Return to Transcripts main page
Erin Burnett Outfront
White House Faces Pressure From Congress Over Legality Of Lethal Boat Strikes; White House: Scans Of Trump's Heart & Abdomen Show "Perfectly Normal" Results; Trump Envoy Hours Away From High- Stakes Putin Meeting. Aired 7-8p ET
Aired December 01, 2025 - 19:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[19:00:24]
ERIN BURNETT, CNN HOST: OUTFRONT next:
The breaking news, questions growing about Pete Hegseth and a second strike on an alleged drug boat. A top Republican asking, was this legal? He's our guest.
Plus, new details about Trump's health as the White House releases a report under pressure from Governor Tim Walz. A former White House doctor says he has lots of questions. He's our guest, along with a top "New York Times" journalist with extensive reporting on Trump's health.
And breaking news this hour. Putin's clear message appearing tonight in full military uniform hours before his high stakes meeting with the U.S.
Let's go OUTFRONT.
(MUSIC)
BURNETT: And good Monday evening. I'm Erin Burnett.
And OUTFRONT tonight, the breaking news. Pete Hegseth under pressure. The president tonight meeting with top aides, including his defense secretary and the secretary of state, Marco Rubio as questions grow about the United States' military's second deadly strike on a specific boat, an alleged drug boat from Venezuela.
This strike, coming after a first strike, apparently left two people alive clinging to the vessel. Now, that second strike is one that lawmakers and legal experts from both parties say is against the law, some even calling it a warm crime. Now, the main headline at "The Drudge Report" is "War Crime? Hegseth Bloodlust".
And it comes as well-known conservative lawyer Andrew McCarthy writes in "The National Review", if this happened, as described in "The Washington Post" report, it was at best a war crime under federal law -- at best a war crime, he says.
Well, he's not alone.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. CHRIS VAN HOLLEN (D-MD): I think it's very possible there was a war crime committed.
KASIE HUNT, CNN ANCHOR: Do you believe it amounts to a war crime?
REP. RO KHANNA (D-CA): Under the facts, yes.
REP. MIKE TURNER (R-OH): Obviously, if that occurred, that would be very serious. And I agree that that would -- would be an illegal act.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BURNETT: All right. That last person was Republican Congressman Mike Turner. And I'll speak with him in just a moment. So, what is this Washington post reporting?
Well, let's be explicit about it. The post is reporting that Hegseth's order to the U.S. military was, quote, "to kill everybody". And that's what prompted the follow-up strike against those people clinging to the side of the boat.
And this report was a bombshell, prompting the responses that we just showed you and massive cleanup and denial from the Trump administration. Hegseth calling it fabricated, inflammatory and derogatory reporting.
And President Trump on Air Force One, said this
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Number one, I don't know that that happened. And Pete said he did not want them. He didn't even know what people were talking about.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BURNETT: Trump at least there opening the door to saying, well, he himself didn't know what happened. But when it comes to the denial of this deadly strike, Trump's White House actually admitted at one point today that there was a second strike. Listen to this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REPORTER: To be clear, does the administration deny that that second strike happened or did it happen and the administration denies that Secretary Hegseth gave the order?
KAROLINE LEAVITT, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: The latter is true.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BURNETT: The latter is true. Well, in the case of that question, then, according to Leavitt, the second strike happened. But the secretary of defense didn't order it? Well, wow, that opens up Hegseth to another host of serious questions about his command and control. And yet, the defense secretary of the United States is treating it
like a joke today, posting this meme of Franklin the turtle, a character -- children's character standing on the edge of a helicopter firing a missile at a boat. Hegseth captioned, "For your Christmas wish list."
Now, of course, just a reminder that he is the secretary of defense or as he calls himself, the secretary of war. He is the leader of the United States military posting that and Senator Mark Kelly, a 25-year Navy combat veteran who, of course, is now the target of the administration for his recent video reminding people to follow legal orders, took issue with Hegseth's post. Here he is.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. MARK KELLY (D-AZ): He is in the national command authority for nuclear weapons. And last night he's putting out on the Internet turtles with rocket propelled grenades -- I mean, have you seen this? This is the secretary of defense.
This is not a serious person. He should have been fired after Signalgate. And then every single day after that.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BURNETT: And of course, Signalgate, a reference to when Secretary Hegseth was sending messages about an impending strike ahead of it happening to a Signal group that included a reporter.
