Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Lawmakers Split After Viewing September Boat Strike Video; D.C. Pipe Bomb Suspect in Federal Court, He Did Not Enter a Plea; Supreme Court Allows Texas GOP to Redraw Congressional Map; Adam Wolfe Opened His Eyes and Moved His Toes, Makes a Miraculous Survival; E.U. Fines Elon Musk's X $140 Million for Breaching Content Rules; Stranded Window Washers Rescued From 15 Stories High; Supreme Court Agrees to Decide if Trump May End Birthright Citizenship. Aired 1:30-2p ET

Aired December 05, 2025 - 13:30   ET

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

[13:30:00]

BETH SANNER, FORMER DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE: About this scourge, what the administration is doing on the fentanyl precursors, insisting that China deal with that, absolutely a great policy. Pressuring Mexico to extradite drug kingpins, the people in charge to America, absolutely a great policy. This major questions about the effectiveness and therefore is the cost of human life worth what this is doing?

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN CO-ANCHOR OF "CNN NEWS CENTRAL": What do you worry the blowback could be in the future on America?

SANNER: Well, once you start kind of messing around a little bit with the laws of war and is this a war? I don't know. But, let's say we're -- have a boat that's blown up by the Iranians in the Persian Gulf and we have some Americans clinging to wreckage, who have no radio, who have no weapons, and the Iranians decide to take a second strike to kill them all. What would we do?

KEILAR: May we not find out, but it's a question to ask.

SANNER: Yeah.

KEILAR: Beth Sanner, thank you very much. Really appreciate the discussion.

SANNER: Thanks, Brianna.

KEILAR: And right now, the suspected D.C. pipe bomb suspect, who's accused of placing pipe bombs in January 2021, is making his first court appearance here. What sources say he told investigators about the 2020 election.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:35:35]

BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN CO-ANCHOR OF "CNN NEWS CENTRAL": The accused D.C. pipe bomber making his first appearance in court, a federal judge just moments ago set a detention hearing for 30-year-old Brian Cole Jr., a hearing that's set to be held December 15th, about 10 days from now. Remember, Cole is facing two criminal charges, which carry up to 20 years in prison.

KEILAR: Earlier, Attorney General, Pam Bondi said more charges are likely to come. As we're now learning, Cole has been speaking with FBI investigators. Sources tell CNN, Cole has told agents he believed the 2020 election was stolen. We're joined by National Security Attorney, Bradley Moss. Bradley, what have we learned from this court appearance?

BRADLEY MOSS, NATIONAL SECURITY ATTORNEY: Yeah, we're learning some rather awkward and embarrassing things for the White House and for honestly, some of the senior members of the Justice Department and the FBI, because this defeated all of the theories, all the conspiracies for the last four years about who this particular pipe bomber could have been. Assuming of course, this person is actually proven in a court of law to have been that person.

All the theories that the Trump team, that Dan Bongino, that Kash Patel, everybody was saying was this was an inside job. This was somebody at the bureau. This was someone from the Capitol Police. They had always made it out to be that this was some kind of insider gig. What is it? It's just a regular guy who believed Donald Trump's conspiracies about 2020 and who allegedly took this action. How embarrassing that these are the individuals now who have to bring these charges and prove this case in court.

SANCHEZ: What did you gather from that detail, that he apparently told investigators he thought the 2020 election was rigged? Does that read as a likely motive?

MOSS: Certainly would appear to be so that he was trying to do something, remember, this is right before January 6th. This is right before all the chaos we saw that following day. Certainly appears like he was doing this as part of whether it was his own plan or in concert with anyone else, we don't know yet, but it certainly seemed like an effort to disrupt things, to prevent the certification of the electoral slate that next day and to somehow prevent Joe Biden from becoming president two weeks later. So that will obviously play a role as to why he chose to do this.

The extent to which that's relevant more as a culpability issue as opposed to an issue for sentencing is for the court to decide, but that will make it more awkward. That will even make it more embarrassing as this case proceeds, as this alleged -- presumably makes it to trial one day on the extent to which he was relying on the words of Donald Trump and the lies that Donald Trump was espousing as the reason to take what could have been a very dangerous and deadly action through these pipe bombs.

KEILAR: And according to the affidavit, the suspect purchased multiple items consistent with components used to make bombs, make these bombs, these particular ones at Home Depot, Walmart, Lowe's, Microcenter stores, not just in 2019 and 2020. Of course, this was placed in 2021. So what does that tell you about potential planning here? MOSS: It sounds like a lot of work went into this. Certainly, likely a lot of research we'll discover, no doubt, during the course of the pretrial phase, how much effort went into this, whether or not he was simply pulling this online. I mean Lord knows, with the internet, you can discover just about anything these days. So to the extent to which he was doing it online, who he was speaking with. I'm sure there's going to be some aspects, some theories, especially on social media. Was he coordinating with someone on the left? Some Biden person trying to instigate him?

