Return to Transcripts main page

Anderson Cooper 360 Degrees

Epstein Survivors Slam DOJ's Partial Files Release; Interview With Rep. Melanie Stansbury (D-NM); Allegations Of Censorship As "60 Minutes" Pulls Segment; Pulled "60 Minutes" Segment Appeared On Canadian TV App; U.S. In "Active Pursuit" Of Third Oil Tanker Linked To Venezuela; Trump On Maduro: "I Think It'd Be Smart For Him" To Step Down; Ukrainian Draft Dodgers Go To Dangerous Lengths To Flee War. Aired 8-9p ET

Aired December 22, 2025 - 20:00   ET

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

ERIN BURNETT, CNN HOST: They could cost more than $5 billion a piece. We have to be careful here not to sink billions into the development of a weapons system that can't deliver. And of course, this is far from the first thing Trump has put his name onto, even recently, The Kennedy Center, The U.S. Institute of Peace, also recently unveiling the Trump gold card to expedite the immigration process if you pay a million dollars, and the Trump Accounts for new babies.

Thanks so much to all of you for joining us. See you tomorrow, "AC360" starts now.

[20:00:30]

JOHN BERMAN, CNN HOST: Tonight on 360, thousands of documents from the Justice Department's investigation of Jeffrey Epstein still have not been made public as required by law, so what's holding up the release?

Also tonight, some CBS employees are threatening to quit after a "60 Minutes" story on Trump deportees is shelved at the last minute, but it turns out the report actually ended up airing somewhere, we'll explain.

And later, Ukrainian men taking desperate and dangerous measures to flee their country to avoid fighting the war against Russia.

Good evening, John Berman here, in for Anderson.

And we begin tonight with the Justice Department receiving sharp criticism for its handling or mishandling, as some have accused the release of thousands of documents and photographs in the Jeffrey Epstein investigation.

Both Democratic and Republican lawmakers and survivors of Epstein's years of abuse are slamming the Department's partial release of documents, which began on Friday, and they are critical of extensive redactions that were not explained.

The Epstein Transparency Law, signed by President Trump required that all of the Epstein files were to be released publicly by last Friday. The Justice Department says its lawyers are still going through the documents, and that more will be made public.

Tonight at Mar-a-Lago, the President put a different spin on the situation, insisting the documents are being released to distract from the accomplishments of his administration. He was also questioned about a lot of photographs showing former President Bill Clinton.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP (R) PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: I know there are a lot of people that are angry about all of the pictures of other people, you know. But I think it's terrible.

Look, I like Bill Clinton, I've always gotten along with Bill Clinton. I've been nice to him, he's been nice to me. We've always gotten along, I respect him. I hate to see photos come out of him, but this is what the Democrats, mostly Democrats and a couple of bad Republicans are asking for.

But no, I don't like the pictures of Bill Clinton being shown. I don't like the pictures of other people being shown. I think it's a terrible thing. I think Bill Clinton's a big boy. He can handle it. But you probably have pictures being exposed of other people that innocently met Jeffrey Epstein years ago, many years ago.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BERMAN: Despite what the President said tonight, top aides, his top aides were spreading the Clinton photos on social media within hours of the release on Friday. White House Communications Director Steve Chung, posted in part, the boy up to something, and Press Secretary, Karoline Leavitt, reposted the picture of Clinton in a hot tub, writing -- oh my.

Today, an aide to Clinton released a strongly worded statement which reads in part: "What the Justice Department has released so far and the manner in which it did so makes one thing clear. Someone or something is being protected. We do not know who, what or why, but we do know this. We need no such protection."

"Accordingly, we call on President Trump to direct Attorney General, Pam Bondi, to immediately release any remaining materials, referring to, mentioning or containing a photograph of Bill Clinton."

Now, Clinton has never been accused by law enforcement of any wrongdoing related to Epstein. His spokesperson has repeatedly stated that Clinton cut ties with Epstein almost two decades ago, and was unaware of his criminal activities.

Also today, Senate Minority Leader, Chuck Schumer introduced a resolution that would direct the Senate to begin taking legal action against the Trump administration for failing to release all the Epstein files on Friday, as required by the Transparency Law, and an Epstein survivor had this to say.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) JESS MICHAELS, EPSTEIN SURVIVOR: I think the law was clear that the

deadline was 11:59 P.M. December 19th and once that time frame was crossed, we've broken the law, they've broken the law. The Department of Justice, the department that is supposed to protect us and provide law and order has broken the law.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BERMAN: With us now, CNN senior crime and justice reporter, Katelyn Polantz. Katelyn, what more can you tell us about the Justice Department's decision making behind what to release and when and what to redact in the Epstein files?

