Return to Transcripts main page

The Lead with Jake Tapper

House Ethics Chief: No Agreement To Release Report On Gaetz; U.S. Embassy In Kyiv Closed Over "Potential Significant Air Attack"; Laken Riley's Killer Sentenced To Life Without Parole. Aired 4-5p ET

Aired November 20, 2024 - 16:00   ET

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

[16:00:02]

BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN HOST: The 28-year-old suspect from South Korea was initially stopped because of his, quote, bulky appearance. The Forestry Service thinks the creatures came from the Amazon and were going to be sold on the black market.

Fortunately, these critters are in the care of authorities now. Tarantulas, as you may or may not know, are a threatened species -- species. You'd be surprised how often this happens.

Glad the furry animals are okay.

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: Yeah.

"THE LEAD WITH JAKE TAPPER" starts now.

JAKE TAPPER, CNN HOST: We have breaking news for you on that Matt Gaetz ethics committee report.

THE LEAD starts right now.

So the House Ethics Committee spending hours behind closed doors, debating and discussing and arguing and coming out with no agreement on what to Gaetz, Trump's pick to be U.S. attorney general, leaving in limbo the fate of the committee investigation into allegations of sexual impropriety and statutory rape allegations Gaetz denies, and leaving Gaetz's fate in limbo, too.

Plus, life in prison without parole. The emotional day in court as a judge hands down the verdict and sentence for the undocumented immigrant. Now convicted of killing Georgia nursing student Laken Riley.

And for the first time in Russia's war with Ukraine, the U.S. fully closed its embassy in Kyiv, the move reflecting an escalation. We're live in Kyiv.

(MUSIC)

TAPPER: Welcome to THE LEAD. I'm Jake Tapper. A bit of a frenzy on Capitol Hill right this moment. The House Ethics Committee has just emerged from a meeting without any agreement to release its report on former Congressman Matt Gaetz, President-elect Trump's pick for attorney general.

This comes as Gaetz, who resigned from Congress a week ago after Trump nominated him was back on the Hill today in an effort to save his own political future. Gaetz brought a friend, Vice president-elect and Ohio Senator J.D. Vance.

They met with Republican senators trying to convince them to confirm Gaetz as U.S. attorney general. This does require a full court press because Gaetz faces scrutiny even from many in his own party, over the sexual misconduct allegations, which again, Gaetz denies.

This is the subject of an investigation by the House Ethics committee, which, as we mentioned, just met today right before the meeting. CNN's Manu Raju caught up with the chairman of the committee, Republican Congressman Michael Guest, who voiced his concerns on releasing the report.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MANU RAJU, CNN CHIEF CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Is the report actually done at this point?

REP. MICHAEL GUEST (R-MS): The report is not complete.

RAJU: It's not.

GUEST: That's correct.

RAJU: And so how could you possibly release it if it's not done?

GUEST: That is something that we will be talking about today. And that's another reason I have some reservations about releasing any unfinished work.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: So the report might not be finished, but lets look at what we believe we know is in there. According to CNN reporting, one woman told the committee that she had sex with Gaetz in 2017 when she was under age. She was under 18 years old.

Gaetz that year would have been about 35. That's according to two sources familiar with the investigation.

Also, we know a lawyer who represents two female witnesses testified that she witnessed Gaetz having sex with a minor in 2017. Both of that lawyer's clients told the committee that Gaetz paid them for sexual favors. Once again, we tell you, Gaetz denies any wrongdoing.

Let's go right to CNN's Manu Raju on Capitol Hill.

And, Manu, that House ethics committee meeting just wrapped up less than an hour ago. No agreement to release the report. What are you hearing from the members now? What comes next?

RAJU: Yeah. It sounds like it's broke down along party lines, at least according to sources who tell our colleague Sarah Farris and Annie Grayer that Republicans voted to block this report from going forward. Remember, this is a ten member committee, five Democrats, five Republicans, unusual on Capitol Hill because it's supposed to work in a bipartisan manner.

But this coming down very much along party lines Republicans, as you heard Michael guest say there earlier, as he said to me earlier today, that he said this report is not done yet, which is why it should not be released. At least he has some reservations about this.

However, Democrats view this completely differently. They say this report is ready for prime time and in fact, we expect to hear from Susan Wild, the top Democrat on this committee, any minute to give her point of view. Now leaving this committee, most of the members did not comment. Michael Guest himself would not comment other than saying this, that there was no agreement.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GUEST: There was not an agreement by the committee to release the report.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

RAJU: Wouldn't really say, Jake. But questions about what could come next. Will the committee revisit this again before the end of this session? Will they agree to allow Republicans and Democrats who sit on the Senate Judiciary Committee?

