Return to Transcripts main page
CNN NewsNight with Abby Phillip
Exclusive, CIA Drone Strike Targets Port Facility In Venezuela; Trump Hosts Netanyahu, Zelenskyy In Florida, Has Second Putin Call In Two Days; Trump Says Putin Wants Ukraine To Succeed; DOJ Says D.C. Pipe Bomb Suspect Has Confessed; Mamdani To Be Sworn In On New Year's Eve. Aired 10-11p ET
Aired December 29, 2025 - 22:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[22:00:00]
ABBY PHILLIP, CNN ANCHOR: Good evening. I'm Abby Phillip in New York.
And we begin with breaking news tonight. CNN has exclusively learned that the CIA carried out a drone strike in Venezuela earlier this month. It is the first known U.S. attack inside the country. And sources tell CNN that the target appears to have been a remote dock on the coast.
The administration believed that it was being used by the Venezuelan gang, Tren de Aragua to store drugs and move them onto boats for shipping. No one was at the facility at the time that it was targeted, according to sources. The CIA declined to comment on this. And CNN has asked the White House and U.S. Special Operations Command for comment.
Now, we all know this because in part an interview last week with President Trump where he said, quote, a big facility was wiped out, and he mentioned it again today, but he offered few details about the operation.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: There was a major explosion in the dock area where they load the boats up with drugs. They load the boats up with drugs. So, we hit all the boats and now we hit the area. It's the implementation area. That's where they implement, and that is no longer around.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: Now, the strike could significantly escalate tensions between the U.S. and the Venezuelan president, Nicolas Maduro, who Trump has said pretty explicitly should step down.
But this new strike also raises new questions about whether an operation in Venezuela would need to have Congressional approval. President Trump was asked about that earlier this month, and here's what he said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REPORTER: Mr. President, will you be seeking any authorization from Congress for any land attacks on cartels in Venezuela?
TRUMP: For any what?
REPORTER: For any land attacks on drug cartels in Venezuela?
TRUMP: I wouldn't mind telling them, but, you know, it's not a big deal. I don't have to tell them. It's been proven. But it wouldn't -- I wouldn't mind at all.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: I'm joined at the table by Scott Jennings, Jamal Simmons, Reena Ninan, and Emma Vigeland and Jason Rantz.
And, Reena, let me start with you because this is kind of where I think things seem to have been headed. Lots of questions tonight about why the CIA, not regular military forces, which are in the region, but what does it tell you about how this is escalating and progressing?
REENA NINAN, FOREIGN AFFAIRS ANALYST: You know, some of the language that's been used has been focused on whether the legal authority is there, what they're hitting exactly. You're hitting a foreign country on sovereign soil. You better be ready to expect the consequences on that. What's interesting is we've heard silence from the government there in Venezuela. What's also interesting is, traditionally, bombing is not the way people go after dealing with drug dealers and the drug industry in general.
So, this isn't a traditional route that they've gone about. But the biggest fear that I have, looking at it from a foreign policy context is, remember, Russia and Iran still back Venezuela. So, the fear is what could this -- what could happen when you've got countries like Russia and Iran backing this country and the rest of Latin America also watching?
PHILLIP: Well, I mean, it seems like the Trump administration is banking that nothing's going to happen, that nobody's going to respond. Maduro's not going to respond. Maduro's not going to want to provoke a direct conflict. But I wonder, do the American people, do they need some kind of explanation from this president?
EMMA VIGELAND, CO-HOST, THE MAJORITY REPORT: I would hope so. I mean, when you look at the polling on this front, over 70 percent of Americans do not want a war with Venezuela, so it's deeply unpopular. Secondly, when you talk about the lack of legal authority here, Congress has the authority to declare war. That is what the founders wrote in the Constitution.
Now, we broadened that authority with the authorizations for the use of military force after 9/11, but those are supposed to be pertaining to the response to 9/11 and to the Iraq war. They have not even provided an explanation, as you say, as to what authority they're even using, which makes it expressly illegal on its face. And so, the consequences that you're talking about are incredibly dire.
But I also just like want to step back for a second and look at the justifications that they're even using. They're saying that these are narco-terrorists, et cetera, and that's the Republican line.
[22:05:00]
But then Trump comes out and goes, it's for the oil. I mean, like when we did the -- our illegal invasion of Iraq and killed hundreds of thousands of people there, at least the Bush administration had like the humility to pretend and go to the United Nations and say, oh, we're going to do this through the regular channels. I mean, this brazen, bully, illegal administration doesn't even go through that pretense. And I think that should scare everybody because the foreign policy is might makes right, and that's all that matters.
JASON RANTZ, SEATTLE RED RADIO HOST: So, I'm not scared. I don't think any American is scared about the consequences of this.
VIGELAND: I care about the world, not just Americans.
RANTZ: No, I know. But you're also in this instance caring about a narco-terrorist group and government --
VIGELAND: With no evidence provided.
RANTZ: There's been no evidence showing that they're not actually drug votes that are being sent here.
VIGELAND: That's not how this works.
RANTZ: We do know, as a matter of fact, that this is a country that very clearly does engage in narco-terrorism and is a hub for sending to this country cocaine, primarily, meth, which is the second leading cause of drug overdose deaths, at least where I'm from.