KATELYN POLANTZ, CNN SENIOR CRIME AND JUSTICE REPORTER: Well, John, the Justice Department, they are pointing to a lot of different avenues where they say they have legal reasons to not release what they've not released. But at the end of the day, there's what the law required and what the Justice Department has done.

Its created two problems for the Justice Department. I've been talking to a lot of different people today who are stakeholders or who are watching this very closely. There's the over redaction issue, something that the Southern District of New York top prosecutor, Jay Clayton, even told a court was something that the Justice Department knew people would have an issue with.

[20:05:12]

That included the decision by the Justice Department to go beyond what the law said they should redact, making decisions, that they could redact things like internal deliberations of the executive branch, attorney-client work. So, even that draft indictment, potentially, of Jeffrey Epstein many years ago, it's still not out.

We don't know yet if that's why that was withheld. But the Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, has already told Congress that you'll get the reasons in 15 days. Then there's the other issue, aside from over redaction, this question of where they being selective in what they released on Friday, much of it was information already in the public domain, including documents that had already been processed and redacted under different standards previously, like through the Freedom of Information Act that the Justice Department said here -- here's all the records we have.

And so, in that sense, there is this question that former President Clinton's team is raising and others saying it just doesn't look like the Justice Department has gone about this in a way that creates full transparency by the deadline.

BERMAN: Yes, I mean, how has the way they've done this contributed to all the theories people have out there about Epstein and his connections to powerful people?

POLANTZ: Yes, John, that is not something where anybody has walked away being satisfied. This is something that has dogged the Justice Department for a very long time, basically, since Trump took office. They keep saying they want to be transparent, but every opportunity that they've taken, they've asked for things like the release of grand jury records, the Attorney General has gone there and said, I have this new information and none of that turned out to be new in this situation.

The victims, they are saying these redactions are abnormal and extreme. The people that passed the law in Congress from both sides of the aisle, they're not happy with it, saying that Bondi should be held in contempt, or maybe there are lawsuits.

Whether Congress can do either of those things, still, a question to be asked. And then there are people on social media that's the hive mind. Even the people who have wondered and wanted this information and asked questions, those people are fact checking the Department of Justice's leadership and their own tweets in real time -- John.

BERMAN: Yes, look, I look at the calendar. I can't help but notice that Christmas Eve is a couple days away. Heck of a time if they want to release more to do it, trying to do it sort of in the dead of night.

Katelyn Polantz, thanks so much for being with us.

With us now is Democratic Congresswoman Melanie Stansbury, who is a member of The House Oversight Committee. Congresswoman, thank you so much for being with us. Look, we've heard complaints from people on both sides of the aisle about the way this has been done. I want to play something we heard from Republican Congressman, Tom Massie and Democratic Congressman, Ro Khanna, who are the coauthors of The Epstein Files Transparency Act. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. TOM MASSIE (R-KY): The quickest way and I think most expeditious way to get justice for these victims is to bring inherent contempt against Pam Bondi.

REP. RO KHANNA (D-CA): We're building a bipartisan coalition, and it would fine Pam Bondi for every day that she's not releasing these documents.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BERMAN: So, do you support that and how exactly would that work?

REP. MELANIE STANSBURY (R-NM): Yes, absolutely. Well, let me just rewind slightly because I think it's important for the public to know that not only is the administration not complying with the current law, they are in active defiance of a congressional subpoena dating back to August, when on a bipartisan basis, the Oversight Committee, which I sit on, subpoenaed these very files. And in fact, the reason why we pursued a bipartisan Transparency Act was because The White House and DOJ was not complying, complying with the subpoena.

And so, it was theorized that having a bipartisan coalition, an act of Congress, and all of this public pressure would put the pressure on the administration to do the right thing and to release these files.

And I want to make clear that this is a criminal investigation. It's not just that Jeffrey Epstein got a sweetheart deal and was never appropriately prosecuted, but there are potentially dozens of other individuals who are implicated in his crimes, which victims went to the FBI and local law enforcement and reported. We know that there are multiple institutions that were involved in financial crimes.

And so The Oversight Committee in Congress' investigation is a fulsome bipartisan investigation into all of these crimes and why the Department of Justice never appropriately prosecuted. So what we are looking for in the release of these files are the explanations there.

So the fact that the Department of Justice did not release these files on Friday is another violation of the law. It was not a suggestion, it wasn't something that was nice to have, it was the law.

So, we will be pursuing any and all legal avenues, including potential inherent contempt of Congress by the Department of Justice and the officials there for trying to cover up this case and actively defying Congress once again.

