Return to Transcripts main page

The Lead with Jake Tapper

White House Says, Democrats Cherry-Picked Photos, Created False Narratives; Deliberations In Brian Walshe Case To Resume Monday; Trump Admin Blocked From Detaining Kilmar Abrego Garcia Again; Looking Ahead To Trump's Impact On The Midterms; New Film On Psychiatrist Who Analyzed Nazi War Criminals. Aired 6-7p ET

Aired December 12, 2025 - 18:00   ET

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

[18:00:00]

PHIL MATTINGLY, CNN HOST: Welcome to The Lead. I'm Phil Mattingly in for Jake Tapper.

This hour, the Epstein Photos, the White House says House Oversight Committee Democrats cherry-picked which images to release, a Democrat on that committee will be here to respond.

Plus, the new lawsuit aiming to block the president's demolition on the White House Ballroom.

And day one of deliberations underway in the trial for Brian Walshe, the Massachusetts man accused of killing his wife. The judge responded to a question from the jury that could give insight in what's being discussed behind closed doors.

And one of the stars of Mad Men, Actor John Slattery will be here on The Lead. Why he thinks his new movie Nuremberg is so relevant to today.

The Lead tonight, the White House reacting to new photos from Jeffrey Epstein's estate, pictures released by House Democrats on the Oversight Committee, well, those pictures show President Trump, many other high profile figures, such as Trump ally Steve Bannon, former President Bill Clinton, Microsoft co-Founder Bill Gates, Movie Director Woody Allen, and several others, none of the photos showing Trump or these other individuals depict any sexual misconduct, nor are believed to depict underage girls.

We start things off with CNN's Kristen Holmes at the White House, Kristen the White House can't appreciate the kind of weekly, biweekly drip, drip, drip of this. What are you hearing from inside?

KRISTEN HOLMES, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Yes. I mean, there's nothing that they want to talk about less than Jeffrey Epstein. President Trump has made that clear. The White House has made that clear all the way up until terms they didn't want to get out in front of stories because they didn't want to reintroduce Jeffrey Epstein into the news cycle until it had already been done so. So, yet they do find this incredibly annoying, particularly as we hear from the committee saying that they already released photos, but they're going to continue to release more photos.

Now, as you noted, they did respond today. This is what they said. They said, once again, House Democrats are selectively releasing cherry-picked photos with random redactions to try and create a false narrative.

A couple of things that I do want to note here, one, everyone that you mentioned that was released that had a photo with Jeffrey Epstein is somebody that we had already known had an association with Jeffrey Epstein. So, that's something to keep in mind. The other part of this is that there were only a handful of photos released from 95,000, which is why the White House is saying that the committee cherry- picked based on the fact that we only saw roughly, I think, 22 photos. The first was 19, and then they just released a few more, from that 95,000. Now, we are being told that they're going to release more than that.

But as you noted, this has become a drip, drip, drip of information. We do believe that the House Oversight Committee is still getting more information. And just a reminder, the Department of Justice has until next week, December 19th, to release the files. There's no word yet on whether or not they are going to. I am told by the White House repeatedly that the Justice Department was going to comply, but we still don't have any information beyond that. And we've asked if there's going to be any potential for an early release. Still no answers on that.

MATTINGLY: From the North Lawn, thanks so much.

Well, my next guest is a Democrat on the House Oversight Committee, Congressman Maxwell Frost of Florida. Congressman, I really appreciate you taking the time.

Just to start with the White House response to the committee's release of photos saying that they were cherry-picked photos to create a false narrative, none of the photos suggest any wrongdoing. So, what was the kind of sense of why to put them out right now? Why do you think this contributes to the public's understanding on this issue?

REP. MAXWELL FROST (D-FL): Because House Democrats on the oversight Committee have made one commitment to the American people, and it's been that we're going to be very transparent in this investigation. Donald Trump has said he is going to be transparent. He lied and has done everything he can to stop the Epstein files from being released. Republicans in the House Oversight Committee have been kind of transparent about things, but what we're saying is, as we receive information, we're going to go through it. Yes, we're going to -- and it takes time to go through over 90,000 pages of documents and pictures and et cetera. Our team goes through them.

Yes, we add some redactions. Why? The redaction is there to protect the identity of survivors, and if people who have been sexually abused, human trafficked, and raped. And until we know for sure that they don't want their face on the public, we redact them because this entire investigation is about justice for those very survivors.