[19:05:02]
But it is not just Democrats that Hegseth must contend with, like Kelly, it appears to be affecting those who report up the chain of command to Hegseth, the top military official overseeing the strikes announced his retirement a little bit more than a month ago. It was a surprising move given that Admiral Alvin Holsey had only been in command for less than a year. But sources tell CNN that tensions between Halsey, who is overseeing U.S. Southern Command, and Hegseth, had been simmering for weeks, and Holsey was concerned that the strikes in the Caribbean may not have been lawful.
And even in Congress tonight, Republican Congressman Don Bacon, raising that same concern, saying that if these strikes occurred, like what's being reported in "The Washington Post", it would be, quote, an illegal act, echoing the words of Mike Turner, who will be with us in just a few moments.
Let's begin now with Alayna Treene, though. She is OUTFRONT live outside the White House.
And, Alayna, Trump holding a meeting at the White House tonight about Venezuela. As we are speaking, what's the latest you're learning?
ALAYNA TREENE, CNN WHITE HOUSE REPORTER: Yeah. And it does appear that it may have ended. We're still waiting for firm confirmation on that, Erin, but we saw many of the motorcades leaving the White House after that Oval Office meeting.
Look, when I broke the story this morning with our colleague Natasha Bertrand about this meeting, we were told it was going to be on next steps regarding Venezuela. And one of the people who is expected to attend that meeting was Pete Hegseth himself. So I think a lot of it, of course, going to focus on the topic that dominated that briefing today. A lot of these questions and concerns being raised on the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, inside Capitol Hill as well.
But other people in the room as well, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Dan Caine -- all of the people who have been very crucial to trying to map out what their future plans regarding Venezuela are. And I'd remind you what we've heard from President Trump himself, which is that, yes, they want to continue with these strikes on boats off the coast of Venezuela and other places.
But also they are looking at potential land strikes as well. And we've reported on how they've been looking at targets such as drug routes and drug facilities inside Venezuela. All of that as well. After we know that the president himself confirmed that he had spoke with the president of Venezuela, Nicolas Maduro, just a couple of days ago, he did not say if that meeting went well, but he also didn't say it went bad, Erin.
But I do think the key question and what I keep hearing in my conversations today has been about the concerns over that double tap strike back in September. And I do think what the press secretary said today didn't answer all of the questions that people have specifically. I think the key question is yes. She said that the Admiral Bradley ordered that second strike.
But did he do that knowing that there were survivors that had survived after that first strike? Or was he just keeping with the broader command? That's the key thing I think the administration is facing right now.
BURNETT: All right. Thank you very much, Alayna, with that news from the White House.
And I want to go now, as promised to Republican Congressman Mike Turner on the Armed Services Committee.
And, Congressman Turner, I really appreciate your time. And it's good to speak with you again.
So, we know the president just held that meeting with Hegseth and Rubio, among others, about Venezuela. Alayna's reporting that the motorcades left, so they're waiting for confirmation that the meeting is done, but it appears that it has wrapped up. Have you been briefed about this or the details in light of all this reporting of the strikes themselves?
TURNER: No, Erin, I think it's very important that what Alayna said, no one -- no one really has had the information yet. And I think that's what's important as to what has to happen next. What we know and what we certainly, you know, everyone has said no one on Capitol Hill has any information previously that would have corroborated what "The Washington Post" had reported.
What we know since that report is that the secretary has said that the report is not accurate, that he did not, you know, give that command. The White House sense having said that, Admiral Bradley was in charge. And then, as Alayna has said, the question then goes to the facts and circumstances with respect to that second shot or the double tap as you are referring, guys have been referring to it.
BURNETT: Yeah.
TURNER: Now, what we also know is that both the armed services committees of both the Senate and the House have indicated that they're going to look into the circumstances of this on a bipartisan basis. You have, members of congress who have stepped forward and said that congress will take a look at this. Now, what's very clear and what is concerning is that this is other than what is expected by Congress with the briefings that we've had, the legal opinions that we've been provided.
This is other than what has been expected in this, and people have been very concerned as to how these, these strikes have been operated. And certainly, this is very concerning as we look to then now, what actually occurred.
BURNETT: Right. So, you know, "The Washington Post" reporting, as I said, just to be clear, was that ordered the U.S. military was, quote, "to kill everybody". Now, when you talk about "The Washington Post" reporting, I know you've been clear that if it happens as they lay it out, it would be an illegal act, right?
[19:10:00]
So, I guess what I'm trying to understand from you, Congressman, is what more you need to know. And just talking to you as a member of armed services, right, are -- is it fair that I would be surprised that you have not been briefed on any of this, and that you are not aware of the details at this point?
