Return to Transcripts main page

Anderson Cooper 360 Degrees

Admiral Briefs Congress on Dual Strikes on Alleged Drug Boat; Interview with Rep. Jim Himes (D-CT); Interview with Rep. Jake Auchincloss (D-MA); Interview with Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-IL), Grand Jury Declines To Re-Indict New York AG Letitia James; Supreme Court Rules In Favor Of New TX House Map; DC Pipe Bomb Suspect Identified As Brian Cole Jr. Of Woodbridge, VA; WH Brings In New Architect For Trump's $300 Million Ballroom. Aired 8-9p ET

Aired December 04, 2025 - 20:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

WILL RIPLEY, SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: ...No matter what happens with the U.S. Putin spoke with Indian media. He called India and China his two closest friends and he also said, Erin, this is interesting that President Trump has no right to criticize India for buying oil from Russia because he pointed out the United States he claims buys nuclear fuel, uranium from Russia to power reactors in the United States. He said, it's hypocritical to criticize.

ERIN BURNETT, CNN HOST: The number is just stunning, that's just two percent of the oil before the war and 35 percent now, it's incredible. Thanks so much, Will Ripley, we're so lucky to have you there on the ground. Thanks to you for being with us. Anderson starts now.

[20:00:41]

ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST, "ANDERSON COOPER: 360": Tonight on 360, the U.S. military strikes another alleged drug boat as lawmakers are shown classified video of the earlier strike that some have called a possible war crime. We have new exclusive CNN reporting that undercuts a major claim made by defense officials about that secondary strike.

Also, tonight, no dice. Twice a grand jury declined to re-indict New York's Attorney General, just days after a judge tosses the first indictment, dealing a second major defeat to the President's campaign of legal retribution.

And later, is this the January 6th bomber? The man who planted bombs outside Democratic and Republican headquarters in Washington the night before the January 6th attack in 2021? The feds say it is, and they make an arrest.

Plus, after gutting the agency, firing its leadership and all but shutting it down, why is the President now putting his name on the building of the U.S. Institute of Peace.

Good evening, thanks for joining us. We begin with breaking news on the boat strikes. A new strike was announced just before airtime. This is new video just in of it according to the Defense Department, it happened today in the Eastern Pacific. They say the boat was carrying narcotics along a known drug trafficking route, and that four men were killed in the strike. But we also have exclusive new reporting on the earlier strike back in September, which killed 11, including two who initially survived it.

CNN has learned that Admiral Frank Mitch Bradley, who oversaw the operation, told lawmakers today on the Hill that the two survivors did not, as some Defense officials have been claiming for months, behind the scenes. Radio for backup before a second strike killed them. That's according to two sources with direct knowledge of today's closed door briefings, during which a select group of senators and congress members were shown classified video of the strikes. Democratic Congressman Jim Himes, who saw the footage, called it, "one of the most troubling things I've seen." A short time later, he elaborated on that with CNN's Jake Tapper.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. JIM HIMES (D-CT): The video was enormously, enormously disturbing. And I can't describe it in detail, but to tell you that the initial strike, as you might imagine, when a piece of munitions falls on a small boat did an immense amount of damage caused a huge amount of fire, and ultimately the end result was two individuals without any weaponry, without any tools of any kind, clinging to a wrecked boat, really, what looked like flotsam.

You know, and we observed them for a long time, and the commanders involved said that they believed that there might be some chance they would be rescued, that there might be some chance that the cocaine on board could be recovered. But these two individuals to anyone looking at this thing would say are moments away from slipping under the waves. The decision was taken to kill them and that is, in fact what happened and that was pretty hard to watch, I must say.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COOPER: Well, not everyone who saw the video shares that view. Arkansas Republican Senator Tom Cotton, for one.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. TOM COTTON (R-AR): The first strike, the second strike, and the third and the fourth strike on September 2nd were entirely lawful and needful. And they were exactly what we would expect our military commanders to do.

I saw two survivors trying to flip a boat loaded with drugs bound for the United States back over so they could stay in the fight. I didn't see anything disturbing about it. It was disturbing to me is that millions of Americans have died from drugs being run to America by these cartels.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COOPER: Again, Admiral Bradley said that at least when it came to radioing for help or backup, the survivors did not do that, according to our sources said they did not appear to have radio or other communications devices. Now, you'll remember, defense officials have been quietly pushing back on criticism that this was a war crime by arguing, in part, that they were legitimate targets because they appeared to be radioing for help or backup.

Now, today, Admiral Bradley said the two survivors were in no position to make a distress call. Now, if true, it marks yet another shift in a story that has changed considerably since it first broke in "The Washington Post" earlier this week.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REPORTER: If there were a second strike that killed wounded people wounded in the first strike, are you thinking that would be legal?