[18:05:00]

So, yes, we had redactions the faces to protect their identities, not redacting the faces of rich, powerful men that, in many cases, like Donald Trump, for years and years, downplayed his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. Why do we release the photos? To show the American public what we've received.

The other thing that's important to know is when he talks about it being cherry-picked again, it takes time to go through 90,000 photos. We're putting out photos that we think the public would want to see. And also on our Twitter for Oversight Democrats, we released a drop box where we're putting even more photos in them as well.

MATTINGLY: The estate has seemed to be a very rich trove of information for the committee, Republicans and Democrats. And to your point, sometimes there's probably a level of bipartisanship at moments on the committee on this issue that we don't see necessarily as much on Capitol Hill these days. You mentioned how much is still being gone or staff is still going through right now, members are still going through right now. What are the expectations about how much more is coming, what might be in the rest of these documents?

FROST: Yes. We're still in the middle of receiving things from the estate. And as you may or may not know, we also issued subpoenas to a few different banking institutions, which we're receiving documents from as well.

And so everybody watching understands everything we've received this year of substance, we're talking about the text messages between Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein, where they talked about the fact that Donald Trump knew about what Jeffrey Epstein was doing, to the birthday card that Donald Trump wrote to Jeffrey Epstein, to the pictures we just got today.

All this information has come from the estate because House Democrats, in a subcommittee, forced a subpoena vote that we got some Republicans to join us on, and we were able to issue that subpoena to be estate. That's why we have this information, because we push for it. None of this has come from what we know as the Epstein files from the DOJ, right, from the Trump administration.

Now, people should know that, of course, the full House voted on releasing the Epstein files. Donald Trump has until Friday of next week to release them, and we hope he'll comply with the law and release them. But let's not forget that four months ago in a subcommittee, we already sent a subpoena to the White House for all the Epstein files and they've slow rolled, the whole thing, and they really just stopped talking with the committee about it.

So, they've already violated the subpoena on one end. We're hoping that now that the full House has made it known that we want it, that by Friday we'll get the Epstein files from Donald Trump. But people should rest assured that whether or not the Trump administration wants to play games on these files so we can get justice for the victims and our nation, we're still going to fight to get as much information as we can from everywhere, whether it's the estate or the White House. MATTINGLY: I want to ask you, the president right now is talking to reporters in the Oval Office and he was asked about the photos. He said, there are no -- I'm paraphrasing. Oh, actually we have it. I want you to listen to it. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REPORTER: Also Bill Clinton, Steve Bannon, what were your reaction to those new photos that were released here?

DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: Well, I haven't seen it, but, I mean, everybody knew this man. He was all over Palm Beach, his photos with everybody. I mean, almost there are hundreds and hundreds of people that are photos with him. So, that's no big deal. I know nothing about.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MATTINGLY: So, the president is saying he hasn't seen them, they're no big deal, that people were taking -- lots of people were taking pictures because he was around everywhere down there in that area of Florida. What's your response to that?

FROST: This is, again, Donald Trump trying to cover things up and try to downplay his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. Like I just said, he's been trying to do this for a long time, for years and years and years. He's wanted the entire country to believe that he met Jeffrey Epstein a few times hanging around with some friends, and they didn't have a deep friendship. What these photos show us, what the texts showed us a few months ago and before that, what the birthday card showed us that he wrote to Jeffrey Epstein is they were more than just casual acquaintances. They were friends. And Jeffrey Epstein himself, in the emails we got from his own estate, say that Donald Trump knew a lot more than what he's admitting to.

Again, we're not here to point fingers without evidence, but we are here to say the White House is slowing the roll on this entire investigation. We believe that they are attempting to cover things up and not let the truth go out. And why is the answer that remains to be -- or is the question that remains to be answered and why we're going to continue to push for the files.

So, everybody should know, once again, everything we've gotten that has put a light on this situation that it's not just about Donald Trump, it's about powerful, rich men in this country that abuse and took advantage of not women, of girls and teenagers. We want to make sure there's justice there. And wherever it leads to, whether they're Republican, a Democrat, whoever, we're going to continue to fight for that transparency as House Democrats on the Oversight Committee.

[18:10:02]

MATTINGLY: Yes. I want to ask you about a policy issue as well, because something else that was released today. The House Republican healthcare package that they are saying they're going to vote on next week. It's a legislative bill, at least based on my cursory read of it while I was on T.V., does not extend the enhanced Obamacare subsidies. Instead, the plan aims to expand association health plans, fund a cost sharing reduction program.