Some Republicans want to see that report just as much as many Democrats do before they consider the very weighty vote of confirming an attorney general of the United States.

[16:05:08]

Will they transmit that privately? That's something Guest told me earlier today. They could opt to do. It's unclear if they resolved that question, and it's also unclear, Jake, what will happen on the floor of the House. Democrats are threatening to try to force a vote on the House to try to get a majority of the house to vote to release the report. They can force that vote, but can they actually get Republican support to do that?

That's a totally different question but undoubtedly we expect the pressure to build, to release the report from Democrats and we'll see how Republicans respond, particularly in the Senate. And those who want to see this before voting on whether to confirm Gaetz Attorney General, Jake.

TAPPER: And -- so that's the House and that's interesting that they might force a vote. I mean, that's a big vote for Republicans to vote to cover up whatever is in that ethics committee report. But on the Senate side, Manu, which senators met with Gaetz today, did the meetings go well for Gaetz.

You know, these were all Republican senators on the Senate judiciary committee. That was the focus of Matt Gaetz and Vice President-elect JD Vance, because they know that Republican support is soft right now Republicans in line limit Republicans at the beginning of the new Congress, and that will be enough to get him across the finish line.

And the goal was to, Jake, was to tell these Republican senators, keep an open mind, consider him for this position. And we're told also, Gaetz rebutted some of the allegations that were expected to be in this report in those committee meetings. The ultimate question is, did he convince enough Republicans that he's good for the job?

TAPPER: All right. Manu Raju, thanks so much.

Let's go to CNN's Kristen Holmes right now. She's down in West Palm Beach, Florida, with all the latest on the Trump transition.

And, Kristen, treasury secretary is considered one of the biggest administration roles he has yet to the president elect has yet to make a decision on that. What are you hearing about when Trump might decide who to fire -- hire rather, who to hire?

KRISTEN HOLMES, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Fire, hire, I am told that this could come as early as tonight. They were meeting about it today just a reminder, there had been a lot of back and forth over this position because of Howard Lutnick, who had inserted himself into the race at the last minute. He was part of the transition team. He was actually the co-chair of it.

Now, yesterday after he got secretary of commerce, it really cleared the way for four candidates who were left. That included Tennessee senator --

TAPPER: Senator, I'm so sorry. We have to go interrupt. We're going to back to Capitol Hill -- Congresswoman Wild there was speaking there. She's a member of the House Ethics Committee.

REP. SUSAN WILD (D-PA): I walked out of this committee without making one and walked back to my office. But it has since come to my attention that in fact, we had agreed that we were not going to discuss what had transpired at the meeting. But it has come to my attention that the chairman has since betrayed the process by disclosing our deliberations within moments after walking out of the committee and he has implied that there was an agreement of the committee not to disclose the report.

That is an untrue to the extent that that suggests that the committee was in agreement or that we had a consensus on that, that is inaccurate. And I will say that a vote was taken as many of you know this committee is evenly divided between Democrats and Republicans five Dems, five Republicans, which means that in order to affirmatively move something forward somebody has to cross party lines and vote with the other side which happens a lot, by the way. And we often vote unanimously.

That did not happen in today's vote, and I do not want the American public or anyone else to think that Mr. Guest's characterization of what transpired today would be some sort of indication that the committee had unanimous unanimity or consensus on this issue, not to release the report. That's -- would be an inaccurate portrayal. And nobody should take that from what they have heard so far.

There was no consensus on this issue. We did agree that we would reconvene as a committee on December 5th to further consider this matter and this testament that I just made is on behalf of all of the Democratic members of the Ethics Committee.

Thank you very much.

RAJU: So did all the Democrats vote yes? Did all -- the Democrats vote --

REPORTER: Would you -- what happens between now and December 5th? Is there work that still has to be done on the report?

WILD: That was part of our discussions today and there will -- I'm not going to get into our discussions because I don't believe that we should be disclosing anything that happens in that committee room, and I would not be even commenting to this extent, except that the chairman has essentially suggested that there was agreement of the members of the committee, which there most definitely was not.

[16:10:00]

RAJU: The chairman also said that the report is not done. The chairman also said the report is not done. Is the report done?

REPORTER: Is that accurate?

WILD: I haven't seen him say that. I haven't seen that statement and I really don't care to comment on the status of the report except to say that we were in a position to vote today.