So, the average person, yes, if you have a deep dive conversation about the legal aspects here, they're going to roll their eyes. That's just the reality. It might be important, and it is important. But they roll their eyes because they know who the target is.
VIGELAND: The Sacklers are --
RANTZ: And Donald Trump is putting you in a position --
VIGELAND: I'm sorry.
RANTZ: -- when you are now defending drug dealers. Whether or not that's your intent, that's how it comes off.
VIGELAND: Do you think that the Sacklers should be executed in the town square?
RANTZ: I don't think this is the town square, and I don't think that this is a declaration of war.
VIGELAND: Well, what does it not? I mean --
RANTZ: As we've heard specifically tonight, this was an empty facility, no deaths, and I would assume that this was leaked to CNN with this information that came from the CIA. But if it wasn't actually a drug distribution center, a port probably would've come out too.
VIGELAND: Well, we killed dozens of people already under this pretense. So, do you defend that?
RANTZ: We killed dozens of people who were on drug boats, bringing drugs to this country to kill Americans.
VIGELAND: But did the Sacklers help kill Americans with the opioid epidemic? Yes or no?
RANTZ: So, that is a completely separate issue, but --
VIGELAND: How is it separate? Should they be executed in town square without any legal process? That's what you're saying.
RANTZ: In a town square --
(CROSSTALKS)
NINAN: (INAUDIBLE) China as well, do we go to other countries as well? How far are we going to go on this? How hard and how long can they continue going without Congress getting involved?
RANTZ: That is a fair point if we were targeting specifically China. But what we targeting --
NINAN: And what's the evidence? What's the evidence here that there's change?
PHILLIP: Yes. I mean, I think that's the other question is, what is the goal here? Is Trump just trying to make a point? Is he taking out one facility here, a couple of, you know, drug smugglers there? Where does this -- where is this leading us? Is he actually dismantling anything or is he just dropping bombs to make a show out of it? That's the other part of this conversation that where there have been no answers to that, Scott.
SCOTT JENNINGS, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, I think they have multiple goals. It makes sense to me that if you were going to go to the trouble of bombing drug boats and then if you found out where the dock is, where they load the boats, you might also bomb the dock. That makes sense to me. But I think they have multiple goals. One is to go after the narco-terrorists. That's a stated goal. I think they have broad political support for that. I think the administration would love to see Maduro go away. I know this because the president says it almost a daily basis. And so I think they have multiple goals. But it all falls within the rubric of we're going to be policing the Western Hemisphere.
Regarding Congress, I do think, I don't know, whether they've briefed Congress on this specific attack or not. They've been very accessible to Congress on the Venezuela issue. Some of the briefings they've given have leaked, some have not. But my suspicion is that if they haven't briefed them on it, they will, because they've never really said no to any kind of Congressional inquiry particularly in classified settings when it comes to Venezuela.
JAMAL SIMMONS, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: When you pull back, what has me concerned here is the contrast between what we're seeing today and foreign policy. So, on one side, you've got the president talking about leaning into blowing up drug boats, blowing up docks in Venezuela. We are really going into this 1823 Monroe Doctrine-style American foreign policy.
On the other hand, you've got what's happening in Europe and you've got the president's sort of taking Vladimir Putin's word for what happened with drone strikes on his home against the man that we say is our ally, who's Zelenskyy, right? And so are we pulling out of our commitments in Europe, which are the historic commitments since World War II that have kept peace in the world and going and leaning into this policing of the Western Hemisphere, which takes us back to kind of a colonialist-style American foreign policy? That's what really has me worried.
And I think if we're thinking about what's going to make America safer over the course of the next generation, we ought to be thinking about the alliances that really do matter in the world. And I think some of those alliances are in Europe and they've been with friends who've been able to help us keep the peace.
NINAN: If this is about regime change, it never ends well. If you look at U.S. foreign policy or history --
PHILLIP: And in particularly in this region, I mean, it's not like we don't have a long history --
JENNINGS: And it pretty went well after World War II.
PHILLIP: -- trying to stop drugs coming in our country by -- but hold on -- engaging in this kind of what they call the drug war, but also in trying to pick and choose leaders in Latin America.
[22:10:10]
NINAN: That's exactly right.
PHILLIP: Trump seems to be going back to that. And that part was a spectacular failure in the last 50 years, 60 years in this hemisphere.
RANTZ: But I -- so part of me thinks that's two separate issues. On the one hand, I agree with your general take here, right? I do think that there is the risk of the chaos that comes with regime change. That is always the case. But on the one hand, I'm hearing people upset that he's not going too hard after Putin, but now you're also upset he's going too hard after Maduro.
PHILLIP: Well, I don't know. I mean, I don't -- well, here's the thing. I mean, Maduro has no friends, right? Everybody would like to see --
RANTZ: Well, they're aligned with Russia.
PHILLIP: I'm talking about, I'm talking about, you know, in the United States. There are very few people who wouldn't mind to see him go.
I don't think that's really the issue. I mean, first of all, there's a transparency issue. But I think the other thing is what is the actual strategy here. And if the drug part of this is being used as a pretense, then maybe that should be unveiled to the American people so they really know what we're doing. Because it's not just that they're taking drones and they're dropping bombs. We have now a lot of military assets in the region. We have personnel. We have people who are children, sons and daughters of American citizens now in the region. Don't they deserve answers about what Trump is getting them into?
