Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Polls Open in Tennessee Special Congressional Election; Walshe Prosecution Reveals More Searches, Hacksaws, Cleaning Blood; Interview with Rep. Adam Smith (D-WA): Hegseth: Didn't Personally See Survivors After First Boat Strike; Kristi Noem Calls for Expanded Ban After National Guard Shooting. Aired 2:30-3p ET

Aired December 02, 2025 - 14:30   ET

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

[14:30:00]

EVA MCKEND, CNN NATIONAL POLITICS CORRESPONDENT: All the ads that he has seen, take a listen to the ads that voters in this district have just been bombarded with the last couple of weeks.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I'm a very radical person.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: On December 2nd, you can stop this radical disaster. The Democrats' radical agenda -- opposing tax cuts, pushing higher taxes and higher prices, and new taxes that would crush working families.

Tennessee can't afford their radical agenda.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MCKEND: So that is just what has been run time and time again, and voters have been seeing it. But listen, if Afton Bain is able to pull off an upset or lose this race by, but not by much, it could sort of reconstruct how Democrats run in these kind of red districts or in purple districts. Their logic typically is to put forward Republican- like candidates, moderate or conservative Democrats.

But what Bain has done maybe is flip the script. She's a progressive organizer, a social worker, and maybe she fits the profile of how Democrats can win these competitive races -- Boris.

BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN HOST: We shall see what happens tonight. Eva McKend live for us in Nashville. Thank you so much.

Up next, a record-setting storm already causing hundreds of car crashes in the Midwest, killing at least one person. That storm now taking aim at the Northeast.

We'll show you the forecast next.

[14:35:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: Happening now, a Massachusetts state police trooper is on the stand in Brian Walshe's murder trial. The man accused of killing and dismembering his wife in 2023. The trooper has been going through digital evidence extracted from Walshe's laptop. This includes graphic Google searches like best way to dispose of a body.

CNN's Jean Casarez is following the latest from court. Jean, these searches that are being shown to the jury today are from just after Walshe is alleged to have killed his wife, Anna.

Tell us more about them.

JEAN CASAREZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: And a few of them are before, but the majority are right in the vicinity of hours after she was dead, either by natural causes or murder. I want to tell you what just came before the jury because the prosecution wanted to get this in. They couldn't before lunch, but they just did.

Brian Walshe on January 1st did a Google search on Patrick Kearney. You probably wonder who's Patrick Kearney. He not only did the Google search -- he went to Wikipedia.

Well, they just got it in. Patrick Kearney was the trash bag killer. He Googled that on January 1st, hours after his wife was dead.

Now, the whole scenario here is that on Christmas Eve of 2022, they apparently had a loving evening with one guest, someone, an old friend they'd known. At 1:30 in the morning he left. And what the defense is saying is they went upstairs for about an hour to the bedroom.

And then he suddenly decides he needs to wash the dishes. He needs to clean the kitchen. He was the cook that night.

And so he went down, cleaned the kitchen. When he went back up, he noticed something strange with his wife, the defense says, and that he nudged her, nudged her again. She didn't move and then nudged her so hard because he panicked and she rolled off the bed.

He then panicked because she was dead. It went very dark for him. And that's when he figured out that he had to dismember her to get to get rid of her, because what would his children think?

So now we have the Google searches because the prosecution is saying this is premeditated murder. All right, the first thing we have to show you is on January 2nd.

So this is a day after his wife was deceased. How to saw a body. Can you identify a body with broken teeth?

Now, right there, the prosecutor needs cause of death, which we don't have. They don't have because you don't have a body, but broken teeth. Was there a violent fight?

Will the prosecution use this in their closing? Anyway, he -- he Googled this. And then also, can you be charged with murder without a body?

So that's all what his mindset is on January 2nd. And there's many more than that. But here on January 3rd, cleaning up blood without leaving a trace -- five tips.

Can police get your search history without your computer? And then more on January 2nd, I think we've got. 12:27 he typed in how to saw a body. Hacksaw for the best tool for dismembering a body. Can you be charged with murder without a body?

And then he clicked on Wikipedia murder conviction without a body. And it goes on and on and on. The prosecution will use this to show the timeline, the state of mind of Brian Walshe with his timeline.

And also they will equate it back to premeditation for murder. A lot of murder sites were looked at.

KEILAR: Yes, some beforehand, as you said. All right, Jean, again, a very interesting scene you paint there of what's been happening in the courtroom. We know you'll continue to watch it. Jean Casares, thank you.

Next, we have more on our breaking news this hour. The president suggesting that he could expand his attacks on alleged drug traffickers to include targets on land.

[14:40:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SANCHEZ: Lawmakers on Capitol Hill, including many Republicans, are now demanding answers after the Pentagon admitted carrying out a follow-up strike on an alleged drug boat that killed survivors. The Republican chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee says his panel will have access to audio and video from the September 2nd attack. Remember, just moments ago, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said that he watched it unfold live but was not there to see the second strike.

