Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

CNN International: No Punishment For Trump In Hush Money Conviction; Sentenced To Unconditional Discharge; Kenneth Fire Is Newest Blaze To Break Out In L.A. Area; FAA Investigates Drone Collision With Fire-Fighting Plane. Aired 11a-12p ET

Aired January 10, 2025 - 11:00   ET

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

[11:00:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is CNN Breaking News.

RAHEL SOLOMON, HOST, "CNN NEWSROOM": Hello, and welcome to our viewers from around the world. I'm Rahel Solomon live in New York, and this is CNN Newsroom.

We are following multiple breaking news stories this hour, but let's begin in New York, where there will be no jail time, no fines and no probation. A judge has just handed down a sentence for Donald Trump in what is known as the hush money case. He gave Trump an unconditional discharge for falsifying business records ahead of the 2016 election. That puts a judgment of guilt on his record, but no other legal penalty. Trump attended the proceedings virtually, saying before the sentence that he had been "treated very, very unfairly", end quote, and that he had done nothing wrong.

Let's now bring in CNN's Marshall Cohen, who joins us live in Washington. Marshall, it's a pretty quick proceeding. Walk us through what happened this morning.

MARSHALL COHEN, CNN REPORTER: Hey, Rahel. It was about 30, 38 minutes in New York City. They actually are feeding audio, as we speak. Eventually, we will be able to hear what happened. But, we did have reporters in the room who provided us a lot of insight. So, the bottom line, an unconditional discharge, like you mentioned, for former President Trump. That means he is guilty. He is a convicted felon, a convicted criminal, but there will be no punishment, no prison, no probation and no fines.

So, let me take you into the room and break down what the prosecutors said, what Trump said when he spoke, and what the judge said as well. The prosecutors from New York District Attorney Alvin Bragg's office, they said that Trump has shown no remorse. In fact, he has encouraged others to reject the verdict. They said that the President-elect has caused, quote, "enduring damage to the public perception of the criminal justice system and that this jury verdict should be respected and upheld."

President Trump spoke during this hearing, as is the opportunity for every criminal defendant in every case when they are sentenced. He was appearing virtually. He said that, quote, "This has been a very terrible experience." He called it a political witch hunt that was intended to damage his reputation, and he said that his election victory in November proves that the voters agree with him that this case should have never been brought because, quote, in his words, "the people of this country understand what's going on." He concluded by saying, I'm totally innocent. I did nothing wrong, and this is an embarrassment to New York.

All right. Finally, it was the judge's turn to close this case out, Judge Juan Merchan in New York, no surprise what the ruling was, he said -- what the sentence was. It was an unconditional discharge with no punishment. But, the judge was very clear, the office of the presidency, not the occupant of the presidency, it's the office that matters. Quote, "The considerable, extraordinary legal protections afforded to that office is a factor that overrides all other factors." In essence, his hand was forced by the election results. The judge said, quote, "Ordinary citizens do not receive those legal protections. You get those protections when you become President." And he said, "The citizens of this nation recently decided that you should once again receive the benefit of those protections."

SOLOMON: All right. Marshall, let me jump in here, and if you might stand by for me for one second, because we are now actually getting the audio from inside the courtroom during the sentences. Marshall, let's listen together.

VOICE OF JUDGE JUAN MERCHAN, ACTING JUSTICE, NEW YORK SUPREME COURT: -- no court judge is called upon to make. Our legislature sets the parameters for an authorized sentence, but it is a judge that must decide what constitutes a just conclusion to a verdict of guilty. A court is vested with broad discretion in determining what sources or evidence it may consider to arrive at an appropriate sentence. In doing so, the court must consider the facts of the case along with any aggravating or mitigating circumstances.

In my time on the bench, I've been called upon to grapple with this weighty responsibility for countless defendants who have been found guilty after trial for an assortment of offenses ranging from non- violent classy felonies to the most heinous of crimes, including homicides, sex trafficking and child sexual abuse.

