Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Now: Health Care CEO Murder Suspect In NY Federal Court; Georgia D.A. Fani Willis Disqualified From Prosecuting Trump; All 51 Defendants Found Guilty In Pelicot Rape Case; House GOP Scrambles For Plan To Keep Government Open; Putin Holds Annual News Conference In Moscow; Zelenskyy Asks European Leaders For More Air Defenses. Aired 3-4p ET

Aired December 19, 2024 - 15:00   ET

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

[15:00:40]

JIM SCIUTTO, CNN HOST: I'm Jim Sciutto in Washington. Thanks so much for joining me today on CNN NEWSROOM.

And let's get right to the news.

We begin with breaking news in Manhattan, some 60 blocks from the scene of the gruesome murder of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson, the man charged in his killing, Luigi Mangione, is right now in a federal court, his first appearance on four new federal charges, including murder. He walked into the courtroom. The proceeding began just moments ago.

Mangione is on New York soil. That he is there at all is a win for prosecutors. He waived extradition this morning, kicking off a long perp walk, helicopter transfer from Pennsylvania, the state where he was first spotted and apprehended after a six day manhunt. You see him there as he was escorted by police.

He is now facing federal charges in Pennsylvania and charges in Pennsylvania and New York and federally.

CNN Brynn -- CNN's Brynn Gingras is outside the federal courthouse in Manhattan. She joins me now.

So, explain what's going to happen inside that courthouse today.

BRYNN GINGRAS, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yeah, Jim. So we're hearing from our reporter inside the courtroom, Kara Scannell, that the judge has also just taken the bench and that Mangione is there with his defense attorney -- attorneys. So court is really just about to begin. It's unclear quite yet if he needs to enter a plea to these charges that he now faces federally. So we will find out.

But you just mentioned that there's four new charges that were unsealed today in a complaint by the federal government, those being the murder through the use of a firearm, two stalking charges and firearm offenses. These are obviously very hefty charges. And they come just after two days ago when the states said that they unsealed their indictment of 11 criminal charges, including murder one and murder two, against Mangione.

It's unclear exactly what happens next with the state charges. The federal charges right now where he is in court, facing those -- those take precedent at this point. But in the unsealing of that complaint, Jim, we did learn a little bit more about Mangione's and the evidence -- about Mangione and the evidence that they found on him, including some excerpts -- excerpts that were in, a notebook that we have talked about before that was found on him in that complaint.

We heard or learned that some things were written like it contained several handwritten pages that expressed hostility towards the health insurance industry and wealthy executives in particular. Also, that it had an entry that stated that the target is insurance because it, quote, checks every box.

So obviously this is more evidence on top of all of the evidence that we have learned about this case just within the last two weeks. Now, you talked about that extradition happened just from this morning in Pennsylvania and how he was flown to New York and then by helicopter to Manhattan and then that long, what we call perp walk, where federal and state and local officials brought him off that helicopter to the custody of federal officials.

And right now, he is going right before a judge, federal judge on those four charges, and we're waiting to see what happens next in this case.

SCIUTTO: No question. Quite a moment there to see him paraded by those officers as he landed in New York, Brynn Gingras, thanks so much.

All right. So more on the law.

I want to bring in Joey Jackson. He's an alum of the Manhattan D.A.'s office as well as a criminal defense attorney.

Joey, good to have you.

JOEY JACKSON, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Good to be with you, Jim.

SCIUTTO: You know, when I listened to those details, their materials, for instance, saying that targeting a health care CEO like this checks all the boxes. I'm not a lawyer, but. But it speaks to me as to culpability, but also planning premeditation.

JACKSON: Yeah, it really does. And so I think that you're going to see a lot about and we've seen if you look at just backing up, you have this New York state prosecution and you have this now federal prosecution, right. And then many people say, well, why?

Well, first, look at what he's being charged with. You have the 11 counts in New York state. That is the state authorities, the Manhattan D.A.'s office, district attorney's office is prosecuting that as it relates to murder in the first degree, citing terrorism, right, as the underlying basis as we see him walking there with authorities. It is Luigi Mangione, murder two, which is second degree murder in New

York state. We see, under the theory of terrorism and standing alone, and then the gun charges, right. A total of 11.