RANTZ: So, no, not entirely. We generally should not be putting out our complete strategy in dealing with our adversaries.
PHILLIP: So, if Trump is engaging in military actions that could lead to armed conflict, at what point should the American people be part of that conversation?
RANTZ: When we get to the point where he's actually declaring war or about to declare war. That's generally how this works. I think that the reason why --
PHILLIP: But he can't declare war, as Emily pointed out, he can't -- or Emma pointed out, he can't declare war.
RANTZ: Yes. He's not declaring war.
PHILLIP: So, that's the other part of this. When is Congress going to be involved in that conversation?
RANTZ: When it gets to the point where they need to be involved. And, again, they are part of the conversation. You have Democrats who are not supportive of this strategy, clearly, and you have Republicans who are. There's a debate that's going on that the American people are a part of. but I think we can all at least say reasonably here at this table, is there maybe some drug dealers and drug smugglers --
SIMMONS: Sure. Let's assume they're all guilty.
RANTZ: -- saying to themselves that maybe we should not be sending drugs into this country because we might get bombed?
SIMMONS: Here's the point, here's the point. Assume that they're all guilty --
PHILLIP: But when 75 percent of the drugs don't come from that route, I'm not really sure that you're really making a dent in it. I mean, the Pacific, where they have -- they just had another strike today. That's another place where this has happened. But, again, I don't know, I mean, it sounds like you guys are acknowledging this isn't really about the drugs. It's about --
JENNINGS: No, it is about the drugs.
VIGELAND: Then why did Trump say it's about the oil? I mean, I have the quotes down. We wanted that.
SIMMONS: Why do you let the other drug dealer go?
VIGELAND: On the oil.
JENNINGS: I mean, they --
VIGELAND: Why would he say that then?
JENNINGS: They clearly believe -- first of all, we don't even recognize Maduro as a legitimate government.
VIGELAND: Stop. Why would he say it's about the oil?
JENNINGS: Because we believe they have illegally engaged in trafficking oil around the hemisphere that's under sanction or whatever. Again, the overarching strategy is we are the pverriding authority in the Western Hemisphere. That is our view. It's about drugs. Maybe it's about oil that's under sanctioned. Maybe it's about the fact there's an illegitimate thug in charge of a country and we don't want them in charge of it. It can be all of those things. But the reality is we are the big player in the hemisphere and we're not going to let these people do whatever they like.
VIGELAND: So, might makes right.
PHILLIP: All right. Let's hit pause, guys, because we have a lot -- a little bit more on the other side of this, more on this.
A confession from the D.C. pipe bomber suspect to the FBI throws a wrench in some conspiracy theories about his motive.
Plus, with Ukraine's president standing right next to him, President Trump says Russia and Putin want Ukraine to succeed. And a Republican congressman is now slamming Trump's, quote, moral ambiguity when it comes to that war.
We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:15:00]
PHILLIP: Tonight, a flurry of activity on foreign policy. In the last two days, Trump has hosted both Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at Mar-a-Lago and he's had a high stakes phone call with Russian president Vladimir Putin. It appears to be a last-ditch effort to shore up some foreign policy wins for 2025, but is it working?
Well, it's been nearly four years since the start of that war between Russia and Ukraine, and it appears that Trump is continuing to take Putin at his word over Zelenskyy. Here's just the latest example, Putin's claim that Ukraine struck one of his homes.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) TRUMP: It's another thing to attack his house. It's not the right time to do any of that and can't do it. And I learned about it from President Putin that I was very angry about it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: Now, Ukraine calls that allegation a complete fabrication. But with Zelenskyy to the president -- the president's right, Trump claimed that Russia actually wants Ukraine to succeed. And you can tell from Zelenskyy's face exactly how he felt about that comment. Watch.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: They're going to be helping. Russia's going to be helping. Russia wants to see Ukraine succeed. Once -- it sounds a little strange, but I was explaining to the president, President Putin was very generous in his feeling toward Ukraine succeeding, including supplying energy, electricity, and other things at very low prices.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: I guess the question I have coming out of this is what's the strategy? Is there any strategy at all here, or is Trump just getting on the phone with Putin, listening to what he says and then regurgitating everything that Putin says to him?
NINAN: It feels like this is held together with scotch tape and Elmer's glue at this point, because the most important person that you need at that table, Putin, didn't even show up.
[22:20:00]
He did call and sort of set the groundwork before that meeting took place.
But Putin has showed us over and over again where he stands. There's never been a ceasefire after the meeting at the Vatican, after Alaska, after this week. He has shown us repeatedly that bombing is mightier than the pen. You can't have peace talks without a key player involved in this. And it doesn't matter what you have on paper, it doesn't hold on the ground if you don't have security guarantees, if you don't talk about the harsh issues, the difficult topics of territory, which President Trump has said are still sticky and they haven't come to be resolved at this point.
PHILLIP: So, Scott, why is Trump so seemingly naive about this and also why is he giving Putin so much credibility on the world stage that he wants what's best for Ukraine? Here's how Jim Geraghty put it. This is like saying that Trump wanted to help Kamala Harris succeed in their last presidential election, or that the death star wanted Alderaan to succeed. For there to be peace, all Putin would have to do is issue the order, stop bombing, stop shooting, and peace would occur.
