Return to Transcripts main page

The Lead with Jake Tapper

U.S. Lawmakers Question Trump Administration's Plans For Venezuela; HHS Recommending Fewer Vaccines For Most U.S. Children; Jack Smith Defends Trump Prosecutions In Closed Deposition; Sen. Kelly Responds Defiantly To Hegseth's "Bullsh*t" Censure; George Conway Vows To Take On Trump, Launches Run For Congress. Aired 6-7p ET

Aired January 06, 2026 - 18:00   ET

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

[18:00:00]

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

This hour we're learning new details about the U.S. operation to capture the President of Venezuela with sources saying that the White House told lawmakers that both Nicolas Maduro and his wife hit their heads as they attempted to flee U.S. forces. What else did the Trump administration reveal about the mission and what comes next for Venezuela? We're going to talk to a Senate Democrat who was inside that briefing in just moments.

Plus, today marks five years since that violent mob stormed the U.S. Capitol, fueled by President Trump's lies about a stolen election. In moments, I'm going to be joined by one of the officers beaten by rioters on that horrible day to get his reaction on this somber anniversary with so many on the right and in the White House try to rewrite what actually happened on January 6th, 2021.

Also top U.S. health officials announcing they will overhaul the childhood vaccine schedule and recommend fewer shots for most children. What kind of impact will that have on families across the country? I'm going to talk to Dr. Paul Offit, who leads the Vaccine Education Center at one of the United States' leading children's hospitals.

The Lead tonight, President Trump defiant on this remarkable Venezuela operation, despite growing scrutiny at home and abroad. Listen to his victory lap of today's Republican retreat.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: It was so brilliant. The electricity for almost the entire country was, boom, turned off. That's when they knew there was a problem. There was no electricity. Caracas said, there's no electricity. It's not a -- the only people with lights were the people that had candles.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: This as more lawmakers are promised closed-door briefings on the operation. While back at the White House, President Trump will not let the whole Greenland should be part of the United States thing go. This afternoon, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said U.S. military action to seize Greenland is not off the table. This is after White House Official Stephen Miller told us on the show yesterday that nobody would be willing to fight the United States over the future of Greenland.

CNN's Kaitlan Collins is at the White House for us. Kaitlan?

KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN ANCHOR AND CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Yes, Jake. In that interview with Stephen Miller and the comments that he made to you has prompted a lot of questions for the Trump administration on just how serious the president is about that and obviously how quickly something like that could happen. It caused the White House press secretary to put out this statement talking about the seriousness of the president's desire to go after Greenland and to obtain Greenland as part of the United States.

And she said earlier that he had made it well known that acquiring Greenland is a national security priority of his, and argued that it is vital to deter United States adversaries in the Arctic region. They also said the president and his team are discussing a range of options to pursue this important foreign policy goal, and, of course, utilizing the U.S. military is always an option at the commander-in- chief's disposal, basically, Jake, reaffirming what Stephen Miller said to you yesterday and not ruling out that that is a possibility here.

I should note this comes as the Wall Street Journal is reporting tonight that Secretary of State Marco Rubio, when he was on Capitol Hill yesterday briefing lawmakers, said that these threats that are coming out of the administration should not signal any kind of imminent military invasion of Greenland, but are really more of a threat to officials there to show them that, yes, they are serious about purchasing Greenland.

Now, we've heard from officials there and Denmark that it is not for sale, and so the questions of what happens next there remain to be seen. The foreign ministers actually seeking a meeting with Secretary Rubio on this front, so we'll see what happens there. But, obviously, this is something, Jake, that the president has said he's serious about for quite some time and demonstrated by this statement in Stephen Miller's comment shows that it is something they are actively pursuing here.

TAPPER: Kaitlan, you have an update also on the two U.S. service members involved in the Venezuela operation that were wounded.

COLLINS: Yes. Our colleague, Haley Britzky, is now reporting from a statement from the Pentagon that two of those service members are still recovering from the injuries they sustained as this operation to capture Maduro was underway early in the morning on Saturday morning. We know that several of them had shrapnel bullet -- or shrapnel wounds that they were recovering from inside the hospital. Five of them, according to the Pentagon, have returned to duty, but two of them are still receiving care as of this hour. Jake?

TAPPER: All right. Kaitlan Collins at the White House, thanks so much.

And be sure not to miss Kaitlan on her show, The Source with Kaitlan Collins. Tonight, she's going to be joined by Maryland Democratic Senator Chris Van Hollen. That's The Source tonight and every weeknight at 9:00 P.M. Eastern only on CNN.