For some Obamacare enrollee increased transparency on pharmacy benefit managers to help lower drug costs. Where this stands right now, 19 days before the deadline, what's the pathway to getting these subsidies extended, addressed, finding some type of agreement?

FROST: We need Republicans to join us in making sure that we can pass the bill. And, actually, our leader, Hakeem Jeffries, has a discharge petition that every Democrat has signed. We only need a handful of Republicans to sign it and it will force a vote so we can extend these tax subsidies.

I haven't read the entire bill that you're talking about, but yesterday, they released some general points on what it'll be. It didn't look like a healthcare plan to me. It looked like a hodgepodge of different ideas relating to healthcare. The fact of the matter is, in 19 days, 25 million Americans will have their healthcare go up anywhere from 50 to 300 percent.

And I'm in Florida. This is the biggest Affordable Care Act state in the nation. I have 189,000 people in my district alone who are going to have their healthcare go up by insane amounts. And what's going to happen is some people are going to pay those insane amounts and have no money to feed their family or pay their rent. And a lot of people are just going to not have healthcare and they're not going to go to the doctor and they're going to wait until they're dying and go to the hospital, like many do in this country.

And I think it's despicable that in the richest country on Earth, not everyone has healthcare and we can't even pass a bill to make sure we extend these subsidies for the 25 million Americans who need them right now.

I recognize that we have a broken healthcare system and we need to do something about it. But right in front of us in 19 days, these tax subsidies will expire and 25 million working people in this country are going to pay a hell of a lot more for healthcare. So, we need Republicans to join us.

The problem that Mike Johnson has is he himself, and many Republicans in Congress, do not want to extend them. They don't believe they should be extended. They are perfectly fine with working people paying a lot more for their healthcare so they can give a tax break to billionaires. It's the same thing we should be used to, the rich getting richer and the poor getting poor.

However, there are still some Republicans I know that want to have this extended. So, we hope they'll join us to do it because we're running out of time.

MATTINGLY: Yes, we'll be watching those discharge petitions. There's 218 for an extension. We'll see how it comes together next week.

Democratic Congressman Maxwell Frost of Florida, I really appreciate your time. Thanks so much.

FROST: Thank you.

MATTINGLY: Well, next on The Lead, one of the Indiana state senators who pushed back on President Trump resisted his calls to change the state's Congressional map, what Indiana's move could mean for the overall fight in 2026, that's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:15:00]

MATTINGLY: In our Law and Justice Lead, deliberations are underway in the trial of Brian Walshe, the Massachusetts man accused of killing his wife in 2023. Walshe is charged with first-degree murder and faces a potential life sentence -- or potential sentence in of life in prison without the possibility of parole. He has already pled guilty to misleading police and mishandling remains.

CNN's Jean Casarez has been following every twist and turn of this trial. Jean, what were some of the arguments made in the closing statements?

JEAN CASAREZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, the defense is trying to show that there was no reason at all for Brian Walshe to murder his wife. He said that the couple had stresses because he had been convicted of federal art fraud, so he couldn't join his wife in Washington, D.C. He had to stay in Massachusetts. He was the primary caregiver for the children day in and day out, she would visit on weekends, that he didn't know at all about her extramarital affairs.

So, that couldn't be a motive for murder. He didn't want the insurance policy proceeds because they were already talking about investment properties, more money for the family. And the defense was saying there's just not a reason here that he wanted to kill his wife. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LARRY TIPTON, DEFENSE ATTORNEY FOR BRIAN WALSHE: And the evidence suggests there was no motive at all. And without a motive, without a reason, a reason that is based on facts and circumstances, logic and understanding, without that, you have a sudden an unexpected event that results in confusion and panic and fear.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CASAREZ: And the defense is saying this was sudden death in her bed and he found her and he panicked. But the prosecution is saying all of the things that he did in the aftermath after she was deceased, they say, by homicide, all the Google searches, dumping her remains, dismembering her, on and on, going to stores, buying the cleaning supplies, that was all because of consciousness of guilt. He knew he had done something wrong and he had to cover it up.

Listen to the prosecution. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ANNE YAS, PROSECUTOR: The defendant did not want anyone to find Ana's body and to know how she died. So, the defendant bought cutting tools at Lowe's and Home Depot and he cut up Ana's body, the woman that he claimed to love, and he threw her into dumpsters.