[14:45:00]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PETE HEGSETH, DEFENSE SECRETARY: I did not personally see survivors, but I stand -- because the thing was on fire. It was exploded and fire smoke. You can't see anything.

You got digital. This is called the fog of war. This is what you in the press don't understand.

You sit in your air-conditioned offices or up on Capitol Hill, and you nitpick, and you plant fake stories in the Washington Post about kill everybody, phrases on anonymous sources not based in anything, not based in any truth at all. And then you want to throw out really irresponsible terms about American heroes, about the judgment that they made. (END VIDEO CLIP)

SANCHEZ: Let's discuss with Democratic Congressman Adam Smith of Washington State. He is the ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee. Congressman, thanks so much for sharing part of your afternoon with us.

I want to get your reaction to what you're hearing there from Secretary Hegseth, and not just that, but also his statement that this is just the beginning and that these acts are above board legally because these alleged drug runners have been designated as narco- terrorists.

REP. ADAM SMITH (D-WA) RANKING MEMBER, ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE: Yes, well, the fog of war and the whole fake news comment that Secretary Hegseth was making there is really offensive. I mean, first of all, when this story first broke, he said, didn't happen, fake news. Now they're saying it did happen.

So he's not always honest. And if he wants accurate stories, they should be more transparent. But the fog of war comment in particular is unbelievably offensive.

There are people who are in the middle of the fog of war. And I have enormous sympathy for our troops who are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan when they're facing terrorist threats. And they don't know if that person is wearing a suicide vest or if that's a car bomb.

And they have to make very difficult decisions with their lives on the line. This was a boat sinking in the middle of the ocean, no threat to anybody, much less a service member. There's no fog of war here.

This was a decision that could be made. And if you couldn't see it, then why fire another shot? You got no reason to.

So Secretary Hegseth's complete misunderstanding of what's actually going on here is incredibly troubling. And then, yes, the larger mission is in question. And along the lines of what I was just saying, you have a right to self-defense.

And self-defense can sometimes be complicated. And we want to give our troops and the president the authority to act in self-defense when necessary. But there is no direct threat to the U.S. This boat wasn't even heading to the U.S. It wasn't even, you know, it wasn't targeting, trying to kill people. They're running drugs, which is a huge problem. But it's not the same as facing an imminent threat from an attack. So that fundamental misunderstanding is why I don't think these actions are legal within U.S. law or within the international law of war, which we have pledged to follow.

SANCHEZ: One of your counterparts on the Senate side, Senator Roger Wicker, says that all the video and audio of this incident will soon be available. Have you heard from the chairman on the House side, Chairman Rogers, on when you will see it?

SMITH: We have not. We hope so. But to date, the White House has not turned anything over.

And they're in violation of the law on that, by the way. This whole thing was launched in late July with an execute order that came out of the White House to start this mission. By law, the White House has to immediately transmit execute orders to the committees of jurisdiction in Congress, in this case, Armed Services House and Senate.

They didn't do that. They still haven't done that. They haven't provided us the video.

They haven't provided us the intelligence behind this. So this is not transparent. It's not following the law.

And we don't even really know for sure what it's about. Is it about drugs or is it about regime change in Venezuela?

SANCHEZ: Why do you think that hasn't been turned over, that footage, Congressman? Do you believe the administration is trying to hide something?

SMITH: No, the main reason I think it hasn't been turned over is the theme throughout this entire administration. President Trump and Secretary Hegseth have made it clear that they don't think they have to follow the law. They don't think they're accountable to anybody.

They do what they do, and everybody just has to live with it. And please understand that that's a real problem. Every administration I've ever dealt with has gotten into arguments with Congress about what exactly should they have to do under the law.

But I've never had an administration that so blatantly said, screw you, law doesn't apply to us, we can do whatever we want to do. And that attitude is dangerous because the law is there for a reason. It's there to make sure that things like this don't happen.

And also, we do want to know who exactly ordered the strike, because previously, Secretary Hegseth had implied that he was a lot more hands-on on these operations than he is now claiming to be.

SANCHEZ: That obviously leads to questions about accountability and what Congress can do.

[14:50:00]

I do want to ask you on the broader point that we're hearing from the White House here, there are folks out there who believe that these operations are helping to keep deadly drugs out of the United States, who feel that these alleged traffickers are poisoning the country, as the president has put it. Why should they care about the legality of this strike?

SMITH: Well, two things. First of all, drugs are a major problem in the United States of America. There's no question about that.

I do not see any legitimate argument that blowing up a few boats with some cocaine on them in the Caribbean, which most people say aren't even headed to the U.S., is having a significant impact on that drug problem. There's a lot of other policies that could work better. But second of all, is that really who the United States of America is?

