Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

2021 D.C. Pipe Bomb Suspect Arrested, Facing Explosive Charges; AG Bondi: "Cold Case" of D.C. Pipe Bomber Solved; Admiral Briefs Congress on Dual Strikes of Alleged Drug Boat; CDC Advisers Delay Vote on Changes to Childhood Vaccines 3-3:30p ET

Aired December 04, 2025 - 15:00   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:00:26]

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: Almost five years after a man planted pipe bombs near the Republican and Democratic National Committee headquarters the FBI makes an arrest. Ahead, what we're learning about the operation that led to a break in the case.

BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN HOST: Plus, the admiral who Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth says ordered that second strike on an alleged drug boat is briefing senior lawmakers on Capitol Hill. While some of them are defending the administration's actions. One of them says footage of this attack is one of the most troubling things he has seen in Congress.

Also, day two of the immigration crackdown in New Orleans, emotions already running high. A city council meeting erupting in protest as residents demand their voices be heard over the ongoing operations.

We're following these major developing stories and many more all coming in right here to CNN NEWS CENTRAL.

KEILAR: Breaking news on the suspect now facing federal charges nearly five years after pipe bombs were planted in Washington, D.C. Last hour, Attorney General Pam Bondi publicly identifying him as Brian Cole Jr. A person who has lived just outside of Washington, D.C. Bondi saying that there was, quote, "no new tip, no new witness" that led to the suspect's arrest, and she took aim at the Biden administration for not solving the case.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PAM BONDI, ATTORNEY GENERAL: Today's arrest happened because the Trump administration has made this case a priority. The total lack of movement on this case in our nation's capital undermined the public trust of our enforcement agencies. This cold case languished for four years.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KEILAR: CNN Senior Justice Correspondent Evan Perez is with us and there were so many questions coming out of that press conference, but we may have a few more answers because the affidavit is out now.

EVAN PEREZ, CNN SENIOR JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Yes, the affidavit describes a lot of what -- the police work that has gone into this case, and a lot of this has happened over the last almost five years, Brianna. The -- the FBI and the ATF, along with Metropolitan Police and the Capitol Police have been working this case, and what's remarkable is to see how they use a lot of data, a lot of records.

For instance, the components of the bomb, right? They were able to track back and find, allegedly, that this suspect bought components at a Home Depot and at other locations in northern Virginia just before this -- in the months before this -- this bomb was found outside the DNC and the RNC. They also were able to use cell phone tower data.

Now, you know, having covered this case since the day it happened, you know, one of the first things I remember being told the investigators was doing -- were doing was -- was -- was getting all of the cell phone data. They could tell how many cell phones and which cell phones connected with towers in the vicinity of the U.S. Capitol. The problem, of course, was, you will remember, the Capitol riot happened on January 6th, and so they had a lot. It was like -- it was like trying to find a needle in a haystack.

KEILAR: Sure.

PEREZ: Right? And so, I think there's a lot of credit that is due to Dan Bongino, the Deputy FBI Director, who made this case such a big priority, and certainly all of those people at that press conference. But it's also a little unfair to sort of suggest that nothing was done until this new team was brought in, in recent months to -- to relook at this case. There's a lot of work that went in there, and a lot of their work is in this affidavit that was unsealed in federal court.

Now, we are expecting to hear a lot more. They -- they mentioned that they expect additional charges in additional to just the explosives charges that were filed today in this affidavit. But certainly, I think it's a big day for the FBI to resolve something that has been the source of a lot of conjecture, a lot of conspiracies, some of it driven by the people in that very room.

KEILAR: Well, that's a very good point. This does sound painstaking, though, what they went through, very interesting to learn.

PEREZ: It's great police work, absolutely.

KEILAR: It certainly is. Evan, thank you very much for that. Boris?

SANCHEZ: With us now is retired FBI Supervisory Special Agent and CNN Law Enforcement Contributor Steve Moore.

Steve, thanks so much for being with us.

