Return to Transcripts main page
One World with Zain Asher
International Court Issues Arrest warrants For Netanyahu And Gallant; Ukraine: Assessing Exact Type Of Missile Launched On Dnipro; Republicans On Ethics Committee Vote To Block Gaetz Report; Report Details Graphic Sex Assault Allegation Against Hegseth; Matt Gaetz Says He's Withdrawing Attorney General Nomination; Putin Comments On Ballistic Missile Attack; Aired 12:00-1:00p ET
Aired November 21, 2024 - 12:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[12:00:28]
OMAR JIMENEZ, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Joining the likes of Putin, Gaddafi, and al-Bashir, Benjamin Netanyahu is now the target of an arrest
warrant from the International Criminal Court. ONE WORLD starts right now.
Starvation as a method of warfare. We're going to run down the ICC's case against Benjamin Netanyahu and his defense minister.
Also ahead, aerial escalation. Why Ukraine suspects Russia hit them with an ICBM for the first time.
And later, you might know her face, but you definitely know her voice. The end of an era for the Simpsons.
All right. Live from New York, I'm Omar Jimenez. Zain and Bianna are off today. You're watching ONE WORLD.
We begin with significant developments in the Middle East. The International Criminal Court has issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime
Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant.
Now, it's accusing them of war crimes in Gaza, including, quote, starvation as a method of warfare.
Now, a warrant was also issued for a top Hamas commander known as Mohammed Deif, who is believed to have been killed in an Israeli airstrike.
The Israeli Prime Minister's Office dismissed the warrants as, quote, absurd and anti-Semitic.
CNN's Nic Robertson joins us now live from Jerusalem. So, Nic, let's just start with the basics here. How significant is this move by the ICC? What
does it mean practically?
NIC ROBERTSON, CNN INTERNATIONAL DIPLOMATIC EDITOR: Massive. It's very significant. It piles international -- huge international pressure on Prime
Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his government.
It might not make a lot of difference internally in the country, but it certainly potentially can make it difficult for the Prime Minister to
travel around the world. These international arrest warrants, one for war crimes, one for crimes against humanity.
And the war crimes, as you said, they're using starvation as a method of war. Their crimes against humanity for murder for persecution and other
inhumane acts. These are very, very serious charges.
The only other sort of people who've senior leaders who've had these sorts of charges are people like Omar Bashir in Sudan, Vladimir Putin in Russia.
So this is not something that ever happens to leaders of democratic countries. And that's why we're hearing a lot of pushback from the ship
here. The former defense minister is also faces these charges, says that this undermines the country's right to self-defense. This puts Israel, he
said, on a level with Hamas, whose attacks, brutal attacks on October the 7th last year, killing 1,200, more than 1,200 Israelis and taking into
kidnapping 250 others, was the reason Israel then began attacking Hamas and everything that we've seen happen, almost 44,000 people killed in Gaza.
[12:05:32]
So this is the international community, through the ICC, taking a legal approach and holding -- trying to hold the prime minister and his former
defense minister to account.
There are 124 countries that are signatory to the Rome Statute. And that means if the prime minister or defense minister land in any one of those
countries, those countries, could be the U.K., could be France, could be Germany, many others, are obligated to turn them over to the ICC.
Now, the United States, India, for example, are not signatories to the -- to the Rome Statute, but China is. So you can began to see this picture of
how it actually physically affects internationally on the world stage how the Prime Minister of Israel can function and interact with other world
leaders effectively.
JIMENEZ: And we are already starting to see some of these member states respond. Argentina, for example, has rejected the International Criminal
Court decision to issue a warrant. So we'll keep -- arrest warrants. So we'll keep an eye on some of these other countries as well.
Nic Robertson, really appreciate the reporting.
Now, meanwhile, Russia appears to be upping the stakes in its war on Ukraine. Ukraine's military says it is now assessing whether Russia fired
an intercontinental ballistic missile during a morning attack on Dnipro.
Now, this video shared widely. We're going to show it to you here, shared widely on social media. You see the flashes there, appear to show the
moment of impact. We haven't been able to geo-locate it just yet, but it appears consistent with other footage that has emerged since the strike.
