Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Witkoff Heads to Russia; Rep. Adam Smith (D-WA) is Interviewed about Ukraine Talks; National Guard Shooting Suspect Radicalized in U.S.; Poll Numbers on Trump and Republicans; Lowest Gas Prices Since 2021; Madison Mills is Interviewed about Homeownership. Aired 8:30-9a ET

Aired December 01, 2025 - 08:30   ET

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

[08:30:00]

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Not helpful.

There's a good chance we can make a deal.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SARA SIDNER, CNN ANCHOR: CNN's Nick Paton Walsh is live on the ground in Kyiv for us.

Nick, what are you hearing about, from there, about how these talks are progressing?

NICK PATON WALSH, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: Yes, I mean, keen to put out positive messaging that there is some sort of progress they feel at hand. But clearly Secretary of State Marco Rubio saying there's still a lot of difficult work potentially ahead and a lot of choreography, diplomatic movement over the next 24, 48 hours.

President Zelenskyy of Ukraine currently in Paris meeting Emmanuel Macron. Tomorrow he'll head to Ireland. Part of his negotiating team will been headed towards Ireland ultimately as a destination as well to likely debrief him in person he has said.

And then Steve Witkoff, President Trump's envoy, headed to the Kremlin, likely with some sort of revised plan to present in front of Russian President Vladimir Putin. Likely, I would imagine, the Kremlin have pretty good idea what might be in that. And I think from the signals we're seeing here, this is ultimately going to rest on whether or not they can somehow thread the needle or create some kind of fudge as to where the front line ultimately sits in the event of some kind of peace deal.

There is the Kremlin's maximalist demand that they get all of the Donetsk region. They've said that from the start. Although they appear to have slightly reduced their demands for the Kherson and Zaporizhzhia regions. But Ukraine, up until months ago, considered that kind of concession a complete red line. They likely still do, but I think we're seeing some of the language here revolve around the idea of territorial swaps. There are parts of Ukraine that Russia occupies that they might potentially withdraw from.

All of this, though exceptionally politically dicey for Volodymyr Zelenskyy. His chief of staff, his top negotiator, resigning after having his home raided by anti-corruption investigators just on Friday. Now that may, to some degree, have confused or hobbled Ukraine's stance at the talks in Florida, but they do still appear to have moved ahead with adequate pace. And I think there are many deeply concerned here in Ukraine as exactly what the nature of the offer Witkoff is traveling with.

There are many circumstances around it involving Ukrainian membership of NATO, potential elections in Ukraine here, the geopolitical stance of Ukraine and generally European allies and their assistance to Ukraine in the future. These are future ideas which will likely end up being changed as time goes by. The ultimate crux of a deal or no deal is this issue of territorial concessions and an end to the war that lasts. That also requires security guarantees. And they seem also still to be being hammered out.

Sara.

SIDNER: All right. Nick Paton Walsh, thank you for your reporting there from Kyiv for us on the ongoing talks there.

John.

JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: With us is Congressman Adam Smith from Washington, Democrat, the ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee.

Congressman, thanks so much for being with us.

Steve Witkoff on his way to Moscow. He might meet with Vladimir Putin. What do you think he's bringing with him and how much faith do you have in his negotiating?

REP. ADAM SMITH (D-WA): I don't have a lot of faith. I think what he's bringing with him is the message to Vladimir Putin that the sweetheart deal that he was trying to give him just isn't going to work. There was sufficient pushback in the U.S. and a variety of different places, certainly from Europe and Ukraine, that that deal is going to have to fundamentally change. Whether or not Russia will be open to that, it's hard to say, because remember what Putin wants. He wants control of all of Ukraine. It does not look like he's going to be able to achieve that. But does he know that yet? And is he really willing to cut a deal short of that?

The key's on our side. Ukraine has to be able to defend itself going forward. There have to be significant security guarantees. And Ukraine certainly can't be giving territory to Russia that Russia hasn't even taken yet. So, I think there's a long way to go to actually get to a peace agreement.

BERMAN: We'll see what happens in the next few days.

I wanted to ask you, Congressman, you are the ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee, which may be doing an investigation now into what happened in the Caribbean off the coast of Venezuela, the reports of this strike and the second strike on survivors in the water there. If you do have an investigation, what specific questions do you have?