DONALD TRUMP (R) PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Number one, I don't know that that happened and Pete said he did not want them. He didn't even know what people were talking about.

So, we'll look at well look into it. But no, I wouldn't have wanted that. Not a second strike. The first strike was very lethal, it was fine. And if there were two people around, but Pete said that didn't happen.

REPORTER: Does that make you --

TRUMP: I have great confidence.

REPORTER: Are you saying there's no second strike?

TRUMP: I don't know, I'm going to find out about it. But Pete said he did not order the death of those two men.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

[20:05:12]

COOPER: According from the initial "Washington Post" story, "Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth gave a spoken directive," according to two people with direct knowledge of the operation. The order was to kill everybody one of them said, which Secretary Hegseth denies, in which the President, as you heard there, said neither he nor Hegseth knew anything about.

The next day, the story changed somewhat with the White House, along with Secretary Hegseth, putting the focus squarely on Admiral Bradley.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KAROLINE LEAVITT, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: On September 2nd, Secretary Hegseth authorized Admiral Bradley to conduct these kinetic strikes. Admiral Bradley worked well within his authority and the law, directing the engagement to ensure the boat was destroyed and the threat to the United States of America was eliminated.

REPORTER: To clarify, Admiral Bradley was the one who gave that order for a second strike. LEAVITT: And he was well within his authority to do so.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COOPER: Now, that same admiral seems to have given lawmakers now us another window into what actually happened.

I want to bring in Congressman Jake Auchincloss. Congressman, what is this new information that Admiral Bradley reportedly says that the survivors of the initial strike did not appear to have radio or other communications devices, and we're in no position to make a call, a distress call. Does it change the government's argument that the secondary strike was legal and justified? Does it, in your opinion, shouldn't?

REP. JAKE AUCHINCLOSS (D-MA): Anderson, good evening. It doesn't change my interpretation of the events. It makes them more horrific. But I've long stated that these are illegal. I commanded a joint training mission to Central America to do drug interdiction operations. I work with Panamanians, I work with Colombians, I commanded reconnaissance Marines and naval officers.

I know what drug interdiction looks like, it's riverine training, it's jungle training. It is not killing shipwrecked sailors. This is not an operation that falls under the law of armed conflict. This is an operation that falls under law enforcement maneuvers and neither the first nor the second strike, in my interpretation are legal. And they are not going to keep Americans safe from drug inflow.

COOPER: I talked to Senator Tammy Duckworth a short time ago, and one of the thing she was saying is that, look, this is not in her opinion, this is not about necessarily, you know, these two men and narcotraffickers. But what if in the future, if the U.S. is doing this, an American pilot is shot down, is, you know, floating in a dinghy and, and able to radio for help, would some force kill him and say, well, look, the U.S. is doing this, we can do this too. Would it change somehow the rules of war if this is not illegal?

AUCHINCLOSS: I certainly agree with the senator that the United States, respecting international standards and humanity is critical both for who we are as a country, but also for how we want our citizens to be treated. I would also agree with her that as horrific as these details about these two shipwrecked sailors are, it's not actually the central point. The central point here in these operations in Central America is that this is blood for oil version 2.0.

Just like 20 years ago in Iraq, when another Republican President got this country into military adventurism in pursuit of oil, Donald Trump is trying to get the states involved in military operations in Venezuela because they have the world's largest oil reserves and Chevron has a joint operating agreement for those reserves. And the President is trying to hook up the U.S. oil majors.

COOPER: According to a source with direct knowledge of the briefing, Admiral Bradley ordered the second strike to destroy the remains of the vessel, killing the survivors on the grounds. It appeared that part of the vessel remained afloat because it still contained cocaine. Does that rationale make sense to you?

AUCHINCLOSS: That they're allowed to -- so, under the law of armed conflict, and again, the law of armed conflict does not apply here because this is not an armed conflict. And I know that because I'm a member of Congress and I never voted to go to war with Venezuela. And that's what would make LOAC apply here. But even supposing that LOAC was applying to this situation, you're only allowed to strike a disabled vessel if there's reason to believe that that vessel could be brought back into armed combat against another U.S. vessel.

That is so clearly what was not the case here, that it just makes that rationale ludicrous. But again, that rationale is two and three orders removed from the actual central point, which is that we shouldn't be engaged in military operations against Venezuela in the first place. Americans do not want a blood for oil campaign. This President does not have the authority to wage it, and he certainly doesn't have the justification to wage it as inhumanely as he is.

COOPER: As we mentioned, President Trump just yesterday said he supports releasing the video of the second strike. Do you actually expect that to happen? Because obviously the administration has been very eager to share, you know, some videos of other strikes?

[20:10:24]

AUCHINCLOSS: I don't know, but I will make this prediction, Anderson, which is that Secretary Hegseth is going to try to find a military officer to make the fall guy in this. He's going to try to lay the blame on a service member. He won't try to take the blame himself.