The defendant intended to kill Ana Walshe.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CASAREZ: The jury did not reach a verdict today. They will be coming back Monday morning. And, Phil, there is a lesser included here besides premeditated first-degree murder, second-degree murder they can consider.

MATTINGLY: Jean Casarez, we will certainly be watching. Thanks so much. And to Jean's point, there's so much attention on this case. Hear much more tomorrow.

[18:20:00]

CNN Anchor Laura Coates is working on a special program for the weekend, the Brian Walshe Trial, that's tomorrow night at 8:00 Eastern right here on CNN.

Well, up ahead, the fight for 2026 and what could be a new pressure campaign on Indiana Republicans after resisting those redistricting calls from President Trump and his team.

Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MATTINGLY: In our National Lead, a federal judge is temporarily blocking the Trump administration from detaining Kilmar Abrego Garcia again. It's the latest setback in the U.S. government's effort to deport Abrego Garcia for a second time.

Now, Abrego Garcia is an undocumented immigrant brought back to the U.S. earlier this year after being wrongfully deported to El Salvador.

CNN's Priscilla Alvarez is here. And so, Priscilla, you've been following a very rollercoaster-like story here pretty much since the beginning of the administration. Is he free?

[18:25:00]

Is that going to sustain over time? What happens next?

PRISCILLA ALVAREZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: He's free for now insofar that he is at home in Maryland and not at a detention facility in Pennsylvania. The reason for that is because yesterday a federal judge had ordered his immediate release in part because they found, or the federal judge found that he was unlawfully detained because there was no imminent removal. That's something that judges can do. And so today, Abrego Garcia went to his check-in with Immigration and Customs Enforcement. He will be under supervision, again, in Maryland. He can't leave the state and there are limited circumstances for him to leave the home. But his attorney similarly acknowledged that this has been a rollercoaster and what comes next is still very much up and there. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SIMON SANDOVAL MOSHENBERG, ATTORNEY FOR KILMAR ABREGO GARCIA: I wish I could say that this is the end of the story, but I think we've all been here long enough to know that, unfortunately, the government is not going to leave well enough alone.

So, they're going to keep going and we're going to keep going. We're going to keep fighting.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ALVAREZ: And the fight is certainly ongoing because, again, the federal judge had blocked him being from being detained again on a temporary basis. The administration for his part maintains they're going to fight this tooth and nail in court, and they also say that they are still set on sending him to Liberia, a country by which he has no connections to, and it's part of this fraught legal battle that's been happening in terms of not only just deporting him, but where he's deported to.

MATTINGLY: And it's been such an intense focus on this one individual. But there's also kind of the macro effort that is still very much underway, including I think today, another announcement about protections being taken away from a specific group of individuals. What happened.

AVLAREZ: Well, what we're calling -- this is called temporary protected status. It's a form of humanitarian relief for people in the United States. Essentially, the government decides that it is to -- the hardship is extreme for them to go home, so they give them protections to live and work here. Now, what the administration did today is strip nationals from Ethiopia from this designation.

This is in line with what they have been doing, however. They've done this with Venezuela. They've done this with Syria. They've done this with Haiti. The Republican criticism here has been that temporary protected status is no longer temporary. It gets extended so many times that it almost becomes permanent. And that has been why they have fought for repealing all of these designations.

But to do so, the administration has to find that the conditions back at home are okay. And in this case, they said that Ethiopia no longer poses a serious threat to the personal safety of Ethiopian nationals. So, that's how they are reasoning this. But, of course, this is being challenged in court because advocates and attorneys say that's not the case. These people can't be returned. They're -- in often cases, they are people who have set up a life here. It is hard though, I will say, to whittle down who exactly this will affect. Because when someone has temporary protected status, they can also apply for other immigration benefits. So, some people may already be protected in other ways, but certainly a blow for immigrants that are here under that relief.

MATTINGLY: It is an expansive architecture with a lot of different layers. You've been covering all of them so well. Priscilla, thanks so much. I appreciate it.

Well, as Hanukkah begins this Sunday evening, a heartbreaking look at how some Israeli hostages marked the holiday when they were in captivity. CNN's Jeremy Diamond has the report next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:30:00]

MATTINGLY: In our World Lead, a heartbreaking look at life in captivity for some of the hostages taken on October 7th. In a brand new video six hostages, all of whom were eventually killed by Hamas terrorists, are seen celebrating Hanukkah just a few months into their terrifying ordeal.