(CROSSTALK)

REPORTER: Would you release the report? Would you release the report even if the even if the Republicans objected to doing?

TAPPER: All right. Manu --

RAJU: I don't know if you guys are still here.

TAPPER: Yeah. Manu, we got you. Can you hear us?

RAJU: Jake, are you there?

TAPPER: Yeah. Manu, can you hear us?

RAJU: Yep. I got you.

TAPPER: All right, so that was Democratic Congresswoman Susan Wild of Pennsylvania, a member of the House Ethics Committee, noting that the House Ethics Committee normally acts in a bipartisan way, unanimous way. Reading between the lines she seemed upset at some of the statements

that have been made publicly by Republicans, one by the chairman of the committee, suggesting that the report was not done. She refused to confirm that that was true and said, as her answer they were going to vote today on whether to release the report.

So, obviously, there's some issues there about whether or not there were minor edits to be made. Also, taking issue with something, I think she was saying that Matt Gaetz was saying that there was what exactly was the part that she was taking issue with about some sort of agreement by the ethics committee.

RAJU: Yeah, she was referring to what the Michael Guest, the chairman of the committee said when he came out earlier, he said that there was not an agreement to release the report. She took that as an implication that they actually had agreed to not release the report. She said there was that was not -- there was not an agreement.

It very much sounded like it was Democrats who voted to release this report. It was Republicans who voted against releasing the report. She would not say that specifically, but reading between the lines, it was very clear and she was very upset at the Chairman of the Committee. Remember, this is, as she noted, a bipartisan committee, five members of the Democratic side, five members of the Republican side.

They typically do things along by on a bipartisan basis. But she accused the chairman of betraying the secretive process in this committee by telling reporters that there was not an agreement to move ahead and release the report, and she came out here to dispute that, she's trying to say that there was a disagreement about releasing the report, and it was the suggesting very much that it was the Democrats who wanted this to come out.

Now, she contended that there was revisited again in December. That's when they will probably convene again after the Thanksgiving recess to decide how to proceed but you can see how she carefully chose her words there, Jake, when I asked her if this report is in fact not done because that's what Guest, the Republican chairman, told me, going in, saying this report is not done, which is why he had reservations about releasing it.

Democrats have disputed that characterization, believing that they're saying the -- Republicans are saying it's not done in order to bury the Gaetz report and not provide the Senate Judiciary Committee. She was careful, in her words, in dealing with that precise comment by the chairman but this fight is not over, as they plan to revisit it in December.

And Democrats want to ratchet up the pressure to release this report. And some Republicans on the Senate side at least agree with that, Jake.

TAPPER: All right. Manu Raju, thanks so much.

Lots to talk about here. Our panel joins us.

Former Congressman Charlie Dent from Susan Wild's home Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

You're a former chair of the House Ethics Committee. And you wrote in an op-ed, quote, while the ethics committee technically loses jurisdiction over members after their services ended, there is nothing in the House rules that prohibits the committee from disclosing investigative information and reports about departed members and in fact I asked Speaker Johnson on Sunday about the fact that there are at least two times that it happened with Congressman Lukens and Congressman Bonner. They resigned and still the committee issued its reports.

And actually, with Congressman Foley, you're old enough to remember this. They started and finished and released a report, even after Congressman Foley had resigned. But the standard generally has been with those exceptions, noted to not release it.

What do you think will happen here?

CHARLIE DENT, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ASPEN INSTITUTE CONGRESSIONAL PROGRAM: Well, I suspect at this point, since the committee appears to have been deadlocked five-five, what will happen now is that a member of the House will probably go to the House floor and offer what's called a privileged resolution and try to force the release of the report out of the committee. And then what normally then happens is the majority party, this would be the Republicans would move to table the motion.

Now the big question is will Republican members want to vote to protect Matt Gaetz, a man that so many of them at the very least, dislike and many detest? So that's the question.

TAPPER: And also, just to interrupt, I'm sorry, but like, first of all, we have no idea what's in the report. Maybe it exonerates him. I mean, I doubt it from the way they're acting.

DENT: They wouldn't have resigned.

TAPPER: But -- right. But then the other thing is, like does anybody really want to put their political career especially people in these marginal districts, defending somebody accused of statutory rape and hiring prostitutes?

DENT: No, of course not. And what's really interesting about this is you pointed out there have been precedents of members who've had reports released after they left.

