Return to Transcripts main page

CNN This Morning

Supreme Court Holds Hearing On Trump FTC Commissioners Firings; Paramount Launches Hostile Bid For warner Brothers Discovery; Indiana Moves Closer To Redrawing Congressional Maps; Aired 6:30-7a ET

Aired December 09, 2025 - 06:30   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[06:30:47]

AUDIE CORNISH, CNN ANCHOR: Good morning, everyone. I'm Audie Cornish. Thank you for joining me on "CNN This Morning." It's half past the hour. And here's what's happening right now.

A living hell is how a 29-year-old mother describes conditions at an ICE facility in Texas where she's being held with her five-year-old daughter. Her statement is found in new court documents exclusively obtained by CNN.

The video you're seeing of the facility is from 2019. Now, more than 100 migrant families testified about their conditions which include limited access to drinking water and extended detentions. And their children are becoming despondent.

And the president travels to Pennsylvania today where he's expected to spotlight his administration's economic record. The key focus bringing prices down for Americans as inflation remains elevated at three percent.

Now just 33 percent of Americans approve of Trump's handling of the economy.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Jonny Kim back on earth after 245 days in space.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CORNISH: A NASA astronaut safely returns from the International Space Station landing at Kazakhstan early this morning after more than 200 days. After receiving medical checks, he will board a flight back to NASA in Houston.

And the Supreme Court appears to be ready to side with President Trump and expanding his power over independent agencies. So here's what's at issue. Whether the president can fire two Federal Trade commissioners, Democratic appointee, Alvaro Bedoya and Rebecca Slaughter, who he appointed during his first term and later became the commission's acting chair during the Biden administration. So a favorable ruling could give the president the power to remove political appointees at will. The conservative justices appear sympathetic to that argument.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SAMUEL ALITO, ASSOCIATE JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES: It's been suggested that if we were to rule in your favor about the Federal Trade Commission, put aside these other agencies, just about the Federal Trade Commission, which is the issue that's before us, the entire structure of the government would fall.

You want to take a -- a minute to address that?

D. JOHN SAUER, SOLICITOR GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES: So also if the FTC, the MSPB, the NLRB are made subject to political process and the political discipline of being accountable to the president the sky will not fall.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CORNISH: Joining us now in the Group Chat Sarah Fischer, CNN senior media analyst and senior media reporter at "Axios." Dave Aronberg, a former Palm Beach County State Attorney.

So, Dave, we're coming to you in your capacities, a legal watcher here. You were listening to the case. And what I noticed is they were asking a lot of questions about this for cause or not for cause, which for the rest of us means, can they fire you if they want?

DAVE ARONBERG, FORMER PALM BEACH COUNTY STATE ATTORNEY: Now, this is not presidential power. The Supreme Court is given unprecedented presidential power when it comes to the immunity decision.

And here, this would overturn 90 years of precedent. The Supreme Court has said that Congress can limit presidential power when it comes to firing these multi-member independent boards. There's a reason you want to insulate the Federal Trade Commission from presidential power is that you don't want lobbyists to hold sway.

This is a commission that goes after scammers and monopolists.

CORNISH: But the reasoning you're talking about is the case that goes back to the 1930s, I think, which Roberts referred to as a dried husk. So clearly, he thinks maybe it's run its course. And that there aren't perhaps, I think Justice Coney Barrett mentioned this, there are not the same checks.

Congress has not exerted the same checks on these independent agencies as it once did. And so is it time to change the law? That was sort of what I was hearing. What were you hearing?

ARONBERG: Well, yes. But then who should change the law? Should it be Congress, which is where they normally defer to? Or should it be the Supreme Court activist judges? I guess liberal activist judges are only against you when they rule against you. But otherwise, conservatives love activist judges, right? This would be a -- a really unprecedented move.

But we've seen them do this when it comes to Roe versus Wade. They overturned 50 years of precedent. They'll do it here with 90 years of precedent.