COOPER: It's interesting you say that because in his one of his public statements of, you know, early on about Admiral Bradley was, you know, everybody should know, I have his back, I have the military's back. But it was Bradley who made the order, which is kind of, I mean, it's saying you have somebody back, and yet it's also pointing out that they have a target on their back.

AUCHINCLOSS: He will find someone with stars on their shoulder to take the blame, because Secretary Hegseth ultimately does not have the integrity to own this decision.

COOPER: Congressman Jake Auchincloss, I appreciate your time tonight, thank you.

Joining me now is former congressman and military veteran, Adam Kinzinger. Congressman, what do you make of all that we have learned today and this idea, this latest exclusive CNN reporting, that part of the testimony today was that there was not a radio or that they did not or they were not radioing for help or radioing for something.

ADAM KINZINGER, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Yes, Anderson, this collapse is like, I was seeing yesterday or the day before. They were trying to make the case again, that they were calling for help and trying to gather the drugs back up. That was actually the argument. The other thing I would say, by the way, is even if they were calling for help, you would think the military would want to stay and observe who comes right and then maybe interdict that boat the way we used to interdict boats by shooting the engine out and sending another boat to interdict it.

But this is really tough to see any case in which people hanging on to survive doesn't not just violate LOAC, it violates the maritime law. I mean, we used to or we used to, but you would read stories about pirates back in the day that would be rescued out of the sea, because there's an understanding that the second, whether you're military or civilian, the second, you're basically floating in distress. It is the requirement to pull them out of the water and it doesn't matter, Anderson, if you're a bad person or a good person. It doesn't even matter if you're on drugs or whatever. At any point when you are distressed in the water, it becomes incumbent on whoever can to rescue that person. And this is the opposite of what happened.

COOPER: I mean, it does seem like the reporting, the early reporting on this that Hegseth had given a verbal directive, you know, to essentially kill them all. And that was, I guess, prior to actually the operation, that seems to be according to the testimony, not the case. Does that change anything?

KINZINGER: No, that doesn't change anything. I mean, the strike is the strike. Now, what that could change and what that appears to be trying to set up is, as your prior guest was saying, somebody in the military taking the fall because by Pete Hegseth saying or, you know, by the Admiral saying that they never got an order to, "kill them all," now, the question is, well, what did Pete Hegseth know?

You know, the whole idea that he talks about walking out between the first and the second strike too, I don't know if we'll ever know whether he did or not, but that's also interesting. You know, it's just like, okay, well, there's people floating around, I'll take off. But yes, I think what's being set up here truly, is that the military is going to end up taking the fall on this because there's nothing that was right about this. And that is, I think, hard to even argue that there could be.

COOPER: Adam Kinzinger, thank you.

Up next, more on the breaking news. I'll talk with Senator Tammy Duckworth, a U.S. Army veteran, about this new development.

Also tonight, a federal grand jury declined to indict New York's Attorney General, Letitia James, just days after a judge tosses the first indictment, more ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[20:18:29]

COOPER: More on our breaking news. We have new exclusive reporting on the double strike on that alleged drug boat. In September, Admiral Frank Mitch Bradley, who oversaw the operation, told lawmakers today that the two survivors did not, as some defense officials have been claiming for months, behind the scenes radio for backup before a second strike killed them. That's according to two sources with direct knowledge of today's closed-door briefings.

Now, joining me is Senator Tammy Duckworth, a member of the armed services committee and a retired U.S. Army pilot. So, Senator, does this change the calculus when determining whether a secondary strike would be necessary, the idea that there was not a radio call?

SEN. TAMMY DUCKWORTH (D-IL): It doesn't really, Anderson. It tells you that the Defense Department has been lying to everybody since September, but it doesn't change the calculus because as I you know, if you were -- if these were pilots, if this was war and this was this was a pilot who'd been shot down, you're sitting in a rubber dinghy in the middle of the ocean, and they radio for help, you're supposed to pick them up, you're supposed to help them. Or even if their forces pick them up, you can't just go in and kill those people just because you think that they might conduct future operations against you.

It just violates all sorts of international laws of warfare. It's illegal on so many levels. But it does, you know, this revelation does tell us that the DoD has been lying to the American people since September, when they claimed that these people had access to radios.

COOPER: And for you, this is the key point. It's not so much about, you know, somebody running drugs, allegedly. It's what about us pilots in the future if this starts to be a precedent.

DUCKWORTH: Exactly. I am worried about our servicemen and women who go into harm's way every single day to defend us and they are being put into both future jeopardy, if they are shut down in the future, as well as legal jeopardy. Remember that international tribunals, if you conduct war crimes, you can actually be caught up in front of the international tribunal. So this puts our servicemen and women in real danger. And this type of attack, does not help America's fight against narcoterrorism or against drug traffickers.

