Return to Transcripts main page

Erin Burnett Outfront

New Letitia James Indictment Rejected Days After Initial Charges Tossed; U.S. Carries Out Deadly Strike On Another Alleged Drug Boat; Putin Sends Message To Trump, Mocks Talks. Aired 7-8p ET

Aired December 04, 2025 - 19:00   ET

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

[19:00:22]

ERIN BURNETT, CNN HOST: OUTFRONT next:

Breaking news, no go. A grand jury refuses to re-indict New York Attorney General Letitia James 10 days after a judge threw out Trump's DOJ case against her. It's a big development this hour.

Plus, the video. Trump said he would release the video of the controversial second strike on an alleged drug boat, as some lawmakers who viewed the tape called it disturbing and deeply troubling. We have new video coming this hour.

And young voters are splitting from Trump in a big way. There are new numbers for you tonight.

Let's go OUTFRONT.

And good evening. I'm Erin Burnett.

OUTFRONT tonight, breaking news. And this a major legal blow to Trump here, a grand jury in just the past few minutes as we're coming to air is refused to indict the New York Attorney General, Letitia James. It's a big deal. This would have been the second indictment, right, coming a week after a federal judge tossed the DOJ's mortgage fraud case against James, and the Justice Department's case against former FBI Director James Comey.

This was all, of course, because of Lindsey Halligan, whether she had the right to be in the job. So, the question is, were they going to go ahead and try James take two? They did. When her case was first tossed out, Attorney General Pam Bondi had vowed to take all available legal action, including this immediate appeal, and prosecutors can still bring another indictment against James, which, well, we'll see if that happens. She, of course, is one of Trump's top political targets

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: The fascist and racist attorney general of New York state, Letitia James.

You have an attorney general who's a total stone cold crook, New York state, Letitia James, a total crook.

A crooked A.G. Letitia James.

Letitia James from New York. This is another real lola (ph).

There's no question about it. Letitia James, the corrupt attorney general of New York

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BURNETT: Katelyn Polantz is OUTFRONT live in Washington with this breaking news.

And, Katelyn, you know, this coming just a few moments ago and Letitia James, the James Comey case is obviously a more challenging one for them, right? I mean, once Lindsey Halligan's tenure was ruled not okay, that one really goes away.

But Letitia James could have had a second life or a third life. So, what does tonight's decision mean by this grand jury?

KATELYN POLANTZ, CNN CRIME AND JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: It means that the Justice Department is in a fraught time, a fraught time for all of these cases. They are trying to bring that Donald Trump. So once the case against James Comey, the case against Letitia James, they both had been looked at previously by a judge. They had been approved by grand juries and a judge had said, you know what, Lindsey Halligan is the U.S. attorney that Donald Trump has sent into Washington or into Alexandria, Virginia, to lead these cases? She doesn't have that authority.

So those cases were dismissed. This is take two to try and revive these cases. This one against Letitia James. The grand jury was assembled in a federal courthouse in Norfolk, Virginia, today. And that grand jury looked at the possibility of mortgage fraud charges here.

What we know from the previous version of this indictment is that Letitia James had made statements in a loan application about a second home in Norfolk, Virginia, to save a couple thousand dollars, essentially over the life of her mortgage. This was a case that we now know the Norfolk grand jury decided not to approve today. That is, from sources speaking to both Kaitlan Collins and I.

Very unusual circumstance that doesn't normally happen, Erin. But the Justice Department, they want to potentially try again. They are saying through some sources telling us the Justice Department may want to seek another indictment of Letitia James and that there should not be premature celebration at this time.

But all of this just goes into the moment that we're seeing here. Here's a statement encapsulating that from Letitia James' lawyer, Abbe Lowell. He says that the grand jury's refusal to indict Attorney General James is a decisive rejection of a case that they believe should never have existed in the first place. This should be the end of the case. If they continue, undeterred by a court ruling and a grand jury's rejection of the charges, that would have been what happened today and what happened last week, it will be a shocking assault on the rule of law and a devastating blow to the integrity of our justice system.

Of course, if James were to be charged again, she could always fight those charges in court. And the whole way to trial -- Erin.

BURNETT: All right. Thank you very much, Katelyn.

And Ryan Goodman, Jamal Simmons, S.E. Cupp joining me now.

Ryan, first of all, just the basic significance of this.

[19:05:02]

It happened really quickly. The -- obviously, the original indictment ruled not -- not okay because of Lindsey Halligan not actually being in the position of prosecutor, but the jury refusing to do this today. The grand jury, they had the time before. So, what does it mean that it didn't clear the hurdle this time?

RYAN GOODMAN, FORMER SPECIAL COUNSEL AT DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE: It's just an extraordinary moment in the sense that a grand jury not returning an indictment is, on its own terms, highly unusual.