[20:10:27]

BERMAN: Congressman Khanna also floated the idea of possible impeachment of the Attorney General. Is that something you're hearing and would you support that?

STANSBURY: Yes, absolutely. So, all of these are using the tools that Congress has, but they have -- they require a majority vote of the body. So, first and foremost, to even get an inherent contempt, vote across the finish line, Congress has to come back. We come back in January 6th.

We have to have a majority of members, which includes having both all of the Democratic members, as well as a handful of at least a few brave Republicans like Thomas Massie and his colleagues to get an inherent contempt resolution across the finish line in Congress.

Impeachment is a much more involved process. It requires a resolution to be drawn up, voted on. There's an investigation, and then, of course, the actual prosecution of that would require the consent of the Senate.

All of that is a political process in Congress. And so, I do support this. It is clear to me, especially by not only the over redaction, but the way in which the Department of Justice actively defied the subpoena since August and then put up some files, remove some, redacted them, unredacted them, they are actively flouting the rule of law. And that is absolutely contempt of Congress.

And so, we will pursue every avenue we can against the administration for flouting the law, because this is about checks and balances. It's not just about this case and getting to the bottom of it, but also they have to comply with the law. BERMAN: You know, as I mentioned, President Clinton's office is

calling for the release of all mentions of former President Clinton, all photographs of former President Clinton. They say they want that all out now, and that failure to do so would confirm suspicions that the Justice Department is doing this release selectively. What do you think of that request from the Clinton team?

STANSBURY: I think it's irrelevant to the investigation because the Epstein Files Transparency Act requires every single file get released to the public. The only redactions or withholding that are allowed is to protect the identities of individuals who may be victims. If there's sex acts or crimes or death portrayed in images or videos, or there's an active investigation.

And so, whether or not the former President or the current President want their own images or investigations or any of their names being incorporated into these files is irrelevant because the law says they have to be released to the public, including Donald Trump, who it's very clear his own chief-of-staff said he's in the files, and it's very clear that they've either redacted or tried to remove his photographs and mention of his name. And we've seen this with the back and forth with the DOJ both deleting and then putting files back up the last couple of days.

BERMAN: We'll see what happens in the next few days leading up to Christmas. Congresswoman Melanie Stansbury, we appreciate you being with us.

Of course, we'll have more about this deepening political storm. I'm going to speak with an Epstein survivor about the slow pace by the Trump Justice Department on releasing these files mandated by law and then leaving them heavily redacted.

Also tonight, the internal backlash at CBS News, after a "60 Minutes" story on President Trump's deportations to a prison in El Salvador was pulled just hours before air time. But the report did end up airing, we'll tell you where.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[20:18:15]

BERMAN: Survivors of Jeffrey Epstein are speaking out against the Justice Department in their partial release of Epstein files. More than a dozen survivors, along with family members of Epstein survivor, Virginia Giuffre, are accusing the department of violating The Epstein Files Transparency Act, saying, "This law, enacted by a nearly unanimous vote in the House and unanimously in the Senate and signed by the President was clear and afforded no permission for delayed disclosure. Instead, the public received a fraction of the files in what we received was riddled with abnormal and extreme redactions, with no explanation.

At the same time, numerous victim identities were left un-redacted, causing real and immediate harm. With us now is one of the Epstein survivors who released that

statement. Lisa Phillips, who first met Epstein in 2000 when she was an aspiring model.

Lisa, what more do you and other survivors want to see released, and what do you think should be done to hold the Justice Department accountable to the letter of the law?

LISA PHILLIPS, EPSTEIN SURVIVOR: So, I think what we have all been just really upset about is the fact that we are not able to connect the dots of our own stories, and for the public to see actually what was going on.

When you release only pictures, it doesn't tell a full story. So, you need to also release you know, flight logs and I mean, there's just many other ways to connect the dots, dates and times and places, people that were there, people who saw what? I don't know, I just feel like there has to be a way that you see a picture, you review who was there. You check into who else was involved around the same time, what other survivors stories adds up, and there's a way to see if there was a real crime that took place. It's frustrating, it's just a picture.

[20:20:10]

BERMAN: They say the reason that they're holding certain things back, the reason they have so many redactions, is to protect the survivors. What's your reaction to that?

PHILLIPS: Well, it doesn't make any sense. If you protect the survivors, then all you do is just black out just the survivors' names. And as you know, there was a lot of survivors, they left their names, survivor friends that are very upset that their names were put out in the public. And it caused a lot of harm, now, people know who they are. For the ones who haven't come forward. I don't I don't get when they say we're here to protect the survivors. I feel they're actually protecting, you know, the names that we want out there.