[11:05:00]

The task is always difficult and deserving of careful consideration, whether the sentence be an unconditional discharge or incarceration of 25 years to life. However, never before has this court been presented with such a unique and remarkable set of circumstances. Indeed, it can be viewed fairly that this has been a truly extraordinary case. There was unprecedented media attention, public interest, and heightened security involving various agencies, and yet, the trial was a bit of a paradox, because once the courtroom doors were closed, the trial itself was no more special, unique or extraordinary than the other 32 criminal trials that took place in this courthouse at the same exact time. Jury selection was conducted. The same rules of evidence were

followed, opening statements were made, witnesses called and cross- examined, evidence presented, summations delivered. The same burden of proof was supplied, and the jury made up of ordinary citizens delivered a verdict, and it was all conducted pursuant to the rules of procedure and guided by the law. Of course, part of what made it feel somewhat ordinary was the outstanding work, preparation and professionalism of the clerks, court officers, court reporters, security personnel and the entire staff of this building, who did their jobs as they would with any other criminal trial.

So, while one can argue that the trial itself was, in many respects, somewhat ordinary, the same cannot be said about the circumstances surrounding this sentencing, and that is because of the office you once occupied and which you will soon occupy again. To be sure, it is the legal protections afforded to the Office of the President of the United States that are extraordinary, not the occupant of the office. The legal protections, especially within the context of a criminal prosecution afforded to the Office of the President have been laid out by our founders, the Constitution, and most recently interpreted by the United States Supreme Court in the matter of Trump versus the United States, which was decided on July 1st, 2024.

As with every other defendant in your position, it is my obligation to consider any and all aggravating and mitigating factors to inform my decision. Some of those aggravating factors have already been articulated in my Sandoval ruling at the start of this trial, and by my recent written decisions on December 16th and January 3rd. Thus, they need not be repeated at this time. However, the considerable, indeed extraordinary legal protections afforded by the Office of the Chief Executive is a factor that overrides all others. To be clear, the protections afforded to the office of the President are not a mitigating factor. They do not reduce the seriousness of the crime or justify its commission in any way. The protections are, however, a legal mandate, which, pursuant to the rule of law, this court must respect and follow.

However, despite the extraordinary breath of those protections, one power they do not provide is the power to erase a jury verdict. It is clear from legal President, which until July 1 was scarce, that Donald Trump, the ordinary citizen, Donald Trump, the criminal defendant, would not be entitled to such considerable protections. I'm referring to protections that extend well beyond those afforded to the average defendant who winds their way through the criminal justice system each day. No. Ordinary citizens do not receive those legal protections. It is the Office of the President that bestows those far-reaching protections to the office holder, and it was the citizenry of this nation that recently decided that you should once again receive the benefits of those protections, which include, among other things, the supremacy clause and presidential immunity.

[11:10:00]

It is through that lens and that reality that this court must determine a lawful sentence. After careful analysis and obedience to governing mandates and

pursuant to the rule of law, this court has determined that the only lawful sentence that permits entry of a judgment of conviction without encroaching upon the highest office in the land is an unconditional discharge, which the New York State Legislature has determined is a lawful and permissible sentence for the crime of falsifying business records in the first degree.

Therefore, at this time, I impose that sentence to cover all 34 counts. Sir, I wish you God speed as you assume your second term in office. Thank you.

SOLOMON: All right. I want to bring back in our correspondent Marshall Cohen, who has also been listening with me. And Marshall, what it sounds like is Judge Juan Merchan really sort of explaining his decision making in terms of how he came to this sentence, but also some of the extraordinary sort of details about this case that, of course, this is the former President and soon to be President again. But, what he said that I thought was so interesting is that the projections do not reduce the protections to the office of the presidency, Marshall, do not reduce the seriousness of the crime, but are a legal mandate the court must follow. But, those protections do not erase the verdict of a jury. Marshall, what did you hear?

COHEN: Yeah. If you're someone who cares about history, who cares about the rule of law and this nation, it's breathtaking to listen to that, because it's just so unbelievably historic, and nothing of this has ever, ever happened before. You're exactly right, Rahel, that he basically, the judge, concluded that this was what he had to do if he is going to be someone who respects the law, respects the election results, respects legal protections and immunities that are bestowed upon the office of the presidency, then this was the only outcome that he could possibly hand down here, the unconditional discharge, no prison, no probation, not even any fines. It's over. It's done. But, the only thing that will survive here, at least for now, is the conviction on President-elect Trump's record.

But, I should point out that Trump's attorneys, during this hearing, made very clear that they will appeal, and by holding the sentencing today and putting the final judgment on the books, Rahel, they can now begin that next phase, which is their appeal, which we all expect they will wind their way through all the state courts in New York and then go all the way to the United States Supreme Court with its six to three conservative majority.