JENNINGS: Yes. I think the president is constantly talking to both of these guys and trying to find a way to get them to both get into a place where they don't have to go back home and say, we lost. I mean, that's the reality here. This only ends with a negotiated settlement. Both people have to go home and say, we won, or we got something out of this, or this didn't totally end on terms that are opposed to us.
It's very tricky and obviously it's, you know, a solution that has evaded him for the last year. I don't have really any faith in Vladimir Putin. They've never engaged in any kind of ceasefire. He's never shown any interest really in ceasing hostilities for any period of time, and they've bombed Ukraine at times, you know, when it felt like something was happening and then Russia moves in and rattles Ukraine. So --
NINAN: Just this weekend, half a million people without power in Ukraine, like two days before your meeting with -- that's not exactly a sign that you're interested in peace,
JENNINGS: But I credit the president for trying. It may be the most difficult foreign policy issue he has to deal with. I think, ultimately, it will be dealt with. But it's not going to be dealt with. I mean, Putin's never going to go to Moscow and wave a white flag and you don't want Zelenskyy to have to do that either, because, obviously, they're the aggrieved party here. So, it's like trying to, you know, put a camel through the eye of a needle there.
PHILLIP: Well, it's definitely not being solved on day one.
SIMMONS: There's another big problem that's looming off the Eurasian continent, which is Taiwan, right? And so as we are dealing with this, the Chinese leadership is sitting in the Capitol watching how we're behaving with one of our supposed allies, Ukraine. And if we reward territorial -- with territorial benefit, Vladimir Putin's aggression, you will see a signal to the Chinese leadership that they can go into Taiwan and they are not going to necessarily be guaranteed that the United States is going to push them back. That is a major strategic problem for us.
The way we are reorienting ourselves away from our commitments in the Pacific and in Europe, and toward this sort of Monroe Doctrine Western Hemisphere strong man stance you were talking about earlier is a problem for us on the global scene.
JENNINGS: Well, our national security strategy is --
RANTZ: I would say it's not a problem in the context of, as Zelenskyy said today, Russia will win without the United States involvement on Ukraine's side. And so the power dynamics are completely different. And I think that's why you see the president trying to bring Putin to the table and provide him some out to say that he won this. I don't think President Trump cares about what anyone, including myself at this table, says about the strategy that he believes is the right one. This whole idea of moral ambiguity in dealing with Putin, I totally get that, but we can also acknowledge that what we've been doing and what we previously did clearly didn't --
PHILLIP: But what's the evidence that this is working? I mean, Trump had a whole party for Putin in Alaska. He literally rolled out a red carpet for him, went out in a press conference, said nice things about him, and then nothing? What's the evidence that this is working?
RANTZ: I don't know what's happening behind the scenes but I am saying that we've done things the more traditional way and just going out there and calling Putin an evil war criminal, who, of course, he is, but does not want to sit at the table and actually negotiate.
PHILLIP: I guess here's the thing. I don't see any evidence. You can say that the previous thing didn't work. The current thing is also not working.
RANTZ: Not yet.
PHILLIP: And the only thing that it's doing is emboldening --
RANTZ: So, it's not --
PHILLIP: I don't understand. What is the evidence that it's working?
JENNINGS: It's not working until it does. I mean, that's the thing. You keep talking and you keep trying to get these guys --
PHILLIP: Well, you could say that about the last -- about the last effort.
JENNINGS: It's not working until it does.
PHILLIP: Because think the other thing is that the very same people who, for the last, you know, four years have basically been saying, we need to just give up. We need the United States wave the white flag and let Ukraine fall, if it's going to fall. What they don't acknowledge is that the only reason that we're at a point where Putin even has to talk to some extent is because Ukraine has kept up the military pressure.
JENNINGS: And have they done that with our help?
PHILLIP: Exactly. That's what I'm saying. Your MAGA friends were opposed to that, Scott.
[22:25:00]
They were opposed to the United States helping --
JENNINGS: My friend is the president. He's not opposed to that.
PHILLIP: Okay.
JENNINGS: He's obviously kept --
(CROSSTALKS)
PHILLIP: He was. He was, so was his vice president.
JENNINGS: Well, are we or are we not supporting Ukraine militarily? Of course we are.
PHILLIP: And all of those people were opposed to it.
JENNINGS: And we got NATO to do more.
PHILLIP: And that is the only reason that he has a chance of even sitting down with Putin --
NINAN: When you talk to people who are like in the thick of this, I asked someone who's an expert on this, what will really move the needle at this point? Like we're trying something different here, President Trump's trying to get this to go through. It's not working. And they said sanctions on Russia could really affect the economy. I just don't see President Trump going anywhere near that or that happening. But I just don't know of any other pressure point.
You know, I was here the weekend before the hostage release and I said, President Trump is going to make this happen. I know he's going to make this happen. There was fear from Netanyahu and fear on Hamas' side. The balance of power is different here. Putin does not think that Trump will push him back on this. And I think that is the big selling point on this.
VIGELAND: Yes. And I do think that the kind of elephant in the room here is the United States completely losing, and the Biden administration is immensely complicit in this as well, moral standing throughout the world due to our complicity in the genocide in Gaza, which has made it very difficult for us to speak to Ukrainian sovereignty and having a bully like the Russian government invading their sovereign territory.
