: I agree. Any time you release mission set information before the strike, you run that risk. And thank goodness that we did not tarnish one of the most extraordinary precision strikes in recent history, because it could have been that way.
[21:05:00]
And so, yes, you got to be -- you got to be tight on that sort of information. You never -- that's a force protection issue. It's a mission critical piece of information that could have been used by our adversaries to blow those planes out of the sky. You just don't do that.
COLLINS: Secretary Hegseth is framing it as total exoneration. Is that how you view this report that came out today?
TILLIS: No. I think, at some point, just take the learning experience and move on. No one can rationalize that as an exoneration. We know that mission information was outside of the classified setting that it was trusted to be in.
And I don't -- Kaitlan, I don't even bring a pen into a classified briefing. I don't bring -- we obviously don't have our phones, we don't have our watches. I don't even bring a pen in, to make notes, to remove any doubt that there is something that I could have dropped or put in the trash can that I forgot about, because that's how seriously you need to take classified information.
Thank God, nothing bad happened. Thank God, the great decision that the President made to make that strike was successful. But it could have put it at risk.
And why would you send the signal that maybe this is OK, maybe you could be exonerated by leaking information before a critical mission. Just let's move past it.
COLLINS: Well, and you mentioned classified briefings. There's about to be a few on Capitol Hill, tomorrow--
TILLIS: Yes.
COLLINS: --over these alleged boat strikes, and the fact that two survivors were clinging to a boat after one strike--
TILLIS: Yes.
COLLINS: --and then a second strike was carried out.
You said, whoever ordered the second strike on the survivors needs to get the hell out of Washington, is--
TILLIS: Yes, I standby that.
COLLINS: --is the way you put it.
TILLIS: Yes.
COLLINS: Pete Hegseth says that that was Admiral Frank Bradley.
TILLIS: We need to get to the bottom of it.
COLLINS: Does that apply to him?
TILLIS: I have observed in Iraq, several years ago, I was in Erbil outside of Mosul, and I have observed a kinetic strike. And I know the process that you go through, and the number of people that may be watching, and the legal procedure that you should go through, to make sure that you have the authority to do what you're doing is within legal bounds.
Hopefully, we'll have a transcript of that information, we'll review it, and then we'll get to the facts. But at the end of the day, anyone who knowingly took on a disabled vessel, you learned that the rely -- the responsibility a boater has, if you're a recreational boater, to actually come to the aid of a distressed vehicle -- a vessel, if it doesn't pose a threat to you. Minimally, you should have at least followed through by trying to get assets there, to apprehend them.
If someone knowingly launched a second missile at that boat, which led to the deaths of the other two, then they have to be held accountable, and they shouldn't be in whatever role they're in.
COLLINS: They've been putting the onus of this on the Admiral here. Do you believe that it is on him, or do you think it's on Secretary Hegseth?
TILLIS: I'll take at face value right now, what Secretary Hegseth said. He said he wasn't there. He said he was busy doing other things. I would assume a part of the record was, what was the other thing that he was doing that was more important than a battle damage assessment over the first strike in the Caribbean?
COLLINS: So you want to know where he went, when he left that one.
TILLIS: Yes, I mean, all of that's important.
Because see, Secretary Hegseth is the leader of arguably the most complex, consequential organization in the history of mankind. Yes, making a bad mistake could start a war. Making a mistake can get American military personnel killed. You've got to be tight on your execution, and you need to be tight on documenting every decision that could be subject to a question about whether or not the law of war and the law of the sea were followed.
It's a legitimate question. It's not -- for me, it's not a -- this is an operational question.
COLLINS: So when he says it's the fog of war, and that he didn't personally see the survivors because the boat was on fire. Is that a reasonable explanation for you?
TILLIS: Listen, I would not necessarily have expected -- if you've seen these actually happen, I would not necessarily have expected Secretary Hegseth to have seen it or noticed it. A lot of these videos can be grainy. I mean, you're in the middle of the smoke-clearing. It's happening very quickly. I don't know what the timing was, between the two strikes. So there was time compression as well. So, I could -- I could see where maybe he did not see it.
But he is the Secretary of Defense, and he is responsible for the integrity of that organization, and the processes that are in place for these sorts of strikes all over the world. I mean, you get on these phone calls before they ultimately make the decision to pull the trigger. You typically have lawyers on the call. You have people reviewing every element to make sure that this is an operation that you can do, that fully adheres to the law of war.