TURNER: Well, not at this time. You have to realize everybody just got back from their break and Thanksgiving, and people are now beginning to ask these questions. The one thing that you that you know, is that in classified session, the Congress, all of Congress was gave -- was given access to the legal opinion upon which the department was relying when they undertook these strikes against these boats.
Now, even though everyone is very, you know, believes that the administration rightly has identified this issue of the drug trade as being something very significant that they want the administration to be focused on. People are very concerned about these strikes, in the manner in which that, that, that they're occurring. And then with this report coming out, obviously it diverges significantly from what both the legal opinion that we were provided, and it, of course, plays into the very concerns that members have as to the fact that these strikes are occurring at all. BURNETT: So, okay, so in "The Washington Post", they say that in order
to comply with Hegseth's instructions were to which were to kill everybody, the special operations commander ordered a second strike. Two people familiar with the matter said the two men were then blown apart in the water. Conservative legal scholar Andrew McCarthy says of this report, Congressman, if this happened as described in the post, it was at best a war crime under federal law.
So, not just illegal, but using the word war crime. Would you agree with him if this happened as described in "The Washington Post", as a war crime?
TURNER: Yeah, I'm not going to debate with him his opinion, but I will say this the legal opinion that was provided to Congress and the justification that the administration is utilizing in the department is operating within would -- it would -- it does not support the operations as we're now dealing with the description of this -- of both either "The Washington Post" facts or even this circumstances of this -- of this second strike in a manner in which it could unfold.
So that's why we have to give it critical review to determine what actually happened, because it's very serious here, as to the divergence between the legal justification that the department was operating under and then what could have occurred here.
BURNETT: So you heard about the reference to the turtle and Congressman Khanna, who's on the Armed Services Committee, said if Hegseth gave the order for the second follow on strike, that would be an impeachable offense. Your federal -- fellow Republican Congressman Don Bacon, you know, went on the record months ago actually calling for President Trump to fire Hegseth over the signal scandal, right? When he had posted details about the upcoming strike to a group which included a reporter and also told family members.
Do you think Hegseth needs to be removed if this all plays out as "The Post" reports?
TURNER: Well, obviously, the whole review of this is ongoing. I think it would be premature for anyone to conclude while an -- you know, a review is going as to what the outcome of that review will be. However, I will say, you know, I was obviously very disappointed and I thought it was very inappropriate that a cartoon would be used in this manner of something that's obviously very serious.
BURNETT: All right. Well, I appreciate your time, Congressman Turner. Thank you very much.
TURNER: Thanks.
BURNETT: And now I want to bring in Democratic Senator Chris Murphy on the Foreign Relations Committee.
And, Senator Murphy, you know, you're hearing the concerns from Congressman Turner. He's awaiting a briefing. He's awaiting more details. But obviously saying if it is, if it happened as it's laid out, that's illegal. Are you hearing similar concerns from your Republican colleagues? I mean, are there others who are sort of awaiting whatever they see as final confirmation before coming out?
SEN. CHRIS MURPHY (D-CT): Well, Pete Hegseth has to go. He has to resign. Donald Trump has to fire him. If he doesn't resign, he is a walking, talking, national security embarrassment. And I think it is really disturbing that you don't have more Republicans speaking out and saying that it's time for him to go, because of course, this is just the latest in a series of embarrassments.
There's all sorts of reports from the very beginning of the year that morale is low, that that that there's disorder at the Department of Defense. He's hiring his political cronies. He seems to care more about body shape and facial hair than he does about the security of the country. And now, these really serious allegations of really disturbing and moral behavior by the secretary.
So, it's time for him to go. But I think, you know, you are hearing from Representative Turner and other Republicans are reluctance to take on the president right now. I think that's a shame. I think people should put the security of the country before their loyalty to the president.
BURNETT: So, Secretary Hegseth has just posted something that I wanted to ask you about. He said, "Let's make one thing crystal clear: Admiral Mitch Bradley is an American hero, a true professional, and has my 100 percent support.
[19:15:06]
I stand by him in the combat decisions he has made on the September 2nd mission, and all other sense. America is fortunate to have such men protecting us. When this Department of War says we have the back of our warriors, we mean it.
Okay, let me just translate this into he's pinning this on Bradley. Okay? He's saying that that's --
MURPHY: A hundred percent.
BURNETT: That's what that's about, right?
MURPHY: Yeah.
BURNETT: I mean, where do you see this heading?
MURPHY: Yeah, he's passing. He is -- he is passing the buck. He sort of sees the freight train that is coming, right? That both Republicans and Democrats are coming to the conclusion that this was an illegal, wildly immoral act. And he is shifting the blame.