BURNETT: Right. We already knew from the first indictment that it was quite flimsy, to be frank. So, the idea here is that it's that week that a grand jury doesn't even return an indictment. Were the government to try again and get one, they go back to square one in a certain sense. Then they were walking with an indictment that can work in court.

But if any other jurors in an actual case get wind of that one way or another, the whole idea around it, the public consciousness, is that this is a very weak case.

BURNETT: I mean, it is pretty incredible, right? Because the Lindsey Halligan situation you know, her appointment, she had to charge James Comey or statute of limitations hit, right? So, they can't -- rebringing that one, obviously is basically impossible. But the Letitia James case they could bring again. Right. So they had this broader window to do this. But it sounds like what you're saying is that something gets so poisoned by a grand jury saying no, that that really would lower the chances of any second try.

GOODMAN: Lowers the chances. And one of her strongest defenses is that this is a vindictive prosecution. The fact that the grand jury did not return an indictment would strengthen it incredibly, if they were to get a second indictment, because the argument behind vindictive prosecution, the paradigmatic case is when the government either brings a flimsy case.

So, the fact there was already rejected by a grand jury or tries to re-indict somebody a third time, that would be the hallmarks of vindictive prosecution. I'm not saying she should win that, but it really strengthens her ability to win that argument.

BURNETT: Right, especially because prosecutors are supposed to only bring cases. They really feel confident they can win, and grand jury, I guess stating the obvious here, this would show that that would be much less likely.

You know, S.E., this point about vindictive prosecution. I mean, Trump and Letitia James, there was a point where they were each other's main foil. Okay? They don't like each other, but when it comes to Trump and selective prosecution, there's a lot to say. I mean, just -- let's listen to some of it

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: The fascist and racist attorney general of New York state, Letitia James.

You have an attorney general who's a total stone cold crook, New York state, Letitia James, a total crook.

A crooked A.G., Letitia James.

Letitia James from New York. This is another real lola.

There's no question about Letitia James, the corrupt attorney general of New York.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BURNETT: How -- how significant is this blow to Trump? I mean, because you can't pull it out of, you know, as Katelyn Polantz is talking about the fraught environment at the DOJ, but the fraught environment in general, after the elections in Virginia and New Jersey and after the Epstein vote and all of it, right?

S.E. CUPP, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: I think this is both a story of incompetence and diminishing political capital. The incompetence in, in, you know, making a Lindsey Halligan after several lawyers said, I'm not touching this, putting her in there, giving yourself really no good opportunity to win. That's to the incompetence side. And were seeing that kind of throughout Trump world.

But the diminishing political capital is really astounding. There was a time when Trump could get up and say things like that, and by sheer will of force, it would seem like the all the apparatus around him would bend and do what he said. Now he's got -- he's got prosecutors saying, no, he's got people at the Pentagon saying, no, I won't do it. I'm resigning.

He's got lawmakers saying I'm resigning because I'm not going along with this. He's got people saying, I will not bury the Epstein files. I will not end the filibuster. Indiana state senator saying, I will not help you redistrict.

The capitol that this man once had, convincing Republicans to defend an insurrection at one point. Now he can't even give them, you know, get them to do basic -- his basic bidding, the things he, you know, did so, so powerfully in his first term. It's a -- it's astonishing.

BURNETT: I mean, on the same day that you have a Republican, Thomas Massie, criticizing the speaker of the house for being a rubber stamp for the president of their own party, right? Make it very clear that that's not a good thing.

JAMAL SIMMONS, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Yeah.

BURNETT: You wouldn't have heard that that was a bad thing a few months ago.

SIMMONS: You would not. And just to paraphrase -- paraphrase the president, these cases are garbage. I want them out of the justice system -- justice system. I think they are wrecking the Justice Department.

I think this is evidence that the system is developing the antibodies to this virus that Trump is putting into the American judicial system that is using the political party that he controls to go out and target people individually. These are things that we've all tried to get away from ever since the Nixon era that we said, we're not going to do things like this anymore.

Trump is trying to us back and we're all saying no, and you're even seeing it on the Hill where Republicans in Congress are realizing that maybe their political future can't be saved by Donald Trump, because he will either attack them in the primary or ignore them in a general election and in their political career, because he doesn't have the ability to save them anymore.

BURNETT: So when what is at stake in terms of their decision, I mean, can they quietly decide? Pam Bondi, you know what? Let's let this go. Let's not try to bring another case against her because of what you're saying, because of what you're saying. The difficulty of -- and the bruise that you would take if, again, a grand jury rejects it. Or do you have so much on the line that you've got to do it?