Have we decided drugs are a problem? Therefore, if you are suspected, mind you, there's no evidence, no probable cause being put forth. If you are suspected, then the president in the United States military has the right to kill you.

And we'll figure it out later. You know, it's capital punishment for drug smuggling and capital punishment carried out with Donald Trump as judge, jury, and executioner. I mean, I'm with you.

I'm a tough on crime sort of guy, but that's what we're going to do. We're just going to kill people without any particular evidence and say, well, drugs are a problem. So what are you going to do?

There are a ton of other better legal options to address this problem.

SANCHEZ: Congressman Adam Smith, thank you so much for the time. We appreciate you sharing your point of view.

SMITH: Thanks, Boris.

SANCHEZ: Of course.

Coming up, a new threat from the Trump administration calls for an expanded travel ban impacting a dozen more countries and with some extreme language included, how that might play out next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KEILAR: Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem is calling for an expanded travel ban. Noem posting on X quote, "I just met with the president. I'm recommending a full travel ban on every damn country that's been flooding our nation with killers, leeches, and entitlement junkies."

Adding, "We don't want them, not one."

Sources say Noem is recommending the travel ban list include between 30 to 32 countries up from the current list of 19. This crackdown comes in the aftermath of last week's shooting here in Washington, where an Afghan national has been charged with killing one National Guard member and critically wounding another.

I'm joined now by John Sandweg, a former ICE acting director under President Obama. John, we don't know exactly which countries are on this proposed travel ban expansion. What are you watching for here?

JOHN SANDWEG, FORMER ICE ACTING DIRECTOR UNDER PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, Brianna, look, I think the first thing I'm looking at is hard to understand the justification here. Remember in June of this year, when the first travel ban with the 19 countries came out, Afghanistan was on the list. So when you look at an Afghan shooter, you know, taking additional steps in Afghanistan was already on the list. It's hard to see that nexus. But remember also Secretary Noem herself said that this looks like he

was radicalized after he went into the United States. What I'm concerned with is over the last year, since the beginning of the administration, we've been pulling a lot of FBI agents off the Joint Terrorism Task Force.

There's a lot of ICE agents who do criminal investigations off their national security functions. Those are the agents and officers who would detect the threat once it forms inside the United States after someone enters. I'd much rather see the secretary looking at, hey, should we be pulling agents back off this mass deportation effort, get them out of the Home Depot parking lots, put them back on these investigations than I would travel bans, especially when the country that was at issue here was already banned in June of this year.

KEILAR: Because of your question is maybe some folks who might already be in the country, right? It sounds like that might be a question that you have or others may have, especially this individual who was so well vetted for years and years.

SANDWEG: That's right, Brenda. The vetting is only as good as the information you have. But once people come in, we have seen consistently over the last 20 years, we have had terror threats where individuals pose no threat to the United States at the time of their entry but were radicalized after they enter the United States.

So whose responsibilities are there? That is typically what we want our FBI, our Joint Terrorism Task Forces, our HSI, our ICE agents to be detecting those threats. And they've made some incredible cases over the years.

My concern is that we've pulled those agents off those national security investigations and said, hey, we need you to participate in these roundups of immigrants in L.A., Chicago, grabbing these people off the streets. That's not the kind of work that leads you to detect when someone has become a threat after they enter the United States. That's my concern here.

And travel bans it's not going to solve this problem.

KEILAR: So as you question this expanded travel ban, considering that Afghanistan was already on the list, what do you think of Noem's language? She's talking about every damn country that's been flooding our nation with killers, leeches and entitlement junkies. You know, what's the effect of those kinds of words?

SANDWEG: You know, a lot of -- you know, Brianna, in an ideal world, ICE operations are going to be focused on intelligence and on data- driven risk assessments, right? Looking for individuals with a criminal history or where there's actual intelligence that you pose a threat to the United States. I do think one thing we see this administration doing a lot is go to stereotypes, looking at certain countries and applying stereotypes of the nationals of that country.

That's not effective targeting, right? To say, you know, there's rumors coming out that they're going to be doing, you know, stories broke that they're going to be doing an operation against Somalis in Minneapolis. You can't just say the Somalis pose a threat, you know, rather than focusing on actual data and risk-based assessments, right?

And what concerns me is as we look at saying blocking travel, you know, from certain countries, or as we go after certain nationalities, we're making it easier on the people who actually pose a threat. But Brianna, really quickly, obviously, look, I think at the end of the day, this reminds me of the old Rahm Emanuel quote, where he said, don't let a good crisis go to waste. I think the administration sees the shooting in D.C. as an opportunity to justify further enactments of the agenda, right?

I mean, they've been kicking around this idea of a 30-country travel ban for a while. I think this provides them some justification for it, even though there's not an actual nexus in terms of policy.

KEILAR: Yes, very interesting. John Sandweg, thank you so much for your analysis. We really, really appreciate it.