[15:05:01]

It's a very bare bones indictment, right, Jim? And that means that there's not really underlying specific facts as it relates to what his activities are, just what the legal charges are and why. If you look at the federal criminal complaint, he's not been indicted in federal court. It lays out chapter and verse, right, going back to the core question you're asking, right, in terms of the premeditation, the timeline, his traveling from Georgia, what his basis was in traveling, his checking into the hotel, the timeline of when he checked in, the timeline of when he checked out.

It has pictures of the backpack, right that he had that he left at central park. It has pictures of the gun of the silencer. It has pictures of him on the bicycle. And so all of this goes to the issue of it being plotted, premeditated, predetermined. And, of course, the federal charges are different from the state charges.

People have asked about the question of double jeopardy. And how could a federal charge and how could a state? You can, because they're courts of what we call concurrent jurisdiction. That means that the state has a role in charging. They have the federal government under different theories has a role, they have.

But what will be clear, right, to finalize the answer to your question is that certainly you're going to hear a lot about premeditation, whether it's in federal court or whether it's in state court, as prosecutors have to prove their case.

SCIUTTO: Okay. You mentioned the first degree murder charge and the terror and terrorism aspect of that necessary to achieve conviction.

I want to set that aside just for a moment and get to this question of jury nullification, in this case. For folks at home, that's when the jury votes not guilty, even when the evidence may seem overwhelming.

Do you see that concern as factoring in this decision to have federal charges, as well as the state prosecution?

JACKSON: So, Jim, I do. You know, I'm concerned about that. Whether or not he was charged federally or, you know, even with the state charges, I think jury nullification is always an issue.

And backing up as to that, that, of course, as we know, is when a jury knows that a defendant has committed a crime, but they decide, for whatever reason, to excuse it. Why is that a concern? Certainly, it's a concern because of what we've seen on social media.

People saying that, wow, he's a hero, calling him Saint Luigi, printing shirts and t-shirts and sweaters and, you know, sweatshirts that have his picture and an angel on them, people waxing poetic on social media about the corruption of the health care system, the corruption of government.

You know, this should have happened way before. You know it should happen again. It's unbelievable the level of support you look at the emails he's gotten while he was in, you know, prison in Pennsylvania. You look at the other correspondence people have really given him commissary money, even.

And so why is that relevant that I talk about public opinion? Guess where jurors come from? A public. And so the public -- people who are on that jury are going to have their different perceptions.

Now last point to this question, and that is yes, it's true that what happens is, is jurors are questioned in state court. The lawyers question the jurors in federal court. The judge does.

Either way, though, you get to excuse jurors for cause. I hate the health care system. You're excused. I hate the government. You're excused. I dislike everybody, you're excused.

But ultimately, there's going to be an impaneled jury. Are those jurors honest about their perceptions of life, love, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Are they not? And do you get a panel of jurors who are going to say, you know what, maybe this should have happened?

Horrible to say, but it's not so horrible in light of what we're hearing on social media. So yes, I'm concerned about jury nullification.

SCIUTTO: Well, listen, it's not like selecting that jury in the Manhattan -- in the Manhattan D.A.'s case against Donald Trump, right? There were questions about politics and so on.

But before we go, the state first degree murder charge requires a terrorism enhancement that this was a killing intended to terrorize. Do you believe that the facts as we know them supports that charge?

JACKSON: I think that the facts could support the charge. And either way, I think from a legal, practical and a strategic perspective, it was the right thing to do. You can debate, right whether or not it was terrorism. Were you trying to influence or coerce the community with respect to what you did and influence policy?

And people have cited, oh, well, it happened not in the light of day with everyone. It happened at 6:45. No one else was on the street. That's beside the point. The issue is, what message were you sending and what was the basis or purpose upon which you -- you sent that message.

So that's going to be relevant, right? With respect to him identifying and targeting the face of an industry that is really hated because of their really disclaiming a lot of cases that they should really honor. However, Jim, here's another reason why I think they did it.

What happens is if you just charge second degree murder in the state case, all you have to show is that you intended to kill someone, they died, causation, because of you, right? That's all you have to show. Motives are not significant.

In that case, defense attorneys like myself are going to move to preclude all the evidence about his prior history, about his hate of a system, about all he thought about corporate America, about the health care system. We're going to say, judge, it's prejudicial. It's irrelevant. They're inflaming the jury.

[15:10:01]

Would prosecutors have charged this? Now it all comes in to show terrorism. And so strategically, it's a good play. Whether it connects with the jury is an open question.