GOODMAN: If that -- if they go a third time and they get rejected, I think it's incredibly embarrassing. And think about the morale within the Justice Department. It would be crushing.

It's not so crushing. Maybe they can just walk away from this. It's just a terrible dumpster fire that happened and not try again. Even -- if any prosecutors ever tried a second indictment after being rejected by a grand jury, it would raise problems within the Justice Department. I think they might just want to walk away.

BURNETT: Oh, well, so that would -- it would just not. It's not a thing.

GOODMAN: Cut your losses.

BURNETT: Okay. So, then you know, S.E., does it spiral? I guess that's the real question.

CUPP: Yeah.

BURNETT: Does this continue to metastasize?

CUPP: Yeah. And this current environment where we have new polling that shows many Americans believe the cost of living is as high as they have ever seen it right now. That was Trump's singular promise. In a landscape where the economy is not doing well, and even Trump voters are blaming him for it, all of this stuff matters a lot more than it would have normally.

If the economy was great and singing, voters can compartmentalize. We've seen this over and over again. They've done that. They can compartmentalize the good and the bad.

But in this environment, with the tariffs and the DOGE cuts and the shutdown, people really hurting out there around the holidays, all of this stuff just looks much worse and much more chaotic and much more damning.

BURNETT: You know, Jamal -- go ahead.

SIMMONS: Well, you know, it's not working. I was making light of it a minute ago, but what's not working is this attack on people like the Somalians and the Somali Americans.

BURNETT: The garbage that you're referring to?

SIMMONS: Yeah. That joke.

But these folks who are in Minnesota, who are -- people who immigrated here, they've come from a country that was having problems. They came to the states and make a better life. People in Minnesota have given them the chance to make a better life, and it's all working really well for most of them.

The question, though, is, are we going to have an America where we welcome people or one that we don't? And I think that Trump is kind of setting us up for a society that so many of us just really don't want to be a part of.

BURNETT: In the context, Ryan, you know, that we have -- there's been -- the Trump administration will always sort of get first mover advantage. You can do something that people are going to say is against the law or extrajudicial and you got to have the -- someone's got to stop you, right? But you can take the first move.

Does this affect that, a loss like this, when there's been several losses which haven't necessarily stopped them from doing things, but perhaps have slowed it a bit.

GOODMAN: I think it slows the rate of change. It's one of the biggest problems that the Trump administration has had, that they're trying to go too fast, too quickly. And to be frank, by breaking the law so that if they were to do it in a different way, I think they would actually -- would have been able to accomplish much more of his policy goals. That's one part.

But the grand jury's rejected him -- rejecting them, I think, is a different kind of concern for him. He cannot try to blame it on judges or politicized judges. These are grand jury of the -- of our peers that have done this. And they're not just --

BURNETT: Supposedly will indict a ham sandwich, isn't that the famous line, the indict a ham sandwich?

GOODMAN: Yes. And it's kind of --

SIMMONS: It's not against an attorney general apparently.

(LAUGHTER)

GOODMAN: Yeah, and grand juries are also rejecting these kinds of cases in the protest cases in D.C. and L.A. as well, which has got to be something of deep concern to the Justice Department because they need their credibility.

BURNETT: All right.

And Letitia James has just responded. She just posted on X, "Time for the weaponization of our justice system to stop," the first response we're getting from her is to see whether she was shocked by this or not.

And next, we have breaking news. We've got word of a new strike on an alleged drug boat. Okay, a new strike. And guess what? The administration is releasing that video. But they still have not released the video of the second strike on the boat back in September. At the heart of the whole controversy at the Pentagon tonight, video that a few people saw today and called it disturbing.

Plus, mass confusion over what could be the biggest overhaul to child vaccines. One governor taking matters into her own hands. She's OUTFRONT.

And Putin now openly mocking those peace talks with Steve Witkoff and the president's son in law, Jared Kushner.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[19:18:53]

BURNETT: Breaking news the Trump administration just announcing it hit another alleged drug boat, this time in the Pacific. So, we're showing you the video of the strike. This is the 22nd such strike since early September.

So, this is a video they've just put out. U.S. Southern Command says the strike happened earlier today and came at the direction of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. They say that four people were killed in the strike. So, we have much more on that in a moment.

But I just want to point out that you are looking at video of a strike, a strike that happened today. So, they videoed it and they are releasing it right away. But that comes as they have still not released video of the controversial second strike from September on an alleged drug boat in the Caribbean.

Here's Hegseth dodging the question about that video today.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) REPORTER: Mr. Secretary, will you release the full September 2nd strike?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Thank you, press.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BURNETT: Hegseth silent on releasing the video of that second strike, 24 hours after President Trump said that he would release the video. But a few people did see that video today, including these four Democrats.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. JIM HIMES (D-CT): What I saw in that room was one of the most troubling things I've seen in my time in public service. You have two individuals in clear distress without any means of locomotion, with a destroyed vessel, who are killed by the United States.