BERMAN: Yes, I mean, how is it that they're leaving some survivors names in, do you think, but the redacting, so much else. How do you square that circle there?

PHILLIPS: I don't understand what they're doing. I feel like they're just playing a game. I mean, it's all kind of theater. Let me message you a little bit here. And so, that we don't actually have to get to what we have to get to, which is releasing the full transparent files.

I mean, I feel like it's just a game at this point. We all came to together as survivors in September. I mean, we knew this was going to probably be like this. We get a little leeway, we get a little bit farther ahead, and then it's just like thrown, you know, nonsense in our face over and over.

But were fighting back. I mean, we've sent letters. Our attorneys are on it. This isn't okay, what they're doing. I mean, releasing the names of survivors that were under age just isn't right. It doesn't sit right with me. BERMAN: It's been a long fight for all of you. Ahead of this release,

the last month, did the Justice Department communicate with you or other survivors in any way? Were you given any forewarning as to what would be released, redacted and withheld?

PHILLIPS: Well, our attorneys have been working around the clock with the DOJ. We're aware of that. I know they're asking for documents to be removed re-reviewed and hopefully re-redacted prior to the republication of everything.

We want to see everything that was blocked out. Or you can block out what really needs to be protected, which are just the victims, the survivors and not the people in power. And I feel like the overall tone of everything is protecting those people and not really getting answers for the survivors and for the American people.

BERMAN: So fellow survivor, Maria Farmer, filed a child pornography complaint against Jeffrey Epstein nearly 30 years ago.

That complaint was released on Friday, finally vindicating Miss Farmer. Do you other survivors find any new information in the files about your own cases that you were looking for?

PHILLIPS: That's a really good question, because we do actually, within the survivor community, we do talk a lot, and we do have little small wins. The Maria Farmer one was a huge win. The fact that she did report this in 1996 and the FBI did absolutely nothing to, well, they could have investigated, but they didn't do anything. I wouldn't have been abused and the hundreds of other girls that I know wouldn't have been abused either, if they have actually done something.

So, that's gut wrenching, but it is validation for Maria and Annie Farmer, they're good friends of mine who, you know, have been fighting this fight for almost 30 years. And, also, there were pictures in the recent files that files that just came out validated my story, too.

So I've been saying some things about my story recently, and that was that was very validating to see that person was in those pictures. And I know a lot of survivors feel the same way that they're seeing pictures or some names being tossed around that they were abused or saw things happen.

So, I mean, were getting a little bit there, but were not really getting the full picture of everything.

BERMAN: Well, listen, Lisa Phillips hoping you and the other survivors get more of the wins that you've been working so hard for, for so long. Thank you for being with us tonight.

PHILLIPS: Thank you.

BERMAN: Up next, CBS News abruptly pulls the segment from "60 Minutes" about the Trump administrations deportations to a notorious El Salvador mega prison. But the segment did end up airing. Details on where and the fallout ahead. And later, the extreme measures taken by Ukrainian men to avoid the

draft. Meet the leader of a team that works in the mountains along Ukraine's border with Romania rescuing some of these men.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is a job we were prepared. We are training every day and this is a job we are doing. It's not about being Ukrainian or Russian or American. It's about being human.

CLARISSA WARD, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: A human being.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

[20:25:03]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[20:29:26]

BERMAN: New questions tonight about what led to the abrupt decision by CBS News to pull a "60 Minutes" segment investigating the Trump administration's deportations to El Salvador. That segment's reporter is speaking out, making accusations of political interference against newly installed editor-in-chief, Bari Weiss. She took the helm after CBS News came under new ownership, ownership with ties to Donald Trump.

A twist in the saga, just before air, we learned that the pulled segment did air. It aired on a Canadian television app. We're going to have more on that in just a moment.

First, CNN's chief media analyst, Brian Stelter explains how we got here.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

SHARYN ALFONSI, "60 MINUTES" CORRESPONDENT: I'm Sharyn Alfonsi.

BRIAN STELTER, CNN CHIEF MEDIA ANALYST (voice over): It was a report from Sharyn Alfonsi shelved by Barry Weiss that has put "60 Minutes" under the microscope again.

Viewers were supposed to see this report on Sunday night. CBS released this video clip ahead of time, encouraging viewers to tune in.

[20:30:21]

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The deportees thought they were headed from the U.S. back to Venezuela.

STELTER (voice-over): Alfonsi interviewed men deported by the Trump administration to a notorious maximum security prison in El Salvador.

ALFONSI: Did you think you were going to die there?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We thought we were already the living dead, honestly.

STELTER (voice-over): Alfonsi said in an internal email to her colleagues, quote, "These men risked their lives to speak with us." CBS put the segment to bed on Friday. But then Weiss weighed in on Saturday. She said the segment didn't sit right with her, sources told CNN.