[16:15:06]

You mentioned Lukens, that was a case where there was apparently sexual relations with a 16-year-old. And what I can tell you is that the Senate wants to see this. And when a member of Congress resigns from office in the midst of a scandal, they usually go away quietly. In other words, they go about the business of reconstructing their lives and their relationships and you leave them alone.

This case, Matt Gaetz is being elevated to be the top law enforcement officer of the United States. So there's a -- you know, the Senate obviously wants to see this report as part of the official record as the confirmation process. And, you know, some might say the American people might want to see this, too, because we're talking about the top law enforcement officer of United States.

TAPPER: So let's talk about the Senate, because, Brian, you worked very closely with the Senate -- outgoing Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell for years. Here's what he told CNN's Manu Raju about the Gaetz report.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RAJU: Given how important the attorney general nomination is, shouldn't senators have access to all the information, including everything the House Ethics Committee found in its investigation into him?

SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL (R-KY): Look, the Constitution gives us a role in personnel called the Advice and Consent. My view is that's exactly what will unfold here when these nominees are actually sent forward and we will treat them like we've treated all others with a proper vetting.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: All right. Now, speaking of Senate tease, he's saying we'd like to see the report, right? Do you interpret it that way?

BRIAN MCGUIRE, FORMER CHIEF OF STAFF, SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL: I'd be surprised if Senate Judiciary Committee members didn't insist on seeing all relevant information related to Matt Gaetz, his time in the House, anything that an FBI report surfaces, this is a very serious process. It's serious for lower level officials in the Justice Department. For the top official in the Justice Department as I said, I'd be very surprised if judiciary committee members didn't insist on seeing everything.

TAPPER: It's significant. It's significant for lower level officials in the Department of Parks and Recreation. These are serious allegations.

ASHLEY ETIENNE, FORMER DEPUTY PRESS SECRETARY, VP HARRIS: Oh, absolutely. I mean, here's how I see it for -- A, if there's nothing there, then release it.

TAPPER: Yeah.

ETIENNE: Right? I mean, why -- why are we even debating this? If you're -- if you're not guilty, release it.

But here's the -- here's the other way. I see it for the speaker to weigh in on this. And we were just talking about this. I've worked for speaker before. It's very rare for a speaker to get involved in the ethics committee at all in their deliberations to say anything.

So for the speaker to weigh in and try to bury a report like this to me suggests the depth of the moral and ethical bankruptcy of the Republican Party at this point. And that should concern all of us.

But here's what I think I think Gaetz is a smokescreen. I think he's a distraction from the real dangerous pick like Tulsi Gabbard. You know, Tulsi Gabbard is someone who people widely accept on both sides of the aisle is compromised. She's -- pals around with terrorists and dictators. She's a Putin sympathizer and she's going to be in charge of America's secrets.

That should concern us all. And so I think he's a smokescreen. I think he's probably the sacrificial lamb. They're going to lose one. You always lose one nominee. And so he's probably going to be it, but I would advise the Democratic Party, just keep your eye on the balls, Tulsi Gabbard.

I would also advise you, Jake and others, to focus on her. And let's elevate what we know about her and how she's not beyond reproach when it comes to --

TAPPER: Well, there's confirmation hearings. We're not done covering any of these people. This is just obviously news today because of the House Ethics Committee.

I hear you. We need to give scrutiny to all of these nominees.

Everyone, stick around. We got a lot more to talk about.

We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:22:36]

TAPPER: And we're back with our breaking news.

The House Ethics Committee, meeting -- adjourning without agreeing to release its report on former Congressman Matt Gaetz.

We're back with our political panel.

Ashley, I want to start with you, because Republican Senator Lindsey Graham today posted on Twitter or X, quote, I fear the process surrounding the Gaetz nomination is turning into an angry mob. I would urge all of my Senate colleagues, particularly Republicans, not to join the lynch mob and give the process a chance to move forward.

After years of being investigated by the Department of Justice, no charges were brought against Matt Gaetz. This is something we should all remember.

Now, I'm going to ask you just to move -- let's just put the lynch mob metaphor to the side for a second, as distasteful as that might be.

What do you think about the idea of just letting the nomination process go forward?

ETIENNE: I mean, I think that's what Democrats would argue as well like, lets, you know, lets air as much of this out and lets spend as much time from hearings to floor debate about these particular candidates, these particular nominees because they want Donald Trump and the Republicans especially those vulnerable, those vulnerable ones like Collins, Murkowski to defend this guy.

I mean, how do you defend allegations that you're having sex with minors? I mean the young lady's lawyer was just on CNN, I think was it yesterday talking about what she testified to?