SEN. CHRIS COONS (D-DE): I think it would be hard to watch the series of videos and not be troubled by it.

SEN. MARK WARNER (D-VA): I think the video is very disturbing.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BURNETT: Now, the descriptions that you heard there, of course, are not consistent, to say the least with Hegseth's description of the strikes.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PETE HEGSETH, DEFENSE SECRETARY: I did not personally see survivors, but I stand -- because the thing was on fire that was exploded and fire smoke. You can't see anything. You got digital -- this is called the fog of war

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BURNETT: Now again, I just want to be very clear. We just got new video today of a strike tonight. We just got it, like, literally at 7:20 Eastern Time, 20 minutes ago, we got video of strike on a boat, an alleged drug boat in the Pacific from earlier today. And Hegseth has been very quick to release plenty of other videos of strikes in the Caribbean, including actually the first of the two strikes at the heart of this situation, right, when he they did that on the day he went on, fox news said he saw the whole thing and they were proud to put that out. But not the second strike.

The strike on November 6th, he posted on the same day that that video happened, the caption there was today at the direction of President Trump, the Department of War carried out a lethal kinetic strike on a vessel operated by a designated terrorist organization.

Tonight, Congressman Adam Smith tells "The New Republic" that when it comes to the second strike here, that it looks like two classically shipwrecked people. He adds that it was highly questionable that these two people on that obviously incapacitated vessel were still in any kind of fight.

It is, of course, a basic reality that it is a war crime to kill shipwrecked people, according to the Pentagon's law of war manual. The fog of war, Hegseth says, though, prevented him from seeing the two men clinging to the wreckage.

Yet, Smith and Himes do seem to suggest that they were visible and in clear distress. And according to Republican Senator Tom Cotton, the strikes -- strike one and two that we're talking about here were minutes apart, which raises some really significant questions about what Hegseth has said and the claims that he didn't see the second strike

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HEGSETH: As you can imagine, the Department of War, we've got a lot of things to do. So I didn't stick around for the hour and two hours, whatever, where all the sensitive site exploitation digitally occurs.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BURNETT: So, he said an hour or two hours, Cotton said minutes. There's obviously a huge discrepancy there and we don't fully understand why at this point.

But Kristen Holmes is OUTFRONT at the White House. So, Kristen, again, we've got video tonight, and that is video from a strike today on an alleged drug boat in the Pacific. They put it out right away. Great alacrity. Still, though, silence. No video of that second controversial strike at stake from September.

What more can you tell us?

KRISTEN HOLMES, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Yeah, Erin, look, I think that the strike and the announcement of the strike tells us two very important things. It answers questions that we've had, which is this ongoing scrutiny, this intensifying scrutiny around these strikes. Is that going to change the posture within the White House? Is that going to slow down the White House in continuing with this? Obviously, the answer here is no.

The second question is, are they feeling any pressure amid this criticism, particularly from Democratic senators, to release that second video? Again, the answer being no. If they were feeling that pressure, they wouldn't feel like they wanted to release another video ahead of releasing this. They also wouldn't be committing these strikes and continue to commit these strikes if they were facing any sort of hesitation.

So, it goes to show you where at least the White House and the Department of Defense's head is at, at this time. And one thing I will note, we know we talked about this last night, but they, being the White House don't really care about pushback when it comes to Democratic senators. There is going to be time if you continue to hear pushback from Republican senators that they're going to have to answer them, they're going to have to answer those calls because they need those Republican senators.

They don't particularly need Democratic senators, nor do they think that they would ever, or most likely be on their side for anything. Now, I will point you to those comments by Senator Tom Cotton, because while he did line up this timeline, that completely doesn't match with Secretary Hegseth, as you noted, he also didn't have the same take on that video.

He essentially said that he believes that these attacks should continue, that they should continue the strikes against narco terrorism. And when you're hearing that from Republicans, Republicans, that the White House wants the support of, they feel more confident in moving forward with both Hegseth continuing in his role and with the strikes

BURNETT: All right. Kristen, thank you very much.

And I want to go OUTFRONT now to Democratic Congressman Jason Crow, who is on the Armed Services and Intelligence Committees, also a former Army Ranger.

[19:25:02]

Congressman Crow, I appreciate your time.

This latest strike that we understand that happened in the Pacific earlier today, that the Pentagon has just put out the video of, you know, they say four people were killed in that strike today. Video is out just a few minutes ago. They still have not released video of the double tap strike of the second strike of that.

And it's obviously more than 24 hours after Trump said he'd be fine with it coming out. And obviously the strike itself was months ago, and at the time, they did put out video of the first of the two strikes.