Or according -- on the other half, was he coordinating with those who ultimately were prosecuted and convicted, tied to the January 6th riots, whether or not he was doing this in concert with them? It'll be fascinating as this case plays out, seeing what exactly he was involved with, what extent he was doing it on his own, and why the Biden team decided that there wasn't a case to make originally, which is certainly something if I were him, I'd be exploring from the last four years.

SANCHEZ: So we just learned, Bradley, that the suspect did not enter a plea during this hearing. We mentioned the two charges that he's facing.

[13:40:00]

Attorney General Bondi left the door open for more potential charges to come. What do you imagine those might be?

MOSS: So, it depends on who else he was working with and what other actions he took, whether or not he has described to investigators, other individuals, other accomplices he worked with, or other efforts beyond just these pipelines. Maybe they're learning about other things he did, other steps he took not only in 2019 and 2020, which could potentially still be charged depending on the statute of limitations, but also what else he may have done right around January 6th.

Did he lay other bombs? Did he lay other efforts -- engage in other efforts to try to cause chaos on January 6th? It could be that there's a wider range of activity they need to charge. It could be that there's a wider range of defendants they ultimately need to charge. The fact that he didn't enter a plea is rather interesting. We're wondering what he's particularly aiming for here. If he's just trying to get a plea agreement set out, court will set a not guilty plea by default for the moment.

SANCHEZ: Yeah, we will keep our eye on this story. Bradley Moss, thanks so much for the analysis.

MOSS: Of course.

SANCHEZ: Another story we're tracking this afternoon, the Supreme Court handing President Trump a Texas-sized win, what the justice's latest ruling means for the midterm elections.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:45:58]

SANCHEZ: After a major Supreme Court decision, the state of Texas is moving forward today with a new congressional map, one requested by President Trump and specifically designed to add Republican seats in Congress. In a statement, Governor Greg Abbott said Texas is officially and legally more red. We're joined now by CNN Political Director, David Chalian.

David, as you well know, history not kind to the incumbent party during midterm elections. In fact, going back to 1938, the incumbent party has lost ground in 20 of the past 22 midterm elections. It's pretty clear that this redistricting is happening because President Trump realizes history is not on his side.

DAVID CHALIAN, CNN POLITICAL DIRECTOR: A hundred percent, I mean, that's why Republicans launched this whole process in Texas under President Trump's guidance and direction. And then it sought to find advantage in other states this mid-decade redistricting, pure political power play. And why? You answered it, Boris, because he and the party are trying to mitigate what they anticipate to be a tough political environment and potential losses. So, they're trying any which way possible to hang on to the majority in the House.

SANCHEZ: So if we could game it out, if you have five plus in the Republican column because of Texas --

CHALIAN: Yeah.

SANCHEZ: And five plus in the Democratic column because of Prop. 50 in California, how does the rest of the map look?

CHALIAN: So, let's take a look at it. This is the key number to watch here. Right now, the way that the House is Democrats are just three -- they need to flip three Republican seats. They'd win the majority on today's facts, right? But, lots has been changing this year. It started with Texas, as you noted. So, watch that number, Texas five seats that may be Republican, not guaranteed by the way, the way the district -- now, Democrats are eight seats away from the majority. They would need to flip eight Republican seats.

This has happened, by the way in Missouri, Republicans successfully drawing to get a district. Now, that's at nine, right? Look in North Carolina, the Republicans were able to get a seat out of that. Now, Democrats are 10 seats away. In Ohio, due to a court order there, you see that two seats could be Republican advantage. Now, that's a big cushion now that Republicans are building up in a midterm year. You noted Prop. 50 in California in November, five seats that are going to be likely drawn for Democrats. That number then drops down to seven.

We saw in Utah, Democrats getting a seat to their advantage in redistricting. So now, Democrats are only six seats away from the majority. That all adds up to, OK, yes, Republicans may draw more districts here that advantage them, but that's not enough to overwhelm the history that you're talking about. And the political climate that we know exists today --

SANCHEZ: Right.

CHALIAN: -- which is a tough political climate for Republicans.

SANCHEZ: A relatively unpopular president on top of an economy that a lot of Americans feel doesn't suit them. And also, there are still some outstanding places that are still discussing the potential for gerrymander.

CHALIAN: Without a doubt. So on the Republican side, it's being discussed here in Indiana, here in Florida. So, states to go there that may draw more districts favorable to Republicans. And in Virginia, where Abigail Spanberger just won that election, Democrats in Virginia are eager to redraw districts there for Democratic advantage. So this is not done, but I would just say when I look at this, I see, OK, whoever comes out advantage here at the end of the day in this mid-decade redistricting, it's not going to be by a large enough number to overwhelm what is going to be a really, really competitive year in the midterm elections, and that history you discussed.