Joining us now, Democratic Senator Jack Reed from Rhode Island, he's the top Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee. He is also a veteran himself. Sir, you were in yesterday's classified briefing. I want to get to Venezuela in a second, but as Kaitlan just noted, The Wall Street General reports that Marco Rubio, the secretary of state, told lawmakers that the administration wants to buy Greenland, purchase Greenland and downplayed any military operation there. Is that what you heard as well?

SEN. JACK REED (D-RI): Well, I can't comment. It was a classified hearing on what I heard. But everything that's been publicly stated suggests that the president wants to acquire Greenland, and the president's rhetoric would suggest by any means.

[18:05:08]

Threatening them by force might be a way to, to create a contractual arrangement, but this is completely unprecedented. Denmark is our NATO ally, and as the president of Denmark pointed out, attempts to seize or to intimidate them into surrendering Denmark would destroy NATO.

TAPPER: Well, we had Congressman Don Bacon on the show, a retired Air Force general. He said it's not even needed, that Greenland would and Denmark would allow us to build as many bases as we want on Greenland anyway.

REED: Oh, he's absolutely right. We have bases there. We've had bases there since in the World War II era. They're a NATO ally, partner. I think they would be highly interested in joining with us to protect their country as well as NATO and building bases, sharing troops, working together.

TAPPER: Let's talk about Venezuela because CNN has learned that Trump officials told lawmakers that Nicolas Maduro and their wife hit their heads as they attempted to flee U.S. forces during their capture. Their lawyers, Maduro and his wife, say that they sustained more significant injuries than that. Maduro's wife's attorney said she had bruising on her ribs. It looked as though that Maduro might have had a limp. Do you buy that it was just minor injuries, they just hit their heads?

REED: I have no other information than what we heard last evening, and they discounted serious injuries. In fact, they tried to make the point that they wanted to get them out alive. But it's not unusual in kind of a situation like that where you're being on and off, helicopters, under fire, et cetera, where you get lots of collateral injuries.

TAPPER: There's a Venezuela war powers resolution vote coming up in the Senate likely on Thursday. Republican Senator Rand Paul told reporters that the operation meets his definition of war and Congress should have been used to invoke to declare war. Do you think there are enough Republicans in the Senate to vote for a war powers resolution in the way that senator -- for those who object to the operation?

REED: Well, I think they should, frankly, because it violates clearly international law.

TAPPER: They say it was just a law enforcement operation.

REED: It's not a law enforcement operation when you have Cyber Command, you have aircraft carriers, you have assault, the 160th SOAR from the Rangers, et cetera, this was a military operation. And disguising it as anything else is, I think, just trying to be deceptive.

The other factor too is this operation has been connected to rhetoric about occupying Venezuela, which would definitely be illegal.

TAPPER: So, if there are any boots on the ground that stay there --

REED: Boots on the ground, or even control by going in and forcing the Venezuelans to concede resources to the United States or anything else like that.

TAPPER: You heard Schumer perhaps, I'm not sure you actually did, but he spoke to us just a few minutes ago and he said that he didn't get any good answers at the briefing in terms of like what comes next for Venezuela, how much is it going to cost, is the U.S. going to occupy Venezuela in any way? Is that -- do you agree with that?

REED: Yes. There's seems to be no plan here. There's some concepts that they're floating around. But they have to actually get not only the cooperation of the Venezuelan government but the buy-in from the Venezuelan people. And they have no idea how to go about and do that right now. It's just they have a couple of concepts, like I said, they're floating.

TAPPER: I want to turn to some breaking news out of your home state of Rhode Island, because the Justice Department just announced that the suspect in last month's mass shooting at Brown University and the subsequent killing of the MIT professor in Massachusetts, that he admitted to the attacks in a series of short videos that authorities recovered from some sort of electronic devices. Is that true? What can you tell us about it? Will this bring some sort of, I guess closure isn't the right word, but something to the grieving families?

REED: Well, it'll help, I think, define the rationale in his mind. First of all, from what I've read about these tapes, it demonstrates that he was a homicidal maniac, that he resented everyone apparently because he was the smartest person in the world.

TAPPER: That's why he did this?

REED: Well, that's one of the indications that they're getting. But I think they have to do much more research. But, you know, attacking students and then going after his high school classmate, who's very successful, is this was rage and jealousy born out of decades of resentment?

And then the other thing it seems to reveal too is that the methodical way he went about it. So, you had the worst of two worlds, a homicidal maniac who was very clever and ingenious in what he wanted to do.

[18:10:01]

And it resulted in a real tragedy at Brown University, which has been felt by not just the state around, but the nation.