So I just find it deplorable that Lindsey Graham and some Republicans would say we should just move past. This is another day in America when were talking about the most egregious allegations one could one could have against you.

The other point, I would say the problem for Democrats is this argument about violating women should be a disqualifier I think is going to fall flat on Republicans. I mean, you've got a situation where the head of their party is found liable for sexual assault against a woman. You're going to have to find -- I mean, regrettably, find another argument because, you know, they weren't punished in this last election for their contempt against women. I can't -- listening to Lindsey Graham and others, I can't imagine, they clearly don't find this stuff egregious and offensive.

So, anyway, so I say all that to say that I think they're going to have to find some other argument, maybe that he's not qualified for the position because Republicans clearly don't care about the rights of women.

TAPPER: So former Congressman Dent, Donald Trump on Truth Social wrote what appears to be a reference to the backlash against some of his administration picks. I'm guessing not just Gaetz, but who knows. But I mean, it could be Gaetz, could be RFK Jr., could be Tulsi Gabbard, could be Pete Hegseth, who knows?

But he wrote, this is what the radical left lunatics do to people.

[16:25:01]

They dirty them up, they destroy them. And then they spit them out.

They're trying that right now with some great American patriots who are only trying to fix the mess that the Democrats have made of our country. We will win. MAGA.

But I should note, it's not just -- I mean, even if you characterize all Democrats as radical left lunatics, which is not fair or accurate, it's not just Democrats that have concerns about some of these picks.

DENT: Well, yeah, some of the picks are fine. You've got people like --

TAPPER: Nobody's talking about Marco Rubio.

DENT: Marco Rubio or Doug Collins, I could go down the list or, you know, very fine. Lee Zeldin. But obviously, with the case of Matt Gaetz, who's basically pledged to

torch the Department of Justice, that's a problem. The defense pick, you know is also a problem and not only for the allegations of the sexual allegation that there were no charges brought, but there are no but -- but you have that but there are qualification questions of experience. That's -- that's another issue. And Tulsi Gabbard's case, we know what the issues are.

They're too close to Assad and to the Russians. So I understand that, you know I think Trump is wrong. He's -- he's put forward some candidates that are seriously deficient for a variety of reasons. And that's why were having this problem right now.

TAPPER: Brian, your thoughts? Where does this -- where is this going to end up, do you think?

MCGUIRE: Well, I think one point that were not discussing is the fact that the Justice Department was arrayed against President Trump while he was in office and after and subsequently the attorney general of New York while she was campaigning pledged to go after Trump while he was still in office.

And so, I think it's really no surprise that the president would choose somebody to go into the justice department who he thought would shake things up. I think that that's something that we all need to sort of stipulate.

You know, there are a lot of good nominees and the Gaetz one is out of the -- out of the gates, one of the more controversial ones. I don't think Senator Graham is saying disregard anything we know about Matt Gaetz. I think he's saying, let's trust the process. And I think the process --

ETIENNE: You can anybody to take that job, you don't have to have Matt Gaetz be the attorney general, there's any MAGA lawyer that can take that job.

MCGUIRE: Clearly, loyalty is what -- clearly loyalty is a really important quality in these nominees that the president is putting forward.

TAPPER: That's for sure.

MCGUIRE: He sees that in Matt Gaetz.

TAPPER: Yeah.

MCGUIRE: I think the process will play out and we'll see how -- whether he has the votes or not.

TAPPER: I think if he had named Jim Jordan, it would be controversial, but it wouldn't be this controversial because nobody's implying anything about Jim Jordan's personal life. But absolutely, I hear what you're saying in terms of Republicans thinking it's time to disrupt that place.

MCGUIRE: Yeah.

TAPPER: Thanks one and all for being here. Really appreciate it.

This hour, we're also taking a closer look at Trump's campaign promise to dismantle the Department of Education. A former secretary of education is here to weigh in.

Plus, the escalation of the war in Ukraine, why now? How it led the U.S. to close its embassy for the first time since Russia's invasion.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:31:40]

TAPPER: Major concerns in Kyiv top our world lead. For the first time in the nearly three-year war of Russia against Ukraine, the U.S. embassy in Ukraine's capital shut down today after the embassy says it received, quote, specific information of a potential significant air attack. This as Ukraine battles both Russian and North Korean soldiers in western Russia and the relationship between the United States and Russia continues to grow more contentious by the day.

CNN's Nick Paton Walsh filed this report from Kyiv.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

NICK PATON WALSH, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Ukrainian special forces fighting up close and taking prisoners, rare footage of them still inside Russia's Kursk region, where British Storm Shadow missiles were claimed to have hit Wednesday, these fragments found by locals.