The Ukrainian emergency service also shared these photos of firefighters battling a blaze following the air attack. Ukraine says the weapon had the
characteristics of an ICBM.
One Western official says, though, it was ballistic, but not an ICBM. The Kremlin isn't commenting.
Following the attack, the Ukrainian president had this to say.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
VOLODYMYR ZELENSKYY, UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT: Today, our crazy neighbor has once again shown who he really is and how he despises dignity, freedom, and
human life, in general. And how afraid he is. He is also so afraid that he is already using new missiles.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
JIMENEZ: And CNN's Nick Paton Walsh is in Kyiv for us. Here's what he had to say about the attack earlier.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
NICK PATON WALSH, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: Zelenskyy has said the speed, the trajectory suggests the altitude suggests that this
was an intercontinental ballistic missile and his air force has been more explicit directly suggesting that.
A Western official speaking on the sidelines of a summit in Southeast Asia has hinted that this may not have been an intercontinental ballistic
missile, just a ballistic missile. There's semantics here, the capability, the range, how long it actually ended up being fired.
Ultimately though, I think what appears to have happened here is Russia has used a new type of missile in this particular attack. Their bid, as I say,
of showing that there's more in their arsenal than they've used yet.
I should point out this obviously had a conventional payload upon it, but much of the arsenal it might be reaching towards are delivery devices that
may also contain or may be designed to transport nuclear warheads.
No suggestion that's the case, but that's sort of the subtext potentially of them reaching into ballistic missiles of this particular nature.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
JIMENEZ: I want to bring in CNN Pentagon correspondent, Oren Liebermann. Because as I understand, you're getting some new descriptors on what was
actually used here?
OREN LIEBERMANN, CNN PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: We are now hearing from the U.S. weighing in on this where officials say this was an experimental,
medium-range ballistic missile. So not as Ukraine has initially claimed an intercontinental ballistic missile, an ICBM, but an experimental
intermediate-range ballistic missile.
Now, the difference here may not be all that significant. It's purely the range of the missile itself. It doesn't describe the capability of the
missile or what it's able to do.
The U.S. now coming out and saying, they were aware that Russia might be firing this type of missile. Although the U.S. has not identified
specifically the type of missile used.
And in recent days, they have briefed not only Ukraine, but on close partners and allies about the potential Russian use of this missile.
Now, the U.S. official we've spoken with says, Russia doesn't have a lot of these missiles, describing it as quote only a handful. So there isn't some
unlimited supply of this new experimental type of missile, but it obviously is very significant.
The official does not, however, that Russia -- rather that Ukraine has withstood powerful assaults before, including from missiles with larger
warheads. So this isn't the most powerful weapon we have seen used against Ukraine. As we just heard Nick Paton Walsh point out, this was obviously
conventionally armed.
[12:10:09]
Now, the U.S. official wouldn't say what other more powerful weapons Russia has used, but that may be a reference to the one and a half ton aerial
glide bombs that Russia has been launching against Ukraine for months that has devastated Ukrainian air defenses and cities.
Regardless, however, the U.S. does see this as an escalation, a new type of weapon introduced into the battlefield used by Russian forces. This wasn't
the only missile in the attack. Ukraine also saying that Kinzhal ballistic missiles were used, as were a number of cruise missiles in this attack on
the city of Dnipro here.
The U.S. insisting it will continue to supply Ukraine with air defenses and we saw just another military aid package announced yesterday. But clearly,
there is a need and the U.S. is very well aware of this for more of the types of weapons, missiles, and capabilities that are able to intercept
these sorts of attacks that are having a devastating effect across Ukraine.
Some of the latest decisions by the U.S. are trying to stem slow, gradual, brutal Russian advances. For example, allowing Ukraine to use its own U.S.-
made long-range missiles against Russia and approving the transfer of anti- personnel mines to Ukraine.
This just gives you a sense, Omar, of the difficulties on the battlefield, the challenges Ukraine faces, and the U.S. doing as much as it can right
now to sort of put Ukraine in as strong a position as possible, and Russia coming right back with their own escalatory steps in response.