SOLOMON: Yeah. It's a really important point, Marshall, that in order for Trump's team to be able to appeal, today had to have happened. It was a necessary step before that team can begin the appeal process.

Marshall Cohen, we appreciate you. Thank you.

I want to now get some more perspective from Jeff Swartz. He is a former Miami-Dade County Court judge. He is also a Professor Emeritus at Thomas M. Cooley Law School. Great to have you, Jeff. Let me just ask your first reaction to what we heard from the judge there. JEFF SWARTZ, FORMER MIAMI-DADE COUNTY COURT JUDGE, & PROFESSOR EMERITUS, THOMAS M. COOLEY LAW SCHOOL: Thanks for having me this morning, Rahel. I think that he made it abundantly clear that, but for his re-election, the sentence would have been far more severe. He was basically saying, I can't treat you like I would, the ordinary citizen who gets convicted here. And I think that was the important point. There was no issue that he could not put him in jail. The issue was the appeal, and if he had not gone forward with the sentencing, within a very short period of time, Trump's lawyers would have filed a motion to dismiss the case on the basis that he was denied due process because he was denied a timely appeal --

SOLOMON: OK.

SWARTZ: -- and I think that that's why it was important that this had to move forward.

SOLOMON: And if you can explain, Jeff, for us what an unconditional discharge is, and if you might also respond to something that Trump said in a statement and let us know how true or untrue his statement is. Trump says, I was given an unconditional discharge. That result alone proves that, as all legal scholars and experts have said, there is no case. There was never a case.

SWARTZ: Well, I can answer the second question first. That's just a fabrication on his part. He is trying to minimize the fact that he is now a convict felon, and that felony convictions, all 34 of them, will remain on his record unless he is successful on an appeal.

[11:15:00]

It should also be noted that going through the New York appellate process and then going into the federal courts after that, if he has to, that that could take his entire term. He probably will be out of office before that. So, he probably will serve his entire term as President, as a convicted felon, and that's the important part. That's the part that hurts him. And ask anybody who has been convicted of a felony, it changes your life.

SOLOMON: Jeff, if you might stand by for just a moment, because we actually now also have that audio from the courtroom. Now, this was before, for our audiences around the world, we just played Judge Juan Merchan, this is Trump, but Trump spoke before Merchan. Let's listen together, and Jeff, we will discuss it on the opposite side of this.

VOICE OF DONALD TRUMP (R), FORMER U.S. PRESIDENT AND CURRENT PRESIDENTIAL-ELECT: Yes. Thank you, Your Honor. This has been a very terrible experience. I think it's been a tremendous setback for New York and the New York court system. This is a case that Alvin Bragg did not want to bring. He thought it was, from what I read and from what I hear, that inappropriately handled before he got there. A gentleman from a law firm came in and acted as a district attorney, and that gentleman, from what I heard, was a criminal, or almost a criminal in what he did. It was very inappropriate. It was a -- somebody involved with my political opponent. Part of the records that we're talking about, they're saying, I just

noticed, where he said I was falsifying business records. Well, the falsification of business records, as they say, it was calling a legal expense in the books where everybody could see them, a legal expense. In other words, that legal fees or legal expense were put down as legal expense by accountants. They weren't put down by me. They were put down by accountants. I didn't call them construction, concrete work. I didn't call them electrical work. I didn't call them -- they called a legal fee or a legal expense a legal expense, and for this, I got indicted. It's incredible, actually.

Now, if you look, my attorney alluded to it, the top legal scholars and legal pundits in this country, the ones that are quoted all the time on television that are making their views felt and highly respected people, have said everyone, virtually everyone that I know of, haven't seen any to the contrary, not one, and these people are not exactly friends of mine, to put it mildly, but they all said, this is a case that should have never been brought. It's an injustice of justice. Very respected Jonathan Turley, Andy McCarthy, Judge David Rifkin, a wonderful man who just passed away, by the way, Gregg Jarrett, Ellie Honig from CNN, of all places, CNN said that, Paul and Gracia, Alan Dershowitz, they all said this is not a case that should be brought.

It's -- now, think about it. Legal expenses are down as legal expenses and I get indicted for business records. Everybody should be so accurate. It's been a political witch hunt. It was done to damage my reputation so that I'd lose the election, and obviously that didn't work. And the people of our country got to see this firsthand, because they watched the case in your courtroom. They got to see this firsthand, and then they voted, and I won, and got the largest number of votes by far of any Republican candidate in history, and won, as you know, all seven swing states, won conclusively all seven swing states, and won the popularity -- the popular vote by millions and millions of votes, and they've been watching your trial. So, they understood it.