I mean, if Donald Trump really cared about drug, about fighting drug traffickers, he wouldn't be pardoning, you know, the former President of Honduras who, you know, trafficking hundreds of tons of cocaine into the united States.

[20:20:41]

COOPER: Senator Cotton said survivors on September 2nd, these two people were still, "in the fight" because they were trying to flip their boat back over. Obviously, there were questions about how much of the boat was left after the initial strike. Secretary Hegseth has said there was a lot of fire and smoke. How would you determine whether those individuals were a threat or not? I mean, it's trying to flip a boat over. In your opinion, reason for a strike?

DUCKWORTH: Well, it was half of a boat. That's what's left. I would, you know, they were trying to survive in the water. That that is just absolutely a spurious argument. And again, it doesn't contradict the fact that the initial strike was illegal. The second strike was illegal. It's illegal under international law. It's illegal underneath laws of warfare. It's also illegal -- it's murder. It's illegal under U.S. Domestic Law. So, this has been a completely illegal operation by the Trump administration from the very beginning.

COOPER: Do you think ultimately, you know, the video will be released, the whatever logs there are recordings, there are, you know, other videos, testimony by others who have filed reports. Do you think ultimately all of that will come out?

DUCKWORTH: I would like for it to come out, Anderson. We've certainly requested it. I know, I have requested all the video footage of every operation that has been conducted in this operation, every mission that's been conducted in this operation, not just this particular boat strike, but all of the strikes.

I've also requested the after-action reports that pilots file and drone operators file after they conduct a mission, as well as the intelligence debrief that they also do post a mission. And so I'd like to see all of that.

Now, whether or not my Republican colleagues are going to stand up and force that to happen, it's a whole different question. But certainly those that data that those documents are there and we should have access to them as members of Congress.

COOPER: Senator Duckworth, thank you for your time, I appreciate it.

More breaking news ahead. A federal grand jury has declined to indict New York's Attorney General, Letitia James, for a second time.

And the Supreme Court has President Trump a major victory on the redrawing of congressional maps, the potential outcome of the midterms.

Also later, the feds say they have arrested a suspect who they believe planted pipe bombs in D.C., the evening before January 6th, 2021.

We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[20:27:08]

COOPER: Yet another major defeat tonight in the President's campaign to put his former adversaries and perceived enemies behind bars. A federal grand jury has declined to re-indict New York's Attorney General Letitia James, on mortgage fraud charges. That's according to a source familiar with the matter. And it is by almost any measure striking because federal prosecutors famously almost never failed to get the indictments they seek, in part because they're very particular about the cases they bring and especially well prepared traditionally when they do.

In this case, however, a complete novice, Lindsey Halligan handled it only to see the indictment she secured get tossed by a federal judge who ruled her appointment as U.S. Attorney for Virginia's Eastern District is unlawful. It was her first criminal case as a prosecutor, her first. Her most notable prior experience was working for a client named Donald Trump. Now, that judge also threw out the indictment of former FBI Director James Comey. Like Attorney General James, he's one of the President's openly stated targets for retribution via the criminal justice system.

Now, something that he stated plainly in a social media post in September demanding that Attorney General Bondi prosecute, in his words, Comey, Adam "Shifty" Schiff and Letitia, the last of whom won a civil fraud judgment against the President in 2023, earning her words like this from him ever since.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: Attorney General of New York State Letitia "Peekaboo" James.

We have a racist Attorney General who's a horror show.

She's got serious Trump derangement syndrome.

This judge is a lunatic. And if you've ever watched him and the Attorney General may be worse.

Do you ever watch her? I will get Donald Trump.

James ought to be looked at.

You have an attorney general who's a total stone cold crook in New York State -- Letitia James, a total crook.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COOPER: Well, now, a grand jury has heard the evidence against her and said no. The question tonight, will the Justice Department try again?

Joining us now, CNN senior legal analyst and former federal prosecutor Elie Honig. Are you surprised by this? And do you think they will try again?

ELIE HONIG, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Yes and no. Am I surprised? Yes, I'm surprised because understand how hard it is for any federal prosecutor to walk into a grand jury and get rejected by the grand jury. It is a totally one-sided procedure.

COOPER: I mean, there's the famous quote --

HONIG: Its true, the ham sandwich is true for all the reasons, you know, but no, I'm not surprised because the case against Letitia James was wafer thin. You're talking about an intended loss amount on this alleged mortgage fraud of $18,000.00 of which she only realized a few thousand dollars. I never would have taken it, never did, and never would have taken in a case with that small of stakes at the federal level.

So, this grand jury either rejected the evidence or they saw this for the political retribution it was and they sent a message with this rejection.