TAPPER: Yes. No, our thoughts and prayers are with the people of Brown University and MIT as well. Thank you so much, Senator Reed. I really appreciate having you here.

REED: Thank you, Jake.

TAPPER: The White House tonight says that President Trump is discussing a range of options to acquire Greenland, noting that you using the U.S. military is not off the table. Coming up, we're going to talk to the former NATO supreme allied commander about what he thinks of all this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

TAPPER: Coming up in our World Lead, the White House press secretary says President Trump is, quote, discussing a range of options, unquote, for acquiring Greenland, noting in a statement to CNN that, quote, utilizing the U.S. military is always an option at the disposal of the president. This comes after what Deputy White House Chief of Staff Stephen Miller told us on the show last night. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

STEPHEN MILLER, WHITE HOUSE DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF FOR POLICY: The United States should have Greenland as part of the United States. There's no need to even think or talk about this in the context that you're asking of a military operation. Nobody's going to fight the United States militarily over the future of Greenland.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: European leaders are now rallying behind Greenland and Denmark, which owns Greenland in response to President Trump's renewed interest in acquiring the Arctic territory.

[18:15:09]

Let's bring in retired Admiral James Stavridis. He's the former NATO supreme allied commander. So, Admiral, what do you make of this statement from the White House that doesn't exclude the potential of a military incursion to acquire Greenland from our NATO ally, Denmark?

ADM. JAMES STAVRIDIS (RET.), CNN SENIOR MILITARY ANALYST: It worries me a great deal. When I commanded NATO, I went to Greenland. I saw how close our relationships are there. The one military base on the island is an American military base. I've observed operations there. We work well with the Danes. We can do all of the military things we want to do, and the Danes and the Greenlanders would cooperate.

Look, Jake, there's three ways the United States can get Greenland. Number one, you can send the 82nd Airborne up there and conquer it, really bad idea. That'll break NATO and it won't come back from an event like that. Number two, you can buy it. That's not a crazy idea. We bought a lot of this country, from Alaska from the Russians. About a third of the country came from France, Louisiana purchased, and, oh, by the way, the beautiful U.S. Virgin Islands. Where do we get them? We bought them from Denmark about a hundred years ago. So, buying it is not a bad idea. I'd encourage pursuing that.

And then, thirdly, where this will likely land is to use diplomacy, soft power, economic engagement. That's the way to go and to pull Greenland toward us in a way that doesn't crack NATO and drive the Greenlanders away from us and turn this into a kind of poison chalice by the time we get it.

TAPPER: Do you think Stephen Miller's accurate in his assessment that no one's going to be willing to fight the U.S. militarily over the future of Greenland, which seemed to be a suggestion that if the U.S. just took it, there isn't anything that the Danish would do.

STAVRIDIS: I think geopolitics has become so unpredictable that the idea of Denmark actually putting troops in place in order to prevent Americans from coming. And then what are you going to do when the 82nd Airborne arrives and you've got a Danish armed troops in place? Are you going to attack them? Are you going to shoot at them?

I think you said earlier the Europeans are kind of rallying behind Denmark. I'm not sure they're going to send an armed force there, but I know the Danes pretty well. They're tough people. It wouldn't surprise me to see them put a military force there to stand in opposition to a U.S. force. Again, this is the end of NATO we're talking about. Let's avoid that.

TAPPER: The Danish prime minister responded to the president's threats yesterday. Take a listen to what she had to say.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

METTE FREDERIKSEN, DANISH PRIME MINISTER: If the U.S. chooses to attack another NATO country, militarily, everything stops, including our NATO and thus the security that has been provided since the end of World War II.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: Is that true, do you think? And do you think President Trump's been made aware of the consequences that this action could have on the future of the NATO alliance?

STAVRIDIS: Oh, I think it's absolutely true. And, by the way, it's not just the end of NATO. I think at that point, the United States would be sanctioned by the European Union, that huge market. And, by the way, the largest trading relationship in the world is not U.S.-China. It's not U.S.-Mexico. It's not U.S.-Japan. It's U.S.-Europe, because that economy is roughly just a bit smaller than our own.

So, that idea that we can simply go in, take a chunk of territory, and the Europeans will say, oh, okay, no problem, let's just continue to trade together, let's continue to cooperate on defense, let's continue with the NATO alliance, I don't think that's how it would unfold.

TAPPER: The president has been proposing the annexation of Greenland in some capacity for more than a year now. The operation in Venezuela served as a catalyst for his renewed interest in Greenland and renewed discussions about this topic. But why have the European NATO leaders not spoken out more firmly against this idea of his before now? Is it only after the operation in Venezuela that they now take it more seriously?