Just hours earlier, American supplied ATACMS missiles also plowed into Russia marking a stark new escalation in the war.

Yet it was also in Kyiv that fear grew. The U.S. embassy closing here for the first time since the invasion citing a threat of air attack.

It's a reflection of the heightened tension here, felt here in the capital Kyiv. It's been under regular bombardment for over two months, but other European allied embassies are also limiting their function today. Perhaps a sense across NATO here that we're entering a new chapter of this conflict.

As Kyiv braced for another sleepless night of sirens, the bereaved planted flags into this sea of loss in central Kyiv.

Anya's father died of his injuries three weeks ago after five months in a coma. She is raw from both the talk of peace and fear of sirens.

ANYA IVANINA, LOST FATHER IN THE WAR: I will be honest. We went down to the basement during every air raid siren today. It was really scary indeed. I want peace very much. I don't want our country to be hurt. I want it to be as it was, but without the Russians, without all of this.

WALSH: But it's never over in Kyiv. The air raids intensifying in the past two months, and the weekend seen here, the worst for a while.

So the heightened anxiety behind several NATO embassies reducing operations this day sparked Ukrainian officials to plead. They hold their nerve and deride this piece of Russian misinformation online, a detailed and fake warning of wide scale attacks.

This situation should be interpreted, he says, as Russia's attempt to use any elements of psychological influence. They have one instrument, which is to scare. This has always been a classic element of Russian politics, so I'd like our partners to be more careful as to the information coming from Russia.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

WALSH (on camera): Now, the State Department haven't said exactly what prompted this warning. They're reopening tomorrow, but bear in no doubt at all. This is not some false, threat here. This is a capital city hit nearly every single night, and we've seen in remarkable five days in this conflict.

Diplomacy thought about on Friday by German chancellor sort of unilaterally ringing the Kremlin. Now, the United States and the United Kingdom giving missiles to Ukraine to fire into Russia and this fear in the Western diplomatic community here, they could be targeted startlingly fast moving events here, Jake.

[16:35:02]

TAPPER: All right. CNN's Nick Paton Walsh in Ukraine for us, thanks so much.

Joining us now to discuss the editor of "The Insider", Michael Weiss.

And, Michael, you write in your Substack "Foreign Office", the election outcome was a huge factor behind President Biden, who's traditionally been escalation averse or at least slow to escalate finally allowing Ukraine to use American made longer range missiles to strike within Russia. Tell us, who do you think in the administration was pushing this and how big of an effect this might have on the war, this policy change.

MICHAEL WEISS, EDITOR, THE INSIDER: Well, I think the most senior official in the White House who's been in favor of authorizing deep strikes is Secretary of State Antony Blinken. And several weeks ago, a senior U.S. official told me look, they didn't want to do anything that might tilt the election or give talking points to the Trump campaign, which would warn of escalation, World War Three, et cetera.

And that same official said, however, if Donald Trump ends up winning, this might actually add ballast to the argument to authorize deep strike because the logic, Jake, is that the U.S. intelligence assesses Vladimir Putin will not do anything untoward to retaliate against the United States or against Ukraine before Trump is inaugurated. To do so would risk jeopardizing what he hopes to gain through a negotiated settlement with the incoming Trump administration.

TAPPER: How do you see the war dynamic changing when Trump takes office on January 20th?

WEISS: I mean, look, this is the million dollar question. The Ukrainians are surprisingly, rather calm about this. They think that they can sort of work with the Trump administration. They see him as a tested proposition. They'll remind people that under his administration, in term one, he authorized the distribution of javelin anti-tank missiles. He sanctioned Nord Stream II.

But I've seen this movie before where the Ukrainians have been rather calm when they shouldn't be. And that was in the lead up to the full scale invasion, which they didn't see coming.

So a lot will depend on the future of American security assistance. I mean, if Trump pulls the plug, if he says that's -- that's it, were not giving any more weapons or ammunition. I think that's game over. I don't think the Europeans can sustain this themselves.

Now, if he tries to come in and do a deal and negotiate something with Moscow, which the Russians then renege on and piss him off basically, there is a question of will he try to authorize new weapons systems to the Ukrainians to prove a point? I mean, he's the great negotiator, right? He doesn't want to be outfoxed or out-negotiated even by the Russian president he seems to admire.

TAPPER: Yeah. Michael Weiss, thank you so much. Good to see you again.

