Return to Transcripts main page
The Source with Kaitlan Collins
Boat Targeted By Second Strike Was Not Headed For The U.S.; Cuellar: Will "Personally" Thank Trump For Pardon At White House; Netflix Announces Blockbuster Deal To Buy Warner Bros. & HBO. Aired 9- 10p ET
Aired December 05, 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: And we'll reveal the CNN Hero of the Year, with help from several celebrities, including Meryl Streep, Adam Scott, and Parker Posey. It's a great night, and it really honors some truly remarkable people doing incredible things. I hope you join me for that.
That's it for us. I hope you have a great weekend. I'll see you, Monday.
The news continues. "THE SOURCE WITH KAITLAN COLLINS" starts now.
KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, CNN HOST, THE SOURCE WITH KAITLAN COLLINS: Tonight. Our exclusive reporting on that controversial boat strike in the Caribbean, and where that boat was actually headed.
I'm Kaitlan Collins. And this is THE SOURCE.
We begin tonight with exclusive new CNN reporting, because that speedboat that is at the center of so much controversy, the one that was hit a second time after the first strike left survivors in the water, was actually heading to Suriname in South America, according to our sources tonight, not to the United States. Two sources with direct knowledge say, that is actually what the Admiral who oversaw this entire operation told lawmakers, when he was briefing them on Capitol Hill.
U.S. drug enforcement officials say the drugs routed through Suriname, are typically headed for Europe, not the United States. Of course, that's not always the case. But usually, that is where they are going.
Back in September, of course, you'll remember, on the day of this strike, when it happened, the President had posted after, that the strike occurred while the terrorists, as he called them, were at sea and international waters, transporting illegal narcotics that were heading to the United States.
This is what the Secretary of State said that same day,
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) MARCO RUBIO, SECRETARY OF STATE: These particular drugs were probably headed to Trinidad or some other country in the Caribbean, at which point they just contribute to the instability these countries are facing.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: You heard Secretary Rubio there use the word, Probably. And the reason this disconnect matters is because the administration is claiming that this action, that they took, on this boat, with that second strike, was necessary to protect this country.
It comes the same day that we saw, in part, a contrast in the image the President wants to project and the actions that his administration is currently undertaking.
I was there today, as the President was walking the red carpet at The Kennedy Center. He was dancing to the YMCA, and genuinely seemed to be having a great time at an event that was kicking off the upcoming World Cup. It's going to be taking place across North America, next year.
And the highlight of that entire event for the President seemed to be this moment.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GIANNI INFANTINO, FIFA PRESIDENT: Mr. President, this is your prize. This is your Peace Prize. There is also a beautiful medal for you that you can wear everywhere you want to go.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: The President quickly put the medal around his neck while we were there. He was being awarded the inaugural FIFA Peace Prize. It's a new award that didn't exist a year ago. And it's one that FIFA now says is going to be given to someone who has taken exceptional and extraordinary actions for peace, and by doing so, have united people across the world.
It was bestowed upon President Trump by FIFA's President Gianni Infantino today.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Thank you very much. This is truly one of the great honors of my life. And beyond awards, Gianni and I were discussing this, we saved millions and millions of lives.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Now, Infantino was also a really big supporter of giving the President the Nobel Peace Prize. That ultimately went this year to Venezuela's opposition leader. But it is certainly one that has very much been on the President's mind, including during this week's Cabinet meeting.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: Every time I end a war, they say, If President Trump ends that war, he's going to get the Nobel Prize.
If I end that war, Well, he won't get it for that war, but if he ever gets it for the next war.
(LAUGHTER)
TRUMP: Now they're saying, If he ever ends the war with Russia and Ukraine, he's going to get the Nobel Prize.
What about the other eight wars? India, Pakistan, think of -- think of all the wars I ended. I should get the Nobel Prize for every war, but I don't want to -- I don't want to be greedy.
Actually, the woman who got the Nobel Prize said, You've got to be kidding, Trump deserves the Nobel Prize. And it was very nice of her, I appreciate it. Which is true, actually.
But I don't care about that. You know what I care about? I care about death. I care about all the people that are dying.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Now, the boat strike that killed survivors in the Caribbean came up during that same Cabinet meeting, as the administration has pledged to not stop these strikes. They say they're going to continue to carry them out.
In total, after all these strikes are put together, 87 people have been killed, in what the President himself has described as a war. It's a war that Congress has not declared, and it is using military force that Congress has not authorized.
[21:05:00]
I asked the President today, on the red carpet, about these strikes and that a war, and the contrast that is created here.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: You're expected to get the FIFA Peace Prize, Mr. President. What would you say to people who say that prize might conflict with your pledge to strike Venezuela?
TRUMP: Well, I think the Peace Prize, I mean, I settled eight wars. I don't know that I'm getting it. I haven't been officially noticed. I've been hearing about a Peace Prize. And I'm here to represent our country in a different sense.