But I think certainly, they had a good faith basis to do it. And you could argue that's exactly what it is. It'll be up to a jury of 12 to decide unanimously whether they've proven it beyond a reasonable doubt. That is, prosecutors, as the case moves forward.

SCIUTTO: What a moment it was to see him paraded there.

Joey Jackson, thanks so much.

JACKSON: Thank you, Jim.

SCIUTTO: Well, another legal proceeding we've been following for some time. The Georgia district attorney leading the election interference case against president-elect now, Donald Trump, has been disqualified from overseeing that case. The state appeals court ruled -- ruling follows revelations that the Fulton County D.A., Fani Willis, had a romantic relationship with the special prosecutor she hired to help prosecute the case.

So can the Trump -- case against Trump move forward without her?

CNN's senior crime and justice reporter Katelyn Polantz joins me now to help answer that.

I mean, already this personal relationship blew up this case to a large degree early on. But now, can it proceed without her?

KATELYN POLANTZ, CNN SENIOR CRIME AND JUSTICE REPORTER: No, and it's not going to right now. I mean, in theoretically, there's a whole world where she can be replaced and this case could move forward. But what has happened here is the derailment of the case against Donald Trump and more than a dozen others for racketeering conspiracy against the 2020 election.

Fani Willis was the district attorney. She's the reason that case was able to go forward. The trial court looked at her relationship with Nathan Wade and some other things she was doing while the top prosecutor on that case and said it was a significant appearance of impropriety, but he wasn't going to remove her.

What the Georgia court of appeals did today was, they said the trial judge got it wrong. And so she must be disqualified from this case. She can appeal to try and be reinstated there. But this is the death rattle of this case that already had been very much on ice because of this proceeding.

SCIUTTO: Let me ask -- because this does not change the evidence in the case.

POLANTZ: No.

SCIUTTO: It changes the person who brought the evidence. And by the way, folks, forget this -- I mean, among the pieces of evidence was the former president, now president elect on the phone saying, find me votes to overturn the results of the election in Georgia. Where does all that evidence go now?

POLANTZ: Well, that evidence is all evidence that a trial court would look at when there's a jury in the room. What happens right now is we're still in the process of them working out the law around the case. So they have to determine whether Willis can take this.

And if she can't -- if this stands that the Georgia Supreme Court, the next appeals court, and she is still disqualified, they would have to replace her. And that could take a very long time. The person who is put in charge of the case could decide to get rid of it, drop the charges against Trump.

And then the other thing in this case, we still haven't seen the judge ruling on significant questions around presidential immunity, the supremacy of the federal court over the state proceedings. There's other legal questions that this case would have to survive for it to move forward. So don't expect anything here to be happening anytime soon, especially while Trump's in the presidency.

SCIUTTO: Are all the cases against Trump now dead?

POLANTZ: Yes, for now, while he's the president, there's this one. There's the two federal cases which are dismissed for different reasons. Then there's the case in New York, that sentencing that he was supposed to have after being convicted on hush money charges, that's suspended.

That said, there's a number of civil cases that Donald Trump is facing in court. They will move ahead very slowly. Right now, he's not scheduled to have any depositions, but there's some serious allegations that the courts are working through his role and culpability in the January 6th attack in a civil aspect, a defamation case from the Central Park Five. And then his role in clearing protesters outside the White House in June of 2020 while he was president. Can he be held personally responsible?

A lot still on the legal plate of Donald Trump, the litigator in chief in a lot of ways.

SCIUTTO: Well, we should note, civil cases do have a lower bar for conviction, right, or findings of liability. But if you and I were sitting here a few years ago when these cases were beginning, and I don't think many folks would have predicted where -- where it all ended up.

Katelyn Polantz, thanks so much.

Well, now overseas to France and a monumental verdict there. It was a moment to celebrate courage and dignity in France today, as the 51 men, 51 who raped Gisele Pelicot were all found guilty. Pelicot took the unusual step of waiving her anonymity and allowing video of those rapes, video of the rapes to be shown in court, saying she wanted to bring attention to women being sexually abused all over the world.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GISELE PELICOT, FRENCH WOMAN (through translator): By making the trial public on September 2nd, I wanted society to be able to understand the issues it would raise. I've never regretted that decision.