SMITH: Yes. Well, first of all, if it played out the way it was described in "The Washington Post" article, it's clearly illegal. Even if there is a war. And, look, a huge part of the problem is the Trump administration has never adequately explained the legal justification for what they're doing in blowing up these boats down in Latin America. They haven't presented that case. And they're sort of in a middle ground. If there is not a declared conflict, then we're in basic law enforcement mode. And you can't go blowing these things up in the first place. You know, no probable cause, no due process, clear violation of the law. If they want to claim there is an armed conflict, but there are rules for armed conflict, which the United States of America typically follows.

[08:35:04]

And one of them is, you can't effectively just kill survivors who are no longer a threat to you. So, either way, this is illegal if it played out the way it did.

So, number one, what happened? And we have not seen a specific denial from anyone in the White House or the Pentagon. There's been all kinds of, oh, its fake news. It's blah, blah, blah. But it's very simple question. You know, you hit the boat once. Was it hit a second time with two survivors on the boat? So, that's a big part of it.

But the whole operation is in question. As I said, there's questionable legality on the original boat strikes in the first place. And then what are we really doing down there? It's supposedly about drugs. But you've got Donald Trump pardoning the convicted drug dealer who -- the former president of Honduras. So, if we're concerned about this, why are you doing that?

So, we have a lot of questions that the Pentagon and the White House, they simply haven't provided to Congress, which is why you're seeing bipartisan pushback on what's going on.

BERMAN: Do you know whether there is video of the entire incident that will prove definitively whether there was a second strike?

SMITH: I do not. Look, the lack of transparency from this Pentagon has been a major problem. I think it's one of the biggest things that's chafed at the Republicans. You know, they're in the majority, in the House and the Senate. They can't get access to basic information like that. So, I think you're going to see a renewed push in light of this incident and a whole lot of other --

BERMAN: Let me --

SMITH: And also, the president, obviously, is weakening. So, there's vulnerability. So, I think Republicans are really going to start to push and say, hey, give us answers here. BERMAN: Let me ask, just to be very clear about this, if there was a

second strike on survivors, you say that by definition is illegal. Illegal -- an illegal act by whom then?

SMITH: Well, it depends. It depends on who gave the order. I mean, you know, and I don't want to prejudge this because this is very serious stuff and we have to know exactly what the facts are. But if Secretary Hegseth gave an order to kill survivors who were no longer a threat, that's a crime. And anyone who carried out that order, who did that, also committed a crime, which is the whole point of what Senator Kelly and the other five members of Congress said.

And it's in the UCMJ. It's not something that, you know, Mark Kelly's making up. You are not supposed to follow orders that are clearly illegal. And this Pentagon has put our service members in an incredibly vulnerable position with just an utter contempt for the law. Secretary Hegseth has always felt the Judge Advocate General, the lawyers who tell you what's legal if you're in the services, he's had nothing but contempt for them, as if the law doesn't apply to him. That places the people that he is in charge of, our service members, in an incredibly vulnerable position if their superior doesn't feel like following the law.

BERMAN: Again, the reporting, to be clear, it's not clear whether Hegseth gave -- the reporting isn't that he gave a separate order as far as we knew after -- after the first strike to kill the survivors.

SMITH: Absolutely. Yes.

BERMAN: But if the initial order was, kill everyone, is that enough to raise questions about illegality?

SMITH: Yes, it would depend on the circumstances. I can't -- it certainly raises the question. And it's something that needs to be investigated. That type of order is typically not given and not justified as far as I know. Yes, if that order came out, that would be a huge problem.

And again, we got to get the actual facts, and this is where the Pentagon is, you know, part of the problem, they're not giving us the actual details and the facts around this.

BERMAN: Congressman Adam Smith, from Washington, as I said, the ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee, a lot of questions before your committee over this incident. So, thank you very much for being with us this morning.

Kate.

KATE BOLDUAN, CNN ANCHOR: Also this morning, we are learning more about the man accused of carrying out the ambush style shooting in Washington, D.C. that killed one National Guards member and left another National Guardsman fighting for his life. The suspect is an Afghan national. He arrived in the U.S. in 2021 as part of a resettlement program after he worked with the CIA during U.S. operations in Afghanistan and was granted asylum this year. Now, the secretary of Homeland Security says he became radicalized after arriving in the United States.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KRISTI NOEM, HOMELAND SECURITY SECRETARY: We believe he was radicalized since he's been here in this country. We do believe it was through connections in his home community and state. And we're going to continue to talk to those who interacted with him, who were his family members, talk to them. So far we've had some participation, but anyone who has information on this needs to know that we will be coming after you and we will bring you to justice.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BOLDUAN: Joining us right now is CNN's senior law enforcement analyst, former deputy director of the FBI, Andrew McCabe, for more on this.