What's your reaction to this?

REP. JASON CROW (D-CO): Well, the administration appears to be good at only one thing, and that is a cover up. They have the ability to put out these videos very quickly. They have, in fact, done that. They clearly don't want to put out the footage of the strike at question here, because the facts, as I understand them, look pretty horrible, right?

You have stranded survivors, unarmed. Shipwreck survivors clinging to burning, sinking wreckage, sitting there for hours. Who then were killed by a military strike hours after the initial strike, which, sitting here as a combat veteran, as a an army ranger and a paratrooper that's been in a position of having to lead troops in combat and make those types of decisions, I can't think of any justification, given those facts as I know them, for taking that second strike. BURNETT: Yeah. And I'll say, you know, you're talking about the time

-- time lapse between strike one and strike two. As we pointed out, there's a lot of confusion right now on exactly how long that that time was. We don't -- we don't have clarity on it yet.

We are reporting tonight, though, that the two men killed in that second strike in early September did not appear to have radio or other communications devices and obviously, Congressman, you know, that's hugely significant if it's the case because the top -- a top military official overseeing the strike told lawmakers this Thursday. Now, this does raise real questions about any justification for a second strike, which includes something along the lines of these were drug dealers. They were radioing or somehow contacting their bosses and trying to continue, whether it be the fight or to get help or something of that nature.

Again, our reporting is that they did not have radio devices. How significant is that? Does that eliminate any kind of justification that's been put out there?

CROW: Erin, first, first of all, we have to point out that this entire operation is legally and constitutionally dubious, right? This administration now has been doing this for months. They have not come to Congress. They have not asked for an authorization of military force. They have not asked for money to do this.

You know, I spent three combat tours in Iraq and Afghanistan. Our country went to war for over 20 years, spent $3 trillion, 7,000 American lives, tens of thousands of other Americans with the visible and invisible scars of battle. And those wars ended poorly because administration after administration did something they weren't supposed to do. And there wasn't debate, there wasn't accountability, there wasn't funding given for it. It was funded via debt.

This is not how the Constitution and Congress and the presidency is supposed to work. And yet this administration has learned nothing from our 20 years of failed military endeavors. And then you talk about the actual strikes themselves. Right? Again, I've been in these situations. It is well established that if you have a wounded adversaries, you have treating adversaries, you have shipwrecked, stranded people who are combat ineffective and are not combatants in fighting. You have a legal and moral obligation to preserve those folks and to not harm them. And it looks pretty clearly that that's what happened in this case, which in my estimation, is exactly why they're not releasing this video.

BURNETT: All right. So, Congressman Himes also said that Admiral Bradley, right, who was the commander who gave the actual order, confirmed that there was no, quote, unquote, kill them all order. I don't -- obviously, nothing formal like that exists, but there was no order of that kind, nor was there an order to grant no quarter.

Does that -- could that exonerate Hegseth of responsibility for this strike? You know, if maybe there were conversations before or planning or who knows what we don't know about that, but that in the moment there was not a specific explicit order from Hegseth? CROW: Well, what we need is the facts, right? We actually need an

investigation by the Armed Services Committee and the Intelligence Committee to find out who gave orders, what the orders were, what the chronology was, who was in the chain of command, who had communications, who was observing what's called the ISR, the intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance video footage.

[19:30:04]

You know, Secretary Hegseth says that he was confused because of the fog of war. Listen, he -- I happen to know he was sitting in his home in Washington, D.C., in Fort McNair watching this video. And that's what he wants to say is the fog of war sitting in his house at Fort McNair?

The whole thing is absurd. So, we need answers. We need them now. But all of this is happening within the context of Donald Trump and Pete Hegseth, establishing the following climate, saying things like they want to shoot protesters in the legs, they want to go to war against Chicago and napalm them. Pete Hegseth saying over and over that he's going to kill the families of our adversaries, Donald Trump saying he would kill the families of terrorists, all of which are war crimes.

So, they have created a climate of lawlessness and recklessness that is corrosive to military culture. And that is exactly why I and several of my colleagues put a video out a few weeks ago reminding people of their obligation to follow the law and to follow the Constitution and to fulfill their oaths, because it is not only their right, but it is their duty to make sure that they follow the law.

BURNETT: Congressman Crow, thank you very much. I appreciate your time.

Ryan goodman, back with me.

And of course, Ryan, you know, you spent a lot of time as special counsel at the Defense Department.

So, there are some big developments here. It's not just a video of a strike that they put out immediately, obviously, which shows just in stark contrast. And they're willing for it to show this, that they're not willing to put out second strike from September. But there's also the reporting now that the survivors after the first strike did not have radios.