We had a doctor on our show who spoke about how the death toll is in the hundreds of thousands at this point, because the numbers that are currently being reported are only the numbers of the death toll of people who have been counted in the hospital. There are hundreds of thousands of people presumed dead, suffocating to death, crushed to death under rubble because of United States' bombs. And that's across this administration and Trump here who did get this ceasefire that he touts all the time in October. But when you look at the actual numbers here, Israel has violated it hundreds of times since that period, multiple times a day, killed at least 400 Palestinians during that period. And this will go down as one of the worst crimes in the history of humanity that our government, the Biden administration and the Trump administration, are complicit.
(CROSSTALKS)
PHILLIP: We know that there's plenty of disagreement on that, I'm sure.
VIGELAND: No, I never said that.
JENNINGS: Well, we let it on spool for two minutes, but, sure, I mean, honestly --
PHILLIP: Okay, have a quick word, Scott. JENNINGS: Well, I just -- I don't understand. Israel's our ally. Not a single word in your speech for the atrocities --
VIGELAND: There shouldn't be.
JENNINGS: -- that were committed on October the 7th.
VIGELAND: We should cut off --
JENNINGS: Not a single word for the idea that Israel has every right to defend itself. Not a single word for the fact that Hamas right now is killing people inside of Gaza, their own people. You seem to say it all at the feet of Israel, a democratic ally in your own country, and you have no negative word excuse for the terrorists who raped and murdered and kidnapped, zero.
VIGELAND: B'Tselem, an Israeli human rights group says they're committing genocide.
JENNINGS: And you still don't. You still don't.
PHILLIP: We got to go. Reena Ninan, thank you very much for being here.
Coming up next, the D.C. pipe bomb suspect confesses what investigators are now learning about his motives. That's next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:32:43]
PHILLIP: New tonight, DOJ says that the D.C. pipe bomb suspect has confessed. Brian J. Cole Jr. was arrested earlier this month for allegedly planting two pipe bombs, one at the DNC and the other at the RNC on January 5th, 2021. There are some new court documents that are giving us insight into why.
They say Cole said that he believed that the 2020 election was stolen and quote, "In the defendant's view, if people feel that, you know, something as important as voting in the election is being tampered with, someone needs to speak up, right?
So, this case is finally resolved, it seems. But it's interesting that prior to this moment, all of these MAGA figures, including people in the government, the people charged with investigating this, were claiming that this was some kind of false flag. Here's Kash Patel talking about this just right after this arrest was made. Listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KASH PATEL, FBI DIRECTOR: In this instance, the prior administration had the same exact information that this FBI had access to and chose not to put the resources on target.
DONALD TRUMP JR., BUSINESSMAN: That to me is a far greater threat than any of the non-sense, you know, a grandma taking a selfie inside of January 6th and yet it just disappeared. It's almost like that was the back-up plan if they didn't get what they wanted out of January 6th, which to me seems like a very clear set-up operation.
PATEL: And look, you're absolutely right.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: A set-up operation?
SIMMONS: What are they talking about?
PHILLIP: Yes, good question.
SIMMONS: It's really strange. I mean, you know, obviously I used to work for Kamala Harris, not when she was inside the DNC when this occurred. Our friend Symone Sanders was with her. There were people in that building who were working. There were people at the RNC who were working on behalf of democracy, or their perspective on democracy.
And so, for the -- for the people on the internet, the kind of the talkers, to then start to go into this conspiracy theory, negates the fact that there were legitimate law enforcement agencies who were out trying to investigate this, trying to protect people who were electing the President, trying to hold onto a democracy, and on January 6th defend the United States Capitol against people who were marching in there to defile the Capitol and stop a legitimate election process.
[22:35:06]
What are they talking about? I can't even believe that this is still on the -- on the air.
(CROSSTALK)
RANTZ: Here's what they're talking about. They're the ones who caught the guy and got the confession. So, while I certainly understand that there should be criticism of speculation as to why something is happening.
But obviously, that kind of speculation comes in a vacuum when you don't actually have any information that the government should have been providing, which is, for example, four years under the Biden FBI, they didn't get this guy. Why is that? I think that is a valid question.
(CROSSTALK)
RANTZ: Yes. No, I think it's a conspiracy but I do think it's a valid question.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: Yes, I think it is a valid question, but for the FBI director to suggest that it was a back-up plan if they didn't get what they wanted on January 6th, who's they? RANTZ: He's speaking -- he's speaking speculatively, he was playing into rhetoric. I don't agree with it and I don't think he should have done it. However, it's also important to note he's the one who stopped it.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: It's also -- I mean, I mean, it's wrong, it's irresponsible. It also kind of upends this whole narrative that January 6th was just this walk in the park and everybody was just coming for a picnic in the Capitol, and that those people have every right to be on the street as they are now because they've been pardoned.
I mean, this guy had the same objective as all of those other people who stormed the Capitol, broke into the place, defiled the place, were chanting that they wanted to hang Mike Pence. So that's what this upends. It upends that narrative, as well.
JENNINGS: Well, look, there seems to be some indication in the filings this guy has some kind of severe autism. And we're not entirely sure, you know, what sort of state of mind he was in.
PHILLIP: What does that change -- what does that change about his motivations?
(CROSSTALK)
JENNINGS: Well, I'm just saying --
PHILLIP: Because he was influenced by the same lies that all of those other people were.