Here's why this is so important. Our men and women get in situations, where they may be blown out of the water, and we are putting our forces at risk if we're setting or lowering the bar for actually honoring the rules of engagement.
COLLINS: And you're saying the buck stops with Secretary Hegseth.
[21:10:00]
TILLIS: The buck has to stop. At least. I want to know what the processes were in place so that we can get it. There should be no reason why we don't have a definitive answer on precisely what information was used, and precisely who ordered the hit. This is -- this should be it. And if it's not, then we need to add additional requirements to make sure that this stuff is captured for posterity.
COLLINS: And the President said today he released -- he supports releasing the video of that second strike.
TILLIS: And I appreciate the President doing that.
COLLINS: Because you -- and you expect Congress to get that, right?
TILLIS: A 100 percent.
COLLINS: Back in July, you told my colleague, Jake Tapper, that you thought Secretary Hegseth was out of his depth at the Pentagon. Is that still your view today? TILLIS: Yes, and the reason I mean that is, Secretary Hegseth went through the confirmation process. I ultimately voted for him. He was unanimously voted out of committee. And I deferred to them, having been on Senate Armed Services for eight years, to gage whether or not they thought he had the right skillset to lead this large, complex, consequential organization.
Some of these things, to me, I don't think there's any malice or ill intent on the part of Secretary Hegseth. It speaks to a level of executive experience, where you would just assume these controls, these protocols, would be in place, so you're protecting your organization. The absence of information exposes your organization to suspicion, and to criticism, that you avoid by having the answers to all the questions, when you need them, when you're making these complex, very difficult decisions.
And incidentally, I'm not against everything Secretary Hegseth has done. I'm making a professional judgment, as I made for the majority of my career, about whether or not executives are in the right place, to bring the organization, to the level of performance that the United States of America should expect for any Cabinet member.
COLLINS: Do you think he's doing a good job as the Defense Secretary?
TILLIS: I think he's got a mixed report card. Some of these things just simply have to do with execution. We've got to be tight. We're the -- we are an exceptional nation that does exceptional good in the world. Our reputation matters. And the bar that we set, you can argue, is going to be the top level of expectation, for our peers, and for our allies and our adversaries. I don't want to lower the bar on execution. I want to raise it.
COLLINS: Would you vote yes on him again today?
TILLIS: I don't answer a hypothetical. You're talking about based -- see, it's a hypothetical question I'm not going to answer, because it -- I had to judge based on his resume at the time.
I'm having a discussion, right now, telling you that I've got a real problem with some of these decisions. Again, not mal-intent. It's about being tight on execution.
This President deserves people who are concerned with his legacy. At the end of the day, people may forget who Pete Hegseth is. People will not forget who Donald Trump is. And when they make decisions that are below the standards that I think President Trump wants? I'm going to hold them accountable because I care about his legacy.
COLLINS: So you think maybe this is a sign that they're not thinking -- that Pete Hegseth is not thinking of Donald Trump's legacy?
TILLIS: People need to think about the long-term. This President will be remembered long after you and I are gone. I'm sorry to say that. But we are all responsible for making sure this President's good decisions, his decision in Iran, the way that he's holding people accountable for unfair trade relationships, these are things that he should be remembered by.
We're not even talking about the Iran strike anymore. We're talking about what may have been a misstep in the Caribbean. That's not I want for this President's legacy.
COLLINS: The President ran on America First. As you know. A lot of people in your home state supported that. And I wonder if the boat strikes in the Caribbean, and the President saying today that there will be land strikes, does that align with the America First that people wanted, in your view?
TILLIS: I think we need to be really careful, Kaitlan, because then we wade into the political consequences for getting out over our skis.
So, I want to make sure that the President is being advised on the pros and cons of any incursion into Venezuela, the risk, you know, there will be American soldiers and American service personnel potentially at risk, either on land or in a -- you know, once you launch a strike like that, then you've got to be -- you've got to be concerned with the consequences, not only in Venezuela, but in the United States on the border, and in Latin --South America, where we have special operators working every day.
So, you got to be tight on this execution, or you could be putting forces at risk. And nobody wants that. And I certainly know that Secretary Hegseth doesn't want it. But let's think this through and make sure we execute tight.
COLLINS: Well, and in response to what they're doing with the drug boats, and going after Maduro and the pressure campaign, the White House says that's because he's smuggling drugs and funneling them to the United States.
TILLIS: Yes.
COLLINS: You were critical of his decision to pardon a former leader of Honduras--
TILLIS: Yes.
COLLINS: --who was convicted on that very matter, last week. You said that it basically ran counter to that goal of theirs.