But I can tell you, I did settle eight wars, and we have a ninth coming, but -- and which nobody's ever done before. But I want to really save lives. I don't need prizes. I need to save lives. And we're saving a lot of lives. I've saved millions and millions of lives, and that's really what I want to do.
And I also want to run a great country. And the United States right now is the hottest country anywhere in the world. And one year ago was dead, we had a dead country. And now we have the hottest country anywhere in the world.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Now, the United States is hosting the World Cup, along with two other nations in this, Mexico and Canada. Both of their leaders were also there at The Kennedy Center today. And of course, that reminded people who were there, about the President's own threats to invade one of them and annex the other.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: Would I launch strikes in Mexico to stop drugs? It's OK with me.
I looked at Mexico City over the weekend. There's some big problems over there.
Frankly, the way that gets solved is Canada should honestly become our 51st state.
Why don't you just join our country? You become 51 -- become the 51st state.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Joining me tonight as we cover the latest out of the Trump administration are my political sources. Van Jones. And S.E. Cupp.
And S.E., I think if the drugs were not headed for the United States, one question that it raises, very obviously, is, what does that do to the justification that we've been hearing--
S.E. CUPP, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, HOST, "OFF THE CUPP" PODCAST FOR IHEART RADIO, COLUMNIST, NY DAILY NEWS: Yes.
COLLINS: --from the President and all these officials about why they did this?
CUPP: We are so far out of the bounds of the confines of the Constitution. We're not allowed to just extra-judicially kill people because their cargo may or may not, at some point, reach the United States. That's number one.
Number two, the sheer incompetence of this administration is appalling, disturbing. It's embarrassing. Marco Rubio said it was headed to Trinidad. Bradley says, Suriname. Trump said, the United States. Pete Hegseth has given half a dozen versions of what actually happened, and what he knew, and when he knew it.
The Pentagon, the Department of Defense, has historically been revered and feared around the world. And it is now a laughing stock, not because of the good men and women who have dedicated their lives to service, but because Pete -- the Warrior Princess Hegseth is running this organization on sheer bloodlust, and not competence, not brains, not the law. It's an embarrassment. I'm deeply, deeply worried about our standing in the world, and the men and women he continues to put in danger.
COLLINS: Van, some people might hear this new reporting from CNN tonight, about what the Admiral told lawmakers yesterday, and say, Well, why does it matter where the drugs were headed, if they were eventually going to potentially come to the United States. Is what Rubio was alluding to. I think there's a lot of questions about the underlying intelligence here and what that shows. But what would you say?
VAN JONES, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, FORMER OBAMA ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I would say that we have laws to deal with drugs. The Coast Guard, that's their job, is to stop those boats. We don't murder people because they're carrying drugs. This is murder for political theater. It's wrong. We keep showing these images. This is not a video game. These are human beings who are being murdered. And you can't just say, Well, somebody has drugs.
We treat people with drugs differently than we treat people with, say, bombs. You saw one of the senators today from the Republican side said, Well, if they were bringing bombs to the United States, we could blow them up.
Well, listen, if you go right now on to Times Square, and you have a 100 pounds of drugs, and somebody else has a 100 pounds of explosives, the cops treat the person with explosives differently.
So, they're stretching, they're making up stuff to justify doing something that is morally wrong, is politically dangerous, but also it's illegal. It's illegal. And rule of law is going down the drain.
People have been using drugs in the world for 10,000 years. You don't get to murder people over it.
CUPP: And when we become war criminals, we -- I mean, people look at America as setting some kind of standard and following rules of engagement. And when we stop doing that? It gives permission to everyone else, including every bad actor, to stop caring too.
COLLINS: Well, and one thing that I've heard is it's not even -- we're talking about the second strike, and the survivors, and whether or not they were following the rules of engagement, and were these people actually shipwrecked, or were they trying to stay in the fight.
But it's also just on the use of force overall that's happening here.
CUPP: Yes.
COLLINS: And John Berman did a brilliant interview with Senator Tom Cotton, earlier today. I want you to listen to part of what Senator Cotton had to say.
[21:10:00]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: If they are terrorists, when did Congress pass the authorized use of force to attack them?
SEN. TOM COTTON (R-AR): John, the reason why your question is not well-founded is like saying, Would Barack Obama be OK droning an American citizen when he was president.
John, the President has inherent authority as the commander-in-chief under the Constitution to protect America using our armed forces against a foreign terrorist organization. Congress has passed laws that allows the president to designate foreign terrorist organizations.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Van, as you know, a lot of people criticized Obama for that drone strike at the time.
CUPP: Right.
COLLINS: A lot of the conservatives now--
CUPP: Yes.
COLLINS: --who are defending the President's use of force here.
JONES: Yes, but there was an underlying congressional extension of authority. I thought that the President exceeded that authority. But at least, that was there.
This is just a novel use of the military, to go around killing people because they have drugs. That's a novel use. It's not supported by the law. It's not supported by the Constitution. And it's just wrong.
