Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Confirmation Battle Already Brewing On Capitol Hill; Trump Taps Vaccine Skeptic RFK Jr. For Health And Human Services; Israel-Lebanon Ceasefire Deal Said To Be Very Close; Elon Musk Learns Trump's World; North Carolina Christmas Tree Farm Recovering After Hurricane Helene. Aired 6-7p ET

Aired November 24, 2024 - 18:00   ET

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

[18:00:58]

KAYLA TAUSCHE, CNN ANCHOR: You're in the CNN NEWSROOM. I'm Kayla Tausche in Washington. Jessica Dean has the night off.

Confirmation battles are already shaping up on Capitol Hill, as some Senate lawmakers begin to pick apart Trump's more controversial cabinet picks. One of them, Tulsi Gabbard, for director of National Intelligence.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. TAMMY DUCKWORTH (D-IL): She is, in terms of the intelligence community, very unqualified. Plus she is potentially compromised and could be and has -- there are questions about whether or not she is now a Russian asset.

SEN. JAMES LANKFORD (R-OK): Well, we'll have lots of questions. She met with Bashar Assad. We'll want to know what the purpose was. There's comments that are floating out there, but we want to be able to know the rest of the story.

SEN. MARKWAYNE MULLIN (R-OK): This isn't a new administration coming in. And so when people are criticizing his picks the president has done this job before. He knows exactly what he needs.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAUSCHE: CNN's Alayna Treene is live outside of Mar-a-Lago in West Palm Beach, Florida, with more details.

Alayna, how exactly the Trump team is getting ready to get these picks through the Senate once this process begins in earnest?

ALAYNA TREENE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Right. Well, there's a couple of things. One is that they know which of these picks are going to be the most controversial. Some of which you've highlighted, but also the ones who have been speaking out publicly about this. They know that Tulsi Gabbard and her views on surveillance and her skepticism of some of the agencies that she's going to be overseeing is something that could be an issue with senators. They know that RFK Jr., his position and past position, I should say,

supporting abortion access could be an issue that could come up with many conservative Republicans. They know that Pete Hegseth, Donald Trump's pick to lead the Pentagon, and one, his credentials and whether he's experienced enough, but also the recent police report detailing a potential sexual assault allegation against him is something that could be an issue. So they are aware of all of this. They are talking I know, Donald Trump's transition team, with members very frequently on a daily basis, getting, taking their temperature, and also working to ready these different candidates for what is to come.

And particularly I will add as well that they also are trying to prepare them to meet one-on-one with different senators, to go to different meetings, like we saw Matt Gaetz and Pete Hegseth do last week alongside Vice President-elect J.D. Vance, to really see what they can do to assuage some of those concerns behind closed doors before this plays out openly and in public.

Now, we actually did hear Senator Markwayne Mullin, he's a fierce defender of Donald Trump in the deeply red state of Oklahoma, try to argue that Donald Trump knows what he's doing, that he chose these people for a reason. I want you to take a listen to how he put it.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MULLIN: This isn't a new administration coming in. And so when people are criticizing his picks, the president has done this job before. He knows exactly what he needs. He knows who he wants to put in those positions. That's why he's been able to move fast because he knows he has four years to reach the mandate that the American people said.

They want the government going in a different direction. And these nominations he's putting forth are actually going to deliver that for him.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TREENE: Now, Kayla, there's a few things about that statement that I found interesting. One is that he highlighted something that I hear constantly in my conversations with those working on the transition and close to Donald Trump, that the former president himself, the president-elect believes that he was given a mandate. There's questions of whether people agree with that. But he believes that he, you know, his performance in the election has emboldened him to make these decisions.

He also wants to choose people that he believes are going to break with the establishment norms, to break from tradition, and that's why he has chosen these people, he argues, and he's been saying that himself to some of these members. And then the other thing as well, I would just point out, is what we saw happen last week with Matt Gaetz does show that senators do have a backbone.

They do have a say in this, even though Republicans, you know, control both the House and the Senate. And obviously many Republican senators want to show their loyalty to Donald Trump before the next four years, they also made it clear that the numbers were not there to get Matt Gaetz confirmed.

And so there's a lot of discussions happening behind the scenes about how to exactly move forward on this. But again, these are things that they are really trying to prepare these different picks for, really, before this becomes public and we see some of these confirmation hearings play out on television -- Kayla.