STAVRIDIS: I think that's absolutely right. There's nothing to focus the mind like a hanging in the morning. And I think that, if you will, the events in Venezuela, and particularly President Trump's comments that we're going to run it basically saying we're going to own it, I think that has awoken real concern in a way that the Europeans perhaps did not take us seriously before.

Look, bottom line, let's not push this into an apocalyptic ending. We can work with the Europeans.

[18:20:00]

We have for decades. It simply needs to be done with diplomacy, military engagement, economics.

Last thought, Jake, the Greenlanders say, look, we're not for sale, but we're open for business. Let's use that economic toolkit. We can pull Greenland as much as we need to. They'll let us do all the military things we need to do.

TAPPER: Admiral James Stavridis, thank you so much, sir. I appreciate it.

Top U.S. health officials are announcing they're overhauling the childhood vaccine schedule to recommend fewer shots for most American children. A top vaccine expert's going to join us now -- join us next as we break down what's on the list and what's not on the list of vaccines and the potential impact.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

TAPPER: Our Health Lead now, officials at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services are now recommending fewer vaccines for most American children. They're removing from the schedule the vaccines against meningococcal disease, hepatitis A, hepatitis B, COVID, rotavirus and the flu, their removing those from the broad recommendations of vaccine list.

[18:25:00]

Joining us now is Dr. Paul Offit. He's the director of the Vaccine Education Center at the great Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, one of the leading children's hospitals in the world.

Dr. Offit, the new recommendations reduce the number of vaccines that every child should get, it closely resembles the vaccine policy of other developed nations, like Denmark, we should note. What do you make of the shift?

DR. PAUL OFFIT, VACCINE EDUCATION CENTER DIRECTOR, CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL OF PHILADELPHIA: I don't understand the reason behind it. I don't understand the thinking behind it. Do we miss these diseases? Do we want to see them come back? I mean, what RFK Jr. would argue is that children are getting too many vaccines and that's somehow weakening or overwhelming or perturbing their immune system and causing an increase in chronic disease, which is just not true, as study after study has shown isn't true.

So, by doing this, what he's doing, which is moving vaccines to be something that's just considered to be optional, all he's going to do is in increase what's already happened over the past year. We've seen more measles. We've seen an outbreak of measles that's bigger than anything we've seen In 30 years. We've seen more tetanus than we've seen in the last ten years. We have 300 children dying of influenza this year, a vaccine preventable disease, and we've seen more deaths from whooping cough. This is only going to get worse under this man who has for 20 years been an anti-vaccine activist and he hasn't changed a bit since he's been head of secretary of Health and Human Services.

TAPPER: So, the decision to no longer broadly recommend the flu shot to children comes, as you noted, the flu is reaching the highest levels in the U.S. in 25 years, according to the CDC. 11 million people at least have had the flu this past season, 120,000 hospitalized, 5,000 died. The CDC reports at least nine of those who have died have been children.

A new strain of the flu virus this year is a factor, but what will this recommendation do you think mean for future flu seasons?

OFFIT: No, I think it'll further erode trust in the influenza vaccine and more and more children will suffer, I mean, that almost 300 children died last year of flu. We haven't seen a number that big since the 2009 swine flu pandemic. And in the midst of all this, we have a secretary of Health and Human Services, instead of doing what he should do, which is use his considerable platform and his name and stand up in front of the American public and say, vaccinate your children, he does the opposite of that. He just makes vaccines less available, less affordable, and more feared, the opposite of what he should be doing. He is the worst person to be in this position at this time.

TAPPER: President Trump reacted to the changes on social media yesterday. He had some advice of his own. He wrote, quote, break up the MMR, that's measles, mumps, rubella shot, into three totally separate shots, not mixed. Take chicken P. shot, meaning chickenpox shots separately. Take hepatitis B shot at 12 years old or older. And, importantly, take vaccine in five separate medical visits, unquote. I don't know where these recommendations come from. The HHS guidance doesn't get that specific. What did you think of that? What does that kind of messaging do to parents and providers trying to give them care? You've talked about the MMR vaccine in the past, but why is asking for more shots a bad idea, in your view?

OFFIT: It's not a bad idea. Well, it is -- certainly, we need to vaccinate our children.

TAPPER: No. I mean, like breaking up the MMR shot into three shots as opposed to one. That's what I meant.

