Return to Transcripts main page

The Lead with Jake Tapper

Congress Struggles to Compromise on Healthcare Plan; Trump Suggests He Will be Involved in Deal for WBD; Report Shows Past Trump Mortgages Similar to His Description of Fraud. Dems Win In Miami Mayoral Runoff, Georgia Legislature Seat; Washington Governor Signs Emergency Declaration Due To Flooding. Aired 6-7p ET

Aired December 10, 2025 - 18:00   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:00:00]

JAKE TAPPER, CNN ANCHOR: Welcome to The Lead. I'm Jake Tapper.

This hour, two healthcare votes are set to fail tomorrow as the deadline to save Americans from skyrocketing premiums ticks even closer. Is there any hope for some sort of bipartisan deal before the end of the year? I'm going to ask the top Senate Democrat, Chuck Schumer, in just moments.

Plus, last night, a Democrat pulled off a win in a Georgia district that Trump won by double digits. So, how did he do it? And what message should Democrats take away from this race as they head into the midterms, I'm going to ask Eric Gisler fresh off his election victory.

And dramatic video shows the effects of record-breaking rain in the northwestern United States. Evacuation alerts are now in effect because of the surging river levels. And moments ago, the governor of Washington signed an emergency declaration expecting things will get worse.

The Lead tonight, only 21 days left until those Obamacare subsidies expire, and health insurance premiums skyrocket for millions of Americans. As of now, Congress is failing to agree on any sort of bipartisan compromise, acting solely along party lines. Senate Democrats want a three-year extension for those Obamacare tax credits. Most Senate Republicans do not want any extension, period. Their current alternative of the Republicans is to put some money into eligible Americans' health savings accounts. Both proposals are expected to fail in the Senate tomorrow.

Now, that's just the Senate side. Right now, there does appear to be more division among House Republicans on how they want Speaker Johnson to move forward there. All they say, Congress is running out of time to address rising healthcare costs.

CNN's Manu Raju is on Capitol Hill with more on all of this. Manu? MANU RAJU, CNN ANCHOR AND CHIEF CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes. House Republicans in particular are trying to figure out their way forward at this key moment. The speaker of the House, Mike Johnson, under pressure, particularly from a number of members from swing districts that were central to winning the Republican majority in the last cycle and will be central in this coming cycle as well.

Some of them want an extension of those Affordable Care Act subsidies, some for two years and some for even for a year and the like. But they're facing resistance from not just the speaker but also some conservative members of the House Republican conferences, say that they do not want to provide any more money to prop up the Affordable Care Act, a law that they have derided and tried to repeal for years.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. MIKE JOHNSON (R-LA): We have spent many, many hours trying to find a way out of the conundrum that we're in with regard to those extensions. There's a lot of people who are very concerned about Obamacare and the fact that the subsidies were created by Democrats for COVID era limited use, and they want to be extended. We just can't get Republican votes on that for lots of reasons, not enough of them.

REP. ANNA PAULINA LUNA (R-FL): My district specifically, we're not big on Obamacare, right? So, like I'm voting -- I'm representing my district. But even then, so we understand that, you know, the health insurance cartel is pretty wild, it appears. So, we obviously have to fix it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

RAJU: Now, but tonight, Jake, a new challenge the speaker's position, a moderate Republican, Brian Fitzpatrick, who's one of three Republicans from a district that Kamala Harris won, began an effort to try to force a floor vote to extend those Affordable Care Act subsidies for two years with some changes along with it as well. In order to succeed, he would need all Democrats to sign on to this plan as well as a handful of Republicans.

It's unlikely to succeed, Jake, which just shows you the pressure of the speaker is under, particularly from those more moderate members who want action on this issue.

TAPPER: Manu, correct me if I'm wrong, I'm trying to understand this. Republicans are criticizing Democrats because they say that money's just going to pay insurance companies, so they want to put money into people's health savings accounts for people to use. Won't they just use it to send it to insurance companies too?

RAJU: Yes. Under the bill that's going to be considered in the United States Senate tomorrow, the Republican plan that has been offered by Senator Mike Crapo and Senator Bill Cassidy. Part of that plan would expand the use of those health savings accounts so people can provide -- can purchase those -- say, those plans, either bronze plans or catastrophic insurance plans that are not currently available to them now. They say they'd be able to have greater access to different plans as part of this overall proposal if it were to become law.