JENNINGS: I mean, unless you're more qualified than me to take an assessment of this guy's mental health or mental faculties at the time he decided to do this, like, it doesn't appear to me based on what the lawyers have said that he was a political actor, that he has some kind of mental illness. And so, look --
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: I don't -- let me just say -- let me just say, as a factual matter, his attorneys have said that he has severe autism. We don't know of any mental illness. However, we also know that the defendant stated that he does not align politically with his family members and didn't tell them that he was going to a protest in support of then President Trump.
So, whether or not he had autism or not doesn't really change the fact that in the context of what was happening politically, he was influenced by the blatant lies about the 2020 election that were spread by the President and by his followers, and that motivated him and all of those other people to do what they did on January 5th and January 6th. That is -- that seems to be plain as day.
JENNINGS: Yes, I mean, that's what he has said in the context of the fact that his lawyers have said he has severe autism. Again, I'm not excusing any of this. I'm glad they caught the guy after all these years. This is something that was on the minds of everybody, like who in the world could have done this? Who was -- what forces were at play and there was all kinds of crazy theories out there.
Thank goodness they caught the guy and I don't want cast aspersions on the previous administration either. I'm sure they tried very hard, you know, to put it together. But this is actually one thing that has gone right in the FBI under Kash Patel. They took the case that had gotten kind of cold and they solved it and it was important that they did that. And so, it's ultimately a good thing rhetoric aside.
VIGELAND: Until his statements like that tamper the jury pool or the defense attorney for this guy is able to say look at this a completely irresponsible FBI director spouting off about cases as they're being investigated. It's the same thing with the shooting of Charlie Kirk, where they leaked all of this information and made these declarations publicly without actually knowing the facts first.
Gosh, if I were a defense attorney for these folks, I'd be frothing at the mouth here because of how irresponsible this FBI has been. And when just talking about the rhetoric here, there's always going to be people with mental illness and difficulty. And unfortunately in this society, we don't guarantee health care for people as a right.
And so, a lot of folks fall through the cracks. And we have a lot of guns, not in this instance, but we have a lot of people that are going to take crazy measures because we don't provide them with healthcare. And so --
(CROSSTALK)
RANTZ: If he's a victim of a broken health care system, that's the claim? After saying we don't have all the facts about what led to this, we're now saying --
(CROSSTALK)
VIGELAND: I just -- I analyze politics from a systemic perspective and I'm basically saying that my overall thesis is that that's why you need public figures to have some sort of responsibility about what they say.
One of the things about this Trump era is that we have completely lost track of what civic engagement should be and what it means to be a leader, and somebody that stands in front of a podium and represents this country between calling reporters piggies, between spouting off conspiracism (ph) all the time, between talking about these percentages -- oh I'm going to decrease the drug crisis by --
(CROSSTALK)
RANTZ: He's in the Jewish government of genocide. That might --
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: Well, Jason, let me -- well, Jason, let me ask you. VIGELAND: Hold on, I'm sorry. I'm sorry --
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: Hold on a second. Hold on, Emma. Let me ask you about this because what she just said, the responsibility of leaders in our political system.
[22:40:04]
I mean, that seems like something we can agree on, that there are always going to be people who are unstable, who have all kinds of different issues or challenges. But the responsibility of the people who are supposed to be with their faculties is to be responsible, not to spread falsehoods, not to lead people down dangerous roads. That seems like a perfectly reasonable --
(CROSSTALK)
RANTZ: Yes, I think that that is in fact reasonable. I look at things, good faith versus bad faith. And I think the fact that Kash Patel is the one, and Dan Bongino is the one who helped solve this case and reinvigorate the investigation indicates that they believe what they said at the time that they said it.
Now, it doesn't make it right. It doesn't make it responsible. But the reality is, they caught the guy, and that again is a positive. If they really believe that this was a conspiracy after looking at all the information they would not have come out and solved this case.
PHILLIP: I mean, I don't know. I mean, those comments were made after they caught the guy. So, who knows? But some California billionaires are thinking about packing up and leaving the state. What's behind that possible move? Well, it's a wealth tax. We'll debate it next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:45:32]
PHILLIP: Billionaires are threatening to leave California and it's all because of a possible new ballot initiative in the state. It's a wealth tax. A healthcare labor group is behind this push calling for a one-time tax on billionaires equal to 10 percent of their assets. And right now, it does not have enough signatures to get on the ballot. But this proposal has started a raging debate over how much the Uber rich should pay in the case of California, all 200 or so of them.
These are big numbers, just to let people know what we're talking about here. Larry Page, for example, he's worth $258 billion. His estimated tax would be $12 billion. Peter Thiel, worth $27 billion. His estimated tax would be $1.2 billion. That's not $1.2 in your pocket. It's billions of dollars. So, I mean, should they or should they not?
VIGELAND: I mean, look at that as a percentage then. Do you think that that's really going to hurt Peter Thiel, and you know, he's not going be able to be a job creator here in this country anymore? No, this is exactly what needs to happen. It should be federalized and it should be more. We are at gilded age levels of incoming wealth inequality right now. We have hit a record of credit card debt.
We just hit a record of subprime auto delinquencies and that's because the everyday person is hurting and that's because since really the Reagan years, we have participated in the transfer of wealth to the top one percent to the top point zero one percent to a point where regular people can't get by.