GOODMAN: I want to make sure I use the right words. It's devastating. It's devastating. The only argument that Admiral Bradley had, and to some degree, Secretary Hegseth was, oh, there's a loophole to shooting a shipwrecked person. The loophole is, if they were to be able to communicate with their compatriots and then come and retrieve the drugs, if they didn't have radios or communication devices, that has -- the only argument they even kind of maybe had has gone, gone away.

I would not even credit the argument originally, because that's not really what it means to engage in combat activities, to retrieve drugs. But -- BURNETT: To the extent that, right, because I understand that the

whole point about the legality of the operation to begin with, right? But if you take that as, okay, this is what they're doing, you're saying this is the devastating point is they had no means of communication.

GOODMAN: Yeah. So, they -- so they shot to kill because that's now that's what they say themselves. They shot to kill the two shipwrecked individuals who didn't even have a communication device to be able to try to get retrieval or the like.

BURNETT: And when and when and when, when the clear message was and finish the job, does the buck go to the defense secretary, even if he wasn't the one in the specific, explicit moment who said finish the job?

GOODMAN: Yes, the secretary of defense was, unusually, the target engagement authority, so he had the authority to authorize the strike and the ways in which it would happen. That's the first part of it. Usually, that's where the buck stops. And the second is that Secretary Hegseth has time and again actually said that the decisions that were made by Admiral Bradley were the correct ones and that they were within his authority that was given to him by Secretary Hegseth.

If that is true, and if it's true that Admiral Bradley did in fact order the killing of the two shipwreck survivors who were not in possession of communication devices, Secretary Hegseth said that's fine with him. He said it was the correct decision. So, I think he is in deep trouble for it. The buck has to stop at the person who bears the most responsibility. It is him in the circumstance.

BURNETT: All right. Thank you very much, Ryan.

And OUTFRONT next, RFK, Jr., CDC and chaos, his hand-picked vaccine advisers are trying to push through a major overhaul of vaccine recommendations for children. We'll talk to a governor next who is now taking matters into her own hands.

Plus, young voters breaking from Trump big time. They were a huge part of his victory. But Harry Enten has some new and staggering numbers, and it will tell us something else we don't know.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[19:38:12]

BURNETT: Tonight, mass chaos at RFK, Jr.'s CDC. His own hand-picked advisers delaying a vote on what would be his biggest overhaul yet to childhood vaccines, pushing back when babies should get their first dose of the hep B vaccine. The reason multiple changes meant that they were clear on what they were voting on, a hearing that also saw this heated exchange involving the panel's vice chair, Dr. Robert Malone.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We already established that there's consensus on that.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It is the work group that has reached consensus.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We are --

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It is not --

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We are not. We absolutely have not reached consensus.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You have said we have reached consensus.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Then you -- I mis -- I either misspoke or you misheard. I apologize --

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes, you misspoke.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Then I apologize for my limitations in communication. Regardless.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I appreciate that.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You did say it, Robert.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BURNETT: Universal vaccination against hepatitis B for babies was first recommended all the way back in 1991, but Kennedy and other anti-vaccine activists have repeatedly questioned its safety and need.

OUTFRONT now, the governor of Massachusetts, Democratic Governor Maura Healey.

And, Governor, I appreciate your time.

So, the delay here appears to likely only be delaying the inevitable. That's what it appears to be. And as a result, you say you are ready to fight back.

What exactly does that mean in your role as governor of a state? What does that mean for families, for babies who are there?

GOV. MAURA HEALEY (D), MASSACHUSETTS: Well, this is about one thing for me. It's about keeping kids and babies and our families safe and healthy. And no matter what the Trump administration does or RFK's panel decides, Massachusetts is going to continue to provide and have access for vaccines that are safe, that are proven effective, and that people want to protect themselves, their kids and their families.

[19:40:16]

I can tell you what happened there in a couple months ago when the Trump administration rolled back access to the COVID vaccine, I directed my public health commissioner to write a prescription for everyone in Massachusetts so that they could get a COVID vaccine, and I got insurers to pay for that. We also continue to issue our own recommendations. See, you know, RFK

has set up this, panel, this board. He's removed a lot of people who were actual experts in putting his own people who, I guess, subscribe to his ideologies. And you just can't trust what they're saying.

So, we set up our own panel here. We have science-based, data-based recommendations that we issued to the public. I once again stood with pediatricians and public health officials yesterday to talk about, and essentially pre-bunk all the misinformation that were seeing come out about vaccines.

And these are some of the things that I'm doing as governor to protect people. This is about keeping people safe and healthy

BURNETT: So, CDC's website right now does say the best way to prevent hepatitis B is by getting vaccinated and that the vaccine is safe and effective. But obviously, that is not really what they heard. They heard something different today in that hearing.