But certainly, Jake, that is the criticism coming from Democrats, as they have -- the President has said that he does not want this money going to the insurance companies, but Democrats say, well, ultimately, it would be.

[18:05:02]

Jake?

TAPPER: Yes. All right, Manu Raju on Capitol Hill, thanks so much.

That's also where we find Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, Democrat of New York, who joins us now. Senator, thanks so much for joining us, Leader Schumer, I should say.

SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER (D-NY): Good evening, Jake.

TAPPER: It appears that there is a bipartisan way forward. Theoretically, your Democratic colleague, Senator Peter Welch of Vermont, laid some ways out some ideas out today. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. PETER WELCH (D-VT): I think some Republicans have proposed putting a cap on the income. That's something we'd be open to or a very small co-pay at the bottom end. That's realistic. So, if we were talking about that and the Republicans could deliver votes, I think you'd get an outcome.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: Is that something you'd be willing to agree to?

SCHUMER: Well, the key line there is Peter Welch said if the Republicans can deliver votes, they can't. Nope. They are busy fighting with each other with a hundred different proposals, and none of their proposals extend the ACA credits by a day, let alone a month, a year, et cetera.

And so the only real way for the Republicans to avoid the calamity, the healthcare calamity that will occur on January 1st, is for 13 of them to vote for the bill we have on the floor. It's clean. It's a three-year extension. And it would prevent these dramatic increases of $500, $1,000 a month going to healthcare. The Republicans are adamant, John Thune got on the floor and say, we will not extend the ACA.

TAPPER: So, let me just play devil's advocate for a second, sir, if you'll permit me. What if, in addition to the bill that you're putting on, which is just a three-year extension of the Obamacare subsidies, what if you also put legislation that had some of those compromises that Republicans say they would find appealing, you know, a cap a means test on it, or an additional co-pay, maybe some other reforms to Obamacare, and you extended it for one year? Wouldn't that be worth trying? SCHUMER: No. The Republicans won't vote for it. The vast majority of Republicans in the Senate and in the House want no extension of ACA, not one year, not one month, not one day. Furthermore, they want to add to anything they do. They've said they're going to do this anti- abortion riders, which would even go further to take away a woman's right to choose.

They're all -- Jake, they're all fighting with each other. There are a hundred different proposals. None of them gather much Republican support. Occasionally, some of the more moderate Republicans throw out something because they're under such pressure. But their only answer, their only real answer to this is to support our bill.

TAPPER: What do you hear from the White House? Do you think President Trump should be involved in these talks?

SCHUMER: Well, President Trump, he doesn't get it. As we saw in his speech last night, he's for no ACA extension. He says, let's start over and do a new bill. That's not going to solve the problem. I don't know what new bill he'd do. He doesn't even have a foggiest idea of any specifics. But at the same time he wouldn't avoid the crisis.

And, you know, this is a guy who says that there is no -- that increasing costs is a myth, that the huge crisis people are paying for everything is not real. And he doesn't get it. President Trump is in a bubble. He doesn't have to shop for groceries. He doesn't have to pay electric bills. He doesn't have to pay healthcare. So, he says, you know, that this is a farce, this is a joke. It's amazing. I've never seen a president so far removed from the needs of the American people than he is.

TAPPER: A short time ago, the U.S. attorney general, Pam Bondi, released video of the United States seizing an oil tanker off the coast of Venezuela. What's your reaction to that?

SCHUMER: Well, look, I am really worried here because I don't -- you know, who knows how far these guys are going to go. I met yesterday with both Secretary Hegseth and Secretary Rubio, and I said, what's the bottom line? How far are you going to go? Americans are worried they're going to escalate, escalate, escalate, and get us involved in an endless war, which is nobody wants. And they couldn't delineate their plan as to how far to go. They couldn't delineate -- you see a different thing done every day. And Americans are worried.

We need real answers from the president to the American people. What's the plan here? What's the ultimate plan and where are the barriers?

TAPPER: Do you disagree with President Trump's ultimate goal of regime change in Venezuela?

SCHUMER: Look, the bottom line is President Trump throws out so many different things in so many different ways. You don't even know what the heck he's talking about. You know, obviously, if Maduro would just flee on his own, everyone would like that. But we don't know what the heck he's up to when he talks about that. So, it's very -- you cannot say, I endorse this, I endorse that, when Trump is all over the lot, not very specific and very worrisome at how far he might escalate.