I wasn't allowed to use the lawyer-client privilege or the reliance on counsel. I had a lawyer that made this deal, and he admitted that, and he was also a totally discredited person. We weren't allowed to use the information from the southern district that totally discredited him, but it wasn't allowed to be put in, and that was terrible, unbelievable. And this is a man who has got no standing. He has been disbarred on other matters, unrelated, and he was allowed to talk as though he were George Washington. But, he is not George Washington. He shouldn't have been allowed.

The southern district did a book of approximately 28 pages where they -- I've never seen anything like it. They excoriated, if you wouldn't let it be put into evidence. So, he was able to testify as a witness, and I think it's a disgrace to the system.

[11:20:00]

I was under a gag order. I'm the first President in history that was under a gag order where I couldn't talk about aspects of the case that are very important. I guess I'm still under. So, probably I won't do it now. I assume I'm still under a gag order.

But, the fact is that I'm totally innocent. I did nothing wrong. They talked about business records, and the business records were extremely, accurately counted. I had nothing to do with them. That was done by an accountant or a bookkeeper who, I think, gave very credible testimony and was corroborated by everybody that was asked, and with all that's happening in our country today, with a city that's burning to the ground, one of our largest, most important cities burning to the ground, with wars that are uncontrollably going on, with all of the problems of inflation and attacks on countries, and all of the horrible things that are going on, I got indicted over calling a legal expense a legal expense. It's called a legal expense.

I just want to say I think it's an embarrassment to New York, and New York has a lot of problems, but this is a great embarrassment. I believe that this and other cases that was brought were brought, as you know, the DoJ is very much involved in this case. It's because that's the political opponent they're talking about. The DoJ is very involved. You have a gentleman sitting right there from the DoJ who was from the DoJ's office. He was also involved with the New York State Attorney General's case, and he went from there to here. He went around and did what he had to do. He got them to move on me.

But, in the meantime, I won the election and a massive landslide, and the people of this country understand what's going on. This has been a weaponization of government. They call it lawfare. It never happened to any extent like this, but never happened in our country before. And I just like to explain that I was treated very, very unfairly. And I thank you very much.

SOLOMON: All right. Let me just bring back in Jeff. Jeff, your thoughts on what we heard. I mean, to me, it sounded like he was relitigating the case again. I'm curious, though, who his audience was, you think? I mean, was it the judge or was it the recordings that he knew were in court?

SWARTZ: OK. First of all, this was a stump speech. This was nothing more than what he had in his rallies. How you fact check what he just said, could take us a whole hour. There was so much there that just wasn't true. And so, I won't go there.

I'll say that it is too late for him to actually argue the facts. He had the opportunity to testify. He chose not to do that. The arguments that he made were attempted by his lawyers and 12 people picked as a jury, who heard all the evidence, not what you heard on the news and not what you might have seen a piece of, listened to all the evidence and made a decision, and that's what our system is supposed to do. Judge Merchan made it abundantly clear that he felt the jury did a good job. He felt the system did a good job, and I think that this was just an opportunity for him to meeting Mr. Trump, to give this speech, to try to tell everybody that he was treated unfairly. Judge Merchan made it clear he got benefits that other ordinary citizens would never get. So, for him to say those things was just inaccurate.

This was a setback, excuse me, this was a setback for Mr. Trump. This was not a setback for the for the justice system. This was the justice system standing up and doing what it does, and he just has to suffer the consequence of being a convicted felon for the rest of his life unless he wins an appeal.

SOLOMON: Which we presume will now begin, or will soon begin.

Jeff Swartz, great to have you today. Thank you.

SWARTZ: Thank you.