CNNs Jeremy Diamond reports on the video which has been released with the blessing of the hostages families.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

JEREMY DIAMOND, CNN JERUSALEM CORRESPONDENT (voice over): From the deaths of captivity, these six Israeli hostages celebrated the miracle of Hanukkah and prayed for their own. But that miracle never came. The beautiful six, as they've come to be known, were executed by Hamas in August of 2024, as Israeli troops closed in on their location.

These never-before-seen videos appear to have been filmed about eight months earlier, lighting candles on the first and second nights of Hanukkah, using a makeshift menorah made of paper cups.

With the help of miracles associated with this holiday, may we go home in a big miracle and may we return to normal, happy and good lives, and may we always be happy, all of us, says hostage Almog Sarusi.

The videos were filmed by Hamas and later obtained by the Israeli military. Now, their families say they want the world to see them.

Hamas filmed these videos as propaganda, but the humanity of the beautiful six shines through this footage.

The footage released by the Hostage in Missing Families Forum offers a new, albeit partially staged glimpse into their captivity, playing cards, cutting each other's hair, and in this clip, pressing their captors for medical attention.

He needs treatment, hostage Carmel Gat tells a guard, professional, American Israeli hostage Hersh Goldberg-Polin, whose left hand was blown off by a Hamas grenade, is seen repeatedly, often trying to reassure his family.

We're here, healthy and alive. We are being taken care of. We are all right and we want to return home.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Happy New Year to everyone in my -- all of my family (ph).

DIAMOND: Hersh would not live to see another year. He was killed the next August.

Jeremy Diamond, CNN. Tel Aviv.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

MATTINGLY: Well, moments ago in the Oval Office, President Trump honored the 1980 Miracle on Ice Olympic team with a Congressional gold medal, and his notable response to a question of conflict, a global conflict that he's dealing with now.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:35:00]

MATTINGLY: In our Politics Lead, just last hour in the Oval Office, President Trump honoring the Miracle on Ice Hockey team. If you don't know who they are, shame on you, the 1980 U.S. Olympic hockey team that defeated the Soviet Union. After signing a bill to award the players Congressional gold medals, he took questions.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REPORTER: What's the lesson for Ukraine from this win from 45 years ago when you defeated Russian team against all odds?

TRUMP: Well, it's very similar situation, isn't it? Let's see what happens. We're working on seeing if we can make a deal right now. We're going to see. We'll soon know, I guess.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MATTINGLY: My panel is back with me now. First off, props to that White House reporter, clever way to backdoor into it, a question I think a lot of people are wondering right now. Like how much stock do you put into Trump's claim that we may have a deal to end this conflict soon?

MIKE DUBKE, FORMER TRUMP WHITE HOUSE COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR: I mean, he desperately, the president desperately wants a deal to end this conflict. And I feel sometimes that it's more of a wish than where we are in reality. But, you know, at the end of the day, he -- it's a -- I think we're probably closer right now than we have been. We're going into winter. If it doesn't get done now, it's going to be months and months more of suffering in Ukraine.

CHUCK ROCHA, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: What Chuck Rocha noticed was everybody was handing out Chuck Rocha cowboy hats and the Oval Office today. So, I appreciate that. I think he's trying to get in good with me. But on a serious note, Mike, your point is exactly right.

[18:40:02]

He wants to be able to run a T.V. commercial in the midterm saying promises made, promises kept. I've ended all of these different conflicts around the world. I told you I'd handle this, just like I told you, I'd bring down prices. I can see the ad being made and he wants it over. No matter how much Ukraine he feels like he has to give away, he wants it to be over.

DUBKE: He does want a deal, you know, and he feels like he's the good guy here because he's wearing the white hat.

ROCHA: Oh my God, here we go.

DUBKE: You're in the black hat.

ROCHA: I know.

MATTINGLY: Can we actually bring like a Chuck with the president in the white hat? I don't know if we have that.

DUBKE: The American people can draw their conclusions.

MATTINGLY: But you seem -- I got to say, not to be unserious, I'm being very serious, you seem defended when I came back to see -- okay, so you saw that, and you said, he's, what, taking my shtick, like that's my --

ROCHA: Right. And then you also said that you also never put your candidate in any kind of headgear. We also said, football helmets, Mike Dukakis' battle helmets or a Chuck Rocha cowboy hat.

MATTINGLY: Or windsurfing, right?

ROCHA: That's true.

MATTINGLY: Also windsurfing. We could just go up and down the list here for a minute.

I want to ask so about something else that happened today is we continue to visualize the president in a very large -- I don't -- that's not a Stetson though, is it?