Here's one of the witnesses

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DR. CYNTHIA NEVISON, PRESENTER: There's very little evidence that horizontal transmission has ever been a significant threat to the average American child. And the risk probably has been overstated.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BURNETT: How worried are you that were in a moment where that's coming out of the CDC and you as the governor of Massachusetts, are coming out and saying, well, your state website is going to tell people in your state something because you can't trust what's coming out of the CDC, which is, you know, the gold standard of health in the world. I mean, it is a pretty incredible moment that we're in, isn't it?

HEALEY: Yeah. It's unbelievable. And, you know, that just infuriates me so much, Erin, because you mentioned hepatitis B, that vaccine has been around since 1991. And you know what we've seen since then? Weve seen a 99 percent decrease in hep B infections. So, it works. And it's been really important to health and not just to anyone's health. The health of our newborns and most vulnerable.

So, I don't know who that person was. But I'll tell you what, D.C., the Trump administration, RFK, that panel, they are not doing their jobs. And in the face of that, as governor, I'm going to do mine, which is to take actions to make available science based information to give people real truth, real information, not conspiracy theories or ideologies. And were going to continue to make available vaccines that people want to keep their kids, our seniors, families, safe and healthy.

And I'm also going to continue to work with other states, Erin, because as you may know, we've organized a coalition of states to work on vaccines together to distribute them, to make sure they're getting out there, to also stand up our own disease monitoring and emergency preparedness, things that the federal government is supposed to do is not doing --

BURNETT: Can you do this across party lines?

HEALEY: -- has totally abdicated responsibility on --

BURNETT: Can you do this across party lines?

HEALEY: I hope, too. I mean, absolutely, I mean, disease prevention is not political. The Trump administration and RFK are making it political and making it about ideology. This is science, you know?

And so, I think that there's a lot of support. I don't know a governor who doesn't or it would surprise me, Erin, if there were a governor who would not want to take steps to do everything they can to give people access to things that will keep them and their kids safe and healthy. We're doing it in Massachusetts, that's for sure.

BURNETT: All right, Governor Healey, I appreciate your time and thank you so much.

And next, the young voters that were so key to Trump's victory, many of them are now breaking with Trump. The numbers are pretty extraordinary. Harry Enten here with those and something we don't know.

Plus, Putin just coming out and mocking, dissing his meeting with Steve Witkoff and Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[19:48:28]

BURNETT: Tonight. Trump losing young voters in some of the most stunning numbers that we have seen post the election and Trump taking office. Voters 30 and under who were really key to his 2024 victory, are right now overwhelmingly giving him a thumbs down. This is a major change from even just a few months ago.

Harry Enten is here to tell us something we don't know.

And, Harry, I think it's really important what I just said there in that last sentence from even a few months ago. Right?

HARRY ENTEN, CNN CHIEF DATA ANALYST: Yeah.

BURNETT: I mean, this isn't something that happened right away or even right at tariffs or something in April, right? It's much more recent.

ENTEN: Yeah. I mean, look, I think the word of the day, to borrow a phrase from the current president, huge, huge.

I mean, just take a look at Donald Trump's approval rating among those under the age of 30. You go back to February. It was plus-10 points. Look at this Trump. I'm laughing because it's down to minus 46 points on net approval. That is a drop of 56 points among voters under the age of 30.

BURNETT: Any historical --

ENTEN: No, I --

BURNETT: -- historically analogous to it?

ENTEN: This type of drop happening so quickly is just, you know, I spend my days in the spreadsheets. You just don't see drops like that.

BURNETT: Yeah.

ENTEN: It's stunning.

BURNETT: Yeah. Okay, so I guess the question. So, the drop is huge. You can have a huge drop of a small number, and it can still matter, but still. But this was this -- this group was actually huge, hugely important to Trump.

ENTEN: Yeah. Hugely important to Trump. I mean look he gained more with voters with generation z than he did with any other group from 2020 to 2024.

[19:50:01]

I mean, you look at it, look, in 2020, he got 31 --

BURNETT: These are what, people under 35?

ENTEN: These are people under 30 now. They were under 25 back in 2020. Generation Z has become the young people. Millennials like myself have aged out of those young group.

BURNETT: Right, so people under 30.

ENTEN: Correct. And they went from 31 percent in 2020 to now 43 percent. That's a jump of 12 points in just that four years. And I looked at all the age groups. There was more of a jump in his support among generation Z than any other generation. They were key for him, as you said in your intro.

BURNETT: Wow. But that drop again, 50, 56-point swing.

ENTEN: Correct., that gain. Adios.

BURNETT: Okay. So, that's stunning. So, and I didn't realize the magnitude of that.

So as usual Harry, you're supposed to come out and say tell me something I don't know. And you've already done that.