SANCHEZ: Important to keep in mind. And also, there's breaking news as we're discussing this, and you circled Indiana. Indiana, the House there just passed a new Republican-drawn congressional map. So there you have it, the map.

CHALIAN: We'll see what the Senate does. The Senate Republicans in Indiana have been reluctant. So we'll see how that process works out.

SANCHEZ: There have been some who have been eager to potentially buck President Trump on this.

CHALIAN: Exactly.

SANCHEZ: So we'll see how it shakes out. David Chalian, thank you so much.

CHALIAN: Thanks, Boris.

SANCHEZ: Brianna?

KEILAR: Now to some of the other headlines that we're watching this hour, the National Guard member who was shot while patrolling Washington, D.C. is now able to open both of his eyes. Attorney General, Pam Bondi giving that update on Air Force Staff Sergeant Andrew Wolfe.

[13:50:00]

She called his survival a miracle and confirmed reports that he moved his toes and gave a nurse a thumbs up earlier this week. Wolfe was one of two Guard members attacked last week in what officials are calling an ambush. The other victim, Army Specialist Sarah Beckstrom, did not survive.

Also X, the social media platform owned by Elon Musk, has been hit with a $140 million fine for breaching Europe's new online content rules. It follows a two-year investigation under the E.U.'s Digital Services Act that requires online platforms to tackle illegal and harmful content. Specifically, they say the platform's blue check mark, once a symbol of verified accounts, is now too easily manipulated by scammers. Europe's crackdown on big tech has drawn criticism from the Trump administration, which accuses the E.U. of singling out American companies and users.

And if you think you had a bad day at work, oh, rethink that because this video, Lordy Lord, check it out. Rescue crews with the fire department of Fairfax County that's in Virginia, racing to help window washers stranded 15 stories up above the ground. Officials say their scaffolding had a mechanical failure and that left the basket dangling in the air. It took two trips to get those workers to safety. Whew! Thankfully no one was injured, but that was no fun for them hanging around like that.

And next, we are following testimony in the murder trial of Brian Walshe. Prosecutors are sharing text messages between Walshe and the wife that he's accused of killing and dismembering.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:56:37]

KEILAR: We have Breaking News out of the Supreme Court. Let's go to our CNN Chief Supreme Court Analyst, Joan Biskupic, who is in the newsroom. What's happening, Joan?

JOAN BISKUPIC, CNN CHIEF SUPREME COURT ANALYST: Supreme Court, just this minute, Brianna, announced it's going to take up a challenge to President Trump's order lifting birthright citizenship. You might remember, on January 20th, his first day in office, he took his sharpie pen and he said, this is a big one. And what he did was he tried to eliminate the automatic birthright citizenship that all Americans have had for more than a century. And what that does, it goes to the 14th Amendment of the Constitution that says, all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States.

That means that anyone who's born here, Brianna, automatically becomes a U.S. citizen. And what Donald Trump's executive order tried to do was say anyone who was born of someone who was not here lawfully or who was here on some sort of temporary status, that person's baby would not automatically be a citizen. It's a very -- it's probably, of all the Trump actions that have been taken to date, Brianna, this one is the most challenging because what it does is it flies in the face of the 14th Amendment that was adopted in 1868.

And it flies in the face of an 1898 Supreme Court precedent that said, even if you were born of -- in that case, it happened to be a Chinese national -- even if you were born of someone who was not here as a U.S. citizen, you still had -- you still have -- you definitely still have citizenship here in the U.S., Brianna. And the court has not set exactly what the timetable will be for hearing oral arguments, but I imagine they would be in the spring with a decision by the end of June. KEILAR: Okay. So, how would that play out? We would then just see the normal oral arguments. And I notice you're pointing at your ear, Joan. I think maybe you're having some kind difficulty.

BISKUPIC: Now, I can hear you. Now, I can hear you.

KEILAR: Okay, you can hear me now. All right. So, how would that play out? We would just be able to hear oral arguments and really get a sense of where the justices are on this issue?

BISKUPIC: Exactly. Just as a kind of reminder of what's happened, the Supreme Court took up a kind of a mini chapter in this last spring when several lower court judges said that this was blatantly unconstitutional and issued nationwide orders. And Supreme Court heard just a part of that dispute saying they'd look only at lower court judges' authority to issue nationwide injunctions. They rejected that. They rejected the lower court's action, but they never got to the merits.

So what we'll do is we will hear early in 2026, you'll be able to hear all of -- everybody in our audience will be able to hear because these arguments will be live streamed on the Supreme Court audio and hear the Trump lawyers make their case for why Donald Trump should be able to roll back this automatic citizenship that has been with us, as I say, for more than a century. And the challengers, the challengers are representing people who are here on temporary status and who have had children, immigrant advocacy groups.

This could potentially affect hundreds of thousands of babies born in the U.S. every year, Brianna. So we'll hear those arguments. They'll both make their -- each side of the case.