One of Weiss' main concerns was the lack of response from the Trump administration. She wanted someone like Stephen Miller on camera, on the record. In an extraordinary internal memo, Alfonsi decried corporate censorship and said she had, quote," asked Weiss for a call to discuss her decision. She did not afford us that courtesy/opportunity."

Alfonsi went on to say, "Our story was screened five times and cleared by both CBS attorneys and Standards and Practices." And "We requested responses to questions and or interviews with DHS, the White House, and the State Department." "Government silence," Alfonsi said, "is a statement, not a veto."

And here is the key quote. "If the administration's refusal to participate becomes a valid reason to spike a story, we have effectively handed them a kill switch for any reporting they find inconvenient." Weiss criticized the story on Monday morning, telling staffers on a conference call, quote, "While the story presented powerful testimony of torture at CECOT, it did not advance the ball."

That comment created even more indignation inside CBS, with staffers wondering if the Trump administration is pressuring CBS parent company Paramount.

DONALD TRUMP (R), PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I beat CBS for much more money than that.

STELTER (voice-over): Trump sued CBS over 60 Minutes last year, and the old owners of Paramount agreed to settle, stoking outrage. Then Trump praised the new owners, the Ellisons.

TRUMP: Larry Ellison is great, and his son David is great. They're friends of mine. Big -- they're big supporters of mine.

STELTER (voice-over): But this month, Trump has been blasting them.

TRUMP: 60 Minutes has treated me worse under the new ownership than -- they just keep treating me, they just keep hitting me. It's crazy.

STELTER (voice-over): That comment coming just hours before Weiss intervened in the Alfonsi piece. Weiss, a New York Times Opinion Desk veteran, launched The Free Press website in 2021, and sold it to Paramount this year for $150 million.

Paramount CEO David Ellison put her in charge of the CBS newsroom while she's still running her startup, causing concern that she's overstretched. Former CBS reporters like Harry Smith say Weiss is now being tested. HARRY SMITH, FORMER CBS NEWS ANCHOR: Who does she need to please, and what does she need to please? And if that's not journalism as the number one answer, then there really is a problem at CBS.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BERMAN: All right, and Brian Stelter joins me now. And as if all this were not enough, Brian, this stunning development late today in the last few hours, the piece that CBS pulled, that Bari Weiss pulled, it actually aired. It aired in Canada. It was posted by a viewer on social media. It is everywhere tonight. So how does that change things?

STELTER (on-camera): There's some joke to be made here about blaming Canada, although some CBS staffers are thanking Canada, thanking this Canadian network, Global TV. They are thankful this piece has streamed and has now been bootlegged and shared all across Reddit and Bluesky and X and other social media platforms.

I went ahead and watched the full piece, John. This is a typical 60 Minutes piece. It is focusing on the perspectives of these Venezuelan men. It is true there are no Trump officials that are interviewed in the piece. Although there are soundbites from President Trump and Kristi Noem and Karoline Leavitt.

The point of the piece is to describe the experiences inside this prison. And that is partly why the 60 Minutes executive producer, Tanya Simon, said to her staff today she is standing by the piece, standing with Sharyn Alfonsi.

So there's a real divide now between Bari Weiss and the newsroom. And this is something that's probably far from over. But the fact that it is -- it's not -- I was going to use the word leaked, John, but it's even crazier than that. This segment was pre-planned.

It was shipped off to Canada because it was in the can, ready to go on Friday. And it was then published by a network called Global TV on a streaming platform in Canada. So that's how this video has leaked out today. And now that it's out, maybe this will change the decisions by CBS about what to do here in the U.S. with the program.

BERMAN: What else are you hearing, Brian, about the reaction inside CBS to all of this and about how people there feel about the leadership right now?

STELTER (on-camera): Well, certainly a lot of frustration with why this happened and how it went down, especially with the timeline. Why was the piece finished? And then Bari Weiss spoke up about her concerns.

Now, there -- you know, of course, that's her prerogative as editor- in-chief, to raise questions about the piece and even to hold the piece. But this does speak to how she is a new editor-in-chief in a new role with some staffers feeling that she's in over her head.

[20:35:02] There are at the same time questions about whether the Trump administration did provide some comment. There were no interviews provided. But perhaps the administration did provide comment. And all of that factors into whether this piece was actually ready to air.

BERMAN: Brian Stelter, plot thickens. Thanks so much.

Up next, President Trump says the U.S. is in active pursuit of a third oil tanker linked to Venezuela. I'm going to speak to Democratic Congressman Seth Moulton to ask if regime change is the President's ultimate goal.

