Return to Transcripts main page

Inside Politics

GOP-Led Committees Plan Probes Of Boat Strike Killings; Sen. Kelly: Report Of Follow-Up Strike "Seems To" Be War Crime; Trump Threatens "Action On Land" In Venezuela "Very Soon"; Appeals Court: Alina Habba "Unlawfully" Serving As U.S. Atty For NJ. Aired 12-12:30p ET

Aired December 01, 2025 - 12:00   ET

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

[12:00:00]

WOLF BLITZER, CNN CO-ANCHOR, THE SITUATION ROOM: Thank you very, very much. And to our viewers, thanks very much for joining us this morning. You can always keep up with us on social media @wolfblitzer and @pamelabrowncnn. We'll see you back here tomorrow morning, every weekday morning at 10 am Eastern for two hours.

Inside Politics with my friend and colleague, Dana Bash, starts right now.

DANA BASH, CNN HOST, INSIDE POLITICS: Republicans control Congress, which means they're charged with administration oversight. We haven't seen much of that this year until now.

I'm Dana Bash. Let's go behind the headlines at Inside Politics.

That bipartisan chorus of questions on Capitol Hill is about a September air strike on a boat off the coast of Venezuela. Did the Pentagon order a second strike to kill the injured survivors of that first strike? And if they did, even if the victims were drug traffickers, as the administration says, enemy combatants. It could be a war crime.

And it's leading to the most significant GOP demands for oversight since President Trump took office. The GOP led House and Senate Armed Services committees are promising investigations. Congressman Adam Smith, the top Democrat on the House panel, told CNN this morning that even his Republican colleagues are losing patience with the Pentagon.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. ADAM SMITH (D-WA): I think it's one of the biggest things that's chafed at the Republicans. You know, they're in the majority in the House and the Senate. They can't get access to basic information like that. So, I think you're going to see a renewed push in light of this incident and a whole lot of other things. And also, the president obviously is weakening, so there's vulnerability. So, I think Republicans are really going to start to push and say, hey, give us the answers here.

(END VIDEO CLIP) BASH: I'm joined by a terrific group of reporters here. Manu, as soon as I saw over the weekend, first the Senate statement from the Republican and Democrat, who run armed services jointly, and then followed by the House, including Adam Smith, who you just heard there. I said, wow. Now, normally them, kind of, frankly, doing their jobs is not a wow moment, but we haven't seen a lot of that, which is the whole point of why this is -- feels like a moment.

MANU RAJU, CNN CHIEF CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yeah, we'll see how far it goes. I mean, we've seen sometimes Republicans, what suggests they may challenge the Trump administration and then pull back and very much fall in line after they get some information here. But the -- really what's driving the concern on the Hill is just the lack of information.

They have not gotten many details about a lot of these boat strikes, the extent of which, and now this reporting about these strike. They may have killed all the survivors, a second strike for the people who are on that boat that early part of September, whether that is actually violation of the rules of war, that has caused major concern among some Republicans.

But I sense that you're going to get a lot of Republicans falling in line and defending Trump, defending Hegseth, and you may have a couple who are concerned about it. But the most important thing about this is it's the Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, watch Roger Wicker, who has had a lot of concerns about way Pete Hegseth has run the defense department. Yes, he ushered in his confirmation as defense secretary, but he has had concerns about some of his actions, and this being one of the most significant ones.

BASH: Yeah. And then the question is about Pete. Well, as you said, Pete Hegseth. and the support that he obviously has from President Trump. I had -- I think the senator who really helped him get through in the first place, Markwayne Mullin, who said he believes Pete Hegseth. He doesn't think that this actually happened. It's pretty much what the president said on Air Force One.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: 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. So, we'll look at -- we'll look into it. But no, I wouldn't have wanted that. Not a second strike. The first strike was very lethal. It was fine, and if there were two people around, but Pete said that didn't happen.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ELI STOKOLS, WHITE HOUSE & FOREIGN AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT, POLITICO: Well, I wouldn't have wanted that line is the interesting one to me, because this is a president who in defending the -- I mean, he has -- he has declassified the videos and put the videos on social media. I mean, a lot of this has been done for public consumption to -- for intimidation purposes, to show toughness, to show strength. The president has disregarded questions of legality up to this point. And now what you heard from him on the airplane last night was sort of an acknowledgement that if there had been a second-strike order to kill those two survivors, maybe that was too far, right?