It's the opposite of the buck stops here. And, boy, it's a chilling signal to everyone in the chain of command that the secretary of defense does not have your back.
Now, in this case, it seems likely that he actually did give the order that he gave the order to kill everyone on that boat. And those in the chain of command were simply following his orders. But he is basically telling everyone, all of his generals, all of the professional staff at the Department of Defense, that I'm going to save myself if things get tough. And that's just devastating for American national security.
BURNETT: I want to ask you about another member of the Trump administration coming under fire tonight, Senator, and that is FBI Director Kash Patel. House Democrats are investigating his use of the FBI private jet, now, demanding he pay the government back after using it for what they call personal trips, which have been documented by FlightAware and others about the use of the plane, reportedly to see his girlfriend perform at a wrestling event and for hunting and golf trips.
He does deny any wrongdoing, says he's restricted from commercial air travel. What do you see right now for where this is going? And his leadership of the FBI?
MURPHY: Well, we've probably never seen an FBI director care so little about his job as Kash Patel. He does seem to be spending most of his time gallivanting around the country, visiting his girlfriend, going on golf trips with his buddies, getting as close to the MAGA celebrity world as is humanly possible. And he's racking up all these huge bills on us, the taxpayers, right? These are ordinary, average Americans plumbers, teachers, pipefitters who are paying the bills for his celebrity lifestyle.
He could simply choose not to take these trips and to focus his time on his job protecting the American people. Or he could pay back the taxpayers. I mean, he's probably a pretty rich guy because he's spent a lot of his life hawking Kash merchandise, trying to profit off of his proximity to Donald Trump. He certainly has the cash to pay back the poor people, the middle-class families who are fronting his lavish lifestyle.
Yeah. I think, you know, part of the reason that Trump's approval ratings are continuing to sink is because they're watching, you know, these really unserious people, from Pete Hegseth to Kash Patel, caring about a lot of other things than protecting us, saving their own hide, hanging out with their friends. And I think it disgusts a lot of Americans.
BURNETT: All right. Well, Senator, I appreciate your time, and thank you very much.
MURPHY: Thanks.
BURNETT: And next, new details about Trump's health, the White House releasing a new report that paints a rosy picture. A former White House doctor, though, says he has a lot of questions. He's next, along with "The New York Times" reporter who has been covering Trump's health extensively.
Plus, Putin's propaganda machine in overdrive tonight hyping up the Russian president's meeting with team Witkoff and Kushner in just a few hours.
And an update tonight on the shocking surveillance video that captured a speeding car slamming into a coffee shop.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[19:23:21]
BURNETT: Tonight, questions about Trump's health. Less than 24 hours after the president insisted that he did not know what part of his body underwent an MRI in October, the White House, under pressure from Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, finally released the results of that scan and tests.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
LEAVITT: President Trump's cardiovascular imaging was perfectly normal. The heart chambers are normal in size. The vessel walls appear smooth and healthy overall. His cardiovascular system shows excellent health. His abdominal imaging is also perfectly normal. All major organs appear very healthy and well perfused.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BURNETT: OUTFRONT. Now, Katie Rogers, White House reporter for the New York times, and dr. Jeffrey Kuhlman, former White House physician to Presidents Bush and Obama, who served in that role for 13 years. Also the author of transforming presidential health care.
So, I appreciate both of you very much. This is a crucial topic. We're not even one year into a four-year term for a president who is turning 80. And so, these things matter to all Americans.
Dr. Kuhlman, this was not a routine disclosure. It was a sweeping organ by organ declaration they put out that said everything is, quote/unquote, "perfectly normal". All right. You're looking at this through a doctors eyes when they finally put this report out. Obviously, it took quite -- it took over a month. What do you see in the report?
DR. JEFFREY KUHLMAN, WHITE HOUSE PHYSICIAN TO PRESIDENTS OBAMA, BUSH AND CLINTON: Well, usually, they start with the reason for the test. And he stated that it was preventive. There's nothing preventive about doing an imaging test. An imaging test, advanced imaging is to diagnose a condition, either that you have it and treat it or you rule it out.
[19:25:05]
So, there's nothing preventive about it.
BURNETT: But they never explain what the reason was is what you're saying.
KUHLMAN: That's what they had stated. And I would commend them on when you go to Walter Reed for advanced imaging, to release the results. And we say in medicine, better late than never.
BURNETT: So, Katie, okay, that's obviously crucial, though. I mean, better late than never. And they report that the results were good. But not the reason for the test.
You have reported extensively on President Trump's health in your latest piece, shorter days signs of fatigue. You, and Dylan Friedman, your partner on that document, a shift in Trump's public schedule. And, in fact, your analysis shows a 39 percent drop, Katie, in official events and a much narrower public window between noon and 5:00 p.m.