I have faith now in our capacity to carve out collectively a future where everyone, women and men, can live in harmony in respect and mutual understanding.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCIUTTO: That poor woman, her ex-husband Dominique Pelicot, was handed the harshest sentence possible in France 20 years in prison. You may remember he drugged Gisele for a decade and sought out strangers to come into their home and rape her. We get more on this remarkable, this shocking case from CNN's Melissa Bell.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

MELISSA BELL, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Gisele Pelicot, who has been admirable throughout this, celebrated for her courage, her humility from the very start and from far across the world. It was her decision, of course, to make it public that made such a difference. That allowed a number of things to happen.

First of all, the accusers and right to anonymity to be waived, and then the videos to be shown in court. All of that has meant that the impact of this has really gone far beyond the borders of France.

As to what actually happened here in court today, there were large crowds outside, as there have been almost every day for the nearly four months of this trial. Men and women who come to support Gisele Pelicot again as she arrived shouting "merci, Madame" to her arrival, and again as she left, thanking her for what she's done by achieving this, whatever the sentence is handed down today, the fact that the trial was made public has led to this sort of societal reckoning.

The question of how this number of men could have come into someone's home, found an unconscious woman, and not thought to raise the alarm or alert anyone or turn away themselves is remarkable. And it's a very uncomfortable question that's really been placed before wider society.

We heard those sentences handed down. The only man who did receive the maximum sentence being sought was Dominique Pelicot himself. All of the others received lesser sentences, as you mentioned, and that's led to a great deal of outrage outside the court here today. There were shouts of "rapists, we see you" as proceedings got underway, and when at least one of the men who walked free today because of a suspended sentence walked out, he was jeered fairly violently by the crowd, even as he tried to hide his face.

We also heard beyond the strong words of Gisele Pelicot herself, that you played there a moment ago. We also heard from a lawyer representing Dominique Pelicot, the husband. Again, the only guilty man here today to be handed the full 20-year sentence. This is what he said.

DEFENSE LAWYER: The criminal court of Vaucluse has given its verdict, sentencing Dominique Pelicot to 20 years in prison, Mr. Pelicot has taken note of the decision and we are going to take advantage of the delay, which has given us ten days to decide if we will appeal this decision. At the moment I am speaking to you. No decision has been taken.

BELL: So too do -- does the prosecution and I think that's going to be really interesting to see what happens in the next ten days. If the prosecution decides that they feel that some of their sentences have been too lenient -- too lenient, they can appeal. As you just heard, Dominique Pelicot can also appeal the decision. What that would mean is that this court room, which had a jury of five judges on it, there would now be a second Mazan trial that's been called off. The name of the village not far from Avignon, where these terrible events unfolded, where the Pelicot couple lived. There would be a second Mazan trial, this time in front of a jury.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

SCUITTO: Thanks to Melissa Bell in Avignon there, just a shocking case.

While lawmakers on Capitol Hill in the U.S. -- Capitol Hill here in the U.S. have until midnight tomorrow night to figure out if they can. A brand new budget bill after Trump and Elon Musk threw massive monkey wrenches into the works of a previous deal. If they do not reach agreement, the federal government will shut down right before the holidays. We'll be live on the hill after the break with where negotiations stand right now, and if there's been any progress.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:22:29]

SCIUTTO: The 118th session of Congress is ending as it began -- Republican chaos, confusion, no clear sense of a majority leader. Congressional Republicans now have just 33 hours to avert a government shutdown right before the holidays, because Donald Trump and Elon Musk decided last minute to decimate what was a bipartisan proposal.

House Democrats made clear they are not willing to bend to Republican demands or bail them out. The current funding expires at 12:01 a.m. Saturday morning.

Joining me now is Representative Brad Sherman from California, a member on the House Foreign Affairs and Financial Services Committees.

I've got some overseas news to ask you about. But before we get to that, I do want to ask you about where the negotiations stand. Hakeem Jeffries, the Democratic leader in the house, has said Democrats will not bail out Republicans on this. Does he aim to stand by that, in your view? Should he stand by that?

REP. BRAD SHERMAN (D-CA): Look, we entered into a 1,500-page agreement. We agreed on every semicolon and every comma. We were ready to pass it on Tuesday, and then out of nowhere comes Elon Musk, threatening every Republican with a primary challenge, a well-funded primary challenge if they vote for it.

This is not bargaining in good faith. We bargained with Republicans. We made a deal. And that's the deal that we should pass.

And if the Republicans put that deal on the floor right now, it will pass. But they're using their power by being a majority of the House to not even allow us to vote on the compromise legislation.

