Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

New York Times Suing Defense Department Over Restrictive Pentagon Press Rules; Interview with Rep. Jimmy Panetta (D-CA): Navy Admiral Who Oversaw Double-Tap Boat Strike Briefs Congress; Former FDA, CDC Leaders Warn U.S. Vaccine Policy is Under Threat; Family Files First Know Formal Complaint Over Deadly Boat Strike. Aired 7:30- 8a ET

Aired December 04, 2025 - 07:30   ET

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

[07:30:00]

SARA SIDNER, CNN ANCHOR: Good morning. The New York Times is ramping up its fight over the Pentagon's press crackdown. The Times is the first to sue the Defense Department and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.

The Times is one of dozens of news outlets, including CNN, that handed in their press passes after refusing to agree to sign on to really new and restrictive rules that require journalists to sign a pledge to only report information that the DOD officially approves.

With me now is CNN Chief Media Analyst Brian Stelter. Give us a sense of what this lawsuit says.

BRIAN STELTER, CNN MEDIA ANALYST: Yes, I've just been reading through this case filed in federal court in Washington, D.C. The Times is contesting this both on First Amendment grounds as well as Fifth Amendment due process grounds. It's asking a federal judge to declare the new Pentagon policy unconstitutional and asking for an injunction that would bar its enforcement. Basically to roll back these rules that were put in place in October and go back to what was normal practice for decades.

Pentagon beat reporters were able to work inside the five walls of the Pentagon, were able to report freely, were able to investigate military affairs. The system was working pretty well for many decades until earlier this year when Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth blew it up. Hegseth is named in this lawsuit as well as the top spokesman for the Pentagon, and I suspect they will push back, citing the same national security arguments that they cited earlier this fall.

What media lawyers and news industry leaders believed back then and still believe today is that Hegseth's real aim by putting in these wild new restrictions was to impede independent news coverage, to stop leaks, and really to stop scrutiny of the Trump administration. Here's what the Times says in a statement this morning quote, "The policy is an attempt to exert control over reporting the government dislikes in violation of a free press's right to seek information under their First and Fifth Amendment rights protected by the Constitution." And while the Times is only -- the only media outlet suing this

morning, it certainly does have support from other news outlets. And I'm told by lawyers involved with the case, they do expect other news outlets to file briefs with the court supporting this case -- Sara.

SIDNER: There's a timing issue here that is interesting because this happened the same week that the administration --

STELTER: Yes.

SIDNER: -- opened their doors to pro-Trump influencers and media personalities. What do you know about the timing of all this?

STELTER: And my sense is that this timing is related because now the New York Times can point to this attempt by Hegseth to prop up others at the Pentagon with their calling a new Pentagon press corps made up of pro-Trump influencers and MAGA media content creators. And the Times can now point to that and say there's a real clear harm being done. For example, there was an on-camera press briefing held by the Pentagon earlier this week by a press secretary who never held a briefing back when CNN and the Times and ABC and the big networks were all inside the Pentagon.

But there was a briefing this week only for those MAGA media content creators. And when news outlets like CNN asked to attend, those requests were denied. So the Times will be able to use that argument as it advances this legal case.

And we'll see what happens -- Sara.

SIDNER: Brian Stelter, it is always a pleasure. Thank you so much. You've got a lot of this also in your newsletter that we all look forward to reading. Do appreciate it -- John.

JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: All right, this morning, the man this morning, the man the White House says gave the order to kill survivors of a strike on an alleged drug boat that Admiral brief lawmakers on Capitol Hill. The Wall Street Journal is reporting that Admiral Frank Mitch Bradley will tell Congress the second strike was ordered because those two survivors were actively trying to continue their drug run after the boat was hit the first time. With us now is Congressman Jimmy Panetta, a Democrat from California.

Congressman, nice to see you. Let me read you the exact quote from The Wall Street Journal. "Admiral Frank Mitch Bradley plans to say he and his legal adviser concluded the two survivors were attempting to continue their drug run, making them and the already damaged vessel legitimate targets for another attack."

You're a veteran and a lawyer. What is your assessment of this now argument?

REP. JIMMY PANETTA (D-CA), WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE: Well, first, finally, you have the Republican leadership in Congress actually wanting to conduct oversight over the Pentagon, over this administration. So finally, that's being done also in a bipartisan manner. Second, we're actually going to be able to hear from Admiral Bradley the exact reasons as to what he was thinking when he ordered a second strike on survivors of a attack on a drug -- one of these drug boats.