ROCHA: I don't think so. It don't come with little tie down.

MATTINGLY: The National Trust for Historic Preservation filed a lawsuit against President Trump and his administration in an effort to block the construction of the planned ballroom at the White House. The lawsuit alleges the administration did not seek approval from Congress and skirted several other steps along the way.

Mike, I was going to ask you if you think the case has legs. What do you say?

DUBKE: The building's gone. I mean, I don't care if the case -- MATTINGLY: Yes, that would seem to be a problem.

DUBKE: That's a problem for their case.

This is one thing though that I do want to point out. I was listening to the White House usher that had been there. He wrote a book, he'd been there from 1970 to like up to a couple of years ago, and he made the point when he was asked this exact question, like are you upset? Are you offended that the East Wing is gone? And he goes, I have been in that house for so long that every president puts their mark on it. And they had the same arguments when the West Wing was built and they took the stables away and they changed all of this. His point was that this -- the People's House, whatever we want to call it, does go through change.

And I just find it funny that we are -- you know, Republicans would be upset if a Democrat had done it. Democrats are upset when a Republican's doing. But that house has been under construction since it was first built.

ROCHA: Yes, but I would push back and say that this is something the American people do understand. They may not understand the nuances of a Ukraine argument, but when all these visuals are up of the West Wing just being gone and a piece of the White House just being gone, I don't think, and what I've been seeing talking to folks is they understand that there's changes. But this is too big and this lawsuit is saying, you shouldn't have done this. Folks said, well, I felt like it shouldn't have happened without Congress or nobody else.

DUBKE: There's not a single taxpayer dollar being spent on the construction.

ROCHA: I don't think it matters. I think it's a bad decision (ph).

MATTINGLY: I'm interested in this though, because this has actually been -- I have wondered why, given all the other issues that matter to people why this would be something that would resonate aside from the fact that for an ad maker, it's a really convenient metaphor to be able to use something.

ROCHA: And a visual. This is the piece that's -- we're in a visual -- consuming visual here all the time.

MATTINGLY: So, you think I'm not adequately appreciating the resonance of the visual?

ROCHA: I think regular folks at home who have to drive 55 and follow some basic rules with an administration that's not followed any rules, they're saying it's a bridge too far. Does that not make them vote or against. I'm not saying it's going to swing a midterms, I'm just saying it's something that's another thing on the Chuck list.

DUBKE: Right here is a politician who doesn't just do the talk. He walks the walk and he said, I'm going to move something. I'm going to tear something down, and he does it. I mean, one of the appeals of Donald Trump is that he moves quickly. I mean -- ROCHA: And I think he's going to pay a price. I just think that, and we've said this and I know that he gets away with lots of stuff, and I think this building on the top of it. And I think you're starting to see it now in these midterms and special elections.

MATTINGLY: Can I ask you, you made the point, this -- taxpayers aren't funding this.

DUBKE: Right.

MATTINGLY: True. The people who are in the Washington that we came up in, people would say, ah, that looks like it might be a little bit problematic. I mean, like Dick Chaney was having secret meetings with energy company executives about policy, and it became a huge ethics concern, problematic for what he was or was not allowed to do about meetings. This is the richest people in America, all of whom have policy issues that the White House is working on saying, hey, here's a couple tens of tens of --

DUBKE: You either believe in sunlight or you don't, because the word that you used was secret meetings. And we know who the donors are. So, this is out there. So, I think the major difference between all of this, now, whether that's right or wrong, at least we now know who the donors are and we can make that call. But that's the biggest thing. There is sunshine on this.

ROCHA: And the American people at a midterm will have a decision to make on whether this is something they do truly care about on top of affordability, on top of foreign, whatever, they care about.

DUBKE: Immigration, crime, all the other topics.

ROCHA: I just think that this is one more thing that's very visual for an American public that's very visual on this every day.

[18:45:02]

MATTINGLY: Can I ask you guys? It's Friday and we always have like a really great plan with tons of really great elements that I will inevitably ruin for the team, in part by doing this.

What is the thing that you're fixated on right now as you look at the landscape one year out, less than one year out, 11 months out for the midterms, you feel like people are missing about kind of things that are bubbling, that will rise and be really important that maybe were not focused on?

CHUCK ROCHA, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: I think things rise on Twitter. I think things rise on social media. What I'm really hyper focused on is, sure, we've seen this movement towards Democrats in the off-year elections and in special elections, but who shows up in a midterm? We have an understanding of who normally shows up, but Donald Trump broke that in a presidential election.