COOPER: Do you expect the Justice Department to try again?

HONIG: So, important to understand they can. This is not like when a trial jury says not guilty, that's it. You can't try the case again, but you actually can try again with the grand jury. There's actually a rule in the justice manual says you need all these high level approvals because it's so rare that this happens.

But the Justice Department, I was taught a lesson early on, which is pick your battles and cut your losses. They've now had the Letitia James indictment thrown out on the technical basis, you mentioned earlier, Lindsey Halligan, ten days ago. Now, again, they go into a grand jury. I mean, they need -- DOJ needs an intervention here. You're not going to send Letitia James to jail. This case has been rejected by judge and grand jury alike.

[20:30:31]

COOPER: But, I mean, I don't know if that -- yes, in a rational time --

HONIG: Right.

COOPER: -- that would be the case. But given if the client is the president of the United States and you're the attorney general, do you just do it anyway? And if that is -- if that does happen, is there like malicious prosecution --

HONIG: Right.

COOPER: -- that Letitia James can claim?

HONIG: Well, I've not seen any prior incident where Pam Bondi has said no to Donald Trump. Let's start with that. But that's also a good legal point. Let's say they go back next week, try again, and they get a grand jury to re-re-re-indict.

Letitia James will then have a great argument for what we call vindictive prosecution, because what vindictive prosecution means is I, the defendant, beat you in court. I got the case thrown out, and now you're coming back at me even harder out of vindictiveness. So I think they're done. DOJ's done.

I think this case is a dead end. I said last week it was circling the drain, and I think it's about to go down now.

COOPER: Right. Elie Honig, thanks.

I want to discuss it tonight with Journalist Gretchen Carlson, CNN Political Commentator Brad Todd, a Republican media consultant and strategist. And I want to note that Brad is an adviser to the campaign of the Republican candidate for New York attorney general.

So Gretchen, does this suggest the President's push, do you think, for revenge is, at least in this case, losing some steam? Do you think the DOJ will try to retry?

GRETCHEN CARLSON, JOURNALIST: Oh, I think 1,000 percent they're going to go at this again, because the person running the DOJ is President Trump. And this is something that he is incredibly behind. I mean, look, he wants to go after his political enemies at all costs.

And we saw that he accidentally sent the email to Pam Bondi that was saying that this is what he wants to do. And in his mind, this is payback for himself being prosecuted before he was elected president again. So regardless of what the legal arguments are behind this, and Elie Honig knows this better than anyone, I think the political argument here is that Donald Trump is not going to give up.

COOPER: Brad, do you think there would be a third time at this?

BRAD TODD, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, I think Letitia James hopes there's a third time. I think Letitia James wants nothing more than to be in a partisan fight with Donald Trump. When she first ran for attorney general in 2018, she wasn't a prosecutor.

She was a city council member. She was an elected partisan politician. And she said her decision to run was largely motivated by, quote, "the man in the White House." And so I think that's exactly what she wants.

COOPER: Do you think it's what the President wants?

TODD: Well, that's a question we'll see. I mean, again, they have -- depending on what the Department of Justice wants as well in the Southern District of -- or Eastern District of Virginia, the prosecutors who are in that office. Letitia James, you know, when you -- when a grand jury doesn't return a bill, it doesn't mean she's innocent. It doesn't mean that there's been any judgment of that at all. It just means that the prosecution did not make the case to satisfy this group of grand jurors.

But this is one more time when Letitia James is spending a whole lot of time doing something besides fighting crime in New York. I mean, crime in New York has gone up 26 percent under her watch. But she's a politician, and this is the kind of fight she relishes.

But you're saying she's doing this instead of doing her job. She's -- I mean, she has to do this because she has been, I mean, they brought her to court.

TODD: She does. She does.

COOPER: I mean, so you --

TODD: She does. But keep in mind, she poked this fight. She said she was running to get Donald Trump.

COOPER: Right.

TODD: She said she was running because of that man in the White House. So this is the kind of fight she wants. She wants to be pose him as her opponent and his -- him as her enemy in all things. COOPER: Gretchen, how important --

CARLSON: That is --

COOPER: Go ahead, go ahead.

CARLSON: That is the political talk -- no, this is the political talk of -- this is quintessential Trump to spin the discussion back. Letitia James has had to invest time and investment and potential funds to represent herself in this case. This is not something that she wants at all. Neither did James Comey.

So -- and there were other prosecutors who would not take this case in the DOJ who refused to take it. And that's how we ended up with Lindsey Halligan, who was thrown out as the attorney handling this because she wasn't qualified. So, you know, I don't I don't think that Letitia James really wants this. That is a political argument back about this.