And I'm going to tell you something. It's very strange to me to see somebody getting a prize for peace when he's doing this kind of stuff. I think people in Los Angeles--
COLLINS: You think it's contradictory?
JONES: I think it's contradictory. I think people in Los Angeles would be quite surprised to hear something like this. You have people who are being chased all over the place by ICE, thrown to the ground, nannies jumped on in parks, roofers pulled down and beat up, unmarked cars all over Los Angeles. I know a little bit about this. I think they'd be surprised here, as the peaceful president.
Both, what we're seeing is violence inside the U.S. borders directed by this President, violence at the U.S. border directed by this President, and violence far away from the U.S. border directed by this President. I just think it's a strange thing to understand. I'm not quite sure what you have to do to not be eligible for a Peace Award. But those things might disqualify you, in my mind. COLLINS: Well, and also, the boat strikes are happening as you know, this is the President who ran on America First, and this is obviously -- there's a real question of, what do -- what are they -- what's their plan if they do -- if they are successful in getting Maduro out of power, what does that look like. And how does it align with what voters are so clearly worried about, which is the economy.
That's something that that Marjorie Taylor Greene has been talking about basically non-stop, now that she is persona non grata with the White House. She actually just sat down to do "60 Minutes" with Lesley Stahl, and this is part of what she said in that interview so far.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. MARJORIE TAYLOR GREENE (R-GA): We did talk about the Epstein files, and he was extremely angry at me that I had signed the discharge petition to release the files. I fully believe that those women deserve everything they're asking. They're asking for all of it to come out. They deserve it. And he was furious with me.
LESLEY STAHL, "60 MINUTES" CORRESPONDENT: What did he say?
TAYLOR GREENE: He said that it was going to hurt people.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUPP: Politically? Is the unanswered question there.
But listen, there's a wag the dog feeling to a lot of this. Because, as you mentioned, the economy and affordability, these were the signature promises of MAGA and Trump in 2024. It's all anyone cared about.
JONES: Right.
CUPP: And Trump told people, This is what matters most to you, and I'm going to fix it on day one.
Not only hasn't he fixed it. The economy has gotten worse. And now his own voters are telling him in polling that they are blaming him for this.
So there's a lot of distraction and wag the dog stuff. And you don't want to be conspiratorial. Wag the dog comes up a lot through every administration, right? You don't want to be conspiratorial when you're looking at these drug boat busts and strikes. But it does feel like he has lost the plot.
The plot is the economy and America First. And now we're adventuring over to Venezuela and other parts, and he's out just trying to grab on to a fake, made-up participation trophy for peace, rather than solve the problems he promised he would solve here.
JONES: Yes. Amen. And--
COLLINS: And he's giving an economic speech on Tuesday, I should note, as you--
JONES: Yes, I mean, it's going to be interesting. I think people are really in a lot of economic distress, and it's getting a lot worse. I think one thing, you had a lot of young people voted for Donald Trump. They graduated off a cliff this spring into an economy that doesn't really have room for young workers. And so there's a lot of discontent that's building up. And playing whack-a-mole with drug dealers overseas is not going to make anything better.
And by the way, if Venezuela goes into a civil war, some kind of crisis? If you thought we had a refugee crisis a couple years ago? That whole region is going to be swamped with people, and you're going to have even more instability.
None of this stuff makes any sense. Focus on these energy prices that are going through the roof.
COLLINS: Yes. Well and they tried to force him, Maduro, from power, the last time Trump was in office, and they weren't successful in it. It's not really even clear that this is going to work.
JONES: I'm just saying, if it does work, sometimes you win the battle, and you lose -- you lose the region. I mean, you cannot imagine the amount of instability that would happen if you had a civil war in Venezuela.
[21:15:00]
COLLINS: Van Jones. S.E. Cupp. Always great to have you here. Especially both on set tonight. Thank you so much.
Up next. I'm going to speak with the House Democrat, yes, Democrat, who just got a pardon from President Trump. Prosecutors accused him of taking hundreds of thousands of dollars in bribes. President Trump said he was targeted over his hardline stance on the border. What does he have to say tonight?
Plus, a federal judge already ruled that Lindsey Halligan was improperly appointed. Why is she still running the U.S. Attorney's Office? That's what other judges in other cases want to know.
And the mega merger announcement that could revolutionize Hollywood, it has a huge effect on the future of entertainment.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: Of the more than 1,500 pardons that President Trump has issued so far in his second term, there was one this week that certainly stood out. Because, it was for a House Democrat.
[21:20:00]
Now, the President has granted a full and unconditional pardon to Congressman Henry Cuellar of Texas, as the President says he believes the Congressman was targeted by the Biden administration's weaponized justice system in an attempt to take out a fellow Democrat. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: He's a respected person. He was treated very badly because he said that people should not be allowed to pour into our country. And he was right. He didn't like open borders. He didn't -- he was on the border. You know, he represents -- a very respected man. He represents the people on the border, and he saw what was happening.