SOLOMON: All right. Let's turn now to those raging wildfires in Southern California, which have impacted so many people and show few signs of letting up. At least 10 people have been killed, and tens of thousands of people have been forced to flee their homes. The newest fire to break out is the Kenneth Fire. It's about 30 miles outside of Los Angeles. Authorities detained a man on suspicion of arson, but it's not clear whether he had any connection to the fire. But, scenes like this video, you see here, have become familiar. It's a chilling scene since fire engulfed the area earlier this week, entire neighborhoods turned to ash, many now completely unrecognizable.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It's Armageddon. I'm driving through a war zone right now, and I don't even know what to say. I'm speechless. I'm shocked. I'm just so sad for our devastated community.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

[11:25:00]

SOLOMON: And officials say that as many as 10,000 structures have been destroyed in the Palisades Fire. That's homes. That's schools. That's businesses. Many people say that they have lost everything.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is how hot the fire was. This is my Harley- Davidson.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Oh, I didn't even recognize that that was a motorcycle.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And that right there, where you see the exhaust pipe, that used to be my Yamaha.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SOLOMON: Now, adding to the frustration, a Canadian plane fighting the Palisades Fire had to be grounded after colliding with a drone flying in the restricted airspace. The FAA is now investigating.

Let's get you on the ground with Julia Vargas Jones, who was in the Pacific Palisades area. Julia, it is now 08:30, obviously daylight has struck. Give us a sense of what it is you're seeing, and just the scene there, as we see what looks to be a charred car behind you, and just completely devastating scenes.

JULIA VARGAS JONES, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yeah. Rahel, it is unrecognizable. I think that's how a lot of residents have felt as they start to come back to assess the damage in their homes. That man that you just played that clip of him getting home to see his motorcycle, we have been seeing that over and over again. People coming in, coming back to their neighborhoods, and being shocked, and then also being shocked at the fact that perhaps across the street, perhaps a few doors down, one of the houses makes it, and that is part of the cruelty of the fire. It's this random path that it takes.

So far, this fire here on the Palisades, over 20,000 acres burned. It's only at six percent containment, Rahel, and that is after we've had a break yesterday in the wind, and that helped, because then firefighters could get that help, that much needed help from the skies to help and fight this.

Now, we are looking forward to a forecast that is not so uplifting. We are expecting the Santa Ana winds to come back to Southern California. And on our way here, we were warned, actually, by one of the sheriff's deputies that checked our IDs to come into the zone, that the winds are picking back up, and we are expecting them to come from the north, from the west, and from the east, and that will make the job of these firefighters a lot harder, Rahel.

SOLOMON: It's interesting, Julia, because I think when you think about wildfires and you think about the West, they tend to happen in less populated areas. To see this happen in Los Angeles is just absolutely astounding.

Julia Vargas Jones, we will leave it here. Thank you.

And coming up for us, the future of TikTok on the line this month with the U.S. ban just a few days away. Details ahead on today's Supreme Court hearing, when we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

And we're also following breaking news in Venezuela, where last hour, President Nicolas Maduro was sworn in for a third term.

[11:30:00]

SOLOMON: Maduro took the oath amid opposition claims that the July election was rigged. They claim that candidate Edmundo Gonzalez actually won the vote.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

NICOLAS MADURO, SWORN IN FOR THE THIRD TERM AS VENEZUELAN PRESIDENT (Interpreted): It was a historic (inaudible) Hugo Chavez, I swore to keep moving forward all his dreams and all his strength, always for those who like to shoot Venezuela from those who are betraying the country, those who like to us quiet, and those who are trying to attack Venezuela from other lands, we're telling them we are the builders of this Constitution. We are the ones who are fighting that. We are the ones that the Constitution was born, inspired of those rich people. This is going to guarantee a democratic state. It was born against that (inaudible). It was written by the people. It was approved for the first time in history by the people, and it has been defended by the people, and today we can say this constitution is victorious and Venezuela, through this act, is possible because Venezuela is a trained exercise of its sovereignty of its national independence.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SOLOMON: The Maduro government closed its border with Colombia and suspended flights there. The move comes after Colombia spoke out against Venezuela's election, saying that it was not free.

Let's get to Stefano Pozzebon, who has more now from neighboring Colombia. So, Stefano, talk to us about what happens next, especially for the international community. How much more isolated does Venezuela and Maduro become with this third term now?

STEFANO POZZEBON, JOURNALIST: Yes, Rahel. Well, first of all, we want to point out that Maduro is still speaking right now. It's gone on for almost two hours, and he is still addressing his -- what he thinks is his concerns with the international community. One of the first thing he said is that he was not put there by the U.S. government. He was not put there by any foreign government that he claims he won this election. Now, of course, we know that there are more than serious concerns about the legitimacy of that victory. At this point, the electoral authorities of Venezuela have never released audited data granting the Maduro the victory, while instead the opposition have released tens of thousands of ballots.