COOPER: Brad, do you have any concern that, you know, that the attorney general of the United States responds to a, you know, a public message from the President directed to her, saying, Pam, essentially go after Letitia James and Adam Schiff and suddenly the Department of Justice does this? I mean, does that strike you as odd in any realm?

And, by the way, that message was then deleted. It clearly when the President realized it wasn't privately sent, it was publicly sent.

[20:35:11]

TODD: I know there's a lot of pearl clutching about that, but you go back a few years. Eric Holder said he was going to be Barack Obama's wingman. Bobby Kennedy was John Kennedy's brother in the attorney general's office. Merrick Garland went after conservative parents who were fighting in school boards and going to school boards to raise concerns about their kids after the White House responded to the teachers unions who complained about it in the school board association.

The attorney general's a political appointee. They've always served at the pleasure of the President, and they've always executed the President's policies and wishes with regard to the Justice Department.

COOPER: Brad Todd, Gretchen Carlson, thanks very much.

Up next, almost five years after someone planted pipe bombs in Washington, D.C. on the eve of January 6th Capitol attack, the FBI has made an arrest. We'll have details on that.

And a new decision from the Supreme Court that's a victory for the President.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[20:40:05] COOPER: We have more breaking news tonight, and it's a major victory for President Trump in his push to redraw congressional districts in an attempt to keep Republicans in control of the House. The Supreme Court has sided with Texas GOP legislators, allowing them to use their newly drawn congressional map in next year's midterms, which will likely result in five Democratic-held seats flipping to Republicans. A lower court had blocked the new map, finding that the new boundaries were likely drawn on unconstitutional racial considerations.

Joining me now is CNN's Jeff Zeleny. So, obviously, a major ruling. What's the court's argument for doing this?

JEFF ZELENY, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Anderson, a major victory for the Trump White House and the President himself, who, of course, has engineered this nationwide redistricting push that is unprecedented. But the court is saying, look, the lower court had no jurisdiction here to weigh in on this.

They say the Texas legislature decided these new districts based on politics, not on racial gerrymandering. The lower court, including a Trump appointee just a few weeks ago, ruled in a different way. They said that they believe that racial gerrymandering was at the heart of this.

But the Supreme Court delivering this decision tonight is the final word on this. So now it means that the Texas districts are going to be as they were always planned to be in this newly designed system for Republican advantage. Of course, that set off a nationwide chain of events, really.

California, of course, responded in kind, having five new districts there that are friendlier to Democrats. But we should remind folks, I mean, these are districts, but we do not know how they will ultimately vote next year. The economy plays a huge factor.

So many other things do as well, as we've seen in these special elections. So, yes, they are Republican friendly. It is a victory for the White House. But we do not know if all these seats will actually -- will be won by Republicans.

COOPER: And what's the reaction tonight?

ZELENY: The reaction from the Republicans, of course, is victory. The Texas governor, Greg Abbott, was pretty clear on that. Let's take a look at his reaction. He said, "We won. Texas is officially and legally more red." "The Supreme Court," he says, "restored the congressional redistricting maps passed by Texas that add five more Republican seats. The new maps better align our representation in D.C. with the values of Texas."

Again, we do not know how these seats are ultimately going to go next year --

COOPER: Yes.

ZELENY: -- but they're much friendlier for Republicans. COOPER: Jeff Zeleny, thanks very much.

ZELENY: Sure.

COOPER: After nearly five years of investigating, a suspect is under arrest and facing charges tonight related to the 2021 planting of pipe bombs in Washington, D.C. on the eve of the January 6th Capitol attack. Brian Cole, Jr., a 30-year-old from Woodbridge, Virginia, is charged with transporting an explosive device in interstate commerce and malicious destruction by means of explosion.

For years, investigators have asked the public for help, releasing several of these grainy surveillance videos of a disguised person placing the bombs near the headquarters of the Republican and Democratic national committees. The FBI said the bombs were viable, capable of harming anyone if they exploded.

The next morning, then-Vice President-elect Kamala Harris came within 20 feet of the bomb at the DNC. The discovery of the bomb diverted police away from what was unfolding at the Capitol. At a press conference today, Deputy Director Dan Bongino alluded to forensic evidence as a breakthrough in the case but gave no details.

Last year, when he hosted a podcast, he had this to say about the case.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DAN BONGINO, HOST, "THE DAN BONGINO SHOW": Folks, I'm telling you what happened. There is a massive cover-up because the person who planted those pipe bombs, they don't want you to know who it was because it's either a connected anti-Trump insider or this was an inside job.

Those bombs were planted there. This was a setup. I have zero doubt.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COOPER: Zero doubt, apparently no evidence, and there was no mention of that today by him or anyone else.

Joining me now is CNN Chief Law Enforcement and Intelligence Analyst John Miller. He's a FBI Assistant Director of Public Affairs. How did authorities find this guy?