And as soon as he made that statement, I then said, I'll bet he gets indicted. And that's what happened.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: The Justice Department had charged Cuellar and his wife with bribery and acting as a foreign agent, last year. The Democrat had been accused of accepting $600,000 worth of bribes from entities in Azerbaijan and Mexico. And the Justice Department alleged, those bribes were in exchange for political favors.
Congressman Cuellar has denied that he did anything wrong. And tonight, he is my source in his first CNN interview since receiving that pardon.
And thank you so much, sir, for being here.
I think one question people have is they see President Trump, a Republican, has pardoned a House Democrat. Do you know why President Trump pardoned you?
REP. HENRY CUELLAR (D-TX): Well, first of all, I want to thank the President for pardoning my wife and I. Because I really feel that this was a weaponization. And I'll talk about that. But I am certainly grateful to the President, but I'm also very grateful to God, because he stood with us during a very difficult time, and I don't wish this situation on anybody.
COLLINS: Do you know why though, the President chose to pardon you? Obviously, it's not typical that a president would pardon someone from a different party. And usually, they do ones from their own party.
CUELLAR: Well, again, the President did that. I trust his judgment definitely on this pardon. And I thank the President for doing that. Because, again, I will say it again, there was weaponization, and I'll explain it.
Look, we, during the discovery, we got to look at every testimony, even the grand jury testimony. Can't talk about it, but I can say we looked at all the testimony. Not a single witness ever said there was quid pro quo. There was, We think, We suspect. But none of the witnesses said there was quid pro quo.
What the Department of Justice did is they went on a speaking indictment. And remember, an indictment is just allegation. It's not a conviction on it.
And if they felt so sure about the case, let me say this, why would they try to do an entrapment and a sting operation, involving myself and my congressional office in D.C.? Why would they do that? A failed operation that they did.
And certainly, I looked at the testimony, the transcripts. They violated the Constitution. Those prosecutors. When they say, you can indict, as the old saying says, you can indict a ham sandwich? I saw what they did. And again, it was wrong, what they did. And in fact I asked--
COLLINS: Yes. And Congressman--
CUELLAR: --the House committee -- let me just say this. I asked the House committee that maybe this is something that they should investigate those prosecutors and their superiors.
COLLINS: Well, and Congressman, just I do want to note, for everyone watching, who maybe hasn't been paying close attention to this. A consultant of yours and your former campaign chairman did plead guilty here and entered cooperation agreements on this very matter. When you say that there was -- there was no evidence or no quid pro quo.
But on that front, I did read that you have said that you would like to see the people investigating you--
CUELLAR: Well, let me -- yes, let me -- yes--
COLLINS: --to be investigated.
CUELLAR: Yes.
COLLINS: Is that something you want Jim Jordan to do?
CUELLAR: Yes, let--
COLLINS: Or who exactly are you looking forward--
CUELLAR: Yes, let--
COLLINS: --to do that?
CUELLAR: Yes, well, I'll -- we'll talk about that at the -- at the later time as to who I asked in the House to investigate. And they should be investigated because of what they did, number one.
Number two, the two aides, I feel bad for them, because we saw the testimony. We saw when they were questioned by them. And we saw how their testimony shifted, and the pressure that they were put on. And quite honestly, I think their attorneys gave them bad advice. But they pled guilty. I think they should have not pled guilty on it.
But again, we looked at all that testimony. Those two witnesses that you talked about, and they never, never said there was quip pro quo. They said they thought or they suspected, but they never, never, never said there was a quip pro quo, that they based it on personal knowledge. And if the department felt so sure, why would they then try to boost their case by doing a sting operation, a failed entrapment that they did?
[21:25:00]
COLLINS: But this -- I should note, this Justice Department also was going to continue this case. They removed some of the charges that were initially made against to you, when President Biden was in office. But initially, over the summer, this Trump Justice Department visited this case and was going to continue pursuing it.
And you've said you believe that the Justice Department is weaponized against you. Do you believe that the Trump Justice Department was also weaponized against you?
CUELLAR: No, no, no. This was a case that got started under the Biden administration.
I tried to work with the Biden administration on border security. And Kaitlan, let me say this. I tried really, really hard to work with them. Because I live at the border, I understand the border. I don't just come visit the border once in a while. And what they were doing, the open borders was wrong. And I spoke against it. When I saw that they had a mindset of having open borders, I spoke on it.
In fact, I looked at how many times I spoke against the Biden administration on open borders. And not counting the local media, it was over a 150 times, national TV, probably on CNN, more than once--
COLLINS: Yes, and I know that you've accused them of--
CUELLAR: --and I had to say -- and let me--
COLLINS: --of prosecuting you, sir.
CUELLAR: --let me just finish -- let me -- let me -- let me -- let me just finish. And again, I, looking at the evidence, I feel that it was weaponization on it.
COLLINS: Right. But they also prosecuted other Democrats. I mean, they prosecuted the President's son. They prosecuted Eric Adams. They prosecuted Bob Menendez. You weren't the only Democrat who was singled out and prosecuted.