What more can you tell us? And can you share about Trump's day to day change this term, the slowing?
KATIE ROGERS, WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, THE NEW YORK TIMES: Right. Thanks for having me, Erin.
And as you point out, I've covered the president's health back to his first term in office, which was really the impetus for this story and for working with Dylan and analyzing his schedule this year and comparing it to his first year in office. And what we found was that this, this, this version of President Trump is somebody who only offers a small sliver of his public life up for Americans to see again. Yes. The story said between 12:00 and 5:00 on average, are the times we can expect to see him.
The reason we looked into analyzing his public schedules. And by the way, that's just data. That's not editorializing or offering opinions on it. It's scheduling. It's analyzing the raw data is that we noticed that Mondays were pretty quiet. So we looked into, well, is that true?
And we saw that Mondays are his least active days of the week. Meaning, you know, there were other days that were -- pretty frequently. Fridays are pretty busy. And then we looked into first start time. First end time. The end times are not any different from the first term, so it's actually an even - it's a greater -- it's a greater reduction in public schedule this time around.
BURNETT: So, Dr. Trump last night described his MRI as perfect to use his word. But then he said something else, which is very strange and does fit with what he said before, and that many have found very hard to, to stomach, and that is that he says that he does not know what part of his body was scanned in the MRI.
Here's how he said it
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: I have no idea. It was just an MRI. What part of the body? It wasn't the brain because I took a cognitive test and I aced it. I got a perfect mark, which you would be incapable of doing.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BURNETT: Okay, so just put that that last, thing aside there, Doctor, I just am curious as to your take on that. You know, MRI is not like, a comfortable thing. It's not just an everyday kind of a thing. Is it -- is it possible as you see it, for someone to have no idea what part of their body was being analyzed in MRI? KUHLMAN: For a 79-year-old man, they have to go through extensive
questioning to make sure they don't have metal outside of their body or inside of their body. They also get completely undressed. They get put in a claustrophobic tube. Sometimes they need medication, sometimes they need sedation.
Tech has to ask them. Hey, sir, do you know what we're doing? And get consent? And he would acknowledge that. So, he would say heart or abdomen. And then you also put coils, which is like an apron on that body part on the chest, on the abdomen, because you're going to focus in.
So, if he says he has no idea, sometimes we see that in 79-year-olds that aren't involved, engaged in their care or they're distracted, or they maybe have, you know, a short term memory loss from a couple of months ago. But most 79-year-olds remember that they did a MRI of the heart. They did an MRI of the abdomen. And that's what I would expect them to answer.
BURNETT: Yeah. I mean, from the way you describe it, it would be pretty hard to not know. It'd be almost impossible, in fact, to not know.
Katie, today's statement that came out, though, when they put the results out, emphasizes the presidents long term vitality. Those are the words used in the report you have reported, though, something that we've seen video evidence of. Right, which is drowsiness during midday events, which could happen with anyone.
[19:30:00]
But of course, when they happen with Biden, a lot of coverage was given to them. So, you know, it's fair to point out that it happens to Trump as well.
Here, nodding off for a few seconds during an Oval Office event that began around noon on November 6th. That was that announcement about cutting prices for weight loss drugs. So, how does -- you know, but when the White House has talked about your reporting, that and some of the data that you just referred to, they've said it's all unequivocally false.
And let me just play that for you.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
LEAVITT: That is unequivocally false. And it's deeply unfortunate that the story was written by the same outlet and the same reporter who wrote this: Biden is doing 100 percent fine after tripping while boarding Air Force One. Oh, same outlet, same reporter who wrote that President Trump is not fit for the job.
Are you kidding me? You all see him almost every single day. He is the most accessible president in history. He is taking meetings around the clock.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BURNETT: What's your response to that, Katie?
ROGERS: Well, my immediate response is that I think this White House knows how headlines work. And those headlines were taking quotes from press secretaries, and also the White House physician at the time. Those aren't editorializing the president's health.
My second response to that is that, you know, another point of fact is that president Trump and his physicians have not always been upfront about the health conditions he has faced. A case in point, he was much sicker with the coronavirus than the public knew at the time in 2020.
Another interesting point of fact is that the president has fallen asleep in a public courtroom on camera before, and at that time he said, you know, I was bored and fell asleep. So, you know, he's done this before.
The difference right now is that his aides are under immense pressure to present a vigorous, more. This president has done more than any president ever image to the public, and they are under pressure from him to do that.