We can have our basic needs met including health care not being guaranteed on like every other western government that provides that for people, on like being the only country that doesn't guarantee of paid family leave. And that is because there has been corporate capture and wealth capture of our government. So, this is a in the right direction.
(CROSSTALK)
RANTZ: In California? Who's in charge in California?
VIGELAND: So, here's --
RANTZ: Who's in charge in California? It's the Democrats. And so under the Democratic process --
(CROSSTALK)
VIGELAND: Well, the Democrats -- you're probably don't know much about my show. I'm incredibly critical of Democrats on my program, as well.
RANTZ: Great. Except not tonight.
(CROSSTALK)
VIGELAND: Okay, okay. Well, I --
(CROSSTALK)
VIGELAND: -- about Biden.
RANTZ: Yes, I mean, look, you have Democrats in charge and rather than looking at their own budget and saying, perhaps we're doing things a little lopsided, perhaps we're not spending money in a frugal enough way for our state. They don't do that at all first. They never do that. They never look inward.
And the same in Washington State where I'm from, we just also introduced a millionaire tax that's going after millionaires instead of billionaires. And what we've seen after them going after the capital gains tax, implementing it, a lot of them left, including Jeff Bezos and a lot of high-profile folks who decided to leave.
You can go ahead and pretend that the folks who are billionaires are billionaires merely because they got handed something to them by the Democratic establishment or the Republicans. But at the end of the day, you're not actually doing anything to help people who are in a position right now who are in fact struggling. All you're doing is punishing someone for being successful.
VIGELAND: No, no, I'm sorry. The governments redistribute resources. That's what we do. And we make these choices.
(CROSSTALK)
RANTZ: And the billionaires pay a huge portion already.
VIGELAND: Oh, really?
RANTZ: Yes, really.
VIGELAND: What do they do?
RANTZ: It's called property taxes. It's called sales taxes. You would certainly concede that billionaires spend more in sales tax, right?
(CROSSTALK)
VIGELAND: Why can my generation not afford to own a home? And that's in part because of property ownership.
(CROSSTALK)
VIGELAND: No, it's not our job. It's about base. It's about return.
JENNINGS: Is it the government's job to buy for you?
VIGELAND: No, it's not the government's job to buy people homes.
JENNINGS: Then why does the government need their money?
VIGELAND: Okay because, do you agree that the government's job is to redistribute wealth and --
JENNINGS: No.
VIGELAND: But they already do that.
JENNINGS: Strongly disagree.
VIGELAND: They just make choices. But they make choices via taxes. But what do taxes do? No, Scott. What do taxes do? Redistribute wealth, right?
JENNINGS: No, not redistribute it to individuals. It's supposed to be used for common good. It's supposed to be used for common good.
VIGELAND: The government makes choices. So you can make choices in a different way.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: That is what -- (CROSSTALK)
VIGELAND: I'm sorry, just quickly --
(CROSSTALK)
JENNINGS: My criticism --
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: -- trying to do would be to, basically to tax people who are extraordinarily wealthy. These are not --is not a millionaire tax. These are people -- we're talking billions of dollars, okay? That is more money than most people can even fathom.
JENNINGS: Worth debating.
PHILLIP: So, I'm not arguing for it. I'm just saying it's not a millionaire tax. It's a billionaire tax. And the idea would be, I guess, to use that revenue in order to offer improvements for the average Californian.
JENNINGS: Worth debating. Why pick a billion? Why in Washington did you pick a million? Why don't you pick 999,999? Why not pick 500,000? Why pick five percent? Why not six? Why not 10? Why not 20? Why not 50? The thing is, it's all arbitrary just to attack people that we hate.
[22:50:00]
And it is not for the public benefit. In California, the state auditor just found $70 billion in fraud going on in the state. The reason they need a wealth tax is to cover up the fraud. The hole in the budget in California is due to fraud. That's why they're trying to tax people --
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: There is fraud in every state in the union.
JENNINGS: Seventy billion?
PHILLIP: Red states and in blue states. I mean, look. In Mississippi, there was a massive fraud scheme --
JENNINGS: What about the other end state?
PHILLIP: A massive fraud scheme that was I think something like $70 million.
JENNINGS: What about -- 70 million? They're pikers compared to Minneapolis. What's going on there right now?
PHILLIP: Yes, well, you just said, look, that's a lot of money for the state of Mississippi.
(CROSSTALK) PHILLIP: But let me just me just lay out what -- this is Ro Khanna -- says, "The seminal innovation in tech is done by thousands, often with public funds. So yes, a billionaire tax is good for American innovation, which depends on a strong and thriving American democracy."
You know, the other side of that is a venture capitalist saying, the inevitable outcome of this will be an exodus of the state's most talented entrepreneurs who can and will choose to build their companies in less regressive states.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: I mean, California is already a very expensive state, and yet they are still there. They are still running their companies.
JENNINGS: Would you leave if somebody targeted you with taxes? Would you leave?
SIMMONS: I live in New Jersey. People targeting me taxes all the time.
JENNINGS: You should leave. Red states everywhere would accept you, Jamal. I promise.
SIMMONS: I bet they would.