And you're right, an indictment is simply an allegation.
But I want to ask you about this pardon, though. Because you said you were completely surprised when the pardon came down from President Trump. He did include a letter from your two daughters in November, who basically appealed to the President, by saying, when he went through prosecution and he was facing his challenges, they said, We understood that pain in a very human way.
Did you know that your daughters were lobbying the President and asking for him to take this action and take this step? CUELLAR: Oh, come on -- come on. Kaitlan -- Kaitlan, with all due respect. Look, don't call it, Lobbying by my daughters. Please. Use another word, please. Look, I know my daughters. They love--
COLLINS: They were appealing to the President.
CUELLAR: They -- Kaitlan -- look, can I finish, please? And look, if you get to ask a question, just give me the courtesy of finish it. I'd love to come back on your show, but you got to just give the courtesy, Kaitlan. I love your show, but you got to give me the courtesy.
Don't say lobbying. My daughters love their mom and dad. My two daughters, beautiful, young, very smart daughters, intelligent, young women, just like you. They saw mom and dad go through a very difficult time, and they wrote the letters on their own for mom and dad.
So, I know they wrote the letters. I know that. But when I found out, I was surprised. I was walking from one meeting to another meeting, and a reporter asked me, what I thought about the pardon. I thought they were talking about the pardon of the President of Honduras, because I had just talked to somebody about that. But they said, No, it was your pardon -- your pardon. And that's how I found out.
But, again, please do not use, Lobbying by my daughters.
COLLINS: Well, I was saying that they were appealing to the President for this action to happen. That's what I--
CUELLAR: They appealed.
COLLINS: --what I interjected there.
CUELLAR: They appealed.
COLLINS: But did you have any conversations with anyone on the President's team, or in his orbit, about taking this action?
CUELLAR: No. I have not talked to the President about the pardon. I will be, I'll tell you, I will be at the White House Christmas party like I am. I go to every president's Christmas party. I think it's next week. And I intend to thank, and personally thank the President, for the pardon for my wife and I.
And again, I don't wish this on anybody. The Department of Justice is called the Department of Justice. They should seek justice, and they should not be seeking trophies.
COLLINS: One question people had, after this pardon came down, sir, was whether or not you were going to change parties, if you were going to become a Republican. You told reporters that -- yesterday, that your answer is no, that you're staying a Democrat. Is that right?
CUELLAR: That is correct. Look, I'm a Democrat. I'm a conservative Democrat. The lefties have spent millions of dollars against me, because they think I should be purified and look like them. With all due respect, I represent my district. I follow the words of President LBJ, when he said many years ago, I'm an American, I'm a Texan, and I'm a Democrat, in that order.
And I think I don't care if you're a Democrat or Republican. If you go represent your party, Democrat, Republican, you're doing a disservice to your community. You should go represent your community.
[21:30:00]
Yes, I'm a Democrat, bipartisan. Look forward to any way I can work with the President. I want every president, President Trump, or whoever the President might be, I want the President to succeed, because if the President succeeds, the country succeeds.
COLLINS: Can I ask you. Given Democrats want to retake the House Majority, next fall. Do you believe that if Democrats are able, and they're successful in doing so, that you'll be able to conduct rigorous oversight of the President, if he's the one who granted you this pardon?
CUELLAR: Of course. Look, I sit on Appropriations, and I think one of the most important things that we do, I'm a senior member of the House Appropriations, is to provide oversight, is to definitely provide oversight.
And in fact, I've talked to some of the administration about some of the things. For example, on immigration. Do I feel that we ought to deport criminals? Absolutely. Do we feel that we ought to deport people that are national interests? Absolutely. Do we think that we ought to deport people that have final deportations? Yes.
But if you are somebody that doesn't have a criminal record, are working, and those ICE raids when they go after people that have no criminal record? That affects people that are trying to provide food on the table, but they also help the local economies.
So yes, the question is, I want to work with the President. I want to work with the administration. And if I think that they should adjust policy? Certainly, I'll speak up.
COLLINS: Congressman Henry Cuellar, thank you for joining us tonight.
CUELLAR: Thank you so much, Kaitlan.
COLLINS: Up next. We're covering an announcement that has jolted Hollywood, because Netflix just won the bidding war for Warner Bros. and HBO. It's far from a done deal. But if it happens, it could reshape the entertainment world. My entertainment and legal sources will join me on their thoughts, next.
[21:35:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: Netflix transformed Hollywood once. And against all odds, it is set to do so again. Chances are, you heard about this blockbuster deal today. The streaming giant won a contentious bidding war to buy Warner Bros. and HBO for $72 billion.
If the deal goes through, and that is still if, it could mean big changes for how we watch movies and television. Major franchises like Batman, Harry Potter and Friends, would soon be under the same roof as Stranger Things, Bridgerton, KPop Demon Hunters. It would put an end to one of the great media rivalries of the past decade, and would effectively end the streaming wars.