TAUSCHE: A lot of questions about how robust the vetting process was, to the extent that vetting is taking place. A lot of questions. We'll get to that at some point, Alayna. But we appreciate you being there for us in Florida this evening.

You heard Alayna mentioned one of President-elect Trump's controversial picks in Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., who is a known vaccine skeptic, and Trump has appointed him to run the Department of Health and Human Services if confirmed. During his failed run for president, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. called for officials to modify vaccine mandates, remove fluoride from public drinking water, eliminate entire departments at the FDA, and replace 600 officials at the National Institutes of Health, among other issues.

Joining me now is Dr. Ashish Jha, dean of Brown University School of Public Health, former senior official in the Biden administration as well.

Doctor Jha, it's good to have you this evening. You've also waded into the debate on some of these pics. You tweeted earlier today, while RFK Jr. is an absolutely terrible choice for HHS secretary, you think the nominees for FDA, CMS, and NIH are, in your words, all pretty reasonable, and that while you have plenty of policy disagreements with them, they are smart and experienced. We will need them to do well.

What do you see as the dividing line between Kennedy and those others that you mentioned?

DR. ASHISH JHA, DEAN, BROWN UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH: Yes. So, first of all, thank you for having me back. There really is a very big difference. If you look at the picks for CMS, FDA, NIH, as I said, they're not the people I would have chosen. I have significant disagreements with them on policy but there are people with experience. They are smart. They have a track record and generally believe in modern medicine, and modern public health.

RFK Jr. is very different. I mean, this is a guy who doesn't believe HIV causes AIDS. He doesn't believe that polio virus causes polio. He's not a vaccine skeptic. He espouses ideas that have been widely debunked over and over again. And he's going to be their boss. So I worry immensely about that. There is a very large difference between RFK Jr. and all the other picks I have seen so far for HHS, key positions inside HHS.

TAUSCHE: When it comes to Kennedy himself, though, the question must be asked, what enabled his rise, because President-elect Trump in his first term was the president who spearheaded Operation Warp Speed, which created the COVID vaccines, and now is elevating a vaccine skeptic, which you have termed an antivaxxer, to this role mainly because he had such strong support from the electorate when he was running as a third party candidate.

So public opinion must have shifted greatly over the last four years to cause Trump to believe that this was a good idea. And I'm wondering why you think that is.

JHA: Well, so, first of all, again, I'm not a political analyst. My understanding is that Robert F. Kennedy was polling in the single digits, low single digits. So he's not somebody who polls strongly and widely from across the country.

Look, vast majority of Americans still support COVID vaccines. I think where there's a lot of disagreement is around vaccine mandates, where I think there is a reasonable debate to be had about whether there should have been or should be mandates or not. But again, Robert F. Kennedy is a different kind of a person. I mean, this is a guy who fundamentally doesn't believe in modern medicine.

Why Donald Trump, why President-elect Trump chose him, I don't understand the politics of it. Not my area of expertise. What I will say is when you think about the health of the American people, Robert F. Kennedy poses a very unique and substantial danger in a way that the other nominees really do not.

TAUSCHE: When I spoke to people who were briefed on this selection process, it was clear that when Makary and others who did not get some of these jobs were interviewing, that a lot of the discussion focused on how they could help Kennedy succeed in that role at HHS. Does that signal to you that perhaps some of these more mainstream public health appointees are going to be essentially buttressing him in that role, bringing their expertise to this role?

And I know you're not a political analyst and there is a question about whether Kennedy is confirmable, but it would suggest that these discussions have been framed around the idea that he is in fact confirmable.

JHA: Yes. So it's a good question. I don't, again, I don't understand the politics of whether Kennedy is confirmable. I hope that there are enough senators on the Democratic and Republican side to realize that he'd be very harmful for the health of the American people. That said, look, the real question I think about, take someone like a Marty Makary who's been nominated for FDA or Mehmet Oz for CMS.

The question is, are they going to stand up to Kennedy? Kennedy wants to gut large parts of FDA that might oversee food safety. We need a food safety program to make sure our food supply is safe. If Kennedy decides to get rid of that, is Dr. Makary going to stand up to that?

[18:10:03]

That is the question that I am thinking about, is what is the opportunity for these individuals to protect public health and protect modern medicine against someone like Robert F. Kennedy, who is frankly dangerous to the health of all Americans.