And CNN's Clarissa Ward gives us a bird's eye view of the dangerous escape route Ukrainian men are taking to flee their country to avoid fighting the war against Russia.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CLARISSA WARD, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: You can see how steep these mountains are. It is frankly astonishing that up to 100 Ukrainians are making this crossing still every single week.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[20:40:17]

BERMAN: All right. Tonight as tensions flare over Venezuela, President Trump has announced what he is calling a new line of Navy battleships named after himself Trump Class battleships to replace some in the U.S. fleet. Last week, his name was put on the Kennedy Center.

Tonight, he also said the U.S. military remains in active pursuit of a third oil tanker that they want to seize off the coast of Venezuela. Over the weekend, the U.S. took control of its second vessel. That's what you're seeing here in less than two weeks.

But a U.S. official tells CNN the third ship refused to stop when the U.S. Coast Guard tried to board it. Tonight, the President was asked about all of this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: -- goal in Venezuela to force Maduro from power?

TRUMP: Well, I think it probably would. I can't tell that. That's up to him what he wants to do. I think it would be smart for him to do that. But, again, we're going to find out --

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BERMAN: With us now is Congressman Seth Moulton, a Democratic member of the House Armed Services Committee and a U.S. Marine Corps veteran. He is also running for Senate in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Congressman, based on what you just heard the President say, do you think regime change is his endgame in Venezuela? And why do you think he's reluctant to just flat out say it?

REP. SETH MOULTON (D), ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE: Well, because he's making this up as he goes. And we don't actually know what the President intends to do with the thousands and thousands of American service members whose lives he's putting on the line in dangerous situations out there. But it seems pretty clear that this President, who was elected on a platform of no regime change wars, wants Maduro out of there.

BERMAN: Is this a successful strategy, you think, ultimately to get Maduro out of power?

MOULTON: It doesn't seem to be working so far. And we know that Maduro has done a lot to insulate his regime. I mean, this is a guy who's an illegitimate president. He lost an election quite handily, and yet he's still in power. So I don't think this is going to be easy.

But the bigger question is, why are we even doing it? And why are we risking American lives to do it? I mean, obviously, if we put troops on the ground, he's got thousands of Marines off the coast in ships. I was one of those Marines on a ship off the coast of Kuwait once.

We're not there to interdict boats. Those are ground troops. If he intends to put forces on the ground, it's incredibly dangerous for U.S. personnel. There are a lot of U.S. personnel in danger right now with the illegal operations that he's doing just off the coast. So this is dangerous, and he can't even explain to the American people what he intends to do.

BERMAN: You're talking about U.S. troops on the ground. If you were ever to do that, if you were even to use U.S. air assets to strike regime targets in Venezuela, what role would you want to see Congress play?

MOULTON: To actually do our job, John. To have a vote on whether or not we go to war, because that is our constitutional responsibility. I've introduced legislation to have this vote, to up or down, say, will Congress actually spend American taxpayer dollars on a regime change war in Venezuela?

Of course, we'll see if Speaker Johnson actually gives us a vote and actually lets us do our job on this. I'm going to try to force a discharge petition to force that vote if he won't. But it's pretty incredible that this is -- this is a movie we've seen before. I mean, this is Iraq, Iraq 2.0 unfolding before our eyes.

Bush -- Trump was supposedly against Bush's war in Iraq, and yet here he goes again. You know, he says it's not about oil, but he's seizing oil tankers. He says it's not about regime change or he's not supportive of regime change. He won't admit that, but that's clearly what's going on.

And the icing on the cake is, of course, you know, we had this faulty intelligence that got us into Iraq seeking weapons of mass destruction. Well, Trump has just come up with this fabrication that he calls fentanyl, a weapon of mass destruction. Fentanyl is a terrible thing, but you're going to call cancer a weapon of mass destruction just because it kills a lot of people? I mean, you can't make this up, John. Trump's trying to get us into a war here.

BERMAN: You have seen -- you're on the House Armed Services Committee, you have now seen the video of the second strike on that alleged Venezuelan drug boat. What was your view of it? And is it something that the American people should see?

MOULTON: John, I served four tours as an infantry officer in the Marine Corps. This video was despicable. I've seen terrible things in my life, but this was absolutely despicable. And the only debate is whether it is a war crime or outright murder. And that just comes down to the completely ridiculous legal justification for what they're doing off the coast of Venezuela.

[20:45:08]

And I'll tell you what, this administration needs to be held accountable because in my clear eyes, they are breaking the law. They are putting our troops in moral and legal jeopardy by asking them to do these completely immoral things that account for war crimes. I mean, the allies charged German U-boat officers for doing the exact same thing, for shooting helpless survivors of shipwrecks.