OFFIT: Right. So, instead of getting then two vaccines at one at 12 to 15 months of age and then a second at four to six years of age, you'd be getting six shots. And at a time when people seem to not want to get more shots, so that doesn't make any sense. And that was borne, by the way, of the notion that the MMR vaccine caused autism when that was born 25 years ago. Andrew Wakefield, who brought up that notion, said, we need to separate that vaccine into its three component parts. Well, there have been 24 studies showing that the MMR vaccine doesn't cause autism. So, why would separating it out into its three component parts make you less likely to get autism when the vaccine doesn't cause autism in the first place?

It's just doesn't make sense but President Trump believes the same things that RFK Jr. believes, and he has been saying it since 2015, which his children get too many shots, which just isn't supported by the science. Unfortunately, we have an anti-science activist as secretary of HHS.

TAPPER: And we should note that neither RFK Jr. nor President Trump have any training in science or medicine.

Dr. Paul Offit, thank you so much. I appreciate your time.

Five years after the January 6th insurrection, a group of pardoned rioters and their supporters marched to the Capitol today. We're going to get reaction from one of the police officers injured in that 2021 attack next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:30:00]

TAPPER: In our Politics Lead, President Trump's 2024 election win effectively ended the federal criminal prosecution against him brought by the now former special counsel, Jack Smith. That case focused on Trump's attempt to overturn the results of the 2020 election, which ultimately resulted in the shameful and deadly attack on the U.S. Capitol five years ago today.

Now, last month, Jack Smith gave testimony behind closed doors to the House Judiciary Committee about his prosecution of President Trump. That deposition, the video and transcript, was quietly released on December 31st, New Year's Eve, in what seemed very much like an effort to bury it.

But, sorry, no luck on the show, at least because the testimony offers some new insights into the case that Smith had against President Trump.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

JACK SMITH, FORMER SPECIAL COUNSEL: The decision to bring charges against President Trump was mine, but the basis for those charges rests entirely with President Trump and his actions.

TAPPER (voice over): That's former Special Counsel Jack Smith, confident and defiant during a more than eight-hour-long closed door deposition with the House Judiciary Committee last month. That recorded testimony now publicly released giving Americans their first chance to hear from Smith.

SMITH: Our investigation developed proof beyond a reasonable doubt that President Trump engaged in a criminal scheme to overturn the results of the 2020 election and to prevent the lawful transfer of power.

[18:35:02]

TRUMP: We will stop the steal.

SMITH: The timing and speed of our work reflects the strength of the evidence and our confidence that we would've secured convictions at trial.

TAPPER: Smith emphasizing during his testimony that Republican allies of President Trump were the backbone of his prosecution.

SMITH: Our case was built on, frankly, Republicans who put their allegiance to the country before the party. We had numerous witnesses who would say, I voted for President Trump. I campaigned for President Trump. I wanted him to win.

TAPPER: The former special counsel also revealed who some of those witnesses would have been.

SMITH: The speaker of the House in Arizona, the speaker of the House in Michigan. We had an elector in Pennsylvania who is a former congressman who is going to be an elector.

TAPPER: Smith described how his investigation showed how these very same witnesses were kept in the dark and misled about the full extent of the plan to overturn the 2020 election.

SMITH: I referenced earlier a congressman from Pennsylvania who had said this was an attempt to overthrow the government. We had other electors who said, I was told that this would only be used if we won in litigation and obviously that the record in our case showed that the co-conspirators were trying to use their elector votes.

TAPPER: Smith also spoke with lawmakers about President Trump's repeated refusal to accept the results of the election.

SMITH: There was a pattern in our case where any time any information came in, that would mean he could be longer be president. He would reject it and any theory, no matter how farfetched, no matter how not based in law that would indicate that he could, he latched onto that.

TAPPER: Smith described President Trump as the person most responsible for the violent and deadly January 6th attack, including the risk to Vice President Mike Pence.

SMITH: Once the attack on the Capitol happened, he refused to stop it. He instead issued a tweet that, without question in my mind, endangered the life of his own vice president.

TAPPER: The former prosecutor also defended his controversial decision to obtain the phone records of some Republican lawmakers, acknowledging his team did not tell judges who the records belonged to when requesting the subpoenas.

SMITH: I don't think we identified that because I don't think that was department policy at the time.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Okay.

REPORTER: Do you want to answer any questions publicly?

TAPPER: Republican critics have seized on this move, accusing Smith of infringing on lawmakers' constitutional speech or debate clause protections. It's a claim Smith rejects.

SMITH: I'm aware of no case in the Supreme Court or the D.C. Circuit that says that getting non-content toll records from a third party violates the speech or debate clause.