Coming up, a verdict and sentencing today in the murder of Georgia nursing student Laken Riley, a case that became a heartbreaking rallying cry during the presidential campaign.

Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP0

[16:41:51]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

H. PATRICK HAGGARD, ATHENS-CLARKE COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE: Count one, malice murder. I sentence you of life without possibility of parole.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: That's Judge H. Patrick Haggard handing down a life sentence without the possibility of parole to Jose Ibarra. That's the undocumented Venezuelan migrant found guilty of killing nursing student Laken Riley.

This came just hours after the judge delivered his verdict, finding Ibarra guilty on all ten counts, including malice murder, felony murder and aggravated assault. Riley, as you might recall, was jogging through the woods near the University of Georgia last February when she was brutally attacked and killed. CNN's Rafael Romo is in Athens.

And, Rafael, how are the family of Laken Riley? How is the community reacting to the sentencing?

RAFAEL ROMO, CNN CORRESPONDENT: I can say that there is a collective sigh of relief after the verdict, and the sentence, Jake, but it was a very tough, very emotional day riley mother, stepfather, sister and father all chose to speak in court earlier today.

They all referred to the defendant, Venezuelan national Jose Antonio Ibarra, using terms like coward and monster. The family, as well as several close friends of Riley's and roommates, wanted to make sure Superior Court Judge H. Patrick Haggard sentenced the defendant, Jose Antonio Ibarra, to life in prison without parole.

The judge had already found guilty on all ten charges against him including felony murder, kidnapping with bodily injury. Judge Haggard sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole for the murder of Laken Riley. The prosecution chose not to seek the death penalty in this case, Jake.

Special prosecutor Sheila Ross said that in fighting her attacker, Laken Riley left more than enough evidence to convict him. Let's take a listen.

(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)

SHEILA ROSS, SPECIAL PROSECUTOR: She did fight, and it is a direct result of that fight that gives you all the physical evidence you need to convict him. And if you only had that physical evidence, you would have enough to convict him.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ROMO: On the other hand, Jake, defense attorney Kaitlyn Beck spoke about what she described as an alternative theory. Let's listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KAITLYN BECK, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: There is an alternative theory in this case that makes sense of some of the discrepancies in the states case. Jose was short. He was chubby. He was appointed the state where he slides the morning of February 22nd.

I agree with the state that Laken Riley was physically fit. She was fast. She could have outrun him.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ROMO: And, Jake, Jose Ibarra chose not to testify. At one point, it appeared like his brothers Diego and Argenis were going to appear in court. But that never happened. Now back to you.

TAPPER: All right. Rafael Romo in Athens, Georgia, for us. Thank you so much. Ahead, what the U.S. government and your child's education could look

like under the incoming Trump administration.

Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:48:42]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT-ELECT OF THE UNITED STATES: We will ultimately eliminate the federal department of education.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: That's just one of the many times President-elect Trump made that pledge to eliminate the Department of Education and now Trump has picked the person to lead the department he claims he wants to gut. That's Linda McMahon, the former CEO of World Wrestling Entertainment.

You see her there slapping. I don't know if it's a real slap or not, but slapping her daughter. She co-founded World Wrestling Entertainment with her husband, Vince McMahon.

This is a skit we're showing you right now where she's pretending to spar with her daughter.

McMahon was also, of course, the head of the Small Business Administration in the first Trump administration. Trump says she is going to focus on expanding parent's choice and sending education, quote, back to the states.

Joining us now, the former secretary of education under President Obama, Arne Duncan.

Secretary Duncan, the department was established by Congress. It would obviously take 60 votes to actually fully eliminate it. That's not going to happen.

But do you see reforms in the manner of sending more of the money to the states, or getting rid of unnecessary red tape that might be worthwhile for possible Secretary McMahon to do?

ARNE DUNCAN, FORMER SECRETARY OF EDUCATION: Well, first of all, you hit it exactly right. Trump promising to eliminate the Department of Education, was never going to happen.

[16:50:01]

That's just another empty, broken promise, like building a wall, like making Mexico to pay for the wall. So whether his supporters hold him accountable for that, I don't know. But that's never going to happen.

And as you know so well, 90 percent of the funding for public education already comes at the state and local level. And so the idea of moving things to the states, that's already where the action is.

So he's saying things that don't really make sense. And unfortunately, really trying to politicize and weaponize education. And what I know is that parents will let you lie about a lot of things, but if you start to mess with their children, you better watch out.

And they've tried this in Florida and it has not gone well, and I hope they're smart enough to realize this is bad for kids, bad for the country, and ultimately not in the interest of the Republican Party.