Democrats have negotiated with Republicans before, as you know, and gotten burned. I'm thinking of the bipartisan border security deal also sunk by Donald Trump, under the impression that, hey, just wait until I'm in office, and I'll get a better deal. That seems to be the calculation from Trump and Musk and others now.

Are they baiting Democrats here to some degree, saying you guys are going to get blamed for this, Biden is still president? Not on our watch.

SHERMAN: I think they want to burn down the house if they can blame Democrats for the fire. But the fact is that -- the facts are their fingerprints are all over, the gasoline containers. And we will be able to tell the American people, why the government shut down, the deal was there. And Musk has said we should pass no new statutes between now and January 20th, which means the government has to shut down between now and January 20th.

So, the evidence is right there. It's in writing. It's on Twitter, both President Musk and Vice President Trump -- I may have that reversed, or I may have it correct, have made their positions quite clear.

So, yeah, we have a deal. That's the deal. And, I think it's -- you know, your international audience is going to find this perhaps entertaining, but certainly peculiar. This is not the way a mature country operates.

SCIUTTO: Yeah. I mean, listen, you -- that's almost an evergreen statement, Congressman, given events of the last several months and years, I do want to turn overseas now to events we witnessed in South Korea, a short attempt by then President Yoon Suk Yeol to declare martial law here.

You said following that declaration that, quote, President Yoon's appalling decision thus undermines South Korea's most important defense element, its strategic alliance with the United States.

Does the way South Korea has since responded, including via his impeachment. Does it save the strength of that alliance?

SHERMAN: Well, the alliance is based in part on the history of the -- of the 1950s and how we fought together. But to a much greater extent, the alliance is based on a shared dedication to democracy and the rule of law.

And we've seen democracy and the rule of law operate in South Korea. The martial law lasted only a few hours. The impeachment is going forward.

It's a peculiar system in South Korea now because, they've got three vacancies on their constitutional court, and it takes six votes to uphold this impeachment decision. So we'll see what happens. But democracy in South Korea was challenged. And it survived, and it seems to be going forward the way it should.

What incensed me about President Yoon's statement was he was saying he's doing the martial law, declaration for national security reasons. You know, we're partners on national security when it comes to South Korea. We've got 30,000 troops there. We've got a hell of an intel system, watching what North Korea does every day.

And, there was obviously no national security reason for that sudden declaration of martial law, as proven not only by U.S. intel at the time, but events that have occurred since then.

SCIUTTO: Yeah.

SHERMAN: If there was an imminent threat of a North Korean invasion, where's the North Korean invasion?

SCIUTTO: Are you concerned about President-elect Donald Trump's commitment to the U.S.-South Korea alliance?

You'll remember in his first term, he suspended joint military exercises, large ones with South Korea as a favor, in effect, to the North Korean leader, Kim Jong-un, as he pursued a nuclear deal there. That was met with alarm by folks I know in the Pentagon here, but also in the South Korean military. Do you believe Trump will shore up that alliance or perhaps weaken it?

SHERMAN: You're asking me to predict what Donald Trump is going to do? Are there no psychics available to you on your home street? They would stand a better chance.

I have no idea. I would think that the fact that South Korea spends a lot of money and a lot of effort on its own national defense will put them in one of Donald Trump's better categories. I think the failure to cut a deal with Kim Jong-un with a kind of fly by the seat of the pants diplomacy that was tried last time, may cause him not to pursue it this time.

And I think that, uh, he won't be changing our policy on the Korean peninsula because he'll be focused on the Middle East and Ukraine.

SCIUTTO: Well, we'll be watching closely, as I'm sure you will be. Representative Brad Sherman, we do appreciate you joining.

SHERMAN: Thank you very much.

SCIUTTO: A brief update on our top story, the federal court hearing for the suspect in the UnitedHealthcare CEO murder, Luigi Mangione. That hearing has just wrapped up.

I do want to go back to CNN's Brynn Gingras, who is outside the courthouse in Manhattan.

This was meant to be a brief proceeding. What took place there?

GINGRAS: Yeah. So, like you said, Jim, it just wrapped up. We have some information as to what happened from our colleague Kara Scannell. She inside talked about how Mangione attorney, Karen Agnifilo, questioned with the judge what exactly was going on with these two different cases, the federal case and the state case with the charges of both, as we have talked about before, she kind of kind of came across like as if the state the Manhattan district attorney, Alvin Bragg, wasn't even aware of the federal charges that they were going to come down today.