TILLIS: Yes.
COLLINS: Tonight, he's also just pardoned a Texas Democrat, Henry Cuellar, who had been indicted on basically bribery charges, alongside his wife, taking bribes from two foreign entities. Do you support that pardon?
TILLIS: Well, I want to know who is responsible for making the pardon recommendations, what they're thinking.
[21:15:00]
Again, the President is not going to review the pardon applications, and go through all the details. He's going to take a recommendation from his staff. Many of the things that, I think, are going on in this administration that I have a problem with, are not with the President. They're the advice that the President is being given.
How on earth can you threaten a potential land war against a thug and a narco-terrorist who plays like he's the President of Venezuela, and then go easy on someone whose investigation that led to an indictment started in the Trump administration? So, these--
COLLINS: By his own former personal attorney.
TILLIS: The -- right. These are the basics that concern me with the advice coming out of the pardons office, like the January 6 protesters who killed or were responsible for the death of people on Capitol Hill.
Look, I get the over-prosecution. There were a lot of people who went to prison. Biden went -- he over-prosecuted. It was vindictive prosecution. It was wrong. Should they have been fined? Should they have been given an education? Yes. But there were hundreds of people that should not have gone to jail or gone to all the expense that they did.
But these thugs, these people that breached the building, told everybody else to come in, who assaulted police officers? There's no way they should be on the street today. And anybody who made that recommendation to the President needs to be held accountable.
COLLINS: What about with Henry Cuellar, though? I mean, he's a Texas Democrat, the Republicans have been trying to beat for years. They're in a fight for their life over the House right now, their political life. Does that make sense to you to pardon him and make his reelection--
TILLIS: Well, on its face, it's no. But you just -- you could do the breaking news banner here, because I wasn't aware that that one was out as well. I've been following more, the Honduran president.
And keep in mind, there was a brother convicted too. And I'm trying to figure out if one was a political prosecution, why wasn't the other one? That makes no sense to me.
COLLINS: So, on the pardon. I mean, Trump's been pardoning a lot of people.
TILLIS: Yes.
COLLINS: He pardoned someone tonight that his own Justice Department indicted back in July. Does the -- does the pardon sense coming out of the White House make sense to you?
TILLIS: No, I think--
COLLINS: The pardon strategy, I guess I should say.
TILLIS: --the pardon recommendations coming out of the DOJ do not make sense to me. Let's keep in mind how--
COLLINS: Does that mean Ed Martin?
TILLIS: --where the pardons office works, and the recommendations flowing in that direction. I cannot imagine, in some of these cases -- in some cases, maybe the President and I could respectfully disagree.
But I can't imagine, if he had a fulsome explanation of what was going on, and how it was going to be perceived by the American public, Republicans and Democrats, that some of these pardons would have actually occurred.
COLLINS: I don't want to put words in your mouth, but it sounds like you think he's being misled or not told everything by Ed Martin, his pardon attorney.
TILLIS: I don't think he's being misled. I think that maybe the -- like I said, this is all about execution. It seems like to me, people haven't really done their homework, to really make sure these pardons could become a part of this President's legacy.
I don't want to tarnish the good work the President has done. These sorts of things discount. It's like I said. We're not talking about the Iran strike anymore. We're talking about striking a boat.
An Iran strike that led to a peace agreement. That was transformational. Nobody would have done that except Donald J. Trump.
But now, we're not talking about that. We're talking about hitting a boat, with 11 people on it, and then maybe taking a second shot at two who survived, in violation of the law of the sea and the law of war. I don't want to talk about that.
I want to talk about the extraordinary decision the President made, to neutralize Iran, and lay the groundwork for a transformational peace agreement in the Middle East.
COLLINS: You're very--
TILLIS: Which of those two sound like they're going to live longer for posterity, for this gentleman's legacy?
COLLINS: That's a good question.
And you're very candid in your assessments of this White House, of Washington.
TILLIS: I've heard that said before.
COLLINS: Some people may not say that in a good way.
You are not running for reelection.
TILLIS: Right.
COLLINS: And in your home-- TILLIS: Well, we can all be -- we can all be clear. I was candid, long before I made that decision.
COLLINS: Yes, you -- yes, those are not tied.
But a Democrat, the former Governor of your home state, announced today that he is going -- he filed his paperwork to run for that seat.
TILLIS: Yes.
COLLINS: Do you think Roy Cooper will be tough for Republicans to beat?