So, I think that that is the difference between then and now. There's political pressure on him. He's traveled very little domestically. That's also in our story.
BURNETT: Yeah.
ROGERS: He's focused a lot of his time and attention on foreign policy matters. The economy is showing signs of incredible stress, and that all comes to a head in a president who is very upset behind the scenes and is again wondering, much as he did in the first term, why people aren't defending him.
BURNETT: Katie, thank you very much. Dr. Kuhlman, thank you very much. I appreciate both of your time tonight.
And next, we have some new video of Putin, this just came out, dressed in full military uniform, hours ahead of that big meeting with Witkoff -- with Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner. What message is he trying to send right now? Is it as obvious as it seems?
Plus, Trump suffers another legal blow tonight. Federal appeals court rejecting another former personal attorney of the Trump -- of Trump that he tried to name as a U.S. attorney. We'll tell you the latest on Alina Habba.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[19:37:21]
BURNETT: Breaking news in a rare move, Vladimir Putin appearing in full military uniform saying Russia is on the offensive in Ukraine, hardly the image or the talk of a peace settlement. This unmistakable message coming just hours before Putin meets with President Trump's foreign envoy, Steve Witkoff. It will be the sixth meeting this year between Putin and Witkoff, a real estate developer who before this had no diplomatic experience with Russia. Simply business experience.
He's been tasked by Putin -- by Trump, I'm sorry, to help end the war in Ukraine. Trump's son in law, Jared Kushner, is also expected to attend this meeting. He doesn't have a formal role, but he's going to be there.
Matthew Chance is OUTFRONT in Moscow with new details.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
MATTHEW CHANCE, CNN CHIEF GLOBAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): It's the mouthpiece of the Russian state, often voicing what the Kremlin is reluctant to say out loud. And now Russian state television seems very upbeat about the upcoming Kremlin visit of Steve Witkoff, President Donald Trump's special envoy.
"A lot of interesting and unexpected things are happening," comments this guest. "We can now say the Americans are seriously committed to a diplomatic solution," adds another.
The sheer pace of U.S. diplomacy has been hard to dismiss. The latest tough but constructive talks in Florida between U.S. and Ukrainian negotiators took, quote, a step forward on some of the most problematic obstacles to ending the Ukraine war, one source, with direct knowledge of the negotiations told CNN.
It would be very premature to say we finalized everything here as a lot of things still have to be done, the source said. But the meeting was very focused and the most problematic aspects of the peace proposals were discussed in detail, the source added, hinting that tentative progress in some areas could be made.
Areas like NATO membership, an aspiration for Ukraine, but a red line for the Kremlin.
The issue of Ukraine surrendering territory that Russia has annexed but not yet conquered, something Kyiv has refused to do. In his numerous Kremlin encounters, Witkoff, who touched his hand to his heart when he first met President Vladimir Putin, has taken flak for being too deferential. He's been at the forefront of prisoner exchanges between the U.S. and Russia.
[19:40:03]
Talk of future economic cooperation and boasted of developing a friendship with Putin, a leaked transcript revealed Witkoff coached the Kremlin on dealing with Trump, further fueling allegations by his critics of bias. But this time, on his sixth visit to Moscow as a Trump envoy, Witkoff has a hard sell, convincing a Russian strongman who has so far refused to compromise to step back from his maximalist demands and finally moved to end the Ukraine war.
(END VIDEOTAPE) CHANCE (on camera): Well, Erin, tonight, the Kremlin says President Putin is having several private meetings to prepare for the visit of the U.S. delegation, which will include Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, President Trump's son in law.
The Kremlin is expected to host them later on Tuesday, after which we may get a sense of whether this U.S. backed peace effort could indeed form the basis of the beginning of the end of the Ukraine war.
Erin, back to you.
BURNETT: Matthew, thank you very much, in Moscow.
And OUTFRONT now, Max Seddon. Our regular viewers know Max very well. He is the Moscow bureau chief for "The Financial Times", consistently leading breaking coverage of Putin and the Kremlin.
And we're so lucky to have you actually here in New York for a brief visit. So, you are -- you saw that video of Putin in military fatigues and said, okay, look at this. Hours before a meeting with Witkoff and Kushner, here is Putin in full military fatigues talking about being on the offense in Ukraine.
Is what you see, what you get? I mean, this seems as blatant as it could be.
MAX SEDDON, MOSCOW BUREAU CHIEF, FINANCIAL TIMES: You've -- yeah, you've said it all for me. Does this look like a guy who really wants to do a peace deal? Right now, this looks like a guy who doesn't think that he's winning the war, that he isn't going to get everything he wants.