So she was trying to get some clarity as to exactly what this all means for his -- her clients. It's still unclear exactly what this means, I guess, because the judge didn't really give any response before leaving the bench. We do know that they reserved their right to ask for a bail, but did not ask for that at this particular hearing.

We don't believe Mangione. I don't believe Mangione gave any sort of, you know, plea to the charges that he now faces a federally. So at this point, this hearing is over. We know that Mangione is going to be at some point transported to the MDC, the Metropolitan Detention Center, which, of course, holds some notorious people right now, including Sean "Diddy" Combs, who is also Combs -- who is also being represented by Marc Agnifilo, who is also at the defense table today for Luigi Mangione.

So that is what has happened in court. And again, we are now waiting to see what happens with the state charges. It seems that we're not the only ones who are trying to get clarity, as we've been talking about throughout the day, on exactly what this all means, when these federal charges came down really this morning into the afternoon.

SCIUTTO: Tell us where he goes now with bail denied, where will he be held, and for how long can we expect him to be held?

GINGRAS: Yeah. So he, you know, again, earlier today we thought he was going to go in front of a judge on the state charges, so he would have went to Rikers Island. But then when these federal charges kicked in and that complaint was unsealed, this became a federal case. So now he goes to the Metropolitan Detention Center.

And like I said, there has been notorious people who have been housed at that center right now, Sean "Diddy" Combs. We know that at one point, Jeffrey Epstein, was there. There has been obviously widely reported about this federal facility.

So that is where he will currently be held. While this federal case plays out, there's still no clarity exactly what is going to happen on the state level. Does he have to go before a judge on the state charges?

It's really, truly unclear. And it seems like it's still unclear to even his defense attorneys. So maybe at some point he comes into the courthouse here in Manhattan. It doesn't appear that's going to happen, definitely not today, probably not even tomorrow.

But we're certainly trying to get some clarity on exactly what is happening, even though the -- you know, the southern district of New York said these two cases will run parallel to each other. It doesn't exactly seem clear that that's happening right at this moment. It does seem like the federal case is taking precedence. And right now, he is federally charged officially, and he will be heading to the federal prison for the night.

SCIUTTO: Brynn Gingras in New York, thanks so much.

Coming up, Russian leader Vladimir Putin's marathon four-plus hour news conference. In it, he said he is ready for potential talks with Donald Trump. We're going to break down the key takeaways, coming up.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:36:51]

SCIUTTO: As 2024 comes to a close, we have seen Russia lose some of its sphere of influence, the latest with the fall of the Assad regime. But in his annual marathon news conference in Moscow today, Vladimir Putin said he believes Russia has actually become much stronger, claiming his forces are making advances specifically in Ukraine.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

VLADIMIR PUTIN, RUSSIAN PRESIDENT (through translator): The situation is changing dramatically. Movement is taking place along the entire front line every day and as I already said, we are not talking about advancing by 100, 200, 300 meters. Our fighters are taking back territory by square kilometers. I want to emphasize every day.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCIUTTO: As Putin was taking questions, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy was in Brussels asking European leaders to provide Ukraine with more air defenses as the war stretches into its third winter and as the nation faces relentless airstrikes against its energy infrastructure designed to harm the Ukrainian civilian population.

Joining me now, CNN contributor Jill Dougherty, our former Moscow bureau chief, and retired Major General Mark MacCarley.

Thanks to both of you for joining.

Jill, I wonder you've -- you've been a close observer of Vladimir Putin for many years. You watched this 4.5 hour press conference for which I give you great credit from start to finish.

Listen, Russia lost in Syria. They lost their client state there, the state of their bases there. The air and navy bases are in question, although Putin said that he has established contact with HTS.

On Ukraine, he was projecting more strength and he's right. They are making -- making ground there.

Did you see a Putin who seemed strong or had apologies to make -- questions to answer?

JILL DOUGHERTY, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: You know, I think he actually did look strong. But remember, you know, this is a presentation, a show. So he had to -- and it was very interesting I thought when he was asked about Syria and he said, well, you know, I don't think we actually lost because we by and large attained our goals.

And when -- I mark that down in my mind as the way that he might try to look at Ukraine and say, by and large, we won Ukraine. And, you know, he is never going to admit defeat, right?