Here's what the analysis says tonight. Netflix would become the undisputed global powerhouse of Hollywood. Of course, not everyone in Hollywood or even Washington is happy about that, though, tonight.
We're hearing from the Democratic senator, Elizabeth Warren, who said she thinks the deal is an anti-monopoly nightmare, warning that it will make people have to pay more to stream their favorite content.
Republican senator, Mike Lee, actually agreed with her. He said it's the end of the golden age of streaming for content creators and consumers.
CNN, which I should note, is currently owned by Warner Bros., is not included in the Netflix deal. So, the network will still be split and will be part of a new company called Discovery Global, next year.
My source tonight is CNN Chief Media Analyst, Brian Stelter.
And Brian, I think there's big questions about if this goes through, still an if, how it would transform entertainment--
BRIAN STELTER, CNN CHIEF MEDIA ANALYST: Yes.
COLLINS: --and how people stream, and what this means for people who are watching.
STELTER: And to assess that, let's step back and think about what Netflix has accomplished in the past decade, Kaitlan. The company, accomplished something incredible. Against all odds, against many doubters in Hollywood, including HBO and Warner Bros. executives who did not see this coming a decade ago, Netflix has become the default for entertainment in America and in many parts of the world.
Netflix is now the default. When my kids want to watch TV, they don't turn on the television set and look at a cable channel. They don't go to Nickelodeon. They go to Netflix. That's the reality for hundreds of millions of consumers now.
But Netflix does not want to stand still, and they do not view themselves as this all-powerful king of streaming. They look around and they see Google's YouTube as a competitive threat. They look at Amazon and Apple as competitive threats.
So with Warner Bros. and HBO, they see a once-in-a-generation opportunity, to buy up more content, to get even bigger, to own a major movie and TV studio, and to continue to grow, when they're up against rivals like YouTube. So, that's going to be the Netflix argument to regulators in Washington, in Brussels, at the EU, and in other markets. Whether regulators will go for it? We don't know yet.
COLLINS: What do you make, Brian, of how this all played out? And just, I mean, we've obviously been watching this and seeing how the race was going and the competition here. What do you make of how it's played out now today?
STELTER: Well, Paramount was the company that got this all started a couple of months ago. Paramount started making unsolicited bids for Warner Bros. Discovery, for the entire company, including this channel, CNN. And Paramount still wants to pursue that offer. It still wants to buy WBD. So this is far from over. We may see a hostile bid or some other movement by Paramount to keep this alive.
The Trump card was a factor here. That's what a source close to David Ellison called it, back in October. Paramount thought it had a big advantage over Netflix, over Comcast, in this bidding war for WBD. It thought it had this close relationship with the Trump administration. And it does.
[21:40:00]
It's not just that Paramount thinks that. It's not a perception. It's reality. Trump is fond of billionaire Larry Ellison, and his son, David. The lawyers and bankers for Paramount, they argue that other bidders would get caught up in the regulatory chainsaw in D.C., and they wouldn't be allowed to make a merger happen.
Well, Netflix is basically calling the bluff. They're saying, We are moving forward, and if Trump tries to stand in the way, we'll go to court.
And we have seen this happen before. In 2017, Trump came out against the AT&T purchase of Time Warner.
COLLINS: Yes.
STELTER: Back when Time Warner was the owner of HBO and Warner Bros. and owned CNN. The Trump administration opposed the deal. There was a legal battle. And yet, at the end of the day, the merger was allowed to go through.
That might happen again in this case. But it's going to take at least a year. This is going to be a long, complex battle.
COLLINS: Brian Stelter, I know you'll be covering all of it. Thank you so much for joining us tonight.
I also have my CNN legal sources here at the table.
And Elie Honig. Brian mentioned a regulatory chainsaw. Not to be confused with Elon Musk's chainsaw that he famously used for DOGE.
ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Yes. All together (ph). Yes.
COLLINS: But what do you make of this, and the Justice Department's role in all this, and what this could look like.
HONIG: It's important people understand, the federal government has almost unlimited power and discretion here. A merger like this one need approval from the FTC and the Justice Department's Antitrust department.
And as Brian said, if DOJ, if the administration says, No, we think this merger would step over the line of being monopolistic? Then we're going to end up in court. Best-case scenario, they end up in court. That takes a long time.
One year is pretty quick, for the example Brian gave. I mean, some of these battles have dragged on for three, four or five years. It will cost tens or hundreds of millions of dollars in legal fees. So the next real big move here is on the government's behalf.
COLLINS: OK.
And Joey, speaking of all the legal developments that have been playing out today. This is far from the only one that we've been watching. The other one that everyone in D.C. was talking about, when I was there earlier, was what a judge in Florida decided today, when it comes to Jeffrey Epstein. Going back to what Marjorie Taylor Greene was talking about. A judge has granted the Justice Department's request to unseal those grand jury transcripts in the Jeffrey Epstein investigation.
My big question is, what can we see in these? How much should we be expecting to learn in this?