TAUSCHE: Well, given some of the some of the -- some of his rhetoric around wanting to make food safer, it would seem that in the end perhaps that wouldn't align with some of his own goals. But it is curious because earlier appointees to this job all had a goal of trying to improve nutrition and food quality but they were met with the force of extremely powerful lobbies, big food, big Ag, big pharma, many of whom were otherwise aligned with Trump's low tax, low regulation agenda. So for people who think that they can come into these roles and pursue these goals without interference, what awaits them?

JHA: Yes, so here's what I would say. There is a lot of people who've been working on trying to improve nutrition and trying to get Americans to eat healthier. Obviously, Michelle Obama had a whole effort on this that was widely criticized by the Republicans. I think all of us want to see Americans eat healthier and exercise more. There's no question about it.

The question is, as HHS secretary, is Robert F. Kennedy going to be actually able to effect change? The rhetoric is great. We need people to eat more healthily. How is he going to make decisions about what policies to implement?

My view, we should use science and evidence to make those decisions. He doesn't seem to have a strong track record of using evidence and data. A lot of the policies are going to come out of the Agriculture Department, not in his purview. I worry that he's going to talk a good talk, but he's not actually going to make progress. But in the meantime, undermine people's faith in modern medicine, modern public health.

TAUSCHE: Yes. And as you talk about the sprawling nature of the organization, I think what a lot of people also don't realize is that the Department of Health and Human Services also has a critical role in immigration. In particular, it's in charge of unaccompanied immigrant minors under a potential mass deportation plan. And I'm wondering from a public health perspective, what you see as the potential risk there.

JHA: Yes, this has been a very complicated and important program. Look, wherever you are on immigration policy, I think every American would agree undocumented minors, kids who come in on their own, often unaccompanied, we need to take care of those children. We need to make sure they get -- any health issues that they have dealt with that they get put into some sort of a foster home, that it's safe for them.

We're talking about young kids who are coming in unaccompanied. That is a very complicated program, but a very, very important one. It tests our moral character, and I worry about whether someone like Robert F. Kennedy is going to show the sort of determination to make sure that program is carried out well whatever the broader immigration policy is.

TAUSCHE: And finally, as we talk about a lot of these other roles, there's one that you have not mentioned and that is the pick for surgeon general. President-elect Trump chose a FOX News contributor. I'm wondering what you know about that individual and what you think the implications for that role and the public are.

JHA: Yes. You know, I don't know her personally. I've not interacted with her. I've seen some of her, you know, seen her on social media. I've seen her a little bit on FOX News. Everything I have seen strikes me as she is someone largely in the mainstream of medicine and public health. Again, you know, in a different place than I am. But of course that's to be expected that President Trump might pick different people than I might. But from what I have seen, I think she seems to be somebody who's committed to the health of the American people. But look, that's why we're going to have confirmation hearings. We're going to hear more about these ideas, and we're going to get a chance to vet them, and I look forward to that.

TAUSCHE: Well, we know that President Trump likes to assemble a marketplace of ideas of sorts in health, in the economy, in all sorts of domestic policies as well. We'll see how it plays out in practice and whether these individuals do end up getting confirmed.

We appreciate your expertise and perspective tonight, Dr. Ashish Jha. Thank you.

JHA: Thank you.

TAUSCHE: Still ahead on CNN NEWSROOM, senators are bracing for those confirmation battles over controversial Trump cabinet picks.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DUCKWORTH: But from what I'm hearing from my Republican colleagues on everything from Defense secretary to other posts, it sounds like they are ready to roll over for Mr. Trump.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAUSCHE: We'll talk about it next. You're in the CNN NEWSROOM.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:18:51]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DUCKWORTH: Our military could not go to war without its 223,000 women who serve in uniform. We would have an ineffective military that was not capable of deployment if we were to pull out all the women and say, you cannot be in combat.

He doesn't understand apparently even after having served that women are actually vitally important to an effective military.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAUSCHE: That was Democratic senator and combat veteran Tammy Duckworth criticizing Pete Hegseth, President-elect Trump's pick for secretary of Defense for Hegseth's comments in a recent interview saying women in the military should not be allowed in combat roles.

Joining me now is our panel this evening, CNN senior political commentator Scott Jennings and Democratic strategist Julie Roginsky.

Great to see both of you this evening. Thank you for joining me.