So the question now as we go into Ukraine and movement toward negotiations, he has to find a way to somehow spin it that he won. And granted, he's doing better, and the general obviously knows more about that than I do. But I thought it was a very interesting moment.

SCIUTTO: Yeah. I'll ask you after what the Russian word for spin is, then, let me ask you then, mark, about that question. He says the situation at the front is changing dramatically. There's movement along the entire front every day. And to Jill's point, he said, we are moving towards solving our primary task, which we outlined at the beginning of the special military operation.

[15:40:02]

Again, to Jill's point, it seems he's saying, well, we've gained enough territory. We're not going to take the whole country. So do you see him there outlining at least a claim of victory and therefore a step towards a potential agreement?

[15:40:16]

MAJ. GEN. MARK MACCARLEY, U.S. ARMY (RET.): I think he has established at this particular point what his negotiating aims are going to be, because the expectation is that some form of a cease fire might, in fact be negotiated, whether that's right or wrong, whether there will be buy in at this particular point in time from President Zelenskyy, is anybody's guess.

But you look at what Russia has done in the last 30 days or so, Russia has succeeded. These are not momentous victories. There are three small villages, one, of course, which I have been in, Novykumar (ph), changed hands in the last 17 days, five times between Russia and Ukraine.

Russian forces were able to move very close to a strategically situated area, a city called Povarovich (ph), and are threatening Povarovich.

But the most challenging statement he made was this duel. He wants to engage in between himself and the United States dueling missiles. Now, this is -- I'm going to say, humorous, except its deadly serious.

SCIUTTO: Yeah, we saw the capability of the new missile multi-warhead missile that we saw them use a number of weeks ago.

Jill Dougherty, regarding Trump, Putin said he hasn't spoken to him at all for more than four years. He does say he is ready to speak now at any time. And I will be ready for a meeting if he wants it.

I, of course, we'll see because Trump has expressed his own interest in perhaps meeting with Vladimir Putin. How does Ukraine see the arrival of Trump? Does Ukraine fear that Trump will force him into a deal it doesn't want?

DOUGHERTY: I do think that is a concern among the Ukrainians. No question. But you know, I think actually Putin, if you look at vis-a- vis Trump, I think Putin may know, as General MacCarley said, he may know what he wants, but I think he's being very careful. And in this news conference, he really was not to kind of engage with Trump. There was really a hands-off approach.

I haven't talked with him for years. I'd be happy to meet with him. Nothing specific. And I think that is because, number one, the situation changes all the time and there's a lot of unpredictability about what, when crunch time comes, Trump will try to, you know, push the sides to do so.

I thought actually Putin was kind of hands off on this.

SCIUTTO: General MacCarley, regardless of what Putin says about having achieved his aims in Syria and noting contact, establishing relations with HTS, Russia lost a major foothold in the Middle East after investing years and lots of money and lots of forces and lots of weaponry.

Can you describe what a setback that is for Russia in the region?

MACCARLEY: Well, not being in the Kremlin and not serving as a Russian general, its going to be a bit of a challenge. But I can say the loss of the relationship with Bashar Assad that had been developed over, certainly since the civil war began in 2010. And frankly, if you look at it historically, Russia and Syria have always been close, going back to after the Second World War.

But that's a loss of not only a relationship but the ability of Russia at the present point in time to influence the course of actions in Syria. Now, I have to caveat that by saying that Russia is now engaged in conversations with Jolani, and others within the emerging government. And I think that that's directly related -- it's almost possessive to retain Russian control over the naval base and the air base, which are absolutely critical in that part of the world.

SCIUTTO: No question. I mean, it's -- it's a base on the Mediterranean for the Russian navy.

But before we go, Jill Dougherty, it's notable that Vladimir Zelenskyy was in Europe, as Putin was speaking today, and he's looking for more help with air defenses. And it strikes me that part of Zelenskyy's mission in Europe is, is to get more support from Europe, because he's worried that hell get less from the U.S. in the coming months.

[15:45:01]

And I wonder, does Europe stand up? Can Europe fill that gap?

DOUGHERTY: Well, that's a question. The -- you know, Zelenskyy was talking with the Europeans precisely about this. They are trying to stay on the same page. It's difficult obviously sometimes in countries when there are domestic concerns, et cetera.