It's a sort of tacit acknowledgement that there may be some legal questions that do matter and that there may be -- you know that maybe it's a sense of he's feeling more pressure from Congress as he's getting more criticism, more questions that they don't have the answers to. He's sort of defending Pete Hegseth there, saying, well, Pete told me he didn't do it, but the president's saying explicitly, I wouldn't have wanted that is what stood out to me.

[12:05:00]

BASH: Yeah, absolutely. I totally agree with you. He said he didn't do it, meaning he didn't order a second strike on people who apparently, according to the reporting, were injured from the first strike. Hegseth has not said much, except for denying it. He did put out this post that we're going to put up on the screen right now.

It's an image of a children's book, Franklin. In this particular image, he's targeting narco-terrorists. So that's the kind of reaction that Pete Hegseth is having right now.

MICHELLE PRICE, WHITE HOUSE REPORTER, AP: Yeah. And one of our colleagues at the Washington Post pointed out that those might not be American weapons. It looks kind of like a Russian RPG, which will set that aside. But if you're a senator, if you're a member of Congress, you have serious questions about -- you've had serious questions about this mission. Now there are serious questions about, was this a war crime?

And then you see the Defense Secretary making light of it with a joke and a children's meme, a twisted children's meme that doesn't really show that they're taking this seriously, or they're taking the concerns seriously, and you think it would might inflame some of those concerns or even piss people off on the Hill.

RAJU: I mean, the questions that I have is, how much will the Pentagon actually cooperate here? Will they provide? I assume these members will get briefed, maybe as soon as this week, on these key committees, will they incorporate more members, provide more details? Will they provide the video surveillance and the video that were apparently. He was taken of this. Would they give that to Congress, or will this become a fight between the two branches? That's something to watch. And how will the leadership respond?

We've heard nothing from the speaker of the House. We've not heard anything yet from the Senate Majority Leader, John Thune. They will be asked. I can guarantee you that this as soon as this afternoon, at least Johnson may not, because he's campaigning today, but John Thune very well could, will they put pressure on the Pentagon? That's going to be a big question.

BASH: Yeah. And there has been some discussion, some viewing of and, you know this, you probably follow them as far as you can, to the skiff, and where they -- to the point where they say you can't go anywhere.

RAJU: Yes.

BASH: We are here, Manu.

(CROSSTALK)

BASH: And especially, you, that there have been an opportunity, or at least one or two for them to watch videos, but clearly not the video of this particular strike and the questions, or at least the questions surrounding whether or not there was a second strike. This is all happening as the fallout from the video that Mark Kelly and five other Democrats -- congressional Democrats, who are people with national security backgrounds, put out.

And they basically said, you know, if you feel that you have been given an order that it is not -- that is not legal. You don't have to follow it. So, I had Mark Kelly on State of the Union yesterday, and we were specifically asked -- I was asking him about the allegations in -- about this Venezuela boat, and in the context of the video that he put out. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BASH: Do you believe if there was a second strike to eliminate any survivors, that that constitutes a war crime?

SEN. MARK KELLY (D-AZ): It seems to. If that -- if that is true, if what has been reported is accurate, I've got serious concerns about anybody in that, you know, chain of command stepping over a line that they should never step over.

BASH: If you received that order, would you have carried it out?

KELLY: No. No. And I'm a guy who -- I have sunk two ships. You know, I've sunk an Osa II missile patrol boat in Kuwait Harbor, a Polnocny troop carrier in the Persian Gulf during the first Gulf War. I never in that situation questioned whether those strikes were legal. But, you know, going after survivors in the water. That is clearly not lawful.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

STOKOLS: He's not the only one talking. I mean, Republicans have said the same thing. And I think that explains why the White House may be a little more, you know, trying to get an answer to members of Congress, taking a little more seriously, even as they are investigating. The administration is investigating, some of the lawmakers who are in that video, and the president accused them of sedition, defying, you know, the commander in chief's orders.

Even as they're doing that, there does seem to be more of an understanding that they are going to need to come up with a response to this, because it's not just Mark Kelly, it's Republicans who want that information, who are asking the same questions about the legality of this very specific thing, not just the first strike, but did you make it? You know, was there an order to go after survivors in the water, something that is a clear breach of what is, you know, legal, and what is not.

BASH: Yeah, no question. OK, everybody standby. Up next. We have new reporting on the president's threat to go beyond these boats and actually to potentially attack Venezuela. How close could the U.S. be to launching strikes? Plus, why are President Trump, Speaker Johnson, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Kamala Harris and even Al Gore campaigning in a district President Trump by 22 points last year. The answer involves a lot of GOP heartburn. Stay with us.