TILLIS: He will be. I mean, Roy Cooper -- you know, I don't take any of this stuff personally. So, I have friends that I would never vote for and I would campaign against. So, I respect Roy Cooper.
But for him to tell the people of North Carolina that he's a conservative or left-of-center liberal? They need to go look at his record.
I became Speaker of the House in North Carolina and undid a lot of things that he did as a legislator. We need and -- you know, our state motto is Esse quam videri. To be, rather than to seem. He seems like a moderate, but he's not a moderate, based on his words, and based on his deeds in the time that I've observed him. A good guy, somebody I'd like to have a friendship with.
But this is a political contest. And I believe that Michael Whatley is much better prepared to represent North Carolina than Roy Cooper.
COLLINS: Yes. And as you noted--
TILLIS: As a conservative.
COLLINS: --your races were always very close.
TILLIS: That's right.
COLLINS: They usually are, in North Carolina.
TILLIS: I was always behind by two points--
COLLINS: Two points, yes.
TILLIS: --on Election Day.
COLLINS: Senator, thank you for joining us tonight. Really appreciate your time.
TILLIS: Thank you.
COLLINS: Thom Tillis.
[21:20:00] Up next. We're getting never-before-seen images from Jeffrey Epstein's notorious private island. It offers a rare look inside the sex offender's Caribbean home. Why those images were released today, and what they show?
Plus, my new reporting tonight on a pardon that I just mentioned for someone that the President's own Justice Department just indicted. Why are they now getting pardoned?
And also tonight, it is a vaccine that has been given to newborns for more than three decades. Why that could soon change under the Health Secretary RFK Jr.'s leadership.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[21:25:00]
COLLINS: Tonight, House Democrats on the Oversight Committee are sharing never-before-seen pictures from Jeffrey Epstein's notorious private island, in what appears to be their latest bid to pressure the Justice Department to release everything they have on the late sex offender.
Of course, the Justice Department has now 16 days left, by our count, to comply with that bill that was signed by President Trump, after his hand was basically forced by Congress, directing the Justice Department to release the Epstein files that they have in their possession.
The new images and the videos that came out today not only show the opulent grounds that surrounded Jeffrey Epstein's Caribbean home, where many of his crimes took place, I should note, but also some of the most intimate spaces in that property, from his bedroom and his bathroom, to even this room that had a dentist chair and masks of men's faces on the walls, and what may be one of the most unnerving images that we saw today.
There's another photo that shows a landline photo with the first names of several of his contacts scrawled on the speed dial buttons. Another image shows a blackboard in his study. There are the words, Power, Deception, Plots, and Political, on the wall there.
And this is all coming today, as we heard from Jeffrey Epstein's former girlfriend and accomplice, Ghislaine Maxwell, who says that she is preparing to ask a court to free her from prison once again.
My legal sources are here tonight.
Tom Dupree, former Deputy Assistant Attorney General.
And Shan Wu who's a former federal prosecutor.
Tom, I don't know, is it weird for me to ask you what you thought about the pictures? Like, I know I should be asking about your legal advice.
TOM DUPREE, FORMER DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL: Yes.
COLLINS: But it's really remarkable just to even see there's no people in those images, but just to see that is creepy and strange.
DUPREE: I had a lot of the same reaction. I mean, for one thing, you see the island and all the natural beauty bore witness to such evil and such horror, and then to get the inside perspective on the things. I mean, there were some rooms we saw which were the most quotidian, boring, bedroom sort of thing, nothing exciting. And then you'd see that dentist chair and the masks on the wall just profoundly disturbing and unsettling.
And look, I think that this is the sort of thing where you wonder, why couldn't we have seen this before? Why did it take all this effort just to get these images out? There weren't any compromises of personal confidentiality or anything like that.
So, I think we're going to see a lot more of these images that we're all going to be poring over in the weeks to come, particularly when the Justice Department, and Congress, they finally get all these materials out to the public.
COLLINS: Yes, that's a good point, that this is not coming from the Justice Department. Just so everyone's clear.
DUPREE: Right.
COLLINS: This is coming from House Democrats--
DUPREE: Exactly.
COLLINS: --who have subpoenaed this with Republicans.
SHAN WU, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: Right.
COLLINS: But Shan, this comes as Ghislaine Maxwell, she's trying to make another bid to get out of prison. She's already been moved to a lighter-security prison. But she basically is saying she plans to file a habeas corpus petition to -- and will represent herself. Is that going to be successful? What do you make of that?
WU: Well, habeas is an ancient remedy. Bring the body before the court. But you still have to have something that you want them to do with that body. And we have no idea what her claim is going to be at this point.