Scott, to you first, I mean, respond to Senator Duckworth. Do you think that she has a point?

SCOTT JENNINGS, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Yes, I do actually. And it would be an upheaval in the military to pull all women out of their jobs right now. And what I'm waiting to hear is what Donald Trump has to say about it. And I think that's true of any of these appointees. You know, they may all have political views. They may have expressed positions in their previous jobs before, but it doesn't really matter, because all that matters is what Donald Trump thinks. He's the president-elect.

[18:20:01]

He'll be the commander-in-chief, and he'll set all policy for the military. And then Hegseth or anyone else will then carry that out. So that's really what I'm waiting to hear. And I've never heard Donald Trump say that that's his view so I think before everybody freaks out, that would be the next thing we'd want to know.

TAUSCHE: Yes. And Julie, Democrats like Duckworth and others have been raising red flags about some of these nominees, who they deeply disagree with, but that's really all they can do at this point. I'm wondering what the discussion is behind the scenes on how Democrats are strategizing to respond to some of these individuals and to rebuke the agenda that they're going to be pushing for.

JULIE ROGINSKY, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: Well, I think you have to pick and choose because ultimately some of these, if not most of these, if not all of these, are going to be confirmed. That's just the fact that the numbers are in the Republicans' favor. But I think there are certain nominees that Democrats need to draw a line at and to say to people like Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski and Thom Tillis, who has a tough primary and general election coming up, people like Scott's old boss, Mitch McConnell, who really has nothing to lose at this point, is this really what you want the country to stand for?

And we understand that the president deserves to have his cabinet. Every president does. But there are some people who are just not acceptable to the American people. And the point is not to go after every single one of them, but to figure out the one strategically that we think are just so beyond the pale that the American people will be with us and say, you know, despite the fact that the president gets to choose his cabinet, some of these just do not represent the best of the United States.

TAUSCHE: Well, and I mean, this happens every administration. It's not just the incoming Trump administration. Even at the outset of the Biden term, I mean, there were questions about Neera Tanden running the budget office. There were questions about some of the more progressive bank regulators and ultimately those nominations were felled for other reasons.

But, Scott, when it comes to these individuals, Julie is right. You can't sink all of them. You have to pick and choose. But I'm wondering if you see the Matt Gaetz withdrawal as a standalone issue, or if you see him as sort of the first and perhaps a couple of dominoes of these controversial nominees where, you know, there could be some fissures among their supporters.

JENNINGS: Well, the first thing I would point out is that in the CBS News-YouGov poll that was released this morning, 60 percent of the American people approve of the way Donald Trump is handling his transition so far. So with all the picks and all the news that's come out of Mar-a-Lago, there is widespread approval from the American people that, hey, it seems like it's going OK. That's number one.

Number two, I see all these things as individual people. They all stand on their individual resumes and their individual merits. And, you know, obviously not all these jobs are created equal. Defense secretary is different than HUD, you know, and AG is different than Ag Sec. So, you know, they're all different jobs and they're all different people, and none of them are going to get a free pass.

They all have to sit at the table and answer questions. And I think most of these people are perfectly fine. There's obviously a couple that have been more controversial than others, but they too will have to sit at a table and answer questions, and they may not make it. There is a group of Republican senators who are basically unthreatenable, well, you know, maybe they're not running again. Maybe they just got elected. Maybe they are well known to feud with Donald Trump about everything.

There's more than three, which is all you can lose in a confirmation battle. And any of these people from Hegseth to Gabbard to RFK, certainly Gaetz would have been in that boat. too, are going to have trouble with that group.

TAUSCHE: So, just to clarify, because when you said Defense secretary is different than HUD, were you suggesting that you believe that Hegseth is one of those people who's going to run into those issues?

JENNINGS: Of course. I mean, this is the Pentagon. And although I'm a supporter of Mr. Hegseth, and I think he deserves his chance to prove himself at the confirmation hearing, he's obviously going to have to answer questions about his own record in the past. He's going to have to answer questions about what his management style will be at the Pentagon. It's a big job. And he's going to have to answer questions, you know, that pertain to sort of your judgment because this is somebody who's in the room when something bad happens to the United States and is a principal adviser to the president on national security,

And there are more hawkish members of the Republican Senate Conference that are going to have questions for him and Gabbard both about their worldview about what is the proper role of the U.S. Military in the world. And so, yes, now, I think he deserves a chance. And I think we may need a shakeup at the Pentagon because I'm not happy with the results of it during Biden. And I think we've had some disastrous moments during his administration.