JOEY JACKSON, CNN LEGAL ANALYST, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Yes, so I would temper expectations.
Now, here's what I have to say about grand jury releasing, right? Generally, we know it doesn't happen, and there's a variety of good reasons. Protecting witnesses, protecting the integrity of the investigation, et cetera, right? All those, however, are not present now. But I'm not a big fan for a couple of reasons.
Number one, people like Elie Honig, who used to present cases in front of a grand jury, you give them bare-bones information. And with respect to giving them bare-bones information, Kaitlan, it's not like there's all of this info that's packed into the grand jury. You give them enough, simply to indict.
Number two, who you put before a grand jury, you put -- you can have hearsay. That means that the prosecutor doesn't have to call the actual witness, the actual victim. You can call the agent who investigated the case and have them give hearsay testimony. So with respect to the content and substance, I don't know how bountiful it would be.
I'll tell you what I'm looking for. Now, remember that this stem from the investigation some 20 years ago, in Florida, and there was a real big cloud over that. And the cloud was, were they protecting him? That is Jeffrey Epstein. Were they presenting the case? Because you know in a grand jury, the prosecution is the judge, jury and executioner. The prosecution controls the flow of the grand jury. We've heard it said that a grand jury will indict a ham sandwich. That's unraveling. For other reasons. We saw they didn't really indict Letitia James.
But you want to know how they presented the information. Did they sanitize the information at -- as prosecutors? Were they protecting him? Were they savaging the victims in the case? Did the victims really get justice?
So, I'm really concerned about the process, and I want to know and the world would learn the process, was he protected, or did they do that, as prosecutors, their due diligence and present the case as prosecutors generally do? That's what I'm looking for.
COLLINS: Yes.
Elie, what about you?
HONIG: Well, so Joey is exactly right about how the grand jury works. This Florida batch of materials is either going to be the most or least interesting thing we see out of the grand jury.
COLLINS: OK. That's way too safe of a bet.
HONIG: Well, let me tell you why.
COLLINS: Most or least?
HONIG: I'm going to go with least though. I'm going to take Joey's. Because there was no indictment in this case, remember, right? And at most--
JACKSON: Deal (ph) yes.
HONIG: --they may have put a couple witnesses in front of the grand jury.
But Joey is right. Typically, prosecutors would just put a summary witness, a cop, an FBI agent, in front of the grand jury, and that's if you're seeking an indictment. They didn't even seek an indictment here.
But the reason it could be the most interesting is if they actually put victims and witnesses in front of the grand jury, we'll get some answer, maybe not an answer, but we'll get to ask further questions about why did Alexander Acosta give Jeffrey Epstein that softball deal.
COLLINS: Yes.
JACKSON: And if they did put victims there, how did they treat them? I mean, you know what, Kaitlan--
COLLINS: That's a really good point, actually. JACKSON: Yes, that's the issue.
COLLINS: Because things have changed so much since then, even of how we--
JACKSON: Yes.
COLLINS: --how these victims are spoken about, how the survivors are talked about. That's actually something that could be really interesting in this.
Joey Jackson. Elie Honig. Always great to have both of you here.
JACKSON: Thanks, Kaitlan.
HONIG: Thanks.
COLLINS: Up next here for us. It was a roller coaster week for the President, if you were paying attention. A lot of it was actually spent defending his Secretary of Defense. I'm going to take you behind the scenes at the White House, right after this.
[21:45:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: The Defense Secretary on defense. A new architect, overseeing the construction of the White House ballroom. And a Peace Prize of sorts for the President. Here's a look behind the scenes at all that and more, this week, covering the White House.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
PETE HEGSETH, DEFENSE SECRETARY: The thing was on fire. It was exploded in fire or smoke. You can't see anything. You got digital -- this is called the fog of war.
ON SCREEN TEXT: Monday, December 1.
KAROLINE LEAVITT, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: With respect to the strikes in question. On September 2nd, Secretary Hegseth authorized Admiral Bradley to conduct these kinetic strikes.
COLLINS: Can we ask you a few questions?
Maduro wrote a letter to OPEC, saying the U.S. is trying to seize their oil reserves. What has the President said about their oil reserves?
Nothing?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Sorry--
[21:50:00]
COLLINS: You're reexamining how the Afghan nationals got into the United States. What is reexamining that look like?
KRISTI NOEM, HOMELAND SECURITY SECRETARY: People should be vetted before they come here. Joe Biden allowed people to get on airplanes and come here and said, We'll do that later.
COLLINS: Thank you, Secretary Noem.
When you heard the White House confirm that there was indeed a second strike on this boat after the first strike, what was your thought on that? Given we had seen the Pentagon denying The Washington Post report, initially.
Voice of BARBARA STARR, FORMER CNN PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: For my money, you can't believe anything this current Pentagon really says.
It's the real bottom line here, that Trump and Hegseth are sidestepping any responsibility and basically throwing the U.S. Military under the bus, if you will.