What happens next? Well, the ball falls once again on the hands of the international community. The White House reacted today very swiftly, adding a new rewards against Maduro and his interior minister Diosdado Cabello. They are now both wanted. There is now a reward of over $25 million, Rahel, for information leading to their arrest. The White House, of course, accuses Maduro of being involved in narco trafficking, cocaine trafficking, in particular the defense minister, who for months, was seen as the potential power broker in an eventual transition government down in Caracas, has also been included in these personal sanctions, $15 million rewards on him.

But, at the same time, yes, Maduro is isolated. We have only seen the President of Cuba, Nicaragua and an envoy from Turkey and one from Russia present in his inauguration. Most of the Venezuela -- of the Latin American governments are openly criticizing them him. Yesterday, we heard Colombia, which used to be a country trying to mediate between Venezuela and the rest of the international community, finally taking a stance and saying that they would not recognize these election results.

However, yes, he is isolated. But, if he is isolated, with the support of the Army, the police and all of the repression forces that he has at his disposal, when Maduro can stay there for a very, very long time, and that, of course, leads to what happens once the person in the White House changes. For years, Rahel, the White House and the Biden trying to engage with Maduro. They offered sanctions release in exchange for the release of U.S. citizens unlawfully detained in Caracas, and with the promise of holding free and fair election, or as free and fair as possible. That didn't happen.

Maduro went ahead with that claim to have won that election without proving -- showing any proof, and now he just bulldozed his way into an inauguration ceremony without paying any attention to the international outcry.

[11:35:00]

How will the next President of the United States, Donald Trump, once he sits in the Oval Office, react and deal with Maduro? Well, that is a massive question. We've seen time and again that the Venezuelan authorities have said that they will not meddle into other countries' affairs. And so, they ask other countries, Colombia, in this case, but also the United States and many others, not to meddle with what they say is their internal affairs. Well, the situation in Venezuela has had deep impact, Rahel, in the entire Western Hemisphere over the last decade with more than eight million people leaving Venezuela under Maduro's rule. So, of course, it's a question of how the White House will react to Maduro once Trump is in power. That remains an open question, Rahel.

SOLOMON: Yeah, just days away. Stefano. Stefano Pozzebon live for us there. Stefano, thank you.

And still ahead, we continue to follow those devastating wildfires in Los Angeles. We'll tell you about the new fire that crews are fighting in the area, when we come right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RAYA REYNAGA, FIRE EVACUEE: Everything I've ever worked for my entire life was there, my work equipment, my brother's ashes, my daughter's momentums, my keepsakes, my deceased mother's photos and belongings that she passed down to me, it's all I have. I have nothing. I can't even teach and I'm a first responder. I teach people to save lives, and I couldn't even save my house. And I'm just shattered. I'm broken for my family, the community.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SOLOMON: It's heartbreaking. You are watching CNN Newsroom. I'm Rahel Solomon live in New York.

We are waiting for President Joe Biden to discuss the federal response to the wildfires across Los Angeles. For a fourth day, crews across the county are battling multiple wildfires. Right now, you're looking at live pictures from the Eaton Fire that's burning through the Altadena and Pasadena area along the eastern side of Los Angeles. It's only three percent contained, three percent. Hundreds of thousands of people are under evacuation orders or warnings, and at least 10 people have been killed by the fires. And there is a new fire that crews are dealing with. The Kenneth Fire broke out on the hills near the border of Los Angeles and Ventura County. Fire officials are warning residents to be prepared.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ADAM VAN GERPEN, LOS ANGELES CITY FIRE DEPARTMENT: We're hearing some weather reports from National Weather Service that there might be some more red flag conditions coming up next week. So, that's -- this fire is far from over.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

[11:40:00]

SOLOMON: Now, those red flag conditions mean strong winds in the region, and that, well, that could hamper efforts to use planes and helicopters to try to contain the fires. The Palisades and Eaton fires are now among the most destructive in California history.

And earlier this morning, my colleague Kasie Hunt spoke to a man who was forced to leave his home in the Pacific Palisades. Take a listen to Chris Read's story.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CHRIS REID, WILDFIRE EVACUEE FROM PACIFIC PALISADES: It's crazy. I left the house probably around 08:00, 08:15 that morning, and by 10:30, I was -- my boss was like, hey, is your house OK? And I said, I haven't -- what are you talking about? And then I logged on to Citizen. I looked at the news and saw the Palisades was up in flames. So, I left. And what took -- typically takes me 35, 40 minutes, took me an hour and a half, and I kind of parked on PCH in sunset and walked up, which is a three, four-mile walk, and I had assistance halfway up, but it was scary scenes, especially being in deadlock traffic on the Pacific Coast sideway.