[08:40:01]

Andy, this man's path to being radicalized is clearly a huge focus now. Would you be surprised to learn that he was radicalized just entirely after arriving in the United States, rather than before?

ANDREW MCCABE, CNN SENIOR LAW ENFORCEMENT ANALYST: Good morning, Kate.

Under the circumstances, I wouldn't be surprised. But before we discuss it, I think it's important to be kind of precise with our language, right? There's -- when we talk about a path to radicalization or somebody radicalizing, typically we're referring to the process that people go down when they become more extreme in their religious or political beliefs and they ultimately get to the point where they decide they should -- they need to resort to violence to support those beliefs. So, we don't have any hard evidence that that's what's happened here. They've -- there's no -- the investigators haven't revealed any indication that he was in touch with other radicals, right? In touch with other terrorists overseas or people here who are encouraging him to do that.

But what is pretty clear is that this person, this Lakanwal, went down, really his life sort of devolved in the last year. We know that he was vetted before he was allowed to work with the CIA and our special forces folks. If there had been any indication at that time that he had contacts with known terrorists or with sympathetic to Taliban or other terrorist viewpoints, he never would have been approved to work with the U.S. military or the CIA.

We know he was vetted again before he came into this country. So, you can assume the same sort of result there. The question is, what happened here? Was this a result of a traditional radicalization, consumption of online propaganda, or was this just someone whose life fell apart when he got to this country, having been taken away from his military background, lost his -- basically his employment, his status, his esteem and what he was doing for a living, lost his work permit, couldn't provide for his family, was living in substandard conditions, detached from his culture and his heritage. I think either of those conclusions are possible. We just need the evidence. We need to see what the investigators are finding. BOLDUAN: And what we have seen is part of the -- is part of the --

kind of the narrative around this is that both the president, and we heard it from the Homeland Security secretary as well, casting blame on the prior administration, on the Biden administration, for, you know, quote/unquote, this. You say that is oversimplified to do that. Why?

MCCABE: Yes, grossly oversimplified. I think it's -- because it -- they're -- each -- you know, they're trying to create the presumption that the mistakes were made under the prior administration. When we know the facts are that he was vetted both under the prior administration and under the current administration, who made the decision to grant him asylum here just this year. I think both of those conclusions kind of ignore the obvious fact, which is that vetting is a very imprecise, imperfect science. Vetting depends exclusively on checking someone out by accessing information that we have in our own possession or can get from the country that that person's coming from. That information is often inaccurate. It can be unreliable, as in the case here. You don't have a -- really a functioning government in Afghanistan when he tried to come over to the United States. Essentially we're left with a process where the absence of any negative information equals a positive result. And that is by definition, you know, not completely reliable. There may have been negative information out there that we just didn't have access to.

So, vetting processes are never perfect. There is no guarantee when you look into someone's background to grant them entry, that they'll come here and never make a mistake or commit a crime or do something violent. This appears to be one of those instances that obviously has gone horribly wrong.

BOLDUAN: Horribly wrong.

Andy, great to see you. Thank you so much for the help.

Sara.

SIDNER: OK, this morning, there is a new sign for President Trump and the Republican Party. And it's a warning. A fresh poll from Gallup is out that could put Republicans on shaky ground in the midterms if the president's approval rating is an indicator of how they'll do.

CNN's chief data analyst Harry Enten is here.

All right, give us the goods on what this new Gallup poll says.

HARRY ENTEN, CNN CHIEF DATA ANALYST: I mean, it's a disaster if it holds towards the midterm elections. And I should note, of course, it's not alone. I mean, just take a look here. This is Gallup. This is the longest running poll. You know, Gallup has been conducting poll since my father was a kid. And my father was born in 1927. Had me in the '60s.

Look at this. In January, Donald Trump's net approval rating. Not too bad. Not too great. It was at minus one point. Right within the margin of error. Breaking even. But look at this now, negative 24 points. Way, way down. We're talking about a drop of over 20 points in the wrong direction for the president of the United States.

[08:45:06]

Minus 24 points. That's a 23-point move in the incorrect direction if you're the president. And, of course, what's so important here, Sara Sidner, is it matches the trend that we've seen with other polls. That is Donald Trump hitting his low for the second term. I was doing the count last night. I think we're up to ten polls in sort of the last 40 days. Ten different pollsters who have said that Trump is at the lowest point he is in his second term.

SIDNER: So, how does this compare to other presidents in their second term at this point in time?