I do think we need a shakeup over there and fresh eyes. And Hegseth may just be what we need but that doesn't absolve him of having to answer the questions that I just laid out.

TAUSCHE: Julie, on Capitol Hill more broadly, lame-duck periods are always quieter than regular governing periods. I mean, the lawmakers are going to have to fund the government in a few weeks here and not much else. But I'm wondering what you hear from Democrats as they regroup and as some of the dust settles after the election about where they go from here and what they can do in the next Congress and what they can do -- what tools, if any, they have to resist the Trump administration.

Axios had a piece out this morning that said the resistance has gone quiet, drawing the comparison to 2016 when Trump was elected and spawned a movement at that point. I mean, you remember the pink hats and the protests on the streets in early January, and that, by all indications, is not going to happen this time. So what next for Democrats?

[18:25:08]

ROGINSKY: You know what Democrats need? And I'm actually going to compliment Scott's old boss on this. They need a stone-cold killer like Mitch McConnell. They need somebody who's not going to sit there and say, this is not how it's always been done and this is not proper and this is not appropriate.

I mean, Mitch McConnell literally kept a United States Supreme Court seat vacant for almost a year because apparently, according to him, you don't confirm somebody in the last year of a president's term, and that was Merrick Garland's appointment obviously. Then within Ruth Bader Ginsburg passing away, I think it was September, of an election year, they filled that seat within 30 seconds with Donald Trump's pick.

So, you know, that's what Democrats need, and I'm not particularly pleased with what Chuck Schumer has been doing over the last month or so with --

TAUSCHE: If not Schumer, who do you see as stepping into that role?

ROGINSKY: Schumer can do it. Schumer just has to understand that the days of the Robert Byrd Senate are over. I mean, when I worked in the Senate, God, now, 25 years ago, Robert Byrd was still alive and it was a very different time. These kinds of Robert rules of order senators are gone, and Republicans figure that out right away. And Democrats, unfortunately, are still sitting here saying, well, we can't really, the rules don't really allow us to do this. We have to cut deals with Republicans if we want to get stuff done.

I don't think Mitch McConnell has ever cut a deal with Democrats, to his credit, in his life. He just does what he wants to do. That's why he was such an excellent leader for the Republicans and that's why Republicans now control all three branches of government, including the judicial system. And so from that perspective, all I want to say is that whatever Democrats want to do, stop marching in the streets, stop wearing your hats. Stop, you know, I don't care about that.

What I care about is having people at the DNC and people in positions of power in both the House and the Senate that know how to play this game and know how to play it in the way that Republicans have figured out long ago because the days of sitting around and being nice are way behind us. We don't have the majority. We do have the ability to obstruct the way Republicans obstructed judge after judge after judge the last couple of weeks, which is why they now are going to have four vacancies on the Circuit Court that they would not otherwise have had to fill when they're in the majority. That's the kind of stuff Democrats need to do.

TAUSCHE: Scott, I see you shaking your head and I want you to be able to respond. We'll give you the final word. But I'm also curious how you see --

ROGINSKY: I'm complimenting you, Scott.

TAUSCHE: I'm curious how you see Republicans stepping into a role as dealmakers, too, because much of what they want to do is going to require not 52, not 53, but 60 votes. So how do they get there and how do they tweak their agenda.

JENNINGS: Yes, I appreciate the compliments for Senator McConnell. But the Senate runs on deals to do most anything. You have to have 60 votes other than reconciliation and some knobs. But he has certainly cut deals over the years. But he's also learned to use the rules to his advantage and to the advantage of the Republican Party. And he's learned how to use the Constitution as well.

And I agree with you, Julie. You don't have anybody of Mitch McConnell's caliber in the U.S. Senate. You haven't had for a long time. And I don't know that there's anyone there that can fill those massive shoes. But I do think this story about the resistance I'm actually glad that this is not happening. We need a couple of years of political peace in this country. When Donald Trump got elected, there was no peace.

And it was constant dragging him down and investigations that were bogus and so on and so forth. This government needs to be allowed to operate. Republicans won the election. They have the presidency. They have the House. They have the Senate. Democrats need to fall in line here a little bit. They can be loyal opposition, but that doesn't mean you have to be totally obstructive. I think if they are, it's going to hurt them politically.