You want to check on your family. You want to check on your dog. You want to check on your community. So, there was never a doubt that just because I couldn't drive up there, I wasn't going to make it there. I was going to find the will. I was going to find the way.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SOLOMON: For information about how you can help the victims of the Los Angeles area wildfires, go to cnn.com/impact.

And still to come for us, TikTok making the final bid before the U.S. Supreme Court to stop being banned in the U.S. Details straight ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SOLOMON: Welcome back. And now to today's Supreme Court hearing over a looming U.S. ban on the app TikTok. Unless the court intervenes, the ban will take effect on January 19th. That is the day before Donald Trump's inauguration as President. U.S. Congress passed a law last year, saying that TikTok can avoid a ban if ByteDance sells its U.S. operation to new owners. A group formed by the former Los Angeles Dodgers owner, Frank McCourt, said Thursday that it had made a formal offer to buy TikTok.

My next guest is a venture partner at the venture capital firm SignalFire. Josh Constine joins us now from San Francisco. Josh, great to have you.

JOSH CONSTINE, VENTURE PARTNER, SIGNALFIRE, & TECHNOLOGY EXPERT: Thank you so much for having me.

SOLOMON: So, we should say that this proceeding, these hearings are still underway. So, obviously no one knows how this is all going to end. But, what do you see heading into this? I mean, who has the tougher argument to make?

CONSTINE: Yeah. Time is ticking away for TikTok to explain itself on why it is not actually a danger to U.S. citizens. Now, the U.S. government originally brought this case, suggesting there were significant data and privacy concerns.

[11:45:00]

But, if it wants to ban apps due to data and privacy concerns, it doesn't need to look all the way to China. Like, we've got plenty of those problems right here at home. The much, much deeper issue is whether control of the algorithm on TikTok, which decides what content people see, could be used to manipulate U.S. behavior and perceptions on things like politics, promoting certain political parties, promoting certain topics that might sow division and polarization within the United States, bringing up social issues, that cloud American thinking, distractors from other issues at hand, as well as being able to demote any content that brings up concerns or critiques of the Chinese government and some of its practices, including human rights abuses.

And so, there is a real argument that the U.S. needs to make, but it wasn't really what it came to this court case with. And so, that's a lot of what the proceedings, which are actually happening right this second, are going over. But, I do think that there is a path forward that doesn't either offer China unlimited control to influence U.S. thought or creates this instant ban, which would take away First Amendment, free speech rights from a lot of Americans, and hurt some who are creators and make your livelihood on TikTok.

SOLOMON: And what would that solution look like?

CONSTINE: That would look like setting up a fully a U.S.-owned entity with a U.S. board of directors that would include both a neutral third party to audit the algorithm as well as significant deep government oversight and specific laws and regulations requiring a full separation between the U.S. and Chinese entity other than maybe a financial relationship.

So, we've heard whistleblower accounts that suggest that Chinese officials as part of ByteDance, the parent company of TikTok, have been able to access data of U.S. citizens, as well as that they still do have kind of master control over the algorithm. And so, while the U.S. version of TikTok is supposedly independently run, there are still just too many ties for that to be comfortable. But, I think that there is a way forward, potentially by working with a trusted U.S. company like Oracle or another that already works frequently with the U.S. government to host data and compute stateside and make sure that the government knows what is going into this algorithm. But, it's very difficult, because the weights --

SOLOMON: Yeah.

CONSTINE: -- and balances, the influences on those algorithms can be very opaque, very black box, and that brings up the bigger issue of needing deeper safeguards and transparency around AI.

SOLOMON: Well, I mean, Josh, I mean, this is certainly more your world than it is mine, but isn't the algorithm, as it currently is, the reason why TikTok is so popular, the reason why 170 million Americans clearly love to be on TikTok? And so, if you change the algorithm, does that effectively send its users fleeing to another app?