If we've seen the video from September 2nd, and even as the secretary of defense said, the boat was in flames after that first attack. How it could be still operational after that, how they could still show intention to continue their drug smuggling abilities, that's what we got to find out.

[07:35:00]

We got to find out the facts, but we also have to find out what's the law that this admiral, what's the law that secretary of defense are using to have these types of attacks and to have this sort of slow buildup towards a sleepwalking into a war with Venezuela.

BERMAN: One of the arguments, roughly, is the ends justify the means here. They're trying to stop the flow of drugs into the United States. Is that not, in your mind, a noble cause?

PANETTA: Absolutely. Look, I was a drug prosecutor before I became a U.S. Congress member. I was an intelligence analyst with JSOC in Afghanistan from '07 to '08. The thing is, you have to have evidence, and you have to have the law. Looking at the evidence of these drug boats, what is it?

This administration wants to conflate that it's fentanyl, and look, fentanyl is horrible in the United States. Two-third of drug overdoses are because of fentanyl. Yet, I was just in the region, in Dominican Republic, in Honduras, talking about the drug kingpins and the drug- running strategies.

They don't say that they've stopped anything with fentanyl. It's all cocaine and marijuana. So one, you have to look at the facts of what they're actually transporting.

Two, these are outboard motor vessels that will take probably 20 stops to refuel until it gets to the United States. And so you have to really drill down on what are the facts, what are the reasons, and what's the law that they're using to kill people?

BERMAN: You mentioned you were just in Honduras. The president --

PANETTA: Yes.

BERMAN: -- this week pardoned the former president of Honduras, Juan Orlando Hernandez, who was convicted here in the United States of conspiracy to commit drug trafficking. You know, some 400 tons of cocaine connected to the transport to the United States.

Someone who the judge, when he sentenced him, said had knowledge of and was approving of all kinds of violent activity. His pardon, how was it viewed in Honduras, and what do you think of it?

PANETTA: Yes, it's completely hypocritical in that you have a president who's basically saying that he wants to stop drugs from coming into the country, yet he pardons a major drug trafficker who was convicted of serious crime, sentenced to some serious time, yet this is what he does just because he's friends with Roger Stone, who apparently lobbied for the former president to get his pardon. It makes absolutely no sense, but that is the type of administration we're dealing with, with these types of decisions that are done every day that go against what he said just yesterday. It's unfortunate that this is what we're focusing on, and it's a distraction from the real issue of what I'm hearing from my constituents, and that's affordability.

Having to deal with the high prices of housing, healthcare, food, and fuel, that's what we should be dealing with.

BERMAN: Congressman, very quickly, I want to get your take on something that some of us woke up to. There was a tweet from the Department of State here. They say, "This morning the State Department renamed the former Institute of Peace to reflect the greatest dealmaker in our nation's history. It's now called the Donald Trump Institute of Peace." There's a new sign.

The Institute of Peace was all but shut down because of DOGE cuts. Now it apparently is reopened in some capacity with a new sign outside calling it the Donald Trump Institute of Peace. I'm not sure you were aware this just happened. What's your view?

PANETTA: I wasn't aware of this, but it doesn't surprise me. Once again, this is the president trying to slam dunk on, you know, people who he's clearly in disagreement with. And two, you know, it's his way of distracting from the real issue that we should be dealing with.

This is a president who came into office, said that he would lower prices, and we've seen the exact opposite because of this ridiculous, inane tariff policy that he's putting in place that's just raising prices, hurting industry, and hurting working families.

BERMAN: Congressman Jimmy Panetta from California, thanks for coming in this morning. We appreciate your time -- Kate.

KATE BOLDUAN, CNN ANCHOR: Also new this morning, there are major changes could be coming to recommendations in children's health and how kids are vaccinated in the United States going forward. Next hour, the vaccine advisers handpicked by HHS Secretary Robert Kennedy Jr. they're gathering. They're kicking off two days of meetings.

And today they plan on voting on scrapping the longstanding potentially recommendation for the hepatitis B vaccine. That vaccine has been universally recommended for newborns in the United States since 1991. Hepatitis B is an infection that can cause liver cancer and can be fatal.

Despite all the changes that Kennedy has already pushed through since he has taken over leadership there, the move on hepatitis B would be the most significant change to the childhood vaccine schedule yet.

[07:40:00] And ahead of this, former FDA and CDC leaders are sounding the alarm once again, including three former CDC leaders who resigned recently in protest, writing in an op-ed that ACIP appears poised to raise vaccine risks while burying their benefits.