ENTEN: Yes. OK. So, you know, this is one of these great examples where I kind of run out of room on the slide. So, I just --

SIDNER: You sure did.

ENTEN: Yes, I run out of room on the slide. So, I just put up the -- put up the Republican presidents. But look, the only one who's worse for me, either among Republicans or Democrats at this point in his second term, is Richard Nixon. And, of course, Richard Nixon had to wave adios amigos, goodbye, less than a year after this poll was taken. He was at minus 36 points. Trump at minus 24 points. That beats or is worse, I should say, beats in the wrong direction. George W. Bush, minus 19 points. His Republican Party, of course, suffered major losses in the 2006 midterm elections. Dwight Eisenhower, plus 31 points.

SIDNER: Wow.

ENTEN: Donald Trump has never smelt that at all. I had to go into the archives to dig up that photo. And Ronald Reagan at plus 41 points. But again, it also is worse than Harry S. Truman. It's worse than Lyndon Baines Johnson. It's worse than Barack Obama. It's worse than Bill Clinton. Anywhere you look, this is the second worst for a president of either party at this point in their second term, dating all the way back since the 1940s.

SIDNER: Wow. All right, look, what does this mean for the midterms? Because are you seeing a trend that it's linked to how people feel about the president?

ENTEN: Yes. OK. So, you know, we always say, hey, look, you know, we still got 11 months until the midterm elections.

SIDNER: Right.

ENTEN: That's forever in politics. So, I decided to go back and look. At this point in a second term, what happened? What was the trend line heading into the midterm elections? Were there any presidents who saw their net approval ratings rise by more than five points? Well, guess what, Sara Sidner, you go all the way back since Harry S. Truman, zero out of eight times that the president's net approval rating rise by over five points. And, of course, Donald Trump, right now in Gallup, minus 24 points. He's in the minus teens according to the average. If he does not see a rise of more than five points, see you later, that Republican majority. It has never happened. Of course we live in such a weird time in politics. Who knows?

SIDNER: We are in a weird time.

ENTEN: We live in a weird time.

SIDNER: Yes, we -- we are.

ENTEN: But he's going to have to break history, Sara Sidner.

SIDNER: All right, we will have to see, Mr. Harry Enten.

ENTEN: We will see.

SIDNER: But you are breaking the bank. You're looking pretty good today. I like it.

ENTEN: I feel pretty gosh darn good.

SIDNER: I like that suit.

ENTEN: Especially after my Buffalo Bills.

SIDNER: I know.

ENTEN: That defense. That running back, James Cook. My goodness gracious. Josh Allen. Hey, maybe this is the year we go all the way.

SIDNER: I threw him the pass and he went all the way, John.

ENTEN: Beautiful.

BERMAN: All right, own a home or lay down some cash on that same game parlay. An increasing number of young Americans choosing the latter. Is that really a great bet?

And was Mickey Mouse an unwitting accomplice in a casino cheating plot?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[08:52:59]

SIDNER: That deadly inferno in a Hong Kong residential complex has now claimed 151 lives, and officials fear the number of dead will rise as there are still more than 30 people unaccounted for. The whole city is mourning this. So far, 104 of the 151 victims have been identified. Officials warn they may not be able to recover every body because some remains were reduced to ashes. We're hearing more harrowing stories from those who did survive the fire, some who said they didn't believe they would actually survive all this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

WILLIAM LI, HONG KONG FIRE SURVIVOR: When I saw my window in this situation, I felt that this time I might actually die, or I won't make it past today. I told my friends that I might not be able to leave. And if anything happens to me, take care of my children.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SIDNER: While the death toll has risen, so have arrests. Authorities say 14 people have been arrested in connection with that fire, and they're not ruling out more arrests as this investigation continues.

John.

BERMAN: All right, new this morning, some states seeing gas prices below $3 for the first time in years.

Let's get to CNN's Matt Egan for the good news on this.

MATT EGAN, CNN SENIOR REPORTER: Yes, absolutely. It's nice to finally be here with some good news on the cost of living front.

So, for the first time in four and a half years, gas prices are averaging $3 a gallon nationally, according to AAA, down by $0.07 in just the past week. Gas prices were low a year ago as well, but they're even cheaper now. This is encouraging to see because late last month there was a period where gas prices were actually higher this year than last year, but that has reversed again. And now we've just fractions of a penny away from breaking below $3 a gallon.

As you mentioned, we've got 20 states across the country where the average is actually less than $2.75 a gallon, including North Carolina, South Carolina, Texas, Iowa, Wisconsin and Colorado as well. Certainly nice to see this.