And that's really what these talks are with the U.S. are for Putin. They're a means to getting what he wants. And he said this in his, in his own way last week. It was -- it was pretty obvious that either they will get what they want through negotiations, which essentially means that the U.S. pressures Ukraine to surrender, because the terms that Putin wants, they basically amount to capitulation for Ukraine. Or Putin thinks Russia will just win the war and they will get what they want that way.
So, he feels that he is in the drivers seat. He feels that he has the upper hand and he wants to win the war.
BURNETT: And I mean, putting an image like that, it would, at least it seems to indicate from, from an American perspective, a complete lack of fear or deference for who's about to walk into that room with you. I, in this case, Witkoff and Kushner. Is that how Putin is putting -- is that what he's saying?
SEDDON: I think so, I mean, he's done this to, to much you know, tougher U.S. envoys. In the past, he's quite a fan of these unsubtle theatrical methods. But the fact is that we haven't really seen the U.S., with, with the exception of when -- when they put some sanctions against Russia's two largest oil companies, they have generally not been as willing as the Biden administration was to pressure Russia. And they have -- they have much more leverage over Ukraine. And they
have, favored a tactic of pressuring Ukraine instead to, to find terms that would end the war.
BURNETT: And, right. I mean, that 28-point peace plan, obviously. Case in point, the other day, "The Wall Street Journal" has this, this bombshell report that everyone's talking about, obviously, that says that Witkoff and Kushner, along with Kirill Dmitriev, a Putin ally, of course, that Kushner has dealt with over many years, have discussed tapping the hundreds of billions of dollars in frozen Russian assets for U.S. Russian investment projects.
And then they really go on to detail this whole link between this whole thing being about money and deals. Putin's allies have reportedly approached American businesses, Trump donors and allies are said to be trying to get into this.
Wall street journal says that they don't have evidence. Witkoff or Kushner are behind that specific aspect of it at this time. But you know, how deep does this -- I mean, that's just so sordid. How deep does that go?
SEDDON: I would -- I would argue that for Russia, its actually really not that deep. And really, it's just a means to an end. Russia would not be the only country that's done something like this. We've seen Qatar, Saudi Arabia, many other countries pursue these deals with Trump's family or business --
(CROSSTALK)
BURNETT: By the way, successfully in the case of Witkoff son, Trump's sons, Jared Kushner and all of those cases, right?
SEDDON: Exactly. And for Russia, every time they've been faced with a tradeoff of, do we want better relations with the U.S., which could be good for them economically, they would be part of the global economy again, sanctions would be lifted, or do we want to win the war? Every time Putin has consistently chosen winning the war.
And he -- these deals, they might be some kind of sweetener. They seem to have thought they would appeal to maybe the baser instincts of the administration.
BURNETT: Get behind us winning the war, here's money.
[19:45:00]
SEDDON: Exactly. But it actually hasn't been enough. And that was one of the reasons why the summit in Alaska was not a success, because the U.S. offer was basically, if you do a ceasefire, we will recognize Crimea, the Russian control of Crimea, and we will lift sanctions and help reintegrate you into the global economy. We will do trade.
And Putin pretty bluntly said, said no. And, every time that he's had this choice, he's made the same choice. It's not about money for him. And I'm not sure that the administration is thinking about this in the way that Putin is, because Putin is thinking in terms of decades and centuries. How is conquest will be remembered and how they will last through -- through history?
He, if he does some sort of deal with the U.S. where he doesn't get everything that he wants, he only gets maybe 75 percent of what he wants, which is what Witkoff has offered at various points over the course of this year. Then in three years you might have a Democratic president and it could all be gone. And that's not as good of winning the war. And then the changes, they last forever.
BURNETT: It's pretty amazing. I mean, you just gave me a lot of food for thought, including they've offered him 75 percent of what he wants, and it still wasn't enough. And then they keep coming, hat in hand, offering more. And it's still not enough.
All right, Max, thanks so much. It's great to see you, as I said in person.
SEDDON: Thanks for having me.
BURNETT: All right. And next, disqualified. A federal appeals court ruling. A Trump handpicked lawyer was serving unlawfully as a U.S. attorney. And I am not talking about Lindsey Halligan.
Plus, we're hearing from the owner of this coffee shop, which was destroyed after a driver slammed into it.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[19:50:34]
BURNETT: Tonight, another Trump hand-picked U.S. attorney serving illegally. The court striking down the series of maneuvers that Trump used to install his former personal attorney, Alina Habba, after she failed to win the Senate support before her 120-day term expired. Judges were set to replace Habba with a veteran prosecutor, but then the DOJ fired her replacement and installed Habba back in that role, acting as New Jersey's U.S. attorney.