Joining me right now is Dr. Paul Offit, director of the Vaccine Education Center at Children's Hospital of Philadelphia. He's also a former member of the ACIP panel. It's good to see you. Thanks for being here.

The main question today on hepatitis B, what do you think the main question is that they are considering or is it a foregone conclusion?

DR. PAUL OFFIT, DIRECTOR OF THE VACCINE EDUCATION CENTER, CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL OF PHILADELPHIA: Who knows? I mean, this RFK Jr. inspired ACIP is full of people who are anti-vaccine activists and science denialists. So you know that the decisions that they're going to be making are not science-based.

I worry more about this vote today than anything that's happened so far, because as you noted, in 1991, we had a routine recommendation, a birth dose for hepatitis B. The reason was at that time in children less than 10, there were 30,000 children who had hepatitis B infections. Half of them got it from their mother when the mother was infected, then passing through a birth canal where they then had an 85 percent chance of becoming infected themselves, and then a 90 percent chance, if infected, of going on to develop chronic liver disease or liver cancer.

But the other half didn't get it from their mother. That other 15,000 children didn't get it from their mother. They got it from relatively casual contact with one of the millions of people in this country who have chronic hepatitis B virus, and many of whom don't know it.

By casual contact, I mean sharing toothbrushes or washcloths or towels or nail clippers with unseen amounts of blood on any of those items. This is a virus that can live on surfaces for seven days. It's a virus that's 50 to 100 times more contagious than the AIDS virus, and I don't think people realize that's where many of those children got it from.

So to do anything other than having a universal birth dose will put hundreds and maybe thousands of children at risk of having a shorter life because of cancer or cirrhosis.

BOLDUAN: I heard an interesting discussion that you'd had recently with Dr. Michael Mina about the dose at birth, and one thing that was raised is when it comes, as we see, with childhood vaccination rates that continue to be on decline. More and more, I've seen more and more polling, even some new polling out, I think, from Harvard talking about how younger generations and parents are concerned and fearful and have questions and are distrustful of institutions and question vaccines. Is delaying the first dose worth it as a way to rebuild public trust, not eliminate the recommendation for the hepatitis B vaccine altogether, just delay it beyond that first 24-hour period?

You and Michael Mina were a little bit on different sides of this if you will. What do you make of this?

OFFIT: Right, so Dr. Mina thought it was OK to delay, say, until one month of age or two months of age, but that ignores certain things. One is that if your screen is being hepatitis B negative in your first trimester, that screening test is imperfect, and there's about 5 percent false negative rate, meaning you've just been falsely reassured that you don't have hepatitis B infection. Secondly, you can get a hepatitis B infection in your second or third trimester, which also puts that child at high risk.

Thirdly, you don't know those people your child is coming in contact with, so why take the risk? I think that if you could argue that this vaccine, say, was safer, more effective at two months of age than it is at birth, sure, but that's not true, so you're taking a risk without benefit.

BOLDUAN: Dr. Paul Offit, it is always important to have your perspective on this. I really appreciate you coming in. Thank you so much.

This meeting kicks off this morning. Let's see what happens today -- Sara.

SIDNER: All right. This week, it's downright freezing for more than 200 million people. In parts of the country, it's 20 to 30 degrees below average, even as far south as Iowa.

Actual air temperatures are dropping double digits below zero. CNN meteorologist Allison Chinchar joining me now. We should not blame the meteorologist for this, but somehow it falls on your shoulders.

ALLISON CHINCHAR, CNN METEOROLOGIST: It usually does. It almost always does. But yes, some folks are waking up to minus teens this morning for that temperature and wind chill.

Oh, it is just absolutely bitter out there. Two hundred million people will see those temperatures either at or below freezing at some point over the next several days. Some it's peaking today.

Others, it will take it a few more days. Here's a look at some of those wind chills we talked about. Minus 25 is what it feels like in Fargo, minus 14 in Aberdeen, minus 15 in Green Bay, barely down into the minus, about minus four in Chicago.

It's not just the wind chill, though. We're actually talking genuine record breaking cold. All of these dots you see here on the map are at risk of breaking a record either today or tomorrow and maybe even in some cases both days.

Look at some of the temperatures as we go into Friday. This is what it's going to feel like tomorrow morning. Seven in Providence, 15 in New York, minus three in Buffalo.

And it's all because of this cold front here. You've got that Arctic air that is sliding in behind it. And that's what's pushing those cold temperatures in. But it also means those cold temperatures are making it pretty far south. Take a look at this. It's not in here.