[18:10:03]

TAPPER: There have been some bipartisan calls for Secretary of Defense Hegseth to release that full video of the follow-up strike on the alleged drug vote on September 2nd. Just a short time ago on CNN, Congressman Jake Auchincloss suggested that the secretary of state, Marco Rubio, told Republican lawmakers to walk back their public calls for the release of that video. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. JAKE AUCHINCLOSS (D-MA): I think Secretary of State Rubio talked the Republicans down in Congress is my understanding of what happened, which is a shame.

I think he spoke to the Gang of Eight. I think he spoke to senior defense and intelligence Republicans in Congress and Democrats. He, by far, has the most credibility in Congress on national security matters, and I think Secretary Rubio put his reputation on the line to tell them to walk back their public commentary.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: You were in that Gang of Eight meeting. You're a member of the Gang of Eight. Did Secretary Rubio suggest that people should stop calling for the release of the full video?

SCHUMER: I didn't hear him say that. But let me say this. I'm not walking anything back. I directly confronted face-to-face Secretary Hegseth. I said, every member of Congress should be able to see those videos, the unedited videos. I said the American people are entitled to see those unedited videos. You've already released videos that show you're looking good in certain places here and there, which he didn't look very good, in my opinion, so he should be releasing those videos and it is still bipartisan.

Roger Wicker, who's the chairman, Republican chairman, conservative Republican head of the Armed Services Committee, has joined with Senator Jack Reed, the ranking Democrat on the committee, to demand that these unedited videos be released. That's the right thing to do.

The question is this, Jake, what the hell is Hegseth hiding? Why is he so afraid to release these videos? What -- if he says he's done nothing wrong, he should say, America should see it.

TAPPER: Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, Democrat of New York, thank you so much, sir. I appreciate your time.

SCHUMER: Thank you very much, Jake.

TAPPER: That was the Democratic pitch.

Next, we're going to get a Republican response from a senator who led a hearing today on problems with the American healthcare system and ways to fix it. Does he see any room for compromise? Plus, the new proposal that may force tourists coming to the United States to turn over their social media history.

Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:15:00]

TAPPER: We continue with our Politics Lead and the debate over healthcare and the calls to extend the tax credits for people buying insurance through Obamacare, the Affordable Care Act. We just heard from the Senate Democratic leader, Chuck Schumer. We're joined now by Republican Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin.

First of all, Senator, I'm not sure if you heard from Senator Schumer, but I asked about the compromises that might be possible of one year extension of the Obamacare premiums with some of the things that Republicans have asked for, including means testing, reforms, a co- pay. He said there just -- Republicans would never sign off on any of that, and that Republicans are working on a hundred different proposals but none of them extend the Obamacare subsidies. Is that true?

SEN. RON JOHNSON (R-WI): Well, first of all, the Obamacare subsidies will continue. What we are talking about are the temporary COVID enhanced subsidies that Democrats voted for, that Democrats scheduled to expire at the end of this year. Republicans had nothing to do with that. This is all what Democrats did. We're not talking about anything that's going to impact people on employer-sponsored healthcare, Medicare, Medicaid, V.A. We're talking about the supposedly 24 million people on the exchanges. The vast majority of those will just revert to the original Obamacare subsidies.

If you don't like that, blame Obamacare. Blame Democrats. We're talking about 1.6 million Americans who got a subsidy above 4 percent of poverty line. I would be happy to work with Democrat colleagues to do something with them temporarily in exchange for doing real reforms that might actually restrain the growth in healthcare.

But if your premiums are going up, it's not because the enhanced subsidies are going away. It's because the faulty design of Obamacare driving them, they've caused premiums to skyrocket. But, again, we're talking about a very small percentage of American people. I would like to help them. They were lured into retirement. A lot of them are, you know, close enough, they're not quite in Medicare ages, but they mean -- they're facing premiums in excess of $30,000 because of Obamacare.

I would love to fix Obamacare, but we just simply have Democrats in denial. All they want to do is throw a couple hundred billion dollars to mask, to paint over the failure of Obamacare.

TAPPER: So, as you know better than I, the issue of health insurance premiums rising, skyrocketing really is far beyond just people that use the Obamacare premiums. It affects every American. My understanding about the main reason why that is happening is kind of like a vicious circle that premiums go up so healthy people quit, drop out and don't have health insurance. And that means that the people who are left are sicker and older people and then premiums continue going up because the pool isn't there to dilute the market, and then it just keeps going and going and going. What can be done about that?