I think it's dangerous because then, what happens with the Federal Reserve? Would they be next? And if that happens, it would roil financial markets.

[06:35:03]

CORNISH: That came up, people were -- you heard in that clip of tape, they were talking about certain agencies. But then people said, look, it's not just about the labor relations board. It's also about the U.S. Tax Court or the court of claims or the -- all of these other things.

Can you talk about this two tiers of conversation? Why were some of the justices worried about certain agencies even more than others?

ARONBERG: Right. Well, the SEC needs independence, right? You don't want lobbyists to get involved when it comes to SEC investigations.

When it comes to the Fed, that's really important. You don't want the president to hire and fire the Fed members because of politics. That would perhaps destroy our economy. And the Supreme Court is understanding of that.

But ultimately, this is political. The Supreme Court is now giving more power to this president.

I don't remember. I'm old enough to remember when President Biden was trying to forgive loans, student loans. And the Supreme Court said, nope, too much presidential power.

But here, the Roberts' court is saying, take all the power you want.

CORNISH: All right. So just to let people know, there's two active members of this five-member Federal Trade Commission. Andrew Ferguson, who was appointed by Biden. Mark Meador, who was a Trump appointee.

I don't know. I want to turn to you guys because, what are the some of the implications people are watching politically?

SARA FISCHER, CNN SENIOR MEDIA ANALYST: Well, so the FTC isn't defunct. You need three members to build a quorum. So they can still do things. They can still launch investigations and hold people accountable, lawsuits.

The challenge with politicizing the FTC would be the same, in my opinion, as politicizing the SEC. This is an agency that we hope it to be completely independent and devoid of politics, so they can do investigations into companies fairly and with an unbiased manner. In the world that we live in right now, big tech has gotten huge. And the FTC and the Department of Justice are splitting investigations into big tech.

You don't want to be in a position where big tech feels like they have to lobby the FTC to not get an investigation for political purposes.

CORNISH: Or lobby an administration.

FISCHER: Correct. And so --

CORNISH: OK. Well, then that brings us to our next story.

FISCHER: Yes.

CORNISH: We are talking about the -- getting a better understanding of that hostile takeover bid for Warner Brothers, which is shaking the foundation of Hollywood and media.

Paramount just announced a bid for a hostile takeover of WBD, which is the parent company here of CNN.

So here's the math. They're offering $30 a share for the entire company, which includes the movie studio, HBO Max streaming and, of course, the global cable networks like CNN, Discovery, TBS, TNT, and more.

Netflix, only wants to buy the movie studio and the streaming service.

The president's son-in-law is also involved in this hostile takeover. Jared Kushner's firm, Affinities -- Affinity Partners, is backing Paramount's takeover bid, also propping up the Paramount offer with money from wealth funds connected to Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Abu Dhabi.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DAVID ELLISON, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, PARAMOUNT SKYDANCE: We're sitting on Wall Street where cash is still king. We are offering shareholders $17.6 billion more cash than the deal that they currently have signed up with Netflix. And we believe, when they see what is currently in our offer, that that's what they'll vote for.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CORNISH: OK. Taking it to the Group Chat.

So bringing it to you for two reasons. One, because we've all been talking about like Trump regulators, like appeasing. And I think a lot of people saw the president's son-in-law getting involved and immediately saying, oh, is this an example of sweetening the deal with influence?

FISCHER: It's going to be tough to sweeten the deal with influence from that regard, because President Trump can try to persuade his DOJ one way or another. But at the end of the day, if the DOJ decides that they need to sue to block a deal, it's going to come down to an independent judge.

The sway that the president has is in two places. One, he could try really hard to push his DOJ not to sue to block one merger versus the other.

But the woman who runs the antitrust division at the DOJ has been doing this forever. She's well regarded. I don't think she's going to keep that in mind when she's trying to make these decisions.