Not a good sign that she has no lawyer. Could be she can't find anyone to come up with a theory for it. So, I'm not expecting a whole lot of success with that.
COLLINS: So you don't think it will be anything that we'll see Ghislaine Maxwell getting out of prison as a result of this? If you're--
WU: Not as a result of that. But there are other ways she might get out of prison. COLLINS: Yes.
DUPREE: Yes.
COLLINS: Obviously, she's been angling for a pardon.
WU: Right. Yes.
COLLINS: That's not something that the White House has seemed receptive to so far, but they notably, have not ruled it out.
And Tom, the other thing that happened today, as we're waiting to see what the DOJ releases. Also in Congress, we're seeing -- Jack Smith, former Special Counsel -- Jim Jordan in the House Oversight Committee wants him to testify, but wants him to do so privately. Jack Smith has said he would like to do so publicly.
And the President was asked about this today in the Oval, and this is what he told reporters.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: I think Jack Smith is a sick man, there's something really wrong with him. I'd rather see him testify publicly, because there's no way he can answer the questions.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: If Jack Smith wants to testify publicly, and President Trump wants Jack Smith to testify publicly, should Jack Smith testify publicly?
DUPREE: Look, I agree with the President. I think he should testify publicly. There's obviously an immense public interest in all of this.
In Washington, as you know, things rarely stay secret. So even if he were to testify privately, my guess is people would ultimately wind up leaking the transcripts. But in strategic ways, people might leak the parts they thought were favorable to their side.
I think the best, easiest solution is just have Smith come in and testify publicly. The entire American public can watch it. They can weigh his answers. They can see how he responds to the tough questions. The Republicans can make their points. The Democrats can make their points. And we won't have to rely on selective, cherry- picked leaks from private testimony.
COLLINS: Yes. I mean, if Jack Smith was testifying publicly, what would you want to -- what would you want to hear him answer in a setting like that?
WU: What I want to hear him answer? All the reasons why it was a valid investigation, all the suspicions they had, all the evidence they had, and basically put on the whole case that he never got to put on.
COLLINS: Because he wouldn't be bound by anything, right? I mean, he could just -- could he just say, essentially, whatever he wanted to?
WU: Sure. I mean, they'd try to cut him off if it began to sound kind of negative.
[21:30:00]
But the other point is, nothing stops him from coming out afterwards or even before, I guess, but coming out afterwards and talking about what he talked about, the questions that are asked, whatever he wants to say, because it's not like there's going to be a gag order on him.
DUPREE: I think they want to ask also, why didn't he move faster? I suspect that the--
COLLINS: Democrats would ask though.
DUPREE: --Democrats are going to want to know, Why did it take you so long to get going? And by the time he finally got going, he ran out of time.
COLLINS: Yes. We'll see if Jim Jordan changes his mind here.
Great to have both of your legal expertise on this.
Up next. Speaking of the President and his pardon power that we were mentioning. He just pardoned someone who has a history of criticizing him actually online, and once described the President as the world's single greatest con man. It's a post that's now deleted, but we've gotten our hands on it. I'll read them to you, right after this, with our new reporting, next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[21:35:00]
COLLINS: President Trump has pardoned over 1,500 people this year. But I have new reporting tonight on one in particular that has caught our attention.
Now, granting clemency to a former top entertainment executive probably wouldn't attract much scrutiny, usually, especially given the President has pardoned January 6 rioters, a convicted drug trafficker, his own former chief of staff, the ex-CEO of a cryptocurrency exchange. You get the point.
But this one stands out, because Trump has pardoned now, a former top entertainment executive who was indicted by Trump's own Justice Department less than five months ago.
Now, this full and unconditional pardon for the Oak View Group co- founder, Tim Leiweke, was posted online tonight by the Justice Department. It's dated December 2nd. It bears the President's signature, as you can see here.
But Leiweke was just indicted five months ago by Trump's own Antitrust Division, over accusations that he orchestrated a conspiracy to rig the bidding process for a public university arena in Austin.
A source tells me tonight that the former Republican congressman, Trey Gowdy, actually lobbied the Justice Department for this to happen.
But here's the other thing that stands out here, beyond the fact that Trump is now pardoning someone his own Justice Department, not the Biden Justice Department, not the Obama Justice Department, his own Justice Department actually indicted. He's also just pardoned someone who has a history of blasting him online.