The American people said we need some action, and Donald Trump and the Republicans ought to be able to take that action. It's the mandate delivered by the American people.

TAUSCHE: Julie, quick final word.

ROGINSKY: You guys killed your own immigration deal. You guys killed your own immigration deal to obstruct. You started investigating Hunter Biden, a private citizen, within five seconds of Joe Biden getting in.

JENNINGS: We -- no, no. DOJ -- DOJ indicted Hunter Biden.

ROGINSKY: No -- OK.

TAUSCHE: All right.

JENNINGS: And that's Joe Biden's government.

ROGINSKY: No, no. Oh, the Republicans held hearings within 30 seconds of him coming in. So it's not like you guys were all --

JENNINGS: Of course. He's an influence peddlers.

ROGINSKY: It's not like you guys were --

JENNINGS: I wish we'd held more.

ROGINSKY: Of course.

TAUSCHE: Scott.

ROGINSKY: All right. OK, so it's not like you guys were kumbaya the minute Joe Biden came in and gave you a couple of years. Give me a break. Come on.

TAUSCHE: Julie, clearly --

JENNINGS: How many impeachments of Joe Biden? Zero.

ROGINSKY: Yes. Because there's nothing to be impeached for.

JENNINGS: How many special counsels? Come on.

TAUSCHE: Clearly, there is a lot still to unpack here.

ROGINSKY: No impeachment because he didn't try to overthrow the capitol, Scott. That's why there's no impeachment. He didn't try to overthrow the United States government.

TAUSCHE: Julie, Scott, clearly there's a lot still to unpack here. We're going to have a lot of air time to do it in the coming months. We'll have you both back. We really appreciate it, and we appreciate you joining us on a Sunday night. Thank you.

All right. Our thanks to Scott Jennings and Julie Roginsky. Thank you both. We'll be right back on the CNN NEWSROOM.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:33:55]

TAUSCHE: New tonight, CNN can now report that a ceasefire deal between Israel and Lebanon is, quote, "very close," according to a source in the region. That would come as welcome news to both the White House, both the departing Biden administration, as well as the incoming Trump administration, as the U.S. hopes to lower the temperature across the Middle East.

CNN international diplomatic editor Nic Robertson joins us now.

Nic, what do we know about this apparent progress on a deal and what might have changed?

NIC ROBERTSON, CNN INTERNATIONAL DIPLOMATIC EDITOR: Yes, I think to put it in a little bit of context, the fact that it feels like it's close really the same source just a couple of weeks ago really felt that things were falling apart, that Amos Hochstein hadn't been able to close the gaps. But after his visit to Beirut and Israel this week the sense is that it is closing. And I think if you look at the sort of the battle tempo that's happening, a massive 250 incoming rockets and drones from Hezbollah into Israel today.

That's a huge number. And Israel over the weekend with a significant number of strikes in Lebanon, 12 in the southern suburbs of Beirut just today, 84 civilians there killed. The Lebanese army soldier killed, a Lebanese army base hit, a couple of soldiers injured.

[18:35:04]

The IDF actually apologized for that. The totals now in Lebanon, more than 3,000 people dead, more than 13,000 injured. So there's a fatigue there that points to the fact that the circumstances, if you will, on Hezbollah are getting stronger domestically in Lebanon to try to find a way out of this. They are significantly weakened at the moment.

And in Israel as well, there's a sense that, you know, President Trump is on his way into office. He doesn't want to see wars in the region. It's not an indication that Prime Minister Netanyahu is going to give in on his positions. The key position for him and the IDF is that they have the right to strike back during the 60-day ceasefire if Hezbollah violates the ceasefire. So all of these things are in the mix.

But the reason I think for this sense of optimism is that it is closer than it has been. And this up tempo in the battle at the moment go back to 2006 and the war back then. When Israel and Hezbollah came to a ceasefire back then there was an up tempo just like this. So perhaps the atmospherics are telling us that both sides are getting close, but it's not there yet, not there at all.

TAUSCHE: We're also learning that a senior adviser to Iran's supreme leader says the country is preparing to respond to Israel strikes inside Iranian territory last month. This would be about a month since Israel struck those military sites.

What do we expect in terms of this tit-for-tat retaliation that is apparently going to continue?