And guess what? The British executed them. That's how deadly serious these war crimes are. And Hegseth, of course, will take no responsibility. Trump's encouraging it. That puts our service members at great risk.

BERMAN: Congressman Seth Moulton, thanks for being with us tonight.

Other news, in Moscow, a Russian general was killed in an apparent car bombing today. This is the aftermath of the attack you're looking at right here. Russian officials are looking at whether Ukraine's special services were responsible.

And as this war rages on between Russia and Ukraine, our Clarissa Ward has a look at the dangerous lengths some Ukrainian men are taking to escape the fight.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

DAN BENGA, DIRECTOR, SALVAMONT MARAMURES MOUNTAIN RESCUE: So what you see on the right hand side, there's Ukraine.

WARD (voice-over): Dan Benga knows how dangerous these mountains can be. He and his team have rescued hundreds of Ukrainians who tried to cross them.

BENGA: They don't have the knowledge, they don't have experience and they don't have professional equipment because on these mountains you need professional equipment to be alive.

WARD: To survive.

WARD (voice-over): The Carpathian Mountains that cut along Romania's 400-mile border with Ukraine have become a deadly magnet for Ukrainian men fleeing conscription at home and seeking freedom in the E.U.

WARD: You can see how steep these mountains are. It is frankly astonishing that up to 100 Ukrainians are making this crossing still every single week.

WARD (voice-over): The risks are huge. Since Russia's invasion in 2022, the Salvamont Mountain Rescue Service has carried out countless perilous missions that have saved 377 Ukrainian lives. The longest operation lasted nearly six days. Not everyone makes it.

The Romanian border police say 29 Ukrainians have died crossing the mountains and the Tisza River that separates the two countries.

BENGA: This is a job we were prepared. We are training everyday and this is a job we are doing. It's not about being Ukrainian or Russian or American, this is about being human.

WARD: A human being.

BENGA: Yes.

WARD: So if you could deliver a message to the men of Ukraine, would you tell them, stop trying to cross through these mountains, it's too dangerous?

BENGA: I really can't say don't cross the mountains. I can say, take care of you.

WARD (voice-over): It's a lesson that Dima (ph), who asked us not to reveal his identity, learned the hard way. He made the crossing shortly after receiving his draft papers early on in the war. Things quickly went wrong when his group got lost.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translation): 20 degrees Celsius without food, without water.

WARD: No water?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No.

WARD: No food?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translation): Only snow.

WARD: Just the snow?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translation): I walked 20 kilometers barefoot. I realized that I had problems with my feet. But at that time I didn't feel it. I only felt it when I was already in the hospital.

WARD: And then did they have to remove all the toes? UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translation): Yes. If the rescuers hadn't found me within two hours, I wouldn't be talking to you now.

WARD: Yes.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Freedom!

WARD (voice-over): Stories like Dima's (ph) have done little to stop the flow. According to the Romanian border police, more than 30,000 Ukrainians have entered the country illegally since the war began. Martial law prohibits eligible men between the ages of 23 and 60 from leaving Ukraine. Many see crossing these mountains as their only option.

Numbers are down from their peak in 2024 when the mobilization age was lowered to 25. But even now, as winter sets in, the crossings continue.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translation): Friends, this is the place for a proven, safe, reliable and fast way out abroad for men.

WARD (voice-over): For those who can afford it, some smugglers openly sell their services on TikTok and Telegram. EUR 9,000 to get to Moldova, EUR 12,000 or around $14,000 to get to Romania.

[20:50:10]

Artem, as he calls himself, says he helps facilitate these escapes.

"ARTEM", BORDER-CROSSING FACILITATOR: We rescued I think more than, in this moment, more than 600 people.

WARD: I find it really interesting that you use the word rescue.

"ARTEM": Of course, because I see the situation like that and I think we rescue people who just want to leave to build their future.

WARD: And what do you say to people who view you and who view those who are trying to leave as traitors?

"ARTEM": I don't take care about them, to be honest. I help people, I save people.

WARD (voice-over): Ukrainian authorities see it differently, faced with a manpower crisis as the war heads towards its fifth year. Men caught trying to leave the country illegally are rounded up. Some have reported being mobilized shortly afterwards.

WARD: Hi, Viktor, how are you?

WARD (voice-over): 34-year-old Kyiv taxi driver Viktor Pinkhasov has just crossed into Romania.

WARD: I'm glad you're OK. You survived.

VIKTOR PINKHASOV, UKRAINIAN DRAFT EVADER: Yes. Thank you. WARD: How long did it take you?

PINKHASOV: Five days, four nights.