Look at this. In August 2023, the same day that Trump was indicted for conspiring to overturn the 2020 election, the person that Trump just pardoned, Leiweke wrote, according to now-deleted posts that were seen by CNN, This isn't political, and God bless Vice President Pence for standing up and fighting for our Constitution and due process. If you have any shred of love for our Country, let a jury of peers decide if he is innocent. Not you.
In another post from February 2024, Leiweke replied to a post that was praising the President's movement as being under God. He responded and said, Claims the man that doesn't attend any mass on any Sunday, divorced twice, cheated on all three wives, paid off porn stars... Don't think he is my compass on my God or my faith. World's single greatest Con man.
In March 2024, in response to an account that was sharing Trump's reaction to the Democrat Dean Phillips dropping out of the 2024 race, Leiweke said, "Honest Don," now that is a riot.
Tonight, we reached out to Leiweke for comment, not just on his past comments on President Trump, but also this pardon. He told CNN he doesn't have the words to adequately convey his profound gratitude to the White House and President Trump. He said, This has been a long and difficult journey for my wife, my daughter, and me. The President has given us a new lease on life.
My political sources are here tonight.
I've got the Democratic strategist, Paul Begala.
And Republican strategist, Doug Heye.
And Doug, I mean, this was the Trump DOJ that indicted him.
DOUG HEYE, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST, FORMER COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR, RNC: Yes, that's -- the real surprising thing about this, as you said in your intro, not somebody that most people would know.
COLLINS: I had to look at the date really closely because that was like, There's no way this was from Trump's DOJ. But it was.
HEYE: But it was.
COLLINS: Just six months ago.
HEYE: And so there's a lot on this. One, we know Donald Trump's most famous -- one of his most famous lines was, he's going to drain the swamp. This swamp has gotten bigger and bigger, and the pardons are exactly why. And it's not what the White House wants to talk about, clearly, but they're forced to, because he's signing so many of these.
And we know that Donald Trump has been very effective on signing executive orders, and then holding it up, so we can all see what he's done. We don't see any of these. And so, it tells us that they don't want to talk about this. They're not highlighting it.
And I don't like to give Paul and Democrats advice very often. But if I'm the Democrats, I would say, If we're not seeing these until they come out after the fact? Gosh, they had to have been written by an autopen. And why they're not using that sort of political jujitsu back at the White House, and Republicans, sort of surprising, because congressional Republicans don't want to be talking about this either.
COLLINS: Yes.
Paul, what do you think? You're the Democrat here.
PAUL BEGALA, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: Yes, I think first, Doug's smarter than we are. That's why we're not. He's a brilliant guy. He's my friend.
I do think -- first off, you noted, this guy hadn't been convicted of anything. He was indicted by the Trump Justice Department, and now he's been pardoned, so he's clear.
I do think, as a guy who's been convicted of 34 felonies himself, right? Donald Trump kind of has a soft spot for financial crimes and for public misconduct. Keep in mind, he was impeached twice for alleged public misconduct. Mr. Trump was.
So, he's got -- there is a pattern, and it's not a strictly partisan pattern. I think Doug's right.
First term, he pardoned Rod Blagojevich, Democratic governor who had been convicted of corruption.
[21:40:00]
He just, few weeks ago, pardoned George Santos, the corrupt Republican congressman.
I heard you talking to Senator Tillis about this. Maybe the most outrageous one of all is this Juan Orlando Hernandez, one of the biggest drug traffickers on earth.
He pardoned the Binance co-founder, Changpeng Zhao, who was convicted of money laundering.
It goes on and on. So, it's not simply partisan. Even as a partisan, I have to point out that it's not that. It seems to me, he kind of identifies with people accused of, and in some cases, convicted of financial crimes and public misconduct.
COLLINS: Yes, and you make a good point about Leiweke. He had denied all wrongdoing here previously.
But the person -- he's denying wrongdoing against the Trump Justice Department that thought he did wrongdoing. I mean, they were the ones who brought this indictment against him. It was Gail Slater, who is one of the top officials at the Trump Justice Department, was put there by Trump. I mean, I can't imagine how she feels in the face of this pardon tonight.
But Doug, the other -- Democrat's. Hakeem Jeffries is praising one of the President's pardons. That was for Henry Cuellar, a Democrat in Texas that Republicans have been trying to beat for years. Does that make it harder for Republicans when it comes to taking -- to holding the House?
HEYE: It sure does. And you're hearing Republicans say that, not just privately, but publicly. Richard Hudson, who I've known since college, is the head of the NRCC, he has said, Yes, this makes our job harder. And he is as close to Trump as any Republican can.