COLLINS: The President right now is set to meet with his team inside the Oval Office to talk about what they are doing when it comes to options that are on the table for Venezuela.
ON SCREEN TEXT: Tuesday, December 2.
HEGSETH: I watched that first strike live. As you can imagine, at the Department of War, we got a lot of things to do. I didn't stick around for the hour and two hours, whatever, where all the sensitive site exploitation digitally occurs. So, I moved on to my next meeting.
COLLINS: Some notable comments from President Trump and Secretary Hegseth just now, inside that Cabinet meeting, as both of them said they were not aware about that second strike on the alleged drug boat.
You actually questioned Secretary Hegseth, before he was the secretary, at his confirmation hearing.
You were pressing him in hypothetical terms. Now that this is playing out in a real-life scenario, I wonder what you make of that.
SEN. ANGUS KING (I-ME): It's been reported that his order was, Kill everybody. That in itself is an illegal order.
This is a case where the law is very clear, the facts aren't.
ON SCREEN TEXT: Wednesday, December 3.
REPORTER: You released video of that first boat strike on September 2nd, but not the second video. Will you release video of that strike?
TRUMP: Whatever they have, we'd certainly release. No problem.
Every boat we knock out, we save 25,000 American lives.
COLLINS: Two survivors were clinging to a boat after one strike 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--
SEN. THOM TILLIS (R-NC): Yes, I standby that.
Secretary Hegseth is the leader of arguably the most complex, consequential organization in the history of mankind. Making a bad mistake could start a war. Making a mistake can get American military personnel killed.
ON SCREEN TEXT: Thursday, December 4.
COLLINS: You see that giant crane that is over my shoulder? That's the latest addition to the construction zone here at the White House, where President Trump's ballroom is going to go eventually.
And it comes as we're learning here at CNN that there is actually a new architect who is overseeing this project. That's because President Trump clashed with the original architect, who's supposed to be in charge of building his ballroom.
It comes as we know that the size and the cost of this ballroom have ballooned. Though they still maintain all of it is being paid for with private donations.
We just got some breaking news here at the White House that a grand jury declined to re-indict the New York Attorney General Letitia James today, despite the Justice Department's best efforts to bring that case against her again.
But it doesn't seem this is the end of the road when it comes to trying to indict her. The question that remains tonight, though, is whether or not they'll be successful.
Why do you think the grand jury declined to re-indict your client today?
ABBE LOWELL, ATTORNEY FOR LETITIA JAMES: President Trump basically ordered his Justice Department to indict her.
It's not OK for him doing it for political reasons, which we've exposed. It's not OK for him to violate the law, which he's done twice now. It's not OK for him to violate the constitutional protections of the grand jury.
In this case, three is not the charm.
COLLINS: U.S. Southern Command just announced another strike on an alleged drug trafficking boat, this time in the Eastern Pacific.
This is all coming, though, as Congress is now investigating the video of the very first of what is now the total of 23 strikes.
What did you see on that video today that you can tell us tonight?
REP. ADAM SMITH (D-WA): I have big questions. I'm not willing to say, Yes, that was unjustified, this is a war crime. But what I will tell you is, this demands much more investigation, much more transparency, to get those answers.
ON SCREEN TEXT: Friday, December 5.
COLLINS: You're expected to get the FIFA Peace Prize, Mr. President. What would you say to people who say that prize might conflict with your pledge to strike Venezuela?
TRUMP: I can tell you, I did settle eight wars, and we have a ninth coming.
I want to really save lives. I don't need prizes. I need to save lives.
INFANTINO: This is your Peace Prize. There is also a beautiful medal for you.
(APPLAUSE)
(END VIDEOTAPE)
COLLINS: Up next. We have the latest for you on a decision by the CDC committee to scrap that universal hepatitis B vaccination, something that has existed for decades for newborns. What's behind this? Ahead.
[21:55:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: Tonight, President Trump is touting a decision that was made by a panel of federal vaccine advisors to end a decades-long recommendation for newborn babies to receive the hepatitis B vaccine, if their mothers have already tested negative.
The President is praising this break with long-accepted science, and he says that the panel, in his view, Made a very good decision to END their Hepatitis B Vaccine Recommendation for babies, the vast majority, the President says, of whom are at NO RISK of Hepatitis B.
Medical experts have expressed deep concern, though, about this decision, because the transmission of hepatitis B from mothers to newborns during childbirth is a pretty big risk, and considering many adults with hepatitis B do not even know that they have it.
[22:00:00]
The President claimed that the American Childhood Vaccine Schedule long required 72 jabs for perfectly healthy babies, far more than any other Country in the World, and far more than is necessary. In fact, it is ridiculous.
If that number sounds ridiculous to you, it's also because it's not true. The CDC recommends that kids gets a 11 different vaccines, spread over 30 doses, by the age of 10. It is far from the number that the President asserted that healthy babies receive.
Thanks so much for joining us tonight.
"CNN NEWSNIGHT WITH ABBY PHILLIP" starts now.