What I'm super fixated on is, is there motivation on one side or the other to see some kind of a turnout that we normally don't see in an off-year election? Because this has been an atypical presidency?

MIKE DUBKE, FORMER TRUMP WHITE HOUSE COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR: Yeah, and I'm worried about the exact opposite, which is this is going to be a typical midterm. And you're exactly right. Donald Trump turns disinterested voters out every time he's on the ballot. He's not on the ballot this time. And his -- whether or not those disinterested voters who then participated in politics and brought him into the White House, are they going to be there for Republicans in the midterms? I'm very concerned about.

MATTINGLY: Is that why? You know, it was fascinating to see Susie Wiles, the White House chief of staff, who is not somebody who's out in public very often, is a very dominant presence for those people who don't see her out in public, you should know that. And considered to be one of the better an individual with a better ability to operate a staff, a team that can sometimes be divergent, oftentimes in your area --

DUBKE: In the White House that is chaotic in nature, she is doing a fabulous job.

MATTINGLY: And there is not a Republican that would disagree with that assessment. A lot of Democrats would agree with that as well. She was out publicly saying, we're going to want -- we want him on the trail like it's 2024 for the midterm year, which a lot of people were like, he's at like 41 or 42.

DUBKE: It's a great idea. And here's why. Because we've tried everything else as a party in the midterms in 2018. And even in 22, we've tried everything else. I know his poll numbers amongst Democrats and independents are down low, but he's still holding them with Republicans. And if he can convince these folks to come out, I think we've got a better chance. So, I -- it's counterintuitive, but I think its a smart political play.

ROCHA: I think it gives more Donald Trump on the road. It's good with Democrats too, because he goes off script like he did this week when he was talking about all the crazy stuff he was talking about, like he was back in campaign mode when there's not really an immigration problem anymore and there's not these other things that he's -- he feels so safe in those places because he's a grievance politician, and grievance works for him.

It works for motivation. These voters that Mike was talking about like, that's what -- that's the difference of him being out there or not. Yeah.

MATTINGLY: The point we got at this last hour, but you just mentioned the immigration issue. It has been so successful in terms of what the outcome he wanted at the border, shutting down the border. You hear this from White House officials saying, look, we don't get any credit for what we were able to do there and what they are, what people are seeing are the deportations, some of them a lot of videos like in Chicago and places like that where they're saying, I don't know about that. And then no one's talking about what happened there. Do you think it becomes a problem at some point? DUBKE: Well, we were talking about visuals earlier.

MATTINGLY: Yeah.

DUBKE: When you have people crossing in Texas, what is the visual of a border crossing that has nobody trying to get across it? I mean, I understand why the visuals have turned to these cities now where you've got the National Guard and, and other where ICE is performing these, these sweeps, it's because there's a visual there.

It's -- it is a different -- it is a different part of this conversation. But I think part of the reason we're getting no credit at the border is because it's quiet.

ROCHA: But that's not good for politicians. What's good for politicians is having some kind of a conflict. And be very quick about this is to say that when you look at immigration and you think about what's going on, folks don't like to see the masked agents. They don't like to see U.S. citizens getting deported. And all the things.

MATTINGLY: I will say, you can tell when a man knows how to wear a hat like the one the president put on earlier. No disrespect to the president. This man knows what he's doing.

Thank you guys. Appreciate you as always.

Well, next here on THE LEAD, actor John Slattery on his new film "Nuremberg". Why he believes this World War II drama is so relevant today.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:53:17]

MATTINGLY: In our pop lead, the world learned much more of the horrors committed by the Nazis during World War II during the Nuremberg trials. That's the focus of the new film "Nuremberg", which explores the relationship between Hitler's second in command, Hermann Goring, played by Russell Crowe, and the psychiatrist trying to outsmart him, Douglas Kelly, who's played by Rami Malek.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The world needs to know what these men did.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Dr. Kelly, central command, thinks you're some kind of hotshot head. You will inspect and ensure the prisoners' mental health. The one you'll have to watch the closest is Goring.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: There's a point in Hitler's successor in 1939 and his highest-ranking German military officer of all time.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He's highly intelligent, charming and a narcissist.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I am going to escape the hangman's noose.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Very sure of yourself.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No man has ever beaten me.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MATTINGLY: Well, Jake Tapper sat down with one of the stars of the film, John Slattery.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

JAKE TAPPER, CNN HOST: John, I watched "Nuremberg' last night. Just riveting. Very, very powerful.