TAPPER: Smith also fiercely pushed back against charges that his prosecution was part of an effort to hurt Trump in the 2024 presidential election.

SMITH: I would never take orders from a political leader to hamper another person in an election. That's not who I am. And I think people who know me and in my experience over 30 years would find that laughable.

TAPPER: There was one major subject Smith repeatedly told the committee he would not discuss in detail, the classified documents case against President Trump, citing a court order barring him from talking about that prosecution.

SMITH: I cannot answer that question due to Judge Cannon's injunction.

TAPPER: Smith also told lawmakers he knows President Trump likely wants revenge against him.

SMITH: I am eyes wide open that this president will seek retribution against me if he can. I know that.

TAPPER: Smith's request to testify publicly was denied by the Republican-controlled House Committee. The former special counsel said this about why he made that request.

SMITH: I'm particularly proud of the people I work with, the career public servants I worked with who've been vilified by President Trump and people who work for him, and I think someone needs to speak up for them.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

TAPPER (on camera): So, let's talk about this now with Danny Hodges. He's a D.C. Metropolitan Police officer who was injured in the January 6th attack. And we should note he's here in his personal capacity, not as a representative of MPD.

So, five-year anniversary of a dark day. Let's just start with how are you doing? How are you physically, how are you psychologically?

OFC. DANIEL HODGES, D.C. METROPOLITAN POLICE: I mean, physically and psychologically, I'm very fortunate, comparatively speaking, especially compared to so many other officers from that day who had to medically retire or suffer, you know, mental trauma that doesn't let them perform the job anymore. I'm fortunate to still have my job and still have my health.

TAPPER: What is it like for you and other police officers, other law enforcement people who put your lives on the line to see all the pardoned January 6th criminals now pardoned, or they got clemency, marching at the Capitol on this five-year anniversary?

[18:40:02]

HODGES: Yes, I mean, it's not where a lot of them should be. A lot of them should probably still be in jail. It's really -- it's -- I don't think they deserve pardons. So many of them committed violent crimes and fought to prevent the transfer of power, fought to thwart the will of the people. And that's not what this country should be about. That's not what any of us should be about. And the fact that they're pardoned, really, it just doesn't make sense to me.

TAPPER: President Trump addressed the anniversary of January 6th in a speech earlier today. He's specifically referring to the speech he gave five years ago today in which he said, you know, we need to fight like hell or else we're not going to get to have a country. Here's some of what he said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: In my speech, peacefully and patriotically to the Capitol, peacefully and patriotically. Do you know that the unselect committee didn't report it, that I said those words? Do you know that the news never reported the words, walk or march peacefully and patriotically to the Capitol?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: And point of fact, obviously, the news media did mention that he said peacefully and patriotically, but he also said a lot of other stuff, a lot of other stuff. And a lot of people in that crowd were later criminally charged, said that they felt like they were taking orders from the president. What's your response to that? HODGES: Yes. So, it came out in the in the committee's findings that so many people could not get through the magnetometers to The Ellipse where Trump was speaking because they were loaded with weapons and they told Trump this. So -- and do you know what his response was? He said let the people in. They're taking the magnetometers down. They're not here to hurt me. So, that means he knew they were armed and he knew they were here to hurt someone. So, what did he do with that knowledge is he told them to fight, fight, fight, and then he sent them to the Capitol.

TAPPER: It's pretty amazing and discouraging, I would imagine, to see the president continue to whitewash this, to lie about what happened that day.

HODGES: Yes. I mean, it's never not worked for him, right? It's his whole life. Lying has just been his go-to. And it's always -- he's never faced any accountability for anything he's -- any of the terrible things he's done. So, why would he change now, right? It's -- he's never going to face accountability for this. We have to accept that.

TAPPER: All right. Officer Danny Hodges, we thank you for what you do to keep us safe here in Washington, D.C., and we thank you for what you went through on that horrible day.

HODGES: Yes.

TAPPER: A new sign today that former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg may have his eyes on running for president in 2028. The event just added to the calendar in a key battleground state. That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:46:53]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. MARK KELLY (D-AZ): What they're trying to do to me sends a message to all these other retired members of the military, veterans, active duty service members and just U.S. citizens that if you say something that this president or this secretary of defense doesn't like, they're going to come after you.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: And our political lead, that's Democratic senator from Arizona and retired Navy captain, Mark Kelly, remaining defiant as Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth moves to censure the senator over a video calling on troops to resist unlawful orders, and also for criticisms he has made about the secretary of defense and actions he's taken with generals and admirals.