R. JOHNSON: First of all, the same number of Americans that have healthcare through the various, you know, Medicare and Medicaid employer-sponsored plans, V.A., remains pretty stable, okay? So, what has happened with the implementation of Obamacare is we've seen a dramatic consolidation of the entire healthcare industry, the insurers, the, you know, providers, hospital associations.

So, we have far less competition. We don't have consumerism. We've pretty well-driven out the benefits of free market competition, which guarantees three things, lowest cost, best quality, best possible level customer -- best possible level of customer service. We don't have that in healthcare, and Obamacare has taken us in the wrong direction.

So, again, Obamacare is faulty design on the individual market, making those small percentage of Americans bear the full cost of covering people preexisting conditions. I held a hearing, main covered people with preexisting conditions perfectly before Obamacare destroyed their high risk pool. So, there's a way to fix this. Obamacare is not the way. Obamacare made the problem far worse.

TAPPER: There was a time when the United States government broke up AT&T as a monopoly.

[18:20:01]

R. JOHNSON: Right.

TAPPER: Because -- do you think that that should be done for some of these consolidated health organizations because their consolidation, as you say, has reduced competition and increased prices?

R. JOHNSON: Yes, I think we have to do that. Jake, there's not one incentive in our current system driving costs down, every incentive, because everybody's getting a cut. Let's say if you're a realtor, you'd rather get your 7 percent commission on a million dollar house as opposed to a hundred thousand dollars house. Same dynamics occurring in healthcare, so there's no incentive. And you add to that the consolidation of these industries, these basic monopolies, and then also they realize that consumers aren't participating.

We have to pay insurance, we have to pay our taxes, but we could care less because nobody knows what anything costs. The doctors don't, the nurses don't. The patients don't. Just the bean counters. So, it's a completely broken system. We need to bring free market competition consumerism back, which is really what the Republican's trying to do. We're trying to fund HSA accounts. We're trying to bring consumerism back so we have consumers worried about what a doctor visit costs, you know, what a procedure costs, have insurance for the high cost surgeries, that type of thing. That's what insurance is meant to be, not first dollar coverage. But we've shifted to this third party payer system. It's a disaster. We need to return to, again, patients paying more for things. You do that by funding HSA accounts and having a -- you know, just getting rid of the faulty design of Obamacare.

TAPPER: Republican Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, thanks so much, sir. I appreciate it.

R. JOHNSON: Have a Merry Christmas.

TAPPER: What President Trump said just hours ago about this network and its future and why his comments are so unprecedented.

Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:25:00]

TAPPER: In our Money Lead, in the midst of Netflix and Paramount sparring over the multi-billion dollar purchase of Warner Brothers Discovery, CNN's parent company, President Trump has been breaking with longstanding precedent on the role of a president when it comes to private commercial transactions and is making his position on the acquisition very clear, saying he's very focused on the fate of this news network and he will involve himself in the purchase.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: I will be probably involved, maybe involved in the decision. It depends. You have some good companies bidding on it. I think the people that have run CNN for the last long period of time are a disgrace.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: This week, Paramount launched a hostile bid for all of Warner Brothers Discovery after WBD agreed to a deal with Netflix to sell just its T.V. and movie studio along with the HBO MAX streaming service to Netflix last week. In that scenario, CNN and other WBD cable channels, we would be spun off into a new company called Discovery Global. President Trump is making it very clear he does not want that to happen. He wants this channel sold under new management, he says, so that CNN's leadership can be fired, so that CNN's editorial content can be changed. He called the news and analysis that we provide here poison.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: So, I think any deal should -- it should be guaranteed and certain that CNN is part of it or sold separately. But I don't think the people that are running that company right now and running CNN, which is a very dishonest group of people, I don't think that should be allowed to continue. I think CNN should be sold along with everything else.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: Let's discuss with the founder of the Status Newsletter, which covers the media, Oliver Darcy. We should note that Oliver used to work at CNN before he became a big deal striking out on his own.

Oliver, these comments, extremely unprecedented, perhaps not surprising coming from President Trump given his long dislike for any journalism that holds him accountable. But what did you make of it? He made it so clear that the fate of CNN is what's driving his view and his potential involvement of this potential transaction when it comes to who buys Warner Brothers Discovery.

OLIVER DARCY, FOUNDER, STATUS: Yes. Jake, I think we should be very clear what viewers just saw does not represent who we are as Americans. We celebrate the free press in this country. We celebrate the fact that reporters can ask pesky questions of those in power.