And it's interesting, as you look at this, because Republicans clearly thought this was a seat that they could take. It takes that off the table. And why, I don't understand the politics of this is, you know, we hear a lot that Donald Trump doesn't care about Republicans. OK, fine. Or the Republican Party. But he sure cares about Republicans keeping the House. That is every conversation we're having on redistricting.
So, to use the old George W. Bush term by Will Ferrell, Strategery, I don't understand their strategery of making it easier for Democrats to take back the House. That will make Donald Trump's life much harder if that happens.
COLLINS: Yes.
Paul, the other thing that has kind of, I don't know, it's fascinated Washington here tonight. We'll see what the ramifications are. But speaking of what that majority looks like.
Speaker Mike Johnson is taking incoming from a House Republican tonight, in Elise Stefanik, who has gone to The Wall Street Journal, and basically blasted his leadership, and said, in her view, He certainly wouldn't have the votes to be speaker if there was a roll- call vote tomorrow... I believe that the majority of Republicans would vote for new leadership. It's that widespread.
And she basically says Kevin McCarthy is a political animal, in her view. She says, Mike Johnson is a political novice.
I mean, it's kind of stunning to see someone like Elise Stefanik, in her position, how elevated she's been, obviously before she had gone down the road of becoming Ambassador to the United Nations, blasting Mike Johnson like this.
BEGALA: Yes, just, where's my popcorn? I am here for this, Kaitlan.
But as we would say back home, Bless her heart. Her hopes to be governor, right? She was going to run for governor's, probably still will. She was going to run against a Democratic governor there--
COLLINS: Yes, she's running.
BEGALA: --Kathy Hochul, and paint her as the evil twin of Zohran Mamdani, the Socialist mayor-elect of New York. Guess who just praised the socialist mayor-elect? So that campaign is roadkill.
Doug's right about Henry Cuellar.
Yesterday, yesterday, the Republicans announced that they had recruited a guy who was a Democrat, a year ago, the Webb County judge, really a powerful, influential, well-liked guy. He switched parties about a year ago. He announced for that race, yesterday. And today, Trump pulls the rug out from under him, just like he did with Elise Stefanik.
I don't know, I've spent most of my career trying to divide and depress and demoralize and defeat Republicans. So, I just want to say, Thank you, President Trump for helping me.
COLLINS: Well, I mean, Doug, but when you look at this. I think people around Mike Johnson are even maybe a little taken aback by her comments, so publicly going after him. It seems almost personal. And for people have been following this, it's not clear, maybe it'll help her politics, as she's running for governor in New York.
Mike Johnson, when she came back, after the White House pulled her nomination, he created a seat for her, back on House Intelligence, to make sure she could be on the committee. He had to add a seat, give another seat to Democrats. I mean, it's not like he's totally just left her hanging in this situation--
HEYE: No.
COLLINS: --with--
(CROSSTALK)
HEYE: He created a seat in leadership for her that didn't exist. He not only kept her on Intel, he kept her seniority, which is really important. So, this is sort of surprising. Except one thing that we've seen as a constant, is if you complain about your own leadership, you get a lot of attention. And certainly, we've seen that with Marjorie Taylor Greene. We're seeing that with Elise Stefanik as well.
But we know that Republicans could have a rocky election year. And I would tell them, whether it's Elise Stefanik, or Nancy Mace who's making her own noise these days, you either can hang together, or you can hang separately. And that's the political reality that is facing Republicans moving into this election season.
COLLINS: Yes. Doug Heye.
HEYE: But Paul is depressing, by the way. He's depressed us for years.
COLLINS: Well, that's because of his Texas football fandom, right? [21:45:00]
BEGALA: Right. By the way, that's a great basketball arena, in Austin. Texas is playing Virginia right now, and I'm not watching it. That's how much I love CNN, and you, Doug and Kaitlan. That's how much I love you both.
COLLINS: Paul, do you think Bama is going to make the playoffs?
BEGALA: They will. They're great. You know, I -- we've played y'all last year. Yes, I think they really should.
COLLINS: All right.
BEGALA: I think Texas should too. But I think they're going to hammer us--
(CROSSTALK)
COLLINS: I'm going to clip your comments and send them to the committee.
Paul Begala.
HEYE: Nobody is going to say that Alabama is not going to make the playoffs if they're talking to you.
COLLINS: Yes.
HEYE: I think that's -- that's the reality.
COLLINS: OK. That's fair.
BEGALA: They're a great team.
COLLINS: You can speak truth to me.