And the other area where you have some influence is, in the United States, we have this thing called the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States. It's made up mostly of Trump cabinet members, and they reviewed deals to see if there are national security concerns.

Ultimately, the president gets the final say on whether or not deals go through or not. With this Paramount bid, they've accepted $24 billion from sovereign wealth funds and additional funds from Jared Kushner's firm.

Typically, CFIUS would be reviewing that very closely. But what they've done in this situation is they said that these sovereign wealth funds have decided to forgo governance rights, board seats.

It's very unusual. Why would you put $24 billion into a bid and forgo any control? The obvious answer is soft power. But what it means is that --

CORNISH: But let me underscore this.

FISCHER: Yes.

CORNISH: You're saying that the Saudi money that is helping push this bid to the territory of hostile takeover.

FISCHER: Yes.

CORNISH: To the territory of more money than anyone can imagine, is coming from countries where they're also saying, no, just take the money. We -- we don't want anything in return. And you're saying there's some questions there.

[06:40:59]

FISCHER: Yes. I mean, why are you putting $24 billion into a bid and getting nothing in return? No fiscal strategic advisor would ever settle. They bulk at those terms. But they're willing to do that because clearly, they're in it for some sort of soft power gain.

Now, if they didn't renege those terms, if they demanded board seats and things like that, then CFIUS, that government body I was telling you about, would be very likely to reject this deal or take another look at it.

But the reason they structured it that way is so that they don't have a national security problem with the bid. CORNISH: Let me raise a couple of things. One, Hollywood, not amused, OK? Because they are very worried, frankly, no matter who owns it.

Here's an example. I think it's Jane Fonda doing a PSA for a group called First Amendment Committee. Let's see if we have it.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JANE FONDA, ACTRESS, COMMITTEE FOR THE FIRST AMENDMENT: Where content is chosen by the best billionaires we have. Dazzling, focus grouped, pre-digested content that lets your brain not do too much thinky- thinky. Somehow, corporate greed feels good in a place like this. Somehow mergers feel good.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CORNISH: So thinky-thinky is doing it in less political language than I would do it here. But it does speak to the common public perception that, wait a second, who's going to own it all? And what does that mean for what I'm going to watch?

ARONBERG: Yes. This is an old-fashioned hostile takeover. This is from the '80s. I'm sorry I sold my acid-washed jeans. I actually gave them away. I didn't really sell them.

CORNISH: That's good to know.

ARONBERG: No one's going to buy them.

CORNISH: Pixar didn't have it.

ARONBERG: Right?

CORNISH: Yes.

ARONBERG: Well, unlike the movie "Wall Street," though, this is like Wall Street combined with the bachelor. This is what is so unusual, where you have the president making this decision. I don't think we've ever seen this before.

Teddy Roosevelt sort of did this back in the --

CORNISH: Well, we don't know. The president is not making the decision at this point.

FISCHER: Yes, he's saying that.

ARONBERG: He's going to do it. He's saying that he will.

CORNISH: Well, let's just play one more thing. This is what the president has said. OK. Just so we at least have that on the record.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I know the companies very well. I know what they're doing, but I have to see. I have to see what percentage of market they have. None of them are particularly great friends of mine.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The Paramount deal is supported by Jared Kushner, President, would that impact your decision?

TRUMP: If Paramount is? I -- I don't know. I haven't -- I've never spoken with them.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

FISCHER: Trump doesn't get the ultimate decision here. Again, he could direct his DOJ to sue to block the deal and an independent judge would make the final call. So he might like to make it look like he's in control of this, but he's not.

CORNISH: Okay.

FISCHER: So the Jane Fonda thing, real fast, Hollywood's freaked out because they like to have a lot of buyers to sell their stuff to.

They're just worried that they're going to have fewer buyers.

ARONBERG: Yes.

ASHLEY DAVIS, FORMER HOMELAND SECURITY OFFICIAL: I think it's important doesn't want to steal either. And I think that's very important. There's other Democrats in this.