I'm back with the panel. A brand new panel.

Good to see you guys. Happy New Year. KAREN FINNEY, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Happy New Year.

TAPPER: So, we played sound from Hegseth back in 2016 when he worked for Fox, saying that U.S. troops, quote, won't follow unlawful orders. Senator Kelly said it's, quote, "the height of hypocrisy" that he's being targeted for similar comments.

What do you think, Shermichael?

SHERMICHAEL SINGLETON, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, look, I certainly want to thank the senator for his service. He served the country admirably. Maybe we may disagree on politics. He is an elected official. He has every right to take an alternative position on how he sees certain things.

That said, I am somewhat open to some of the criticism that has come from my side, not only against the senator, but against other Democrats that have, at a minimum, made the appearance that they are suggestive or suggesting to currently enlisted men and women that they don't necessarily have to take orders. We know that they're well- trained not to take illegal orders, and the senator has actually clarified that in some of the interviews I've seen since.

But that said, I wouldn't necessarily go after the senator. I think the secretary is doing a pretty decent job with what we've just recently saw in Venezuela. He has a lot of things to focus on right now.

FINNEY: But we know from the first term that it was only because there were adults in the room that Trump didn't go off the rails in certain respects. So, in terms of this time, in terms of illegal orders or questionable orders, that he wants things he wanted the military to do, right? So, I think it is more than reasonable for someone, particularly of Mark Kelly's stature. And he also talked about his role in the Senate, having this is part of his actual job.

He has a constitutional right to say what he thinks. He has a right to say you don't have to follow illegal orders. And again, it's not like this doesn't come out of out of nowhere. This comes out of what we now know about what was going on in the first term. And can we just say, if your interview with Stephen Miller is any judge, there are no grown ups in the room with this man.

SINGLETON: If I could just say quickly, there are even some Democrats who came out and said that the senators, I can't recall the exact number who created that commercial.

TAPPER: Six.

SINGLETON : Six.

TAPPER: House and Senate, yeah.

SINGLETON: This isn't necessary. The messaging was quite off. These weren't members of my party. Some Democrats criticized -- TAPPER: But you actually -- what you're saying sounds a little bit

like what we heard from Senator Thom Tillis, Republican of North Carolina. Earlier he talked to a reporter with "Huffington Post", and he said the video was rage bait. But my gosh, he is a U.S. senator who operates in a political world. I think it has a chilling effect on speech, and I've got a real problem with it, and I think Hegseth over -- overreach.

[18:50:05]

So, I mean, that sounds very similar to what you're saying.

FINNEY: Yeah. And also, let's just be clear here. I mean, again, its the constitution. You can dislike the video, and I forget who it was early on last hour who made this point? A Republican congressman, Don Bacon, maybe, who made this argument.

TAPPER: He hated the video.

FINNEY: Right. You can hate the video, but he has a constitutional right. And now what they're trying to do in going after him, they're making it about Mark Kelly. I mean, what is it about straight talk and senators from Arizona?

TAPPER: I'll tell you something, that they raised a lot of money for Mark Kelly's possible presidential race by doing this.

FINNEY: Yes, they did. He's turning Mark Kelly into a kind of John McCain. You're going after an American hero. And I think it also reminds people Trump is a draft dodger going after a hero.

SINGLETON: Look, I just want calmer heads to prevail here again. I certainly respect the senator for everything that he's contributed to our nation. I disagree with him on many political fronts.

FINNEY: But you don't go after this --

SINGLETON: That said, he and the senator and the secretary of war have both served our country admirably. They can disagree on politics, but they both have served, and I think they should see it that way and move forward.

TAPPER: So, let's turn to this New York House race where Jack Schlossberg is running for Congress to replace Jerry Nadler. And our honestly sincere thoughts and prayers to the to the Kennedy family and the Schlossberg family for the loss of Tatiana Schlossberg.

Another person is joining that race with Cameron Kasky joined the race, but also George Conway, former Republican, now a Democrat, former, you know, possible solicitor general nominee in the Trump administration. He's now -- he's now running for Congress as a Democrat in this Upper West Side seat.

Take a listen. Here's a bit of his campaign launch video.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) GEORGE CONWAY (D-NY), CONGRESSIONAL CANDIDATE: We have a corrupt president, a mendacious president, a criminal president whose masked agents are disappearing people from our streets, who's breaking international law, and he's running our federal government like a mob protection racket.

As for the economy, hey, it's great for him. Crypto, watches, golden sneakers. But for everyone else -- groceries, health care, prices skyrocketing. I'm running for Congress to take the fight directly back to him on your behalf.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: So --

FINNEY: Yeah.