Rami Malek's character, Dr. Kelly, real person, grapples with trying to understand how these evil acts could happen. You play Army Colonel Burton Andrus, whose goal is to hold the Nazis accountable. Here's another clip from the movie.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: When you sleep, your head and hands will remain above your blanket, visible at all times. You will be given no belts. You'll be given no shoelaces. You'll be given no toilet seats. You will be given nothing with which to use as a weapon to take your own lives. Welcome to Nuremberg.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

[18:55:00]

TAPPER: Tell me about why you wanted to play Colonel Andrus. What? What about the role attracted you?

JOHN SLATTERY, ACTOR: Well, I think, like a lot of people, I knew some -- some of the information about the Nuremberg trials, but certainly not -- nearly what I -- what I thought I knew. I mean, I -- when I read the script, it was just a fantastic story. The, the and the and inside the larger story is the relationship between Doug Kelly and Hermann Goring and, which brings up everything from the nature of evil to, you know, just how something like this could be allowed to take place.

It was a great cast. Russell and Rami, I think, were already involved by the time I got cast, so. And Jamie Vanderbilt wrote a great script, and executed it extremely well. And, I -- it took me, you know, I read the script and was immediately in.

TAPPER: Yeah, it's really, really powerful. There's a line in the movie when Hermann Goring, played by Crowe, is asked what drew him to Hitler, and he says he made us feel German again. You said what happened during the rise of the Third Reich is relevant to today's world. Tell me about what you see. Are some of the important, relevant parallels and lessons.

SLATTERY: Well, I mean, the sad coincidence is that Jamie Vanderbilt started working on this 13 years ago, and were at a place where obviously the -- there are -- there are parallels you could look to in the Middle East and in -- I mean, some would argue that the current administration in this country are pushing the limits of dictatorial regime.

But, I mean, the movie isn't sort of built to answer the questions. It's bringing them up and asking the questions. And I think, sadly, it is relevant today.

TAPPER: Yeah. And Dr. Kelly's question about are the Germans and the Nazis just a particular unique people or is this just are they just people? And this could have just like any. Yeah, exactly. It could have happened anywhere. And that made me think especially. Well, there's been a rise, obviously, of horrific antisemitism in the United States, both on the right and the left. Some of it includes holocaust denial.

And there is this moment in in the film, during the portrayal of the trial, when some of the real footage that was shown during the Nuremberg trial of allied troops liberating the concentration camps, and all the dead bodies, it's just absolutely horrific. It's about six minutes in this movie. It was, I guess, closer, closer to an hour shot by John Ford, I believe. We're going to show on, on our screen how the defendants reacted to the horrific images of emaciated survivors and piles of bodies pushed by a bulldozer like human rubble. I'm told that you hadn't seen that. None of you had seen it. And the actual reactions to watching that actual footage were -- were real.

SLATTERY: Yeah. That's correct. He -- Jamie, that is we had four cameras set up, and we were in a courtroom that was designed to the -- to the minutest detail replicated the actual courtroom. And we were seated with, I don't know, 250 extras, background artists mostly Hungarian, mostly most of a certain age that if they hadn't participated in some of these events, they certainly had friends and family that had.

And they played, I don't know, 10 minutes of the footage or whatever. You said six minutes. The actual footage shown in the court was longer. It was the first time that film footage had been used as evidence in a prosecution. And yes, he advised us not to seek out the footage because you can find it on, you know, online. And so the -- we sat in our spots and watched it. And those reactions are we did one take and that's what we -- that's us watching it is what you see.

TAPPER: John, it's a very powerful movie and you're great in it. Congratulations. Really appreciate it. And thanks for spending time with us today.

You can see "Nuremberg" right now in movie theaters.

John Slattery, thank you so much.

SLATTERY: Thank you.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

MATTINGLY: Well, coming up Sunday on "STATE OF THE UNION", Republican Senator Bill Cassidy of Louisiana and Democratic Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut. That's Sunday at 9:00 a.m. and noon Eastern on CNN.

Then Sunday night, something a little different. Comedian Roy Wood Jr. is hosting a very, very, very merry holiday special featuring the United States Air Force Band. Comedian Craig Robinson will also be there. And singer Jessie James Decker.

Look for this Sunday night at 8:00 Eastern on CNN and on the CNN -- new CNN app.

"ERIN BURNETT OUTFRONT" starts right now.