What do you make of what we heard from the DOJ and FBI today that there were new -- no new leads, no new witnesses in this case, rather just dogged detective work?

[15:05:01]

STEVE MOORE, CNN LAW ENFORCEMENT CONTRIBUTOR: Yes, what -- what that tells me is that they probably had the evidence in their possession, which would have made the case long ago. That said, I mean, the type of evidence we're talking about comes in -- in boxes and boxes and boxes of paper. This isn't like in a -- in a folder.

What they -- what I believe they did was go back and find every component of that -- of that bomb or the IED, I -- I apologize, and go back and find anybody who had purchased that type of material, that exact material, like an end cap, and then they did a matrix on it and find out if anybody had -- had purchased the same thing. For instance, the lot -- the number of people who had purchased both a galvanic -- galvanized pipe and a timer. And what you're going to come down to eventually is somebody who purchased several of those and that becomes your prime suspect. But it's going to take hundreds, thousands of man hours to do that.

SANCHEZ: Yes, at one point it was reported that they were looking for suspects who bought a certain pair of Nikes because they were aware of a certain number of them that had been sold and the suspect had been caught on video wearing them. Obviously, we still don't know a lot about Brian Cole generally. Is it surprising to you that we haven't seen a picture of this suspect published yet that -- that details about him specifically, including potential content that they had shared on the internet or -- or some kind of potential information that would lead to a -- a -- a motive or a theory of a motive? Does it surprising that none of that has come out yet?

MOORE: You know, I think -- I think that -- that one bit of evidence -- or those bits of evidence are things that they probably have more information about or they wouldn't have gone ahead and done the arrest, done the search warrants if they didn't have that in pocket already.

However, the FBI generally, at least in the past when I was there, did not want to telegraph what they were doing. They didn't want to talk about their next investigative steps. They would talk about what they had already done and even then being careful not to give away investigative techniques.

SANCHEZ: In the -- in the range of possibilities here, I -- I think it's fair to suspect that there might be some sort of political motive that leans toward accelerationists, you know? If -- if they put pipe bombs outside both major parties' headquarters, it -- it kind of leads you to suspect at least, in theory, a certain message that this person was trying to send, right?

MOORE: Right. But you also have to consider the -- you know, some people are going to think that they were put -- that these devices were put there as a distraction to make the January 6th efforts more effective to pull police off of it. You have to prove or disprove that to the public satisfaction -- at least public satisfaction.

And then, you have the issues where, you know, if you get somebody putting an IED at the RNC, and you've got an idea of what their motivation was, or if they put it at the DNC, you have an idea of what their motivation was. When they put it at both, it -- it puts it in a whole different -- whole different realm, and you have to start determining whether are we talking an anarchist, are we -- you know, what is going on here?

SANCHEZ: Yes. I also wonder, Steve, what it tells you that this suspect was found in Virginia, like right outside the nation's capital.

MOORE: I think you're going to find people like that just about anywhere. And he -- he -- because of his location, if this is the person, he -- he had access to the capital, unfettered access to the capital area, and likely had been, if this was politically motivated, or anarchy, whatever it is, like that, they were probably radicalized online, and they had somebody nearby. And it's not like there are any shortage of anarchists or extremists in Washington, D.C.'s area.

SANCHEZ: That's a good point. Steve Moore, thanks so much for the analysis. Appreciate it.

MOORE: Thank you.

SANCHEZ: Still to come, a controversial vote that could change hepatitis B recommendations suddenly postponed. We have the latest live from CDC headquarters.

And immigration sweeps in New Orleans causing tension throughout the area. We have new video coming in from a chaotic city council meeting.

And later, is Waymo becoming more aggressive? Concerns that self- driving cars are adopting habits that are all too human. Maybe some road rage? We'll discuss next.