WARD: Five days, four nights, walking through the mountains?

PINKHASOV: Yes, yes, three big mountains.

WARD (voice-over): He says the journey was tough, but the decision to leave was easy. His five-month-old daughter, Eva, is in Switzerland, and he has little faith in ongoing negotiations to end the war.

WARD: Do you believe that there is going to be peace?

PINKHASOV: No.

WARD: No?

PINKHASOV: I want to believe, but I see nobody wants peace.

WARD: What's the most important reason you left?

PINKHASOV: My daughter, freedom. I want to live and understand that I'm free. I can go -- I can live in prison. I'm a free man.

WARD (voice-over): It is a bleak outlook shared by many Ukrainian men willing to leave their homeland behind to take their futures into their own hands.

Clarissa Ward, CNN, Maramures, Romania.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BERMAN: Our thanks to Clarissa Ward for that.

Up next, the countdown is on just about for New Year's Eve. And Andy and Anderson will take you to their conversation beforehand.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[20:56:54]

BERMAN: You can feel it in the air. New Year's Eve fast approaching with Anderson and Andy Cohen in Times Square. They sat down to chat about their ninth year hosting together.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ANDY COHEN, TV PERSONALITY: We can't talk about New Year's Eve without talking about your many, many occasions of being in a puddle of giggles.

ANDERSON COOPER, CNN ANCHOR: Three, two.

COHEN: -- which is sphere in Las Vegas to see Dennis Rodman (ph). This is -- COOPER: OK.

COHEN: Someone videoed me dancing in a concert.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I mean, I don't know how much more clear I can be about the objective of this place.

COHEN: Have you gotten high at a brick?

COOPER: Oh my God.

COHEN: And I say to people, my job is to make you laugh on New Year's because people love to hear you laugh. And I think God bless you for the work you do all year long. You're keeping them honest right here on CNN. And this is your time and all of our time to let loose and enjoy.

But, man, if you had some moments, you know, a few stick out. Snoop Dogg, we played --

COOPER: Snoop Dogg was a (INAUDIBLE).

COHEN: -- a game where --

COOPER: Yes.

COHEN: -- I asked him if he had gotten high in certain places.

COOPER: Yes. Yes, yes, yes.

COHEN: Now, some of these games are classic Watch What Happens Live games, but I think that Anderson just sometimes can't believe --

COOPER: I can't believe.

COHEN: -- we we're playing them for real.

COOPER: I cannot. I can't believe that people are answering these questions.

COHEN: Right, yes. And Snoop Dogg had you.

COOPER: He was amazing. Well, the -- there was one about, like, have you ever been high on CNN?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes.

COHEN: Have you gotten high on CNN?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No, but in front of the CNN building on Sunset Boulevard, I have.

COOPER: I just thought it was the funniest thing. Because if you know that building --

COHEN: Yes. COOPER: -- it's just so like --

COHEN: Well, you know he was out there smoking before going on Larry King Live or something. I mean, there's no question about it. The thing that I think we loved the most was John Mayer at the Cat Cafe.

COOPER: I mean, the Cat Cafe will go down in our personal history.

COHEN: In New Year's Eve -- yes, it absolutely will. And this was one of those great examples of Anderson. I think it's better --

COOPER: I was skeptical.

COHEN: Well, no, you were skeptical but also, sometimes I think it's better to prep you the least --

COOPER: Yes.

COHEN: -- for these things.

COOPER: Yes.

COHEN: And I say, it's going to be great like --

COOPER: Right.

COHEN: -- I'd see --

COOPER: All I knew was he was at a cafe in --

COHEN: Right.

COOPER: -- Tokyo.

COHEN: So the visual of John, first of all, sitting there at the bar with all these cats, and of course, this cat's anus famously was right in front of the camera --

COOPER: Well also their tails.

COHEN: All their tails. It was so funny.

COOPER: Yes.

COHEN: And I have to give it to John, who was really deadpan the entire time. And part of, I think, the comedy was just how --

COOPER: Yes, yes.

COHEN: -- absolutely --

COOPER: He was --

COHEN: -- straight he was playing it.

COOPER: Yes. COHEN: And you, of course, were just --

COOPER: Well, also how like he could hear me -- he couldn't see either of us --

COHEN: Yes.

COOPER: -- but he could hear that I had completely lost it.

COHEN: Yes.

COOPER: And played it perfectly.

COHEN: Yes.

COOPER: Yes.

COHEN: Just the shot of the cat's ass in your face is making him delirious.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BERMAN: I mean, if that doesn't get you excited for New Year's, I don't know what will. You can watch the entire conversation right now at CNN.com/nyelive.

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