JOHN MILLER, CNN CHIEF LAW ENFORCEMENT AND INTELLIGENCE ANALYST: Well, they did a lot of munging through a lot of data stores --

COOPER: Munging?

MILLER: It's -- when you take lots of information and you --

COOPER: Munge it.

MILLER: -- fall throughout (ph).

COOPER: OK. All right. MILLER: It has to do with correlation and disambiguation, but basically what they were looking for. And one of the points Bongino made today was there was no new evidence.

COOPER: Right.

MILLER: Everything that they found that broke this case had always been available out there, but it was about putting new people in the investigation, fresh set of eyes and saying, what questions have we not asked before? But what they did is they did subpoenas and then searches through the records of Home Depot and Lowe's and people in the Washington capital area to see who bought among the 22,008-inch galvanized pipes, who were the purchasers of those?

Who bought among the 500,000 threaded end caps for such pipes, also bought those.

COOPER: Wow.

[20:45:02]

MILLER: Who also purchased the black and red wires with the little nine-volt battery connectors on them, or the white kitchen timers? And then they had to bring that down to, OK, well, these are all the people who bought all those things but --

COOPER: Wow, that's fascinating.

MILLER: -- what person bought each one of those things in total as opposed to --

COOPER: Right.

MILLER: -- plumbers buy pipes and kitchen people buy clocks and so on? And it came down to just a couple of people to look at. And once they focused on Brian Cole, they said, OK, so that puts him with all the bomb components.

How do we put him on the scene? Then subpoenas for telephone, cellular tower records show his phone allegedly pinging that night in the area of both locations. Then license plate readers come to show, allegedly, his car ticking the license plate reader at the South Capitol exit off of 395.

So all of that taken together, according to the FBI's affidavit, shows that he had each one of the bomb components, had bought additional equipment common to bomb making, had his car near the scene on the night the bombs were placed and his phone pinging around both locations.

COOPER: It's amazing. What about, I mean, motive? Any -- who is this person? Why -- do we know why, if he allegedly did this?

MILLER: So none of the prevailing motives that people thought of, which is, well, it may have been a organized distraction to pull resources away so that the January 6th attack would -- on the Capitol would go more smoothly or that he was a Trumper or that he was an anti-Trumper. He seems to be a bit of a loner who pretty much stayed to himself, worked in the bail bonds business with his father, who was a bail bondsman, and apparently didn't like politicians in general.

Because placing a bomb both at the RNC and the DNC on the eve of the election count in Congress was probably one of the rare bipartisan things that happened in Washington. But a specific motive has not emerged yet. It's a highly circumstantial case, but that's a lot of circumstance.

COOPER: John Miller, it's fascinating. Thanks so much. Appreciate it.

We learned tonight that President Trump has hired a new lead architect for his White House ballroom project. The move comes as several sources say there's been disputes between the President and the original architect about the size of the ballroom, with the President wanting a larger version.

CNN's Kristen Holmes joins us now from the White House. So what have you learned about why there's been this change?

KRISTEN HOLMES, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Yes, I mean, the drama continues around the ballroom. So what I'm told is that they've hired this new architect, and I'm told by one senior White House official that essentially James McCrery, who is the CEO of McCrery Architects, the original firm that was brought on to do this ballroom, is going to be out of the picture.

That they were having clashes, his firm as well as the architect directly with President Trump, about the scope of the project, but specifically the size. President Trump, as we know, wants a bigger ballroom than he had originally asked for, than they had originally put the concept together for.

And McCrery had pushed back on that idea to the point where White House officials were telling me that there's a lot of private grumbling that this kind of tension between the two was going to delay this project and make this last much longer than it needed to be.

So now what we have is a statement. I want to be clear, even though one senior official did tell me that he is being essentially, or won't be in the picture, I did have two officials at the White House saying, no, no, no, he's just going to be on as an adviser. And I want to read you the line of how they're phrasing this from the White House.

They said in a statement, "As we begin to transition into the next stage of development on the White House ballroom, the administration is excited to share that the highly talented Shalom Baranes has joined the team of experts to carry out President Trump's vision on building, what will be the greatest addition to the White House since the Oval Office, the White House ballroom."

So clearly here, you can see how they're trying to couch this as a new transition. But I will state, we've heard President Trump talk about the current architect or the former architect multiple times saying he was the greatest in the world, he was going to be staying on the project, seeing it through. Clearly, that is no longer the case.

COOPER: And is it clear how big the ballroom is going to be? I mean, do we know? And how --

HOLMES: We --

COOPER: Yes.

HOLMES: We have no answers from the White House on this. So here's what we do know. Originally the plan stated for this 90,000 square foot ballroom that would seat about 650 people and it was the budget of $200 million.