[12:10:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[12:15:00]

BASH: After a weekend of signaling the U.S. could be on the verge of military action inside Venezuela. Sources tell CNN that President Trump will discuss next steps with top advisors tonight. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Dan Caine, Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, White House Chief of Staff, Susie Wiles, and Deputy Chief of Staff, Stephen Miller, are all expected to attend an Oval Office meeting.

My panel is back. Now, Eli, what are you hearing about the sort of do or die stance in this meeting?

STOKOLS: Well, I mean, if it seemed imminent before, it seems even more imminent now, some kind of action Venezuela. My sources have made it clear that the president is as bullish as anyone when it comes to achieving regime change in Venezuela. I think that's obvious to a lot of observers who have seen carriers move to the region and the conversations with the president that he has had, the post that he is putting out there.

The question is, sort of when and what? It seems like he's trying to give Maduro an ultimatum, or that he already gave Maduro the ultimatum and the phone call that you can do this the nice way, you can leave peacefully, or we're going to take you out. Whether the strikes go in to take him out immediately or just sort of apply more pressure, so that he eventually agrees to leave unknown. That's probably one of the things they're talking about here.

But there's a belief that this is something not just about conveying and communicating strength in the hemisphere, that this is something that will be in service of the president's other priorities related to protecting the homeland, slowing drug trafficking, sending a message to other world powers about the sort of resolve of the United States.

There's a -- does not seem to be a lot of debate going on inside the administration. It feels like the people who are pushing for more of a -- sort of, you know, restrained approach, are not really part of the conversation at this point. So, maybe some questions still to be determined about how much and when, but everything I'm hearing is that something is likely to occur.

BASH: And then there's the why, right? And then there's the why. That's really one of the key questions. And I just want to show on the screen a poll that suggests that the American people don't know the why yet. The question about U.S. taking military action in Venezuela.

This is from a new CBS News poll. 70 percent opposed to -- are opposed to it. And I should just say a different poll said it's, I think three quarters of the people who were asked said that they don't know the explanation. They haven't gotten enough of an explanation from the president.

PRICE: And this is not something that Americans are typically very engaged in this Latin American politics, unless they have some kind of ties to the region. But, you know, one of the things we saw with the pardon that the president intends to issue for the Honduran, the former Honduran president. It seems to be that the case -- the focus is not on doing everything they can to stop drugs.

Because, you know, in the case of Venezuela, first of all, this is not necessarily fentanyl. We think that it's -- those boats actually have cocaine. It may not even be going to the U.S., but then to go and pardon somebody else who was convicted by an American jury of being involved in drug trafficking to the U.S. It sends a mixed message and a sign of hypocrisy.

BASH: I'm glad you brought that up because I asked Senator Markwayne Mullin about that yesterday. Let's watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. MARKWAYNE MULLIN (R-OK): We're going to go to you if you threaten our country. Keep in mind, this drug war that has taken place that the Biden administration turned a complete blind eye to. In 2024 killed more Americans on our streets than the entire Vietnam War has, and so -- or did. And so, we are being very proactive by stopping them.

BASH: If that's the case, why is he planning to pardon the former Honduran president who was convicted by an American jury of drug trafficking, who allegedly said, this is, according to testimony from his trial. He would, quote, shove the drugs right up the noses of the gringos by flooding the United States with cocaine.

MULLIN: Well, the particular circumstances that I'm not quite aware of, however, I do know we're trying to build relationships with Honduras.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BASH: And let me just put one more before you jump in, Manu, reaction to this pardon that the president himself announced he was going to do from another Republican Senator Bill Cassidy. This is on X. Why would we pardon this guy and then go after Maduro for running drugs into the United States? Lock up every drug runner.

RAJU: You know, there's a lot to unpack on both of those. One on the Markwayne Mullin side. I assume if Joe Biden did the same thing, the reaction from the GOP would be much different than reflects a defense of what Trump is doing. And Bill Cassidy, who's running for reelection and really wants Trump not to try to defeat him in his primary. It was interesting.

He step by -- step a bit out of line there, but he said, why would we pardoned him. It wasn't him going directly after Trump and attacking him in this way, but Trump's defense of this is also pretty head scratching to say the least.

[12:20:00]

All he said was that many people asked me to pardon him, which is what he said on Truth Social, which is why he did, and he said, he treated unfairly, but he didn't really drive substance of the very serious charges in which he was convicted, which was him being this major drug trafficker and just completely undermines their whole position when it comes to Venezuela.