You've got that Arctic air that is sliding in behind it and that's what's pushing those cold temperatures in. But it also means those cold temperatures are making it pretty far south. Take a look at this.

It's actually snowing in parts of the Greater Oklahoma City area. You can see that purple right there indicating the snow. Little bit warmer, albeit not by much, but a little bit warmer on the eastern side of that front.

So you've got mostly rain coming down across portions of Mississippi and Louisiana, where it is heavy at times. Heavy but on the opposite end of snow, we're looking at some snow across the northeast. Some of these are going to lead to snow squalls, meaning those very heavy bands of snow that come down in a very short period of time.

So that could be a concern as we head through the day today again, mostly right through here, where you see a lot of that dark purple color. That's what indicates the extremely heavy snow that's going to come in.

Here's a look over the next several days. Notice that purple color begins to spread eastward, but for some areas it sticks around for at least a few days.

SIDNER: Brutal. That is all I can say about those temperatures. Oh, thank you so much, Allison Chinchar, do appreciate it -- John.

BERMAN: Means I have to wear my tights when I run, which no one wants to see.

The defendant who admitted to disposing of his wife's body but not killing her. New evidence at trial towels and slippers that appear to be soaked in blood, not to mention a hacksaw and a hatchet.

And an update and new video from the world's most famous drunk raccoon, the one that passed out on a bathroom floor after breaking into a liquor store. How he is doing this morning and what was his drink of choice?

[07:50:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SIDNER: The first known formal complaint is now filed over a deadly U.S. strike in the Caribbean.

The family of a Colombian fisherman, Alejandro Carranza, says he was killed in this September 15 strike that you're seeing your screen. They want compensation and an end to these killings. Their attorney, Dan Kovalik, is joining us right now.

First of all, what are you seeking in this petition against the United States officials? DAN KOVALIK, HUMAN RIGHTS ATTORNEY: Well, as you mentioned, the family, of course, wants compensation. They've lost their chief breadwinner. By the way, he earned his money by being a fisherman.

He was out fishing for marlin and tuna when he was killed. But the other thing they want equally is to end these killings. They want to deter the United States from continuing to do this in the future.

SIDNER: The Trump administration has gone very hard on those in these boats. We've talked to many different lawmakers who have yet to see the evidence that they are narco-terrorists or drug traffickers. But that is what the administration is saying that they are.

What is the evidence that you will use to show that your client is not that. That your client, as you say, is a fisherman?

KOVALIK: Well, first of all, the onus is not on us to prove he was innocent. It's on them to prove he was guilty. By the way, all these people are innocent because where I come from, you're innocent until proven guilty.

But in any case, his family, the Fisherman's Association that he was part of, can all say that he was a fisherman and that that's what he was doing. But again, if you want to prove someone's guilty, you need to take him to court. You need to try them.

You just don't summarily kill them. So again, the onus is on the U.S. government.

SIDNER: Yes, in any case, the onus is on those who are in the process of trying to prove what someone was or was not doing. I do want to ask you, though, how certain you are that you will see any compensation by suing U.S. officials in that the client that you have is not a U.S. citizen.

KOVALIK: Yes, well, that's not a problem. That's why we brought this before the Inter American Commission on Human Rights, which gives venue for non U.S. citizens within the Western Hemisphere to bring a petition against the United States as a state for various remedies, including compensation. Now, with that said, you know, am I certain they'll get compensation? And then whenever you bring a case, you can't be certain of that.

But this is an avenue to do that. And I think with this case combined with public pressure, which I think is building against these strikes, I do think we can get them compensation. And I think this will -- this case will be a part -- play a part in ending these killings.

SIDNER: What message is the family trying to send directly to the Department of Defense to the defense secretary and to ultimately the president of the United States?

KOVALIK: I mean, what they're doing is wrong. It's morally legally wrong. It's legally wrong. You know, one point Pete Hegseth even admitted he doesn't even know who's on these boats. And in this case, he didn't know. I assume I hope he didn't know that this was just a fisherman who was killed. And again, they want this to stop.

They want the U.S. to live up to its own values as a country that values democracy and and due process and human rights. And I think the U.S. has really gone off the rails in terms of these killings.

It's really destroyed its status in the world.

SIDNER: Dan Kovalik, thank you for coming on. We'll be following this case. I hope you will stay in touch with us to see what happens as this is the very first person to come forward to sue under the circumstances that are being looked into now. I do appreciate it -- John.