[15:10:05]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:14:28]

SANCHEZ: We're learning new details about a U.S. military attack on an alleged drug boat in the Caribbean that has come under intense scrutiny. Admiral Mitch Bradley has been briefing senior lawmakers on Capitol Hill today about the September 2nd follow-up strike on a vessel that killed two survivors of the initial attack. The Pentagon says that Bradley ordered the follow-up strike and argues the survivors were still in the fight and radioing for help.

Democrats and Republicans in these briefings, however, appear to be seeing very different circumstances in the attack footage. Senator Tom Cotton, chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, says he saw, quote, "two survivors" trying to flip a boat loaded with drugs bound for the United States back over so they could stay in the fight.

[15:15:10]

Democratic Congressman Jim Himes said this. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. JIM HIMES (D-CT): Any American who sees the video that I saw will see the United States military attacking shipwrecked sailors. Bad guys -- bad guys, but attacking shipwrecked sailors. Now, there's a whole set of contextual items that the admiral explained. Yes, they were carrying drugs. They were not in the position to continue their mission in any way.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SANCHEZ: Let's talk more about this with retired U.S. Army Colonel Peter Mansoor.

Colonel, thanks so much for being with us.

I guess at this point, it seems like the truth is in the eye of the beholder. So what is the likelihood that DOD is going to put this footage out so the American people can decide for themselves what took place?

COL. PETER MANSOOR, U.S. ARMY (RET.): Well, the President has said that he favors releasing the footage. So, you know, with his say so, it'll be done. You know, I think it'll come down to whether the boat itself was seaworthy. Attacking sailors in the water, that's clearly a war crime because they're out of combat. But if the boat is still seaworthy, then launching a second strike to destroy the -- the craft is permissible. But, you know, it's in the eye -- eye of the beholder at this point.

SANCHEZ: Admiral Bradley also said that there was no kill them all order. There was also not an order to grant no quarter. Does that, in your eyes, potentially exonerate Secretary Hegseth?

MANSOOR: Well, potentially it does. We got to look at the rules of engagement that he gave to the Special Operations Command and see what they say. But, by all accounts, he left the room well before the second strike occurred and didn't give the order to launch it. So, in that sense, he's exonerated. But, you know, the entire war against these narco traffickers is suspect because it doesn't have congressional authorization. And that's really where Congress needs to step in and either approve it or bring it to a halt.

SANCHEZ: What about that detail? I wonder what your thoughts are on that, that the Secretary left the room before the operation was obviously complete. Is that typical?

MANSOOR: Oh, yes. You know, the Secretary of Defense is a strategic level, you know, policymaker. He doesn't have to stay and watch UAV footage from every strike that the United States conducts. In fact, he doesn't have to watch any of them. He just needs to give the orders to -- to his generals and admirals to make it happen. So this is not surprising at all. There's no reason for him to stay. That's why he has subordinates who will do that.

SANCHEZ: And is it clear to you that in the order to execute this strike, there was a delineation, there was any instruction of -- of what to do if there were survivors? Is -- is that typical?

MANSOOR: I -- I haven't seen the order, and I think that's what the congressional committees will investigate when they launch their investigations, as they say they're going to -- to look at the orders that were issued, to look at the rules of engagement, to look at the footage and subsequent strikes and what the military leaders could potentially know or not know when they launched the -- the -- the second strike on this boat.

So again, I think it'll come down to whether the admiral thought that the boat was still seaworthy or that the cargo was still intact and that his orders were to destroy the cargo because that's the whole purpose of this war against the narco-traffickers.

SANCHEZ: To the broader point of -- of what the administration is describing as -- as this war against these narco-terrorists, as they call them, you spoke a moment ago questioning the legitimacy of it. I generally wonder whether you think these strikes should continue and possibly expand onto land, as the president has vowed, if Congress doesn't have more, at least, oversight over exactly what is happening.

MANSOOR: Well, Congress needs to step in and either approve this -- these military operations or bring them to an end. You know, it seems to me that this is sort of a backhanded way of trying to force the Venezuelan leader out of power. And if the strikes go from sea and onto land, it puts the United States in a position of waging war without congressional authorization.