ROBERTSON: You know, I think this is all in the sort of battle rhetorical tempo of a ceasefire deal between Israel and Hezbollah. You know, Hezbollah is Iran's biggest proxy, for example, and just a couple of weeks ago, when the talks, when the regional source that I was speaking to was saying that the ceasefire deal seemed to be falling apart, that was when we heard from Iran just before the election saying that they would strike Israel.

They didn't do it. And I think the language that we're hearing now is additional pressure from Iran on Israel to move towards this ceasefire. If Hezbollah goes on a ceasefire with Israel, that's because Iran says it's OK. So a ceasefire with Hezbollah really sort of indicates a lowering of temperature with Iran and I think this is what we're seeing from Iran at the moment, adding their pressure, their voice into this equation as the discussions go on around a ceasefire.

TAUSCHE: Yes, it's a very live situation. Nic, we appreciate you bringing us all the latest. Nic Robertson from the Middle East.

Still ahead on CNN NEWSROOM, Elon Musk learning a hard lesson how to live in Trump world. The richest man in the world now being told to stop outshining the boss. That's up next.

You're in the CNN NEWSROOM.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:42:30]

TAUSCHE: As Trump prepares for his second term, the world's richest man, Elon Musk, has been close by his side. But as Musk learns how to navigate Trump world he's also driving many headlines across social media and other nontraditional media outlets like Musk walking a fine line, at risk of breaking one of the cardinal rules of those in Trump's orbit -- don't outshine the boss.

Joining us now is CNN's chief media analyst Brian Stelter, author of the book "Network of Lies."

Brian, it's great to see you this evening. Thank you for joining us. A recent article from the "Wall Street Journal," we'll start here. It says that TikTok CEO reached out to Elon Musk seeking counsel on what to expect from the incoming Trump administration. You know, TikTok is potentially going to be banned. There's legislation to that effect. It's in the middle of a lot of litigation. There's the potential that Trump's former Treasury secretary could try to buy it.

But what does this say about what Elon Musk's influence over the broader media landscape right now is?

BRIAN STELTER, CNN CHIEF MEDIA ANALYST: Right. Because TikTok's future is unclear, the CEO of TikTok reportedly using Musk as a go-between, as some connective tissue. Another "Journal" story this weekend says others in China see Musk as a conduit in talking with the U.S. So this really speaks to the soft power that Musk already has and is going to have in the months to come, assuming, as you said, that this relationship doesn't wear off between Trump and Musk.

Again this weekend we've seen pictures from Mar-a-Lago of Trump and Musk together. And even though Musk is not going to have a formal cabinet position, his soft power is arguably even more influential. So we're going to continue to see stories like this where there are examples of, in this case, the CEO of TikTok trying to get through to Musk and thus to Trump.

TAUSCHE: Well, and Musk and to perhaps a lesser extent Vivek Ramaswamy have developed a sort of cult following.

STELTER: Right.

TAUSCHE: Both in Silicon Valley and in the broader media ecosystem. And they're now reportedly, according to Fortune, considering launching a podcast to discuss their plans for DOGE, what they've called the Department of Government Efficiency.

Is that just to tap into their own zeitgeist or is that a way to communicate official government business? What do you make of this?

STELTER: Well, I think that, you know, both are going on at the same time. You know, even though Musk says that old media is dead and he says his platform X is the new version of media, he still wrote an old-fashioned newspaper editorial with Vivek Ramaswamy when they wanted to explain their vision for this department in more detail. Of course, from what we know so far, it's not an official government department. It's more of an outside effort to make proposals.

[18:45:04]

And I think there's both a lot of enthusiasm and excitement about this, but also some appropriate skepticism. You know, you can see that in the commentary around this effort thus far. A widespread agreement that there are some things to cut. But then a lot of derision about the idea that Musk can actually find $2 billion out of the federal government -- sorry, $2 trillion out of the government's $6.8 trillion budget.

You know, you know, I've seen a lot of great reporting in the last few days basically observing that most of that spending is going back to American citizens. So this is going to be one of the most interesting aspects of the incoming Trump presidency. What exactly will Musk do and how will he do it? And launching a podcast to talk about it, you know, it does speak to this idea that maybe it's going to end up being more bark than it is bite, but we should all have an open mind and find out.

TAUSCHE: We've also seen this evolution of Musk's own social media presence over the course of the campaign, now post-election, really truly becoming a bully pulpit for his views and the views that he's espousing on behalf of the Trump team. I mean, how do you see that evolving going forward?