CORNISH: More people that are going to come out talking about it.

David, thanks for being here. Sara, you always have the best information. Thank you for joining us.

If you missed any of that conversation, you want to share it. We're a podcast. Just scan the QR code now to find it. "CNN This Morning" is available anywhere you get your podcasts.

Next on CNN, if a new map passes in Indiana, all Democratic seats will be eliminated. Congressman Andre Carson's seat is one of those in jeopardy. I'm going to talk to him after the break.

Plus this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: Obamacare is horrible healthcare. We wanted to go to the people and then let the people go out and buy their own healthcare.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CORNISH: So, what does the president mean exactly when he says he wants you to go out and buy your own healthcare?

And Jasmine Crockett running for Senate in Texas. Is the Lone Star State ready for a Democrat?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

[06:45:51]

CAREY HAMILTON, INDIANA STATE REPRESENTATIVE: We are here about to vote on maps that no one in this building had a hand in drawing. They were drawn entirely by East Coast partisan hacks, specifically for the purpose of cheating the system and saying that 40, 45 percent of Hoosiers, they will have no voice in Congress.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CORNISH: State senators in Indiana advance a proposal to redraw the state's congressional districts for a vote in the full chamber. That final vote is expected on Thursday.

So this map was introduced last week. It passed the State House Friday due to a Republican supermajority. The new map would group the Democratic cities of East Chicago and Gary, near Chicago, with this broad rural region.

And it splits the capital city of Indianapolis into four distinct districts, effectively eliminating the two Democratic leaning districts that were there.

But the final vote on the map in the Senate remains uncertain as some Republican senators hesitate to defy the president.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MIKE BOHACEK, INDIANA STATE SENATOR: I believe there is nine or 10 that have already come out against it. So -- and we have, I think, 19 that have come out in favor of it. So there's folks still in the middle.

And it's -- it's a challenging vote. I mean, nobody wants to go against the president. Nobody wants to go against the administration.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CORNISH: Joining me now Congressman Andre Carson, who actually represents Indianapolis and the district, which could be wiped out with this new map. Thank you for being here with us on "CNN This Morning."

REP. ANDRE CARSON (D-IN): What an honor. Thank you.

CORNISH: So I was taking a look here at some of these districts, how they would change. Lake and Marion counties, the top two have a lot of black and Hispanic residents. And this debate often gets framed around like kind of partisans, gains and losses, but should a union heavy region, right? Like the Northwest Indiana or urban centers like Indianapolis.

I mean, shouldn't they have representatives who are like rooted in those priorities? CARSON: Absolutely. I mean, it -- it -- it is clear that someone who doesn't know the first thing about the Great Hoosier State drew this ridiculous map. Out -- out of state consultants and elitists from D.C., Judah's map, not Hoosiers. That's a big problem.

[06:50:07]

Indiana is a red state. It's true. But we have a very independent libertarian street. We don't like being told what to do. So, D.C. insiders are spending millions of dollars to push effectively an agenda that doesn't resonate with Hoosiers.

CORNISH: I noticed that argument is actually resonating with some Republicans who have come out as a hard nail. I was looking at this post from Jean Leising who a senator who was saying, I will not cave on opposition to redistricting. She said this on X. And also pointed out threats to her office. I think it says a pipe bomb threat that weekend ahead of it.

What is different? Why are Republicans in this state compared to other states not jumping to this request from the administration?

CARSON: Well, Hoosiers know that this is an inside push polling after polling. Data has shown us that most Hoosiers don't want this from either side of the aisle. A lot of legislators don't want this.

In fact, you have outsiders posting that Indiana and -- should support this. We're called Hoosiers. That's an indication that they don't care. We're just a number to them.

CORNISH: I want to ask --

CARSON: Things are in disarray.

CORNISH: Congressman, sorry. Let me let you finish your thought there. You said things are in disarray.