This development, coming just days after a court found that Lindsey Halligan, Trump's handpicked U.S. attorney for the eastern district of Virginia. She was the one who brought those cases against James Comey and Letitia James. They said she was serving unlawfully.
Ryan Goodman is OUTFRONT now, OUTFRONT legal analyst.
So, Ryan, let's just start on this development here. Lindsey Halligan first. Now, Alina Habba. And that was one that had been simmering.
But, you know, maybe some thought had kind of gone on the back burner enough that it might go away. And now, no, they're saying she's also unlawfully serving. This is a12 one-two punch. Do these things hold?
RYAN GOODMAN, FORMER SPECIAL COUNSEL AT DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE: The big question is what the Supreme Court will decide. And I suppose in some ways the prior question is whether or not the Trump administration will take it to the Supreme Court. They could let it rest, but it looks as though they're just losing the Trump administration across the board.
When the judges are looking into these questions about these interim U.S. attorneys that have not gotten senate confirmation, and this is a very strong rebuke. It's a 3-0 decision. And two of the judges are conservative judges appointed by Republican presidents.
BURNETT: Right. So, when Trump comes out and talks about the bias judiciary and Democratic judges, activist judges, even -- even by his own logic, which of course, judiciary would not hold for judiciary but wouldn't hold in this case.
GOODMAN: It doesn't. And the courts here think are handling a very different issue than a lot of the other issues that are being litigated across the country, which is this is really about an officer of the court, the U.S. attorney. So, they really are protective of that and of their own prerogatives, because by statute, they get to appoint somebody if in fact, there is not a senate confirmed person after a certain point in time. So, they really are handling like internal business, and I think they'll look after their own interests in that regard.
BURNETT: You were also the special counsel, the Department of Defense.
All right. So this issue of the strikes and that this this double strike, that the Washington post is reporting on, on the Venezuelan vote, whether they went ahead and they said the order from Hegseth was to kill everybody, and that as a result, there was a second order to kill those who were clinging to the side of the boat after the first strike. That's the reporting in "The Washington Post".
And you saw Hegseth just posted. "Let's make one thing crystal clear: Admiral Mitch Bradley is an American hero, a true professional, and has my 100 percent support. I stand by him and the combat decisions he has made. He was the technical one in command. When that order, which "The Washington Post" is reporting how it played out came down. So, it's pretty clear what Hegseth is saying. It's not me, it's him.
How do you see this playing out?
GOODMAN: I don't see it playing out well for Secretary Hegseth. Worst case scenario is what "The Washington Post" has reported and what CNN has reported, which is that Secretary Hegseth is the one who told Admiral Bradley that he wanted to ensure that there would be no survivors. That's the worst-case scenario. The best case scenario for him is that he gave some instruction to Bradley, who then interpreted to mean the very same thing, right. That would also hold Secretary Hegseth responsible. The U.S. military is, in fact.
BURNETT: If he said no survivors, and there's a second strike, then that would be following his command, would it not?
GOODMAN: It would be following his command, and that command would be patently unlawful. It is the textbook example that the Department of Defense law of war manual gives for when somebody should refuse a clearly illegal order. The very example they give is firing on shipwrecked individuals.
BURNETT: Is right -- okay. So -- all right, so just to be clear, when we say the who would have made that call if it said that that actually would have come from the top commander, the secretary of defense.
GOODMAN: Absolutely. It has to come from him one way or another. And if what Ms. Leavitt said today is that the secretary of defense authorized the admiral to do this, that's the same thing. She's not contesting what's in "The Washington Post" and the CNN reporting.
BURNETT: Yeah, which is incredible because they say they are. But, you know, as we heard from Congressman Turner, there are plenty who are ready to when they see that full layout, call it out.
Thank you so much.
GOODMAN: Thank you.
BURNETT: And next, an update on the coffee shop that was destroyed after a speeding driver tore through it
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[19:59:34]
BURNETT: Tonight, a stunning crash caught on video. Police say a 90- year-old driver was speeding down a California street on Thanksgiving when he slammed into a coffee shop. You see the car there racing into the frame, full speed through the front of the store. It's incredible. A miracle no one was hurt.
The driver hospitalized in serious but stable condition. The owner now trying to rebuild.
We reached out to the shop owner today and the answering machine message said, quote, "As you may have heard, we had a major accident. A car crashed into our coffee shop. We are in the process of cleanup and restoration. Please be patient. We look forward to seeing you and serving you."
Thanks for joining us.
"AC360" starts now.