Well, now the budget is $300 million and I did have one source tell me it might even be up to $350 million. So that just goes to show you how much bigger the President wants this ballroom. And it does of course appear that he is finding someone who is willing to go through with that vision.

[20:50:02]

COOPER: And, I mean, how long is construction expected to take? Do we know?

HOLMES: We don't know at this point. I mean, we have heard President Trump say that he will have at least one year with this ballroom. He has talked about this extensively, but we have seen some indications that it might not be as quick as possible.

However, I will tell you this, when we saw them doing that demolition, the construction, they were doing it until 9:00 at night. They were clearly working on a deadline here, trying to get everything out so they can get this project underway.

I mean, in some ways this is now becoming one of President Trump's signature efforts during his time in office. He is completely restructuring the way that the White House looks, will look in Washington, the way the aerial footprint of Washington will look.

Obviously, you float into Washington, D.C. You know what it looks like when you fly over. It's going to have a completely different look and feel. So he is putting his mark on Washington, D.C. through this ballroom.

COOPER: In more ways than just the ballroom, but certainly --

HOLMES: Yes.

COOPER: -- the ballroom is a big part of it.

Kristen Holmes, thanks very much.

Coming up next, the President putting his name on the building of the Peace Institute that his own administration gutted. We're keeping him honest on that. And we're now just minutes away from a new episode of my online streaming show called All There Is Live. It's a companion to my podcast. People come together, talk about grief and loss. I had a powerful video message I received from a firefighter's widow.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DANIELLE FOURNIER, FIREFIGHTER'S WIDOW: It's interesting how grief or memories come up when you're doing new things or doing things that your loved one used to do. And it just can kind of hit you. And then the only person I wanted to call to share about it was him.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[20:56:27]

COOPER: Before the break, we talked about the President, architects, and ballroom size. Now, another bit of renovation the President apparently had a hand in is on the exterior of a formerly and formerly -- excuse me, independent agency that you might have forgotten about, but the courts have not. Perhaps because the administration took it over and gutted it earlier this year.

The name outside now reads Donald J. Trump United States Institute of Peace. Today it was the venue for the signing of a treaty aimed at ending long-running conflicts between the Democratic Republic of Congo and Rwanda. It's a deal the President says will pave the way for new American investment in the region.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP (R), PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: And we're going to take out some of the rare earth and take out some of the assets and pay and everybody's going to make a lot of money.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COOPER: This on the seven or eight conflicts, the President says he has ended, though, as we and many others have reported, he hasn't really done that. In this case, fighting continues. There's also the venue itself, which is technically not a government agency, though it was established by Congress and receives federal funding.

Back in March, the administration fired most of its board and terminated most employees in July. And though the whole thing is now tied up in litigation, critics say the President is now treating the shell of this agency as his own personal branding opportunity.

The name out front has changed. And if the President's slip of the tongue of the institute today is to be believed, another name change may be coming.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) TRUMP: You have a big event on Friday at the Trump-Kennedy Center -- oh, excuse me, at the Kennedy Center. Pardon me. Such a terrible mistake.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COOPER: We shall see what occurs. In just about 15 minutes at 9:15 Eastern, I hope you'll join me online for my new streaming show. It's called All There Is Live. It's a companion show to my podcast. I talk with podcast listeners and others who are living with grief or loss. And I also interact with viewers online during the show.

Tonight, I'll share a video message from Danielle Fournier remembering her husband, Ben. She shares how grief comes up in everyday moments like when shoveling snow. Here's a preview.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

FOURNIER: Just over two and a half years ago, my husband, who was a firefighter, was killed in an accident by a large tree, doing some fire mitigation. And since then, my life has been really hard. I have three young kids and I recently moved to a new house and I was out shoveling my walk this morning. And that's something that he always did that I have never done for myself because he was such a loving, giving person.

He would even do it for his neighbors. And I was just out there thinking how sad I am that he's not doing it. But at the same time, I heard him cheering me on saying, you got this. You can do it.

It's interesting how grief or memories come up when you're doing new things or doing things that your loved one used to do. And it just can kind of hit you. And then the only person I wanted to call to share about it was him. But I realized I didn't have to call him. I could just say, hey, look at me.

And he said, hey, look at you. And he was just -- he was right there with me, just not in his physical form, which I really miss a lot.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COOPER: We received a video from her on Instagram, one of the viewers and listeners to the podcast. So I hope you join me 15 minutes from now, All There Is Live. The new streaming show starts. It's at CNN.com/AllThereIs. That's where you can watch it. And it's my companion show to the podcast.

This week on the podcast, we talked to singer songwriter Nick Cave about the death of his two sons. It's an incredibly moving conversation that's available wherever you get your podcasts at CNN.com/AllThereIs. Again, the show is in 15 minutes. I hope you join me.

The news continues. The Source with Kaitlan Collins starts now.