Paul Begala. Doug Heye. Great to have you both here.
BEGALA: Thank you.
COLLINS: Up next. We have some important news to tell you about. That's because the Health Secretary, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., and his handpicked vaccine advisers, they are set to make their most consequential decision yet, tomorrow. How it's going to affect you? And what does my medical source have to say about this tonight?
[21:50:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: Tonight, there are former top public health officials sounding the alarm about the leadership of the Health Secretary, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., with a warning that they say he is putting Americans' health at risk. Now, this is a dozen former FDA commissioners. They put out a new letter, in The New England Journal of Medicine, and they say they're concerned about the agency's plans to toughen the vaccine approval process.
This also comes tonight as the former CDC leaders, who resigned in protest over this summer, say that Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s handpicked Advisory Committee, appear poised to raise vaccine risks while burying their benefits.
Those are warnings that come as those same advisers are weighing major changes to the childhood vaccine schedule, tomorrow, including whether or not newborn children should be vaccinated against hepatitis B, which is a highly contagious disease that destroys the liver.
My medical source tonight is Dr. Jonathan Reiner, who is a Professor of Medicine & Surgery at George Washington University.
I think the key question I have is, do you think it's necessary for them to be deliberating over this for tomorrow?
DR. JONATHAN REINER, CNN MEDICAL ANALYST, PROFESSOR OF MEDICINE & SURGERY, GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY: Well, I think it's -- a lot of this is already preordained. And almost the entire policy thrust of -- medical policy thrust of HHS and CDC and FDA is coming through the Secretary's office.
So RFK Jr., a lawyer, is dictating medical vaccine policy for the United States. He handpicked the ACIP committee, the CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. Handpicked it after firing the preexisting committee. Put in place many folks who share the same anti-vax opinions as he does.
And I think, tomorrow, we're going to see the first step in changing the childhood vaccination schedule, when they change the first dose of measles vaccine for babies.
COLLINS: And what's the impact of that? If you're a new parent and you're thinking, Well, what do I need to do?
REINER: So, well, what parents need to do is to talk to their pediatrician. Going forward, the only really credible information that parents should expect to get is from their own doctor and their own -- their own pediatricians. I would not trust what's coming out of CDC and HHS or even FDA.
But hepatitis is a remarkably contagious -- contagious virus, and mothers who are infected with hepatitis B can transmit that to a newborn during childbirth. And it's, the current vaccine practice is to immunize babies one day after birth, because if mom has the virus, vaccination can prevent the child from getting it. A child who gets hepatitis B will, with almost 90 percent certainty, develop chronic hepatitis that will be with them through the rest of their life, and put them at risk of liver damage, hepatocellular carcinoma.
COLLINS: Are doctors bound to follow the guidelines that become -- once they've become official?
REINER: No, but these -- but these recommendations have impact on how insurance companies pay for vaccinations, and also how a government agency that pays for vaccines for kids whose families have their insurance through Medicaid or who are under-insured or uninsured, how they get vaccines. That's the Vaccines for Children Program. Last year, it administered 73 million vaccinations to kids. So a change in the ACIP recommendations can have a dramatic effect on who gets vaccines.
If they push this back just two months, it's about 1,400 kids will get hepatitis. If they push it back, as some people suggest, to age 12, then 2,700 kids per year will get hepatitis. So there are real clinical lasting impacts from changing these recommendations.
COLLINS: Yes. I mean, especially if there're lifelong implications there.
REINER: Right.
COLLINS: Doctor, thank you so much for being here tonight. Really appreciate your time. Dr. Reiner.
REINER: My pleasure.
COLLINS: Up next for us, here in Washington, the President's name was just put on a building, that's of an independent agency that his administration actually gutted last year. So what's behind this? We'll talk about it, right after this.
[21:55:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: President Trump's desire to be viewed as the world's preeminent peacemaker has him revisiting a favorite pastime, this evening, putting his name on a building.
[22:00:00]
You see there, Donald J. Trump is now installed on the one that houses the U.S. Institute of Peace, here in Washington. And this comes ahead of tomorrow's planned signing ceremony at USIP, for a White House- brokered peace deal between the leaders of Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of Congo. It's a notable setting, considering the President's executive order seeking to dismantle the Institute altogether, back in February, after he first took office.
The Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, celebrated that move and said that, President Trump will be remembered by history as the President of Peace. It's time our State Department display that.
Thanks so much for joining us here tonight.
"CNN NEWSNIGHT WITH ABBY PHILLIP" starts now.