STELTER: Yes, when you think back to the first Trump presidency and all of the debates that were had about Trump's tweets and how seriously to take the president's tweets, and there were a lot of arguments back then, don't read too much into it, don't take it seriously. Well, flash forward eight years. The incoming President Trump is joined at the hip by the owner of the old platform, Twitter, now known as X, and every tweet Musk posts is now scrutinized very carefully for clues about what he might do or not do. You know, so I think this solves, this ends the argument about how

important these social media platforms are. Over the weekend, for example, Musk is joking, I think, about maybe trying to buy MSNBC. It seems he's just trying to troll. Comcast is not making MSNBC up for sale right now. Maybe something will change in a few years. But those tweets, those posts from Musk, those memes that he's posting, it just speaks to his power and his center of power throughout this incoming administration.

TAUSCHE: But elaborate on that potential joke. He used some of the same phrasing that he used a few years ago, when he ended up actually buying Twitter, when he said, how much is it just fairly casually.

STELTER: Right. Yes.

TAUSCHE: I mean, it would seem that, yes, there is a fair amount of trolling going on right now, but at the same time, Comcast is cleaving off a part of the business that could potentially be an affordable acquisition.

Do you think that there's any possibility that it's more than a joke?

STELTER: Well, some are taking it -- some inside MSNBC are taking Musk's comments seriously, whether he's trolling or not. There is a serious undercurrent to this and it is the following. In some countries where we've seen democratic backsliding, where some oppositional media outlets have been captured by the government, a process known as media capture, this is exactly what happens.

A ally of the leader like Musk comes in and buys a media outlet that is viewed as oppositional and then he turns the content and makes it more friendly to the person in power. That has happened before in other countries. That's part of the concern when even if Elon Musk is just joking, that's part of the concern here when it comes to MSNBC. But at the moment, this spinoff that Comcast is doing will take at least a year to complete.

There's no immediate sale or any of that I'm told that is planned. But the idea that Musk talks about it, he likes to say the most ironic outcome is the most likely. And in this case, it would be pretty ironic if he controlled MSNBC.

TAUSCHE: Yes, we still have more than a year of tea leaf reading to do.

STELTER: Yes.

TAUSCHE: Brian, we appreciate you helping us do it on this Sunday evening. Thank you for joining us. We appreciate it.

STELTER: Thanks.

TAUSCHE: Still ahead, Hurricane Helene destroyed many businesses in western North Carolina including a 200-year old Christmas tree farm. Coming up, how they're salvaging what's left after the flooding.

You're in the CNN NEWSROOM.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:53:25]

TAUSCHE: We're seeing even more fallout from the destruction Hurricane Helene brought to North Carolina. Some Christmas tree farms were devastated by the storm with thousands of trees destroyed.

CNN meteorologist Elisa Raffa explains why the impact may be far- reaching.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

ELISA RAFFA, AMS METEOROLOGIST: The first snow of the season is bringing some Christmas cheer to these farmers here in western North Carolina. We spoke to one farmer that lost 60,000 trees on his family- owned farm. That farm has been in the family more than 200 years, dating back to the English monarchy. With 60,000 trees gone, they're trying to make ends meet with wreaths and smaller trees for the season.

That farmer also unfortunately lost his home. This farm here lost 270,000 seedlings. These are baby trees that would have eventually gotten planted to become those bigger trees that often get cut and sold for Christmastime but when the flood waters came in, it contaminated all of these trees with that pollution and root rot. And these are just not viable anymore. A lot of these were also supposed to go to other farmers in the industry, and that's just a loss for them this season.

Christmas trees take seven to 10 years to grow, so it is possible that we really won't understand the impact of Helene on the Christmas tree industry for another decade.

Elisa Raffa, CNN, Western North Carolina.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

TAUSCHE: Still ahead, rain and snow expected to sweep across many parts of the U.S. this week. All ahead of Thanksgiving.

[18:55:02]

We're tracking the forecast and what to know if you're on the move. You're in the CNN NEWSROOM.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

TAUSCHE: You are in the CNN NEWSROOM. I'm Kayla Tausche in Washington. Jessica Dean has the night off.

We begin with back-to-back storms threatening Thanksgiving travel this week just as tens of millions of Americans are set to hit the airports and roadways for the holiday.