BASH: And let's -- because this is Inside Politics. Let's talk about the politics. I asked you why in some ways that was, you know, it's a real question, because the drug problem has been a problem for a very long time. But the politics of this is very specific and particularly in Miami and southern Florida.

This is according to POLITICO. In Miami, Venezuela is do or die for the voters who turned out for Trump. I haven't heard one person that I've spoken to say they do not like what's happening. That is, according to somebody who runs the Miami young Republican.

STOKOLS: And that may be the case, right? But you have the broader question of the country, and this is a president who is not likely running again for a third term, so maybe he's not so worried about the political questions. But this is a lot different than being able to go out and say, Russia, Ukraine, I inherited this war, or same with the situation in Gaza.

There's no war in Venezuela right now. Donald Trump, if this happens, he's the one who's starting this war. That's the president who was elected on a sort of America First, more isolationist foreign policy. It's what a lot of his base wanted. It's why he's under the gun and why he's broken with Marjorie Taylor Greene because she's criticized him for that.

So, it's a lot harder. You heard Senator Mullin say, you know, well, Joe Biden didn't do anything about this. So, I can almost hear the administration justifying this eventually and saying, well, we had to do this because Joe Biden didn't do anything about drugs. We're doing something about drugs. But given that 70/30 split in public opinion, that may be a very hard sell to a country that's not looking for military intervention in a foreign country that isn't really on most people's radar, maybe inside--

RAJU: And why? Guess why? They have not explained their rationale for this in any real significant way that you'd see in other Trump beats to a military conflict. BASH: All right. We're going to have to sneak in a quick break. Coming up. More prosecutors, more problems for the Trump Justice Department. Why a federal judge disqualified another one of President Trump's hand-picked U.S. attorneys, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[12:25:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BASH: We're following a developing story involving yet another one of President Trump's U.S. attorneys. A federal appeals court ruled that Alina Habba, the president's former personal attorney, is unlawfully serving as the U.S. attorney in New Jersey. It's the same reason a federal judge in Virginia dismissed the Justice Department's cases against James Comey and Letitia James.

CNN's Katelyn Polantz is following the story. Seeing a pattern here, Katelyn?

KATELYN POLANTZ, CNN CRIME AND JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: There is a bit of a pattern. The big picture is that the appeals court today, now this is appeals court that only applies to Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey and the U.S. Virgin Islands, of course. What they are saying is that the Justice Department, Trump administration, they can't do a run around of Congress if there's somebody that is nominated to one of these U.S. attorney positions and then doesn't get confirmed by the Senate. That's what happened with Habba.

Then the Trump administration tried to stick her in through sort of the back door, the career door of that U.S. attorney's office, to elevate her into the role, they said, that's not right. With Lindsey Halligan and some others, there's different circumstances. But the message is clear, you can't just give someone the authority to be the U.S. attorney, because you want them to be in that job. You actually have to go through the process of having congressional approval for people like this.

BASH: So, Alina Habba, people who were tuned in during the president's trials when he was facing particularly in New York, when he was facing personal troubles. They were very familiar with her because she came out, and she talked to the cameras a lot.

POLANTZ: Yeah.

BASH: What do we think is going to happen next there?

POLANTZ: Well, now we have to wait and see exactly what the Justice Department does. Do they appeal again. They have that possibility to go either to the full Third Circuit Court of Appeals. This was three judges in unanimity here, saying that she cannot be the acting U.S. attorney in this manner. They can go to the supreme court next.

Right now, she's going to be disqualified from overseeing two criminal cases where they had protested, and Abbe Lowell, who argued this for these criminal defendants, said that they're going to continue challenging Trump's unlawful appointments of these U.S. attorney appointees. He also is one of the people challenging Lindsey Halligan in the Eastern District of Virginia, though there's no appeal there.

But there's a lot going on here, and it also wasn't a great week for Lindsey -- sorry for Alina Habba. And that she also was just sanctioned, and the federal appeals court upheld a sanction for her being an attorney for Trump in a civil case where he tried to sue Hillary Clinton and a lot of other people. So, what happens next? How far the administration goes to protect people like her and Lindsey Halligan still a question on the table. We have to watch and see the filings. Here we go.

BASH: I will say during the break, we were dorking out about the system kind of working, checks and balances, working their magic, and this is one of those -- one of those moments. Thanks, Katelyn.

POLANTZ: I love working out with you.

BASH: Nothing better. Up next, Venezuela. And what the U.S. plans to do in South America, particularly that nation. And that question is really fueling a fissure inside of MAGA. I'm going to talk to a Republican congresswoman who says, quote, we need to go in. Stay with us.