CARSON: Well, things are in disarray. And, you know, Republicans already have a majority in the House, the Senate, and the White House, but they're not using their majorities to do better for normal Americans, let alone Hoosiers.

We have prices that are skyrocketing. We continue to see increased unemployment and tariffs are absolutely taking the economy. The priorities are misplaced right now.

CORNISH: Now, your district was drawn kind of in response to the Voting Rights Act, right? From that era when a lot of these districts were drawn to as opportunity zones to give black and brown voters a chance to have representation.

And to give people a sense of it, here's a picture of the representatives from Indiana. And, Congressman Carson, I think you're the only person of color on this list.

But the Supreme Court, you're hearing justices in cases say this has run its course. There doesn't need to be this kind of gerrymandering to create majority-minority districts.

CARSON: Well, that's unfortunate. Living in that bubble, I think oftentimes you get so far away from what the people want that, in fact, you -- you see yourself as lord-like. That is not the vision of the very flawed, but brilliant founding fathers who wanted three but separate equal branches of government to act as a check on the other to prevent executive overreach, to prevent presidential excess.

My district, Indianapolis, is housed in Marion County. It is the only county in the state that is being split into four districts. It also has the most black and Latino residents in the state, as well as a growing Asian population, as well as a growing African population. And the district lines run directly through black neighborhoods. This is wholly unacceptable.

CORNISH: I want to turn to something else. You're on the House Select Intel Committee, specifically on the subcommittee that oversees the CIA.

The CIA is reportedly providing the intelligence for the military boat strikes in Venezuela. Is there anything the committee is learning from the CIA about the double-tap strike or other strikes?

CARSON: Well, we -- we -- we have been briefed. What I will say is that while the U.S. is not signatory to the U.N. Convention's Law of the Sea, I think we have to be very careful that we should act consistently with provisions within the law of the sea.

And, you know, within that, countries have agreed not to intervene with ships operating in international waters. There are exceptions, obviously, exigent circumstances, pursuits and those kinds of things, but I think we have to be very mindful of these agreements.

CORNISH: Can the committee compel more documents or memos, legal memos, about what's been going on? I asked because is the CIA leading this or the military?

CARSON: Well, certainly. Well, I think we -- we -- we must make sure that our actions are just and ethical. I think there's also a space where the committee has to operate in an oversight capacity over the I.C. or intelligence community, in a way that demands accountability, in a way that we can be advocates for our constituents and taxpayer dollars, but also in the way that we aren't giving up the revealing sources and methods to the public to readily in the event are adversaries who are always watching and looking at us and trying to pick up on context clues, gain a strategic advantage.

[06:55:16]

CORNISH: Would you want the video of the double strike to be released?

CARSON: Yes. I -- I stand with my caucus and arguing and urging the release of these -- of this video footage.

But at the same time, I'm very well aware that we have to be very strategic and not reveal sources and methods in the process. CORNISH: OK. Congressman Andre Carson of Indiana, thank you so much for your time.

CARSON: What an honor. Thank you.

CORNISH: I just want to turn to what Carson said just a minute because I felt this sort of tonal shift as we moved through --

DAVIS: Yes. No (INAUDIBLE) on intelligence questions.

CORNISH: -- redistricting to this far more cautious.

Ashley, what did you notice about how he spoke about both the intelligence going into these strikes?

DAVIS: Well, I -- I didn't agree with him on a lot of the redistricting stuff because I don't believe that we should be doing that in general. So let's talk about that --

CORNISH: Yes.

DAVIS: -- on both sides of the aisle.

But what he was saying is that makes me believe that he's a really good member of the intelligence committee. I think that he was being very deliberate under -- because he knows more than all of us now of what the true intelligence is about people that are trying to bring drugs into our country.

CORNISH: Yes. He wasn't yelling war crimes or anything like this. It was a different -- yes.

DAVIS: No. He was very measured and he also understands that, OK, they're the CIA. They are here to protect us and they have forever. We don't need, as American citizens, to know what the CIA's game plan is.