But I do think that, Putin what he's trying to do overall, his message is to make it look inexorable that Russia will win. It's just a matter of time. And I think, he continues, everything he says pounds home that message. And I think its a way of wearing, wearing away at the Ukrainians and make them feel that, you know, perhaps it's kind of hopeless and wearing away at the unity of NATO by saying, you know what, I'm going to win one way or the other. Or as we were just saying, maybe he will claim that he won.

But it's -- there was a lot of, I think, very deliberate messaging that Putin had no question in that news conference.

SCIUTTO: Yeah, and he took a good 4-1/2 hours to get that messaging across.

Jill Dougherty, General Mark MacCarley, thanks so much to both of you.

DOUGHERTY: Thank you.

Well, an update -- there are some rumblings of a possible government funding deal on Capitol Hill. We'll be right back with new developments next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCIUTTO: Well, we're returning to updates on our top story, which is a possible agreement on a funding bill or at least an outline of a funding bill to keep the government open. But we're still waiting for details.

Meanwhile, as numerous business chiefs are trying to win the favor of Donald Trump, many of them have been traveling to Mar-a-Lago to meet with the president-elect to gain his favor, perhaps, and discuss business they might have before the government.

[15:50:10]

One of those is Jeff Bezos, who also owns "The Washington Post" and has a very complicated history with the president-elect.

Here's CNN's Randi Kaye.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

JEFF BEZOS, AMAZON FOUNDER: If we're talking about Trump, I think it's very interesting. I'm -- I'm actually very optimistic this time around.

RANDI KAYE, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Billionaire Amazon Founder Jeff Bezos earlier this month, offering his take on President- elect Donald Trump's second term.

BEZOS: What I've seen so far is that he is calmer than he was first time.

KAYE: That's a lot coming from a guy who has been on the receiving end of much of Trump's ire, some of it dates back to the 2016 campaign when Trump suggested Bezos was using his ownership of "The Washington Post" as a weapon against Congress to keep politicians from looking into Amazon no-tax monopoly.

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT-ELECT OF THE UNTED STATES: I have respect for Jeff Bezos, but he bought "The Washington Post" to have political influence. And I got to tell you, we have a different country than we used to have. Believe me, if I become president, oh, do they have problems?

KAYE: In 2016, Trump suggested Bezos was using the newspaper to evade taxes.

TRUMP: "The Washington Post" which is just a ploy for Amazon, so that Amazon doesn't pay taxes.

KAYE: Bezos responded to Trump's attacks regarding taxes, writing on Twitter: Finally trashed by real Donald Trump. We'll still reserve him a seat on the Blue Origin rocket. Included in the tweet, the hashtag, "#sendDonaldtospace".

BEZOS: And you know, I have a rocket company, so I -- the -- the --

(LAUGHTER)

BEZOS: -- the capability is there.

KAYE: He also chastised Trump for threatening those who dare to scrutinize him.

BEZOS: We are allowed to criticize and scrutinize our elected leaders.

KAYE: After Trump was elected in 2016, Bezos and Trump took a brief pause from blasting one another. The two men met in December 2016 at Trump Tower.

By the time Trump ran for president again in 2020, he'd rebooted the jabs aimed at Bezos. When news of Bezos' impending divorce was published in the "National Enquirer" in 2019, Trump saw an opportunity and crowned Bezos with a new nickname, referring to him in a tweet, as "Jeff Bozo."

More recently, their icy relationship seemed to thaw. After the first assassination attempt on Trump's life in July in Pennsylvania, Bezos wrote on X: Our former president showed tremendous grace and courage under literal fire tonight. So thankful for his safety and so sad for the victims and their families.

And just last month, Bezos congratulated Trump on an extraordinary political comeback and decisive victory in the 2024 election.

Randi Kaye, CNN, Palm Beach County, Florida.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

SCIUTTO: We'll be right back with details as we know them of a possible deal to keep the U.S. government open. That's right after this break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:55:43]

SCIUTTO: With just a little more than 24 hours left under a government shutdown deadline, Republican representatives leaving the Speaker Mike Johnson's office, say there is now a GOP agreement on government funding they have not offered any details. The lawmakers refused to say exactly how they came to this agreement, what the numbers would be, and we should note that they will also need Democratic votes for this to pass, because there are a number of Republicans on the record and a very thin majority for Republicans in the House saying they will not vote for such a deal. There is a vote expected on this proposal around 6:00 p.m. so a couple hours from now and well see then if it moves forward.

Thanks so much for joining me today. I'm Jim Sciutto in Washington.

"QUEST MEANS BUSINESS" is up next.