ENTEN: I know.

BURNETT: Can I get something else? ENTEN: I'll try to do little things.

BURNETT: I'm a greedy --

ENTEN: You're a greedy person. But it's okay. I'm here for you.

Look, among those under the age of 35, younger folks, they actually have a more positive view of socialism than they do of capitalism. Look at this, 49 percent say, have a favorable view of socialism, compared to 43 percent of capitalism.

And more than that, if you look at those under the age of 35, look at their views of capitalism over time, the net favorability, look at that. In 2010, it was plus 46 points. Look at that drop to 2025, minus 11 points. Again, that's another shift of what 57 points in the wrong direction for capitalism.

BURNETT: And yet another way of saying the economy is the single most important issue out there for people right now. This is how it shows.

ENTEN: Exactly right. We tried different ways to show each and every time.

BURNETT: All right. Thank you very much, Harry.

ENTEN: Thank you.

BURNETT: And next Putin now just coming out mocking Trump's efforts to end the war in Ukraine, threatening to intensify it yet again.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[19:56:18]

BURNETT: Breaking news, Putin right now mocking how long his peace talks with top Trump envoy Steve Witkoff and Trump's son in law Jared Kushner lasted, saying, quote, "Even I grew weary of it. Five hours is too much."

Well, it comes as Putin just vowed to take control of two crucial Ukrainian territories, including the Donbas, by military or other means. And warning that the war will only end on his terms. Putin right now is in India. He's meeting with Prime Minister Modi. Obviously, it's a crucial meeting. India, crucial buyer of Russian oil. There's an audience of one in mind Donald Trump and Will Ripley is OUTFRONT tonight in New Delhi.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

WILL RIPLEY, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Like two old friends, Russian strongman Vladimir Putin and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi sitting and chatting in an armored SUV in India, just like they did a few months ago in China, in Putin's armored limousine for nearly an hour.

Modi was on the tarmac welcoming Putin to India. Before he even landed here in New Delhi, Putin's close relationship with Modi was already on display for the world to see. Their intended audience, above all perhaps, President Donald Trump, who's watching both men closely as he plots his next moves.

The last time the two leaders met in China, Putin and Modi walked hand in hand, smiling, laughing. A display of personal warmth rarely seen between world leaders. We also saw them greeting China's President Xi Jinping together, joking, clasping hands, moving in sync like old buddies.

Putin's visit to India comes at a critical time. The U.S. and Russia are talking through a possible peace plan. U.S.-India relations at a low point.

One major issue, India's reliance on Russian oil.

VLADIMIR PUTIN, RUSSIAN PRESIDENT (through translator): President Trump has his own agenda, his own goals. Whereas we focus on ours, not against anyone, but rather aimed at safeguarding our respective interests, India's and Russia's interests. In our dealings, we cause no harm to others, and I believe that leaders from other countries should appreciate this.

RIPLEY (voice-over): Trump's criticism set the stage for a huge tariff hike, arguing India was leaning too heavily on Moscow. India now buys about 35 percent of its oil from Russia, up from just 2.5 percent before the Ukraine invasion. A major factor for an economy serving more than 1.4 billion people.

Washington has pushed Delhi to scale that back, but Modi's warm, very public gestures toward Putin show this relationship is about more than oil. It's about trust, comfort and decades of political chemistry.

RIPLEY: What happens here in New Delhi could shift the balance of power from Ukraine to Asia, and potentially chip away at American, European leverage on Russia.

RIPLEY (voice-over): Because when India's prime minister is seen walking hand in hand with Putin, the optics are strategic. Defense ties run deep and India is now signaling interest in more Russian fighter jets.

DMITRY PESKOV, RUSSIAN PRESIDENTIAL SPOKESMAN: SU-57, best plane in the world.

RIPLEY (voice-over): Russian jets anchor India's air force. Delhi wants upgrades and it is resisting U.S. pressure to cut military links with Moscow.

India is the world's largest democracy, and Russia wants to pull it further from Washington. And these images of warmth, the hand-holding, the laughter send the clearest signal of all -- India is keeping its options open no matter what happens with the U.S.

(END VIDEOTAPE) RIPLEY: Putin spoke with Indian media. He called India and China his two closest friends. And he also said, Erin, this is interesting, that President Trump has no right to criticize India for buying oil from Russia because he pointed out the United States, he claims, buys nuclear fuel, uranium from Russia to power reactors in the United States. He said it's hypocritical to criticize.

BURNETT: These numbers are stunning, though, from 2 percent of the oil before the war to 35 percent now. It's incredible.

Thanks so much. And Will Ripley, we're so lucky to have you there on the ground.

Thanks to you for being with us.

Anderson starts now.