[07:55:00]

BERMAN: All right this morning, a fighter pilot is recovering after ejecting before a crash in southern California. The F-16C fighter jet is part of the Air Force elite Thunderbirds demonstration squadron. The pilot was on a training mission in the Mojave Desert. The Air Force says it is investigating what happened.

A high end clothing store in New York City robbed in the middle of the night with stolen items totaling more than $1 million. Police say mass thieves broke into the appointment only store, stealing jeans worn by celebrities and other high end items. Million dollars worth of jeans. Levi's cost like 30 bucks.

All right this morning, new information about their raccoon that broke into a liquor store, got drunk and passed out on a bathroom floor. The animal protection officer who found him has named him Al apparently short for alcohol.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SAMANTHA MARTIN, HANOVER COUNTY ANIMAL PROTECTION OFFICER: I did see his eyes going back and forth like a typical drunk person. And he obviously could not stand up. So it tells me that he needed to lay down for a little bit in order to regain his consciousness.

And he was probably in the back of the shelter for a good six hours before he was able to pick up his head.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BERMAN: He had to sleep it off. All right, the raccoon broke 14 bottles worth about $250 -- Kate.

BOLDUAN: But as I said on five things this morning, what's the price of fame? Is there a price on fame? You know, infamy.

BERMAN: He lives hard man.

BOLDUAN: What? BERMAN: He's lives hard. Raccoon lives hard.

BOLDUAN: Party hard. Thanks JB. Let's turn to this right now.

The murder trial of Brian Walshe is set to resume very soon in Massachusetts after what ended up being a day in court filled with really brutal and gruesome detail. The jury yesterday saw graphic photos of evidence towels as well as Brian Walshe is now dead wife's bedroom slippers that appear to be covered in blood. Brian Walshe is accused of killing her and dismembering her body back in 2023.

CNN's Jean Casarez is back here with us in tracking it all. I mean if that was yesterday, Jean, what is going to happen today?

JEAN CASAREZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: They are building their case and today could be the man that she was having the affair with, in Washington D. C. We can talk about that in a minute.

But yesterday it was all about the trash bags. Once law enforcement realized that something was going on here, they wanted to know what Brian Walshe was doing around town in the days before he told anyone that his wife was missing. And so they were able to get surveillance video and it was shown on the surveillance video that he was going around town taking trash bags, black bags and putting them in dumpsters all around town.

So they went out, they had a warrant to get those bags to see what was in them. I want to show you first of all, one of the bags, this was bag number one. These are Anna's, they -- you have green hunter boots, you've got her black jacket, you've got her Prada purse.

I know it's hard to see, but I'm describing it for you. Her COVID card is near her purse, which is near the back. It's a small purse.

And then also her wallet was there. Her black socks were there that she probably wore under the boots. And then also thrown in a trash bag -- I want to show you this -- completely different.

The next picture you're going to see her bedroom slippers, her bedroom slippers had blood on them. That's her bathrobe that was in another bag. It has reddish brown stains is what they're saying now.

But trust me, someone forensics will come in and talk about DNA. So here's the issue. If she died in her sleep, which sort of signifies she could be have the bedroom slippers close, right?

And and the bathrobe, why do they have blood on them? Number one. And number two, why throw away your street clothes?

Those were the clothes that he said she went missing in and they're in the bag. Is that premeditation? I'll leave it to prosecutors to see. Now the defense says blood can get on everything when it's in a bag altogether.

Now we want you to listen to forensic scientist number two -- because he was second level from Massachusetts -- talk about what they found instrumentalities.

BOLDUAN: I don't think that I have it prepared right now.

CASAREZ: All right, well, it's the hacksaw. It's the hammer. It's the -- it's the snips.

It's the shears. It's the instrumentalities of dismemberment.

BOLDUAN: Take me then to today. You said today could be when they could hear from the man that she was having an affair with.

CASAREZ: Right, they said earlier in the week because he's coming in from out of town. He lives in Washington, D.C. He's with Sotheby's. He's a real estate entrepreneur, and he will be coming in.

He has to take the stand and testify because they were having a relationship on the side, and that's why she wasn't there for Christmas. She wasn't there for New Year's Eve. She was with him.

BOLDUAN: Jean, let me play that sound. The technical glitch and now it worked out about the instruments.

Let's watch it.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DAVIS GOULD, FORENSIC SCIENTIST: Bag number eight contained a hammer, a pair of wire snips, a hatchet and a hacksaw with red brown stains on it. There were two areas of visible staining that I noted. One being a red brown stain on the front driver's side visor, and then there was brown stains noted on the front passenger side visor.