CONSTINE: Exactly. I mean, if -- there has been efforts by U.S. companies to buy TikTok, but China has put regulations prohibiting the sale of AI algorithms and those kind of models to foreign countries. So, if one of those U.S. companies bought the shell of TikTok without the algorithm, it would quickly wither away. They wouldn't be able to properly rank content. Immediately, users would just start seeing generic things rather than the hyper-personalized content they see today, and they'd likely flee away.

And so, I think we need to look at better regulations that institute deeper transparency and safeguards. We're seeing this across other industries. SignalFire portfolio companies like Qualified Health are bringing safeguards to the healthcare industry. Companies like Kolena (ph) are offering deeper transparency into how models are working and performing. And so, we need to apply the same kind of tools and rhetoric towards this incredibly influential tool that China has to have to influence U.S. behavior.

And also, the problem is that even if the U.S. bans TikTok specifically, ByteDance, the parent company, is already migrating users to a competing, very similar app that it also owns, called Lemon8. And so, it wouldn't solve the problem unless we basically ban all of ByteDance's apps.

SOLOMON: It's interesting, Josh, and one of the reasons why I was excited to talk to you today is because there is sort of this push pull. On the one hand, the U.S. government stepping in, certainly to intervene on behalf of national security interests, is not new by any means. On the other hand, I'm curious, as your perspective, as someone who is in the business community and the tech community, does it send a chilling signal to innovators, to business leaders, to startups, to have the government intervene in this way? What do you think?

CONSTINE: I don't think U.S. companies would have anything to fear from this. This is something this is very focused on Chinese influence. The reports just came out today that Chinese hackers breached CFIUS, which is the U.S. regulator that looks at international purchases of American technology and IP. And so, clearly, this is an ongoing issue that there is desire to steal American secrets and influence our behavior. And so, I think that the concerns are fully warranted when it comes to this situation, but I don't think we're seeing the U.S. overstep with any domestic companies.

[11:50:00]

So, I don't think that this would cause a chilling effect for innovation. And if they -- if China was discluded (ph) from the popularizing apps in the U.S., it would, in theory, make room for more American companies to build the most popular apps in the world.

SOLOMON: Yeah, really interesting point. Josh Constine, great to have you today. Thank you for being with us.

CONSTINE: My pleasure.

SOLOMON: All right. And with the wildfires tearing through California right now and severe weather conditions in so many places, concerns over the impact of climate change are on the rise. Coming up, our Chad Myers looks at what last year's data can tell us.

We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SOLOMON: We continue our coverage now of the massive wildfires burning in the Los Angeles area. We just heard from the LA Fire Department Chief that the Palisades Fire is now eight percent contained. Tragically, at least 10 people have been killed. Tens of thousands of people have been forced to leave their homes, and firefighters are preparing for winds to strengthen again. The latest major fire to break out has been named the Kenneth Fire. It's about 30 miles outside of Los Angeles. We do know that a man was detained on suspicion of arson. The Palisades Fire has destroyed as many as 10,000 structures, according to officials, and many people say they have lost absolutely everything.

And before we go, one more thing. 2024 has been declared the hottest year on record for the entire planet. The data comes from Copernicus, the European Union climate monitoring agency. And as CNN meteorologist Chad Myers tells us, a worrying threshold was crossed last year. Take a look.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

CHAD MYERS, CNN METEOROLOGIST: I'm CNN meteorologist Chad Myers, and this is your Copernicus climate change update for the year 2024. It was the warmest year on record, probably surprising no one. But, what did surprise me? 1.6 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, and a lot of that was in the oceans, you see here, for the warmest and this dark red here, warmest in the Indian Ocean, part of the Atlantic. Obviously, we had rapidly intensifying hurricanes, a number of them in the Atlantic, very rapidly intensifying typhoons, cyclones here in the Pacific and also in the Indian Ocean. So, it was a warm year.

[11:55:00]

It started out very warm. It was much warmer even than 2023, the line that you see here. Now, even though we transitioned to La Nina by the end of the year, we were still very, very close to that warm 2023, and so -- because we had so much area here above 2023, only a little bit of area here below 2023. This turns out to be the warmest year on record for planet Earth. There you see the rankings, a little bit of cool water in the Pacific, but not very much. It's very hard to find a cool spot on this map, 1.6 degrees Celsius above what we're trying to hold, which is 1.5.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

SOLOMON: Our thanks to Chad Myers for that report, and our thanks to you for spending the hour with me. I'm Rahel Solomon live in New York. Stick with CNN. One World is coming up next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)