CORNISH: At the same time, we -- because they keep saying it's intelligence and it's classified, it's contributed to the sense of, we don't have to tell you anything about what's going on.

EDWARD-ISAAC DOVERE, CNN SENIOR REPORTER: Yes. And -- and that's -- that's the -- the tension that Congressman Carson and everybody on Capitol Hill is trying to work through here, of trying to be responsible about this.

What they -- every -- as I was actually saying, he knows more about this than we do. A lot of members of Congress knows -- know more already, but a lot of them are still saying, we don't know enough.

And they're saying they don't know enough. That is where the issue is. And that we, you know, have --

MARIA CARDONA, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: But he -- he and --

DOVERE: But other (INAUDIBLE) have that. Yes.

CARDONA: Where did he end up? He ended up saying, yes, it should be released.

CORNISH: Show him the video.

DOVERE: Right.

CORNISH: Yes.

CARDONA: I mean, that I think is the bottom line because that's where a lot of questions could be answered and where the public deserves to know.

CORNISH: Now hold on you guys.

DAVIS: Sorry.

CORNISH: Oh, no. It's OK. I want to talk about one other thing because this sort of ties into the redistricting and the story we're telling over the course of this hour about, you know, what's at stake, who our representatives will be.

Democratic Texas representative Jasmine Crockett announced her Senate bid on the final day to do it. The outspoken Congresswoman and frequent Trump critic launched her bid with this video.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: Crockett. Oh, man. Oh, man. She's a very low I.Q. person.

Somebody said the other day, she's one of the leaders of the party. I think you got to be kidding.

Now, they're going to rely on Crockett. Crockett's going to bring him back.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CORNISH: OK. It was all insults clearly from President Trump, but this was part of her explanation.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. JASMINE CROCKETT (D-TX): If the president cannot keep my name out of his mouth, then who is it that would be better to make sure that they are in the U.S. Senate to hold him accountable?

I am the one that he is afraid of. We are talking about a seat that will absolutely flip the control of the Senate over to the Democrats. This is bigger than the state of Texas.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CORNISH: OK. So Group Chat is back. I want to show you the lineup of Texas Senate Republican candidates. It includes John Cornyn, the incumbent, very popular.

And then I want to show you some of the Democrats that have lost major Texas races. You may remember Beto O'Rourke. OK.

DOVERE: They're twice.

CORNISH: There he is.

DAVIS: Twice.

CORNISH: After losing -- and so the question is, does a more progressive candidate do better in Texas?

CARDONA: Possibly. And I think that, you know, maybe the fourth time's the charm this time. And if anyone can do what I think in this political environment, she can.

She is Donald Trump's worst nightmare, an outspoken, whip smart, badass woman of color.

CORNISH: I don't know if you can say that, but that actually fits this segment really well. It's interesting because when I think of the political fortunes of one of her foes, Marjorie Taylor Greene, on heading to the exits, Jasmine, trying to upgrade.

DOVERE: Yes. And I talked -- I talked to Crockett for 45 minutes on Friday about this run. And she said to me that she's not sure how that persona is going to play in Texas, whether it's going to work.

She was very -- she said to me, I'm very self-aware and thinking about all this stuff. Now, other people who are not so enthused about her running say that she's not so self-aware and doesn't realize how toxic she's going to be in a partisan way.

We're going to see this play out. It's going to play out pretty quickly. The primary is on March 3rd.

But what -- what we know for sure here is that one of the people I talked to for that article said to me with her getting in the race, it's going to be the hottest show on Broadway.

CORNISH: Listen, I want to see that story.

DOVERE: That story is up on the scene on .com website.

CORNISH: Yes. We'll look at Isaac's story on cnn.com it's called.

DAVIS: There you go.

CORNISH: Thank you to the Group Chat. Thanks for waking up with us. I'm Audie Cornish. And the headlines are next.