TAPPER: I mean, Kellyanne Conway's ex-husband, former member of the Republican legal world.

FINNEY: Yes.

TAPPER: You know, he was you know, he was all part of the Clinton impeachment stuff back in the '90s.

FINNEY: Yeah.

TAPPER: Do you think Democrats will embrace him?

FINNEY: It's hard. Yeah. I'm not sure. Having worked in New York City politics.

Let me just say, this district is -- it's a pretty blue district. So he's going -- just to say the least. So he's going to --

TAPPER: I don't even know if there's a name for the color of blue.

(LAUGHTER)

FINNEY: Well, I'm wearing my blue today.

TAPPER: Darker than what you're wearing.

FINNEY: Yeah. So, but point being and that means you're going to have to prove some Democratic bona fides. And I'm not sure it's going to be enough. Now, it was good that he didn't just talk about, you know, how bad Trump is. You've got to --

TAPPER: You talk about other stuff, too.

FINNEY: Right, what are you going to do? And he's going to have to prove his bona fides on some key Democratic issues. But hey, not bad to have him in the race and keeping the issue up front.

TAPPER: Do you want to weigh in on this? SINGLETON: I'm just -- I'm a bit disappointed. You know, I like George

Conway personally. I think he's a very bright litigator, once a legal scholar on the conservative right side. It always disappoints me when I see people who are formerly conservative move over to the other side.

And it's one thing to be critical of President Trump. Maybe you don't like his ethos or his worldview on how politics should be dictated domestically and internationally. And there's an intellectual space to make that case. But that doesn't mean you have to become a Democrat.

It really makes me question one's worldview and their philosophy that once governed them. If it was ever really authentic, I'm always bothered by that.

FINNEY: But, you know, you could say the same thing about the people who are currently in the Republican Party who were 180 degree different, opposed to Donald Trump, who now are on his side. I mean, clearly, there are a number of people in this country, not just George Conway, who no longer think there is a place for them in the Republican Party.

And let me tell you, we've been in the big tent for a while, so I think were better adept at handling --

TAPPER: I hear what you're saying there.

SINGLETON: I understand that, but if you believe in something and you believe that something you formerly believed in has been hijacked or taken by someone who is not the best --

TAPPER: Fight for it.

SINGLETON: Fight for what you believe.

TAPPER: Yeah.

SINGLETON: Fight for it. To be a conservative isn't something that you just wake up tomorrow and you switch your mind.

TAPPER: Quick thing because it's never too early to, in my view, to talk about 2028.

So, Pete Buttigieg announced today that he's going to head to Wisconsin for a town hall this month to talk about, quote, the everyday challenges people are facing, the cost of housing, childcare, health care and the need for leadership that actually listens.

I think there's no question that he is seriously contemplating running for president. Again, it wouldn't be his first time. What do you think?

FINNEY: Between now and the day that the Democratic Party announces the rules to get on the stage for the first debate, everybody's running, you should just assume pretty much every Democrat is they will welcome any kind of speculation that they're running. [18:55:00]

It's good for fundraising, and it's good, frankly, for Democrats to have someone like him out there.

TAPPER: What do you think of Buttigieg as a potential nominee? Is he -- is he strong compared to I mean, do you worry about him? You theoretically would want Democrats to put up their worst candidate.

SINGLETON: Of course. No, I don't worry about him at all. But personally, I recall seeing him often times on Fox News being one of the only --

TAPPER: Yep.

SINGLETON: -- individuals from the Biden administration who went to talk to conservatives. Now, that's not to say that people lauded everything that he was saying, but I frequently thought it was brave.

I thought he learned the cadence of how to communicate with half of the country. And regardless of one's political views, I think that's important, whether he does well or not.

TAPPER: Nice. Let's end it on that nice note. Thanks to both of you. Appreciate it. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

TAPPER: Let's end the show tonight on some joyful news. I would like to introduce you to Harry Shay Sigall. The very first baby for CNN's Elizabeth Wagmeister and her husband, Michael.

Harry has already led quite an interesting life before making his official debut on December 27th, he helped his mom cover the trials of Sean "Diddy" Combs in the first trimester. He made his red carpet debut at the Emmys in his second trimester. He interviewed the biggest A-listers in the world for "Actors on Actors" just weeks before his due date.

Mom and baby are healthy and happy and enjoying watching THE LEAD at home. Our biggest congratulations to Elizabeth and Michael. We cannot wait to meet baby Harry.

"ERIN BURNETT OUTFRONT" starts now.