[08:55:02]

Why is this happening? Well, it all comes down, of course, to oil prices, right? Oil prices are about $59 a barrel this morning. If you look back in history, on December 1, three years ago, we were looking at $81 a barrel for oil.

BERMAN: Yes.

EGAN: $67 even last year. So, significantly cheaper. And that's because, right now, supply of oil continues to outpace demand. It's U.S. supply. Production in the U.S. is at all-time highs. It's higher than last year, but only a little bit higher. OPEC is the big story, though, right? Saudi OPEC, they are ramping up production substantially this year. They've signaled that they plan to pause those output hikes next year. But for now, look, this is a good story when it comes to the affordability crisis. Gasoline, it's relatively cheap.

BERMAN: All right, well, good news for now. Matt Egan, thank you very much for that. EGAN: Thank you, John.

BERMAN: Sara.

Kate.

Whoever.

BOLDUAN: (INAUDIBLE) watching. You have to see some of this video, images coming in. A wave of deadly storms sweeping across Asia. It has now left -- that video we'll get to in a little bit. Not that video. This video. That has left 1,000 people dead. Catastrophic flooding, landslides hitting Indonesia, Sri Lanka, Thailand and Malaysia. Rescue teams, they are really still struggling to reach some of the more isolated communities. And you can see why. I mean officials are warning the conditions very clearly remain dangerous. The full scope of the disaster is still unfolding. Hundreds of people are missing. So far, millions have been impacted by these dangerous floods.

Take a look -- take a look at that. That is how things ended up. This -- you got to see it to believe it -- showing the moment a suspected drunk driver crashed right into a home in Missouri. A teenage girl was actually sleeping in her bedroom at the time, was injured in this very scary scene. It happened around 1:00 in the morning, and the 14-year- old girl's parents say that she needed stitches and suffered a bad concussion. Can you imagine how terrifying that would be?

Let's take you to Australia right now. Police say a couple carried out a very high tech, very interesting casino scam using a Disney t-shirt, racking up more than $1 million in winnings. After casino staff, they started becoming a little suspicious of this couple's success at card games, security then spotted a tiny camera in the woman's Mickey Mouse t-shirt. Investigators say the pair had been using these hidden cameras and earpieces to cheat for some time. Officers arrested them inside the casino and later found even more gadgets and also cash in their house -- in their hotel.

Sara.

SIDNER: Oh, boy. All right. New this morning, while young Americans are putting homeownership on hold and putting their money into the stock market instead, new data shows where investors think the next wave of growth is heading. A new Goldman Sachs survey shows investors are making big bets on gold and big tech heading into 2026.

Joining me now, Madison Mills, senior markets reporter for "Axios."

Thank you for being here.

When you look at what younger Americans are doing, sort of increasingly planning for retirement. Instead of deciding, hey, I'm going to put my money in home, they're looking at the stock market. What does this tell you?

MADISON MILLS, SENIOR MARKETS REPORTER, "AXIOS": It's a huge generational shift in the concept of wealth building, Sara, and it's fascinating to watch because these younger investors, they haven't dealt with a protracted bear market. I mean, even over the month of November, I came on and was talking to you about stocks slumping.

SIDNER: Yes.

MILLS: Well, stocks ended up for the month. Like when stocks are down, that just doesn't last very long anymore. And that's a really powerful lesson for young investors that they can continue to buy the dip. And we've seen that playing out with a six-fold increase in the number of young people who are investing in stocks.

Meantime, obviously, as we all know, the amount of homeownership among young people has really plummeted as home ownership has gotten increasingly less affordable. So, couple those things together, and you've got young people investing in the stock market much more frequently.

SIDNER: I mean it's really smart on the part of young folks who are like, look, I can't buy a house, but maybe I can grow my money a different way. I certainly didn't think that way when I was in my 20s.

But you're also reporting on something that I find interesting because the market is kind of confusing. You reported on Goldman's 2026 outlook, that tech is surging -- that's not a surprise -- but that gold is also rallying. What is the cause of this? Isn't it normally that when you see gold rallying that there are people nervous about what is happening with economies and with the market?

MILLS: That's exactly right. These are two very opposing ideas from the markets textbooks that we would have learned about, right? Typically you see tech as a risk asset. that wouldn't necessarily rally at the same time as a risk off asset, a safe haven asset like gold.

[09:00:02]

But what's been fascinating over the course of this year is what's been driving gold hasn't necessarily been about safety. It's really been about.