[15:20:04]

The Constitution clearly gives Congress the power to declare war or to declare military operations. It doesn't give the President that power.

SANCHEZ: In -- in your view, is the threat posed by these alleged traffickers an imminent one to the American people as the President and -- and allies have suggested?

MANSOOR: You know, these drugs have been trafficked for a long time now, years and decades, and we've somehow managed to maintain our national defense without attacking these boats on the open seas. We've tried to interdict them at our borders.

It may be that attacking them is a good move for the war against drugs. I doubt it. I don't think it will reduce the demand in the United States and Europe for these drugs, and drug traffickers will just find other means to -- to move the drugs overseas. But, you know, this is what Congress needs to debate.

And if in fact, this is not about drugs, but it's about the Maduro regime in Venezuela, then they need to discuss that and either give the president permission to pressure that regime or to bring a halt to these hostilities.

SANCHEZ: Colonel Peter Mansoor, thank you so much for joining us.

MANSOOR: Thank you. SANCHEZ: Of course. Still to come this afternoon, it's a decision that

could change when and if kids will get vaccinated for hepatitis B. A key CDC committee just postponed that vote. We'll explain why after a quick break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:26:16]

KEILAR: Today, vaccine advisers to the CDC postponed their vote on whether to delay hepatitis B vaccines for kids.

SANCHEZ: And look, this is a decision that could have major consequences. Many public health officials fear the panel, one that was handpicked by HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., could make a decision that ultimately will put children's health at risk. CNN Medical Correspondent Meg Tirrell joins us now.

Meg, take us through what happened at today's meeting there at the CDC.

MEG TIRRELL, CNN MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes, guys. I mean, it was a moment of intense frustration and confusion among some of these ACIP members who noted they'd seen multiple versions of the voting language and they weren't even sure exactly what they were going to be voting on. And this would be a really seismic change. We have recommended in the United States that newborn babies get a dose of the hepatitis B vaccine before they leave the hospital. That's been in place since 1991. And that recommendation is credited with dramatically reducing the number of infections of hepatitis B, which can cause liver cancer and can be fatal in children, really by orders of magnitude.

Researchers also point out that it has a safety track record of more than three decades. So they're questioning why this is being brought up by this committee right now. Of course, this committee was put in place by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. earlier this year, and they've been revisiting a lot of longstanding vaccine policy. So, we don't know exactly what the vote is actually going to end up being tomorrow morning. But one of the sort of intervals that had been floated is that maybe if moms test negative for the hepatitis B virus, that their babies could delay the vaccine and get it no sooner than two months of age.

Well, there was an analysis of what that delay might mean, and it found that it would lead to a potential 1,400 plus estimated new cases of hepatitis B infections among kids every year, more than 300 cases of liver cancer and almost 500 hepatitis B virus related deaths. And that's annually, you guys.

KEILAR: And there's more in store tomorrow. What should we be expecting, Meg?

TIRRELL: Right. So, now this vote is potentially going to happen tomorrow morning. But originally, Friday was going to be all about the entire childhood vaccination schedule. And the first presenter on the agenda about this tomorrow is a lawyer named Aaron Siri, who has close ties to Robert F. Kennedy Jr. And that's been drawing intense criticism externally, including from Senator Bill Cassidy, who posted on X this morning, criticizing the choice of him to present on this, quote, "As if an expert on childhood vaccines." He says, "The ACIP is totally discredited. They are not protecting children."

Siri fired back on social media, saying that it was not true that he made all his money suing vaccine manufacturers, as Cassidy posited, and challenging the senator, who, of course, is also a doctor and who was a pivotal vote for confirming Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to a debate on vaccines. Guys.

SANCHEZ: Quite an argument. We look forward to the meeting and vote tomorrow. Meg Tirrell, live for us at CDC headquarters. Thanks so much.

Protesters interrupt a New Orleans City Council meeting as an immigration crackdown unfolds in that city. We're going to talk about the surge in federal agents and reaction in the community after a quick break. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)