(CROSSTALK)
SIMMONS: But the question here is, like, what are we in this for, right? Like, what's the whole point of the entire society that we have? And in fact, what we have is a moment where young people in our society, 18 and 29 year olds are sitting on top of mounds of debt. They aren't making any money.
They don't believe they can have the American dream that they were promised by their parents and grandparents. At what point are we going to create some sort of a runway for these young people to be able to take off and have lives and dreams they hope for?
(CROSSTALK)
SIMMONS: The question for me is we when we're talking about the uber rich, if they don't want to give up one percent, two percent, five percent, what's their alternative? What is the place as leaders of our society?
JENNINGS: Create jobs.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: Let me throw out one other thing. One of the other arguments that is being made here is that a lot of these incredibly wealthy people, they have their wealth in assets that they never actually tap into. And so then, they don't get taxed on their wealth. Nina Turner, a friend of the show says, unrealized gains are already taxed in the U.S. in the form of property taxes. A working-class homeowner pays when their home appreciates in value.
Meanwhile, if someone extremely wealthy buys a $1 million painting and it goes up to $2 million in a year, that isn't taxed.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: No more loopholes.
RANTZ: With respect to Nina's argument that --
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: I mean they're putting --
(CROSSTALK)
RANTZ: -- calling 911. They're police to show up --
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: They're putting -- if you're wealthy, if you're uber wealthy, you're putting your money, yes, into a house, but you're probably putting it into a lot of other things that are never taxed. And I think that's the point that she's making.
(CROSSTALK)
RANTZ: But I guess I reject that. It is being taxed. When you're purchasing that painting, you're still paying a tax on that, right? When you're buying the yacht, someone's putting together that yacht. Someone's actually manufacturing it. So you are, fact, paying on lots of --
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: But remember, you pay taxes on the house. And then you also pay -- you also pay taxes on top of that.
(CROSSTALK)
RANTZ: For services -- you're paying it, so that police show up, so that EMT show up. You're actually paying --
PHILLIP: I think that's the argument that Nina is making is that they want rich people to pay for --
(CROSSTALK)
UNKNOWN: What's rich?
(CROSSTALK)
RANTZ: It's a bad argument.
PHILLIP: A billionaire. A privilege --
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: -- of living in upstate that facilitates their ability to become --
(CROSSTALK)
VIGELAND: But you're admitting it's arbitrary which was exactly my argument previously. Let me just -- I just want to say I'm sorry but --
(CROSSTALK)
JENNINGS: Why pick arbitrary people that we hate?
VIGELAND: But you're-- it's not. It's about the level of wealth that they have concentrated
JENNINGS: How much is too much?
VIGELAND: -- And when -- excuse me, I'm going to finish my point now.
JENNINGS: What's the number?
VIGELAND: What -- what is what is important to point out is that when this country was growing and it was the greatest period of growth, the top marginal tax rate was 90 percent at the equivalent of $4 million dollars, if you -- every dollar that you made over $4 million was taxed at 90 percent rate prior to the era of neoliberalism and then eventually Ronald Reagan slashing taxes and leading to this explosion of incoming wealth inequality.
And California already did this with Prop 30, I think it was in 2012 or 2011. They raised the top marginal tax rates on millionaires. And you know what happened? The number of millionaires in California --
(CROSSTALK)
VIGELAND: No, no, let me finish.
(CROSSTALK)
JENNINGS: I mean --
VIGELAND: The number of millionaires increased in California. So, there's nothing to this capital --
(CROSSTALK)
JENNINGS: What is the number that makes you too rich?
VIGELAND: That is not my -- my --
(CROSSTALK)
VIGELAND: The top one percent. RANTZ: It's when you look at the problems in your state and you
determine we need X amount of money, and so you go after the person when you can say, well, we can justify this under five percent.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: All right.
SIMMONS: What we need is more opportunity for more people to be able to rich like these other guys.
[22:55:01]
RANTZ: Success.
(CROSSTALK)
VIGELAND: Billionaire defense.
SIMMONS: No, what we don't have is the ability for people to make as much money as these guys. Because we've been pulling --
JENNINGS: Put me down for pro-capitalism.
SIMMONS: -- we've been pulling -- I'm pro-capitalism, too. I want more capitalism in more places that doesn't already exist. I want more capitalism --
(CROSSTALK)
SIMMONS: No, no, in urban communities where kids are trying to build companies and they can't get financing to do it. We've got to figure out how we're to make the society that worked for all these young people.
PHILLIP: All right, next for us. The other big New Year's event here in New York City. Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani is going to get sworn in at an abandoned subway station at City Hall. Will he be able to deliver, though, on those big promises that he made? Be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:00:00]
PHILLIP: Tonight, he's made some bold promises and in just a few days the nation will see if Zohran Mamdani is prepared to keep them. The New York City mayor-elect is making his final appointments and he'll be sworn in on New Year's Day -- or New Year's Eve at midnight in an abandoned subway station under City Hall.
The 34-year-old mayor-elect has pledged to freeze the rent for one million rent-stabilized apartments providing universal free healthcare and childcare -- universal free childcare, excuse me, free buses and city-sponsored grocery stores. His most ambitious proposal, though, involves taxing the wealthiest New Yorkers, which the mayor traditionally has very little power to do. So, time will tell if he can accomplish all of those lofty goals.
The second hour of CNN "NewsNight" starts right now.