TAPPER: The popularity of school choice has soared in recent years. Trump is advocating for more of that.

When it comes to school choice, whether its public school choice vouchers whatever, what do you think works and what do you think doesn't work?

DUNCAN: Well, what's so sad about what they're doing is for me, you need to start with what are our educational goals? And these should be nation building goals, these aren't left or right.

We should have a goal of raising high school graduation rates and reducing dropout rates. We should have a goal of helping the tens of millions of children who are too far behind, coming out of COVID catch up. We should have a goal to increase access to high quality early childhood education.

We should have a goal to lead the world in college completion rates and keep high wage, high skilled jobs in our communities and our states and our nation. They have no education goals, and so what they try and use is divisive issues that do nothing to improve young -- young children's ability to compete economically, to get to world class education they deserve and let's start with bipartisan goals. We can debate ways to achieve those goals but you have never heard him once say, we need to raise high school graduation rates or improve college completion rates. That's where we have to start.

TAPPER: All right. Well, you didn't really answer the question. The question is about school choice because some people think that having schools competing with each other makes them more -- that competition elevates all of the things that you're just talking about in terms of excellence, in terms of teacher quality in terms of success rates for students.

And I guess you don't agree with that. I thought maybe you were at least somewhat amenable to that when you were in Chicago. But if that is -- if that's --

DUNCAN: I think --

TAPPER: Go ahead.

DUNCAN: Let me -- let me let me answer that again. We have to be evidence based and so the evidence is where you have high performing schools and specifically high performing charter schools in larger urban environments, academic achievement does go up. Academic performance does go up.

When you have low performing charters, it does not do anything to help that. So the goal again is not choice. Jake. The goal is high performance and we need to be very, very specific about the conditions that lead to higher student achievement, more young people reading at grade level, more young people graduating.

TAPPER: Is there evidence that you consider credible that competition within a school district, whether its charter schools or public school choice? Let's just limit it to that since I believe you oppose private school choice. In other words, taking money out of the public school system to private schools.

But whether it is -- it's charters or competition in the public school system, do you think that there is there evidence that that helps raise standards and performance?

DUNCAN: Yeah. Again, just to be clear, for your viewers, charter schools are public schools. And so, this we're talking about public school choice and to repeat myself where you have high performing charter schools, for me, it's really not about competition. It's just trying to have more high quality schools more high quality seats in urban areas.

Charters obviously don't work in rural communities because there are not enough kids. It doesn't make any sense. But where you have a networks of high performing charters in urban districts -- yes, there is evidence that the student performance goes up.

I don't think its because of competition. You just have more high achieving, high performance seats serving the children in that -- in that urban environment, in that city.

TAPPER: Just in our last few seconds what's the one main piece of advice you can give to Linda McMahon, on being Secretary of Education, assuming she gets confirmed?

DUNCAN: Well, I just hope she goes in with good faith and that she's not there to dismantle it. I think with so many of Trump's secretary picks, he's actually trying to destroy trust in our democratic institutions. So some of these picks would be funny if it wasn't so scary.

And so I just -- can only hope and pray she goes in with good faith to help students learn, not dismantle the place, not reduce trust in public education and across government.

TAPPER: All right. Former Education Secretary Arne Duncan, thanks so much, appreciate it.

We're learning that Trump is considering another right wing TV personality to fill his new administration. Plus, the next Trump cabinet pick set to make the rounds on Capitol Hill tomorrow.

[16:55:02]

We're back in a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

TAPPER: Welcome to THE LEAD. I'm Jake Tapper.

This hour, five new lawsuits against Sean "Diddy" Combs.

Plus, an anonymous male celebrity is also filing a lawsuit against some of Combs's accusers.

And what sources tell CNN about the latest right wing TV personality, whom President-elect Trump is considering to serve in his administration.

And leading this hour, the House Ethics Committee wrapping for the day. No agreement reached on its report on Matt Gaetz and what to do with it, whether to release it. Gaetz, of course, Trump's pick for U.S. attorney general. The panel investigated allegations of sexual impropriety and statutory rape against Gaetz, allegations Gaetz denies.

And moments ago, the top Democrat on the ethics committee appears to be at odds with the Republican chairman. CNN anchor Kaitlan Collins is covering the Trump transition from West Palm Beach, Florida.

But let's start with CNN's Lauren Fox on Capitol Hill.

Lauren, the House ethics chair told reporters there was no agreement among the committee to release the report on Gaetz.