What people saw right now in the Oval Office was a thin-skinned aspiring autocrat who wants to seize control of the media, and he wants an obedient press. And I think it's important to point out that that has -- you know, Republicans and Democrats have occupied that office for a long time, but we've generally agreed that the press should be free. It's in the First Amendment, and that is not the president that we have today.

And I think we should also point out that he's able, or he thinks he's able to get away with this kind of conduct because big tech moguls, media moguls have been willing to play ball with him over the last year. They've basically bowed before him. They've bent the knee repeatedly, whether it's Mark Zuckerberg at Facebook, whether it's Sherry Redstone who settled that 60 Minutes lawsuit. Her own company said it was meritless. They've played ball with him.

And so from his perspective, he probably thinks why not? I'll just go for more and more because, as you know, his appetite is insatiable.

TAPPER: So, we should also note that the buyer that he seems to be in favor of here, Paramount, their hostile bid for WBD includes funding from the public investment fund of Saudi Arabia, as well as an investment from President Trump's son-in-law, Jared Kushner, and just in case people forgot, this is the same Saudi Arabia and the same leader, MBS, who ordered the murder and butchering of a journalist, Jamal Kashogghi, that they didn't like according to the CIA.

[18:30:00]

Is it appropriate at all for foreign governments, especially ones so hostile to a free press, to even partially own an American news network?

DARCY: You would think it would not be. You would think that the country that orders the butchering of an American journalist only a few years ago should probably not be a part owner of CNN. And those other countries don't have great records when it comes obviously to press freedom. David Ellison, the boss over at Paramount, though, apparently has no problem with this. You know, I asked his spokesperson yesterday, you know, about this, is there any exchange, right? They're not going to have board seats, but do these countries want something? I'm assuming they're not giving $24 billion collectively out of the goodness of their hearts, and I did not hear a response back.

And I think it's also notable that David Ellison this week said on CNBC that he has had conversations about CNN with Donald Trump, but Paramount will not say what those conversations are about. They're just trying to ignore the whole thing.

You know, for someone who wants to own a news network, and he is making a very aggressive bid to own this company that we're speaking on right now, the airwaves, he's not really behaving like a good steward of a news organization. He's actually behaving like someone a news organization would ask tough questions to and probe for corrupt behavior.

TAPPER: Yes, I mean, my personal experience, I don't think I've ever covered a president that particularly liked me or my coverage. I've just never seen anything like this.

Oliver Darcy, thanks so much, as always.

DARCY: Thank you, Jake.

TAPPER: The White House responding today about a report into President Trump's mortgage documents from the past. One of the reporters from that story joins me live, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:35:00]

TAPPER: In our Money Lead today, the Justice Department has launched four mortgage fraud probes against President Trump's perceived political enemies, Congressman Eric Swalwell, a Democratic of California Senator Adam Schiff, a Democratic California, New York Attorney General Letitia James and Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook. They're all in varying stages of fending off charges, those four, amid allegations that they've claimed multiple primary residences on their mortgages. You can only claim one primary residence.

But now a ProPublica investigation into President Trump's own mortgage documents history finds that he wants did the same. Donald Trump as a private citizen signed a mortgage for a Palm Beach home in 1993, quote, pledging that it would be his principal residence, ProPublica reports. Weeks later, he got another mortgage on a separate house in Palm Beach, quote, attesting that it too would be his principal residence. In reality, Trump, then a New Yorker, does not appear to have ever lived in either home, unquote.

Justin Elliot's, one of the reporters that is bringing us this ProPublica story. He joins me now.

So, Justin, in the report you cite a quote from the time Trump purchased these homes from his realtor who told the Miami Herald, quote, his plans for the homes are to dress them up to the nines and lease them out annually, unquote. What documents did you find that show that that he used these homes as rental properties and not as a primary residence?

JUSTIN ELLIOT, REPORTER, PROPUBLICA: Yes, well, you know, we have his mortgage documents from the Palm Beach clerk, but we also found rental listings from the local newspapers in the 90s renting these properties. I actually called up one of the real estate agents on their listings from back then. She's still active in the area, and she told me, confirmed these were rented from day one. Trump never lived in them.

To be clear, I think this is really a story not about Donald Trump committing mortgage fraud. It's a story about Donald Trump committing what Donald Trump describes as mortgage fraud. Because the experts told us that actually determining criminal fraud is a lot more complicated than just looking at these documents. But Trump absolutely did the same thing that he has that Lisa Cook did, for example. And that is what Trump has described as evidence of criminal mortgage fraud.

TAPPER: So, the White House denies that these mortgages qualify as fraud. A spokesman told ProPublica, quote, President Trump's two mortgages you are referencing are from the same lender. There was no defraudation. It is illogical to believe that the same lender would agree to defraud itself, unquote. And the Trump Organization told CNN something similar this week, adding that each mortgage expressly states that the lender may waive any occupancy requirement, unquote.

Are there any major differences between this example, these properties in the 90s that belonged to Donald Trump and the allegations that are being brought against Schiff, James, Swalwell and Cook that could make their cases criminal while not -- while exempting President Trump from the same charges? Let's put it that way.

ELLIOT: Yes, it's a good question. I mean, so each of these cases has their own unique fact pattern. I mean, with Tish James, I think there's a vacation home element to it. But the Trump example that we dug up is really most parallel to what Lisa Cook, the Fed governor did. Trump himself, when he fired Lisa Cook, you know, that's now being contested, I believe, up to the Supreme Court, but he wrote a letter that he posted on Truth Social that we quoted in the story in which he says, look, you, Lisa Cook, signed one of these principal residence mortgages, and then a few weeks later signed a second one. And it's impossible that you could have lived in both of these homes and therefore you're fired.

That is precisely what Donald Trump did in Palm Beach in the mid-1990s with these two properties that are next to Mar-a-Lago. And as you noted, the White House is not contesting that he signed both of these mortgage documents that we posted. They're just pointing out that, and correctly, that this was the same lender.

What experts told us is that, indeed, often there is other paperwork that the lender might have that would cast the situation in different light that's not public, but the Trump administration has not, you know, given the benefit of that doubt to the people that they've thrown the book at, fired, indicted.

And so, again, our point here is not necessarily that Trump definitely committed fraud. I think it's likely that he didn't, but he absolutely committed fraud by his own definition of it.

TAPPER: And using that definition, your team found in September that three of Trump's cabinet officials have done similar things with their mortgages, Labor Secretary Lori Chavez DeRemer, Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin.

[18:40:04]

They all deny wrongdoing as well.

How common a practice is it for people to claim multiple primary residences to get a better mortgage deal?

ELLIOT: You know, we've been told it's relatively common and sometimes, frankly, there's innocent explanations for it, like if you buy one house, get a mortgage, and then maybe a few years later you get a job at a different city, get a second mortgage. And if you keep the original one, now suddenly there's two pieces of paper out there that say you have a principal residence in two different properties. So, lawyers told us, you know, clearly, that is not fraud and this is quite rarely prosecuted.

The examples that we've been able to find of actual successful mortgage prosecutions involve like really quite elaborate fraud schemes, where there's clear evidence that the borrower is trying to go out of their way to deceive the lender to get a better rate. We haven't seen that in the case of President Trump, his cabinet members, or as far as I've seen any of the Democrats that they've gone after for mortgage fraud. It's possible that there is real fraud going on here in any of these cases.

But what Trump and his Federal Housing Chief Bill Pulte have been doing is just saying that if you have two of these mortgages out there in the world that say principal residence on them, then you are committing mortgage fraud, and that's exactly what Trump did.

TAPPER: Interesting. Justin Elliott of ProPublica, thanks so much for talking to us. I appreciate it.

Last night, a Democrat in Georgia flipped a seat in a district that President Trump won by double digits last year. Eric Gisler is going to join me live next to explain how he did it and what he thinks Democrats could learn from his victory, if anything.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:45:25]

JAKE TAPPER, CNN HOST: Our politics lead, two more instances of Democrats flipping elected offices long held by Republicans yesterday.

In Miami, Florida, Eileen Higgins won the runoff for mayor, defeating a candidate who had been endorsed by Donald Trump. Even though the race for Miami mayor is officially nonpartisan. Higgins, a former county commissioner, is a Democrat, and her victory ends a nearly 30- year Republican hold on the Miami mayor's office.

In a Georgia special election yesterday, my next guest narrowly won a seat in the state legislature, a seat that Republicans have held since 2019, in a district that President Trump won by double digits last year.

Democrat Eric Gisler joins us now.

Congratulations, Eric.

So, you ran for the same seat last year. You got 39 percent of the vote then. Why did you win this time?

ERIC GISLER (D), GEORGIA STATE HOUSE MEMBER-ELECT: Well, I think we live in a different world now than last year. Last year, we were all hopeful that maybe we wouldn't have a convicted felon in the White House. But we do. And we see what he's doing.

And I think in this district, a lot of people who kind of held their nose and voted for him last year are realizing that they're not getting what they thought they were voting for, and they're a little more open to a different message now.

TAPPER: What issues did you highlight during your campaign? What was your message?

GISLER: Yeah, so number one was affordability. Everybody around here has seen prices increase when it comes to housing, energy, food, healthcare, everything. Right. And it's something that the party in power in Atlanta doesn't really seem to be that concerned with.

Number two is I framed it as healthcare access. And I frame it that way because, number one, there's insurance coverage. There are about 1.2 million Georgians right now that do not have any kind of health care, health insurance coverage. And with ACA subsidies expiring, that's going to shoot up to about two million come January, because about 800,000 people are going to be priced right out of the market. So that's one issue with healthcare.

The other is here in Georgia, we never expanded Medicaid. So, in the last 15 years, we've had a dozen rural hospitals close their doors. And with the big billionaire bill they passed over the summer, we're looking at probably another four closing their doors pretty soon.

So, there are a lot, a lot of places here in the state of Georgia, especially in rural, rural areas where you might have the best health coverage possible, but you can't access a doctor.

TAPPER: Your win continues a trend of Democratic victories in elections this year, and Democratic over performances for sure, even in seats that they lost, they still did better than expected. What can other Democrats learn from your experience, do you think? Because obviously affordability was not an issue that helped Democrats in 2020 for. A lot of people really rejected the Biden-Harris team and President Trump was able to say that he was going to bring prices down.

GISLER: Yeah, he was able to say that. And I think a lot of people voted for him, despite his other flaws because of that. But what they've received instead is higher prices because of chaotic tariff policy. Weve had over a million layoffs. From what I've seen recently. And then just flat out attacks on constitutional rights, right?

So, a lot of people who, again, I think, held their nose and voted for him last year are not getting what they thought they were voting for. And so, they're open to another message. For me, that really means -- I prefer not to frame things in left, right, you know, red, blue, whatever.

Increasingly, I think people are seeing with their eyes and ears what's really happening. And they're going to -- the messages that are going to resonate are the ones that are based on objective fact, sound reason, and -- I mean, quite frankly, math.

TAPPER: Eric Gisler, thank you so much. And congratulations.

My panel joins me now.

So, another Democratic overperformance and, you and I have been around for a long time. You not so much, but you and I have been around for a long time. It does feel like there's something in the air building against Republicans, don't you think?

CHARLIE DENT (R), FORMER U.S. REPRESENTATIVE, PENNSYLVANIA: Of course, Democrats are angry, energized and enthused. We're seeing Democrats. We saw in November this year, they turned out at midterm levels in an off year election. They're just turning out at a much greater rate because they're so angry.

And, you know, we used to say all politics is local. Well, that's not true anymore. Now all local politics is national. And you can just see here that with what's happening in Georgia.

[18:50:01]

And in Miami. I mean, it's not that the Miami Democrat won. She won by 20 points. And we saw that in a lot of other competitive areas of the country where Democrats weren't just winning, they were winning by big double-digit margins in Bucks County, Pennsylvania. We saw that. In Lehigh and Northampton counties in competitive races and competitive areas, Democrats are winning by 20 points.

TAPPER: Yeah. Just to give an example of because you and I are such Philly nerds. Bucks County for people who don't know, that's a county that Trump won last year and the Trump supporting sheriff in Bucks County not only lost, he was soundly defeated, soundly.

DENT: And the incumbent Republican D.A. and four open judicial races all went to the Democrats by big margins.

TAPPER: Yeah.

ASHLEY ALLISON, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: But also where, this race just took place in Georgia, it was an area that Trump won by 10, 12 points last year.

TAPPER: Yeah.

ALLISON: That's a massive swing in just a month or a year, right, from Trump winning in the district.

DENT: Huge.

ALLISON: Huge. And should be an area of concern for Republicans. But also in Miami, like when Mamdani won in New York, people were like, of course.

TAPPER: It's New York.

ALLISON: It's New York.

TAPPER: Right.

ALLISON: But Miami is not New York. And in fact, Miami is in Florida, where some would call Trump country, right?

And the mayor broke a 30-year streak. That is something when something like that happens, something is in the water.

TAPPER: So, the Georgia Republican insurance commissioner, he summed up the race in the election, saying, quote, our donors aren't motivated and our voters aren't either. So I'm sure that there are Democrats out there confident that they're going to figure out a way to that your party is going to figure out a way to defeat from the jaws of victory. But how can you capitalize? How can your party capitalize on what is going out there, and what are you worried about also?

ALLISON: Well, worry is -- I think it's a little too early to start worrying. We cannot get comfortable. We cannot make assumptions like Republicans made in the last midterms that there was going to be this red wave, and then it didn't manifest the way they thought.

We should not assume that voters are going to just show up because the Republicans are in power is the first thing. We have to earn their votes. Affordability is really important.

I will say, when we look at 2024, it wasn't just that the voters didn't buy the Biden/Harris and then the Harris/Walz agenda for the economy. It was that the campaign wasn't really acknowledging voters suffering. And when you look at Donald Trump right now, he's not acknowledging that voters feel like prices are too high and wages are too low. And if Democrats can seize on that, they'll have a good 2026.

TAPPER: The Trump administration just announced plans to revise its requirements for foreigners to come into the United States. Even if you're just a tourist, a key part of it is everyone's going to have to provide their social media histories from the last five years to just enter the United States.

Charlie, what's your take on this? Is this going to -- I mean, I can understand in some ways how it could be a good thing, but just for a tourism visa.

DENT: Who's going to look at all these social media posts? I mean, it doesn't -- this is -- they're trying to obviously deny admission into this country. I suspect most people are just going to scrub their social media accounts for the last five years, so they don't have to deal with this. But I don't know how we would enforce this. Prior to a visit. So it's -- I really can't explain the thinking behind it. It doesn't seem like anybody's going to be able to implement this policy.

TAPPER: Speaking of social media, I mean, Australia has taken a major step by banning social media for people under 16 years old. It's one of the most sweeping efforts ever we've ever seen like that. And we saw Rahm Emanuel who is a possible 2028 presidential candidate, Democrat. The first one out of the gate. And I don't even think if anybody else has followed him saying that the United States should look for a similar legislation.

What do you think? Is that -- is that politically a good message?

ALLISON: Well, I think parents are worried about their kids, where children are being infiltrated by social media. And so, if you don't ban it, there definitely needs to be some regulations. When you look at drug use, when you look at suicide, self-esteem issues and just the amount of like what's happening to our brain when were just swiping, swiping, swiping and not having actual conversations with human beings.

So politically, I think if you try and ban social media, the reality is that people that are 16 and under can't vote, but their parents can. And so, they might like it. Actually.

TAPPER: Last word?

DENT: I think Rahm's on to something and the Australians have put forward a proposal that we ought to take -- take very seriously. I think it would not do a lot of our children under the age of 16 any harm if they spent less time on these devices and other computers.

TAPPER: As we do, as --

ALLISON: Maybe -- maybe we should have some bans for adults, too.

TAPPER: Adults, too, exactly. Thanks to both of you. Appreciate it.

The governor of Washington state has just signed an emergency declaration due to the flooding in his state. Water levels could still rise over the next few days. That story is next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:58:58] TAPPER: Our last lead start in our national lead where new video shows the extent of the flooding currently happening in Washington state right now. Governor Bob Ferguson has activated the Washington National Guard. He says 300 service members will be ready to respond to requests for help by tomorrow. The governor is also asking for expedited help from the federal government. Water levels are expected to keep rising over the next few days.

In our world lead, new information released about the Louvre heist revealed that the thieves escaped with only 30 seconds to spare. The parliamentary probe found that only one of two cameras covering the break in point was working, and the security staff didn't even have enough screens to monitor the footage. Investigators also told senators that when the alarm finally sounded, police were initially dispatched to the wrong location.

In our national lead, President Obama surprised a group of schoolchildren in Chicago yesterday when he crashed their holiday party. The former president is in Chicago this week reviewing progress on his presidential library, but took a break to hand out gifts and read to the students, wearing, of course, a red Santa cap.

You can follow me on Facebook, Instagram, Threads, Bluesky, X and on TikTok @jaketapper. You can follow the show on Instagram at CNN. If you ever miss an episode of the lead, you can watch the show on the CNN app.

"ERIN BURNETT OUTFRONT" starts right now. Take it away, Erin.