JIMENEZ: Past the thousand days of the war now. Oren Liebermann at the Pentagon, thank you so much.
Joining me now is Malcolm Davis. He's a senior analyst at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute. And he joins us now from London. Thanks for
taking the time. Really appreciate you being here.
I want to start where we just left off there, where, look, Ukraine is accusing Russia of launching ICBMs here. We're hearing it was an
experimental medium-range ballistic missile, not an ICBM. Lots of missile types being thrown around in recent days.
But should the range be as much focused as, say, the payload? I wonder how you -- how you see some of these latest developments.
MALCOLM DAVIS, MILITARY ANALYST, AUSTRALIAN STRATEGIC POLICY INSTITUTE: Well, look, I think the concern, the reason why everyone is getting so
focused on this is because when people talk about ICBMs, they are talking about missiles carrying nuclear weapons.
And so if Russia had used an ICBM, many would say, well, that's a signal that it's hinting that it could be prepared to use nuclear weapons.
In this instance, it hasn't used an ICBM. I think the consensus view is that it's used either some sort of intermediate range ballistic missile
called an RS-26 or as your report was saying, the Pentagon is now saying some sort of experimental medium range ballistic missile.
Once again, both of these types of missiles can carry nuclear weapons, but on this particular instance, they were carrying some sort of conventional
weapon. And I think it demonstrates a willingness on the part of Russia to escalate in terms of bringing new weapons to the floor that can maybe have
great capability against the Ukrainian.
JIMENEZ: And I think. We just lost your signal. Tell me -- oh, you're back. All right. We got you. We got you back. We got you back. You're here.
DAVIS: Yes.
JIMENEZ: I missed the last part of your question, but maybe you can fold it in -- of your answer. Maybe you can fold it into this question because the
last I heard was about talking about the recent wave of escalation. And part of what's been caught up in this cycle is, you know, the Biden
administration recently approved sending anti-personnel mines to Ukraine for the first time. At least the defense secretary of the United States
confirmed. That's after the U.S. gave Ukraine permission to fire long range or longer range U.S. missiles at targets in Russia.
So outside of just this recent barrage of missiles, I mean, how do you interpret the United States posturing here over the past few weeks?
DAVIS: One of desperate urgency in the sense that they're recognizing time is short. The Trump administration is coming along. And so the Biden
administration is trying to do a time to take actions that can shore up Ukrainian defenses. That's the reason why the Biden administration has
eased the constraints on the use of ATACMS and also Storm Shadow.
But I think they recognize that time is not their friend. And once Trump becomes president, it's completely unknown as to how the situation would
change.
JIMENEZ: And let's pick up there, because, you know, the United States just announced another $275 million in a military aid package to Ukraine,
including air defense missiles and other weapons, likely because of understanding the time frame that's pretty short at this point.
How significant do you anticipate -- I mean, how significant could a change, I guess, in money given by the United States, have on the ground in
Ukraine?
DAVIS: In the short term, not much --
JIMENEZ: Yes.
DAVIS: -- because it does take time to translate any military aid into actual operational tactical capability that has an impact on the
battlefield.
[12:15:07]
So I think time is running out for the Americans and for the West to actually shape the situation in Ukraine's favor. They can certainly release
the constraints on Storm Shadow and ATACMS and Scalp and the Ukrainians can use those weapons but they don't have a lot of weapons.
In terms of aid, providing aid to the Ukrainians in terms of money is not going to have an immediate effect on the battlefield. So the Ukrainians are
very much in a hard place now. And, you know, time is running out for them because once Trump becomes president, it really is uncertain as to whether
the U.S. support will continue.
JIMENEZ: And we had already seen some cracks of pressure within, especially Republican members of Capitol Hill, which helps appropriate some of these
funds. You mentioned ATACMS, you know, Army Tactical Missile Systems, and, you know, the United States had refused to provide them, even for the first
two years of the war., obviously that's changed in recent days.
Why do you think that was the case? And do you think that was the right move?
DAVIS: I think the reason why there was this unwillingness on the part of the U.S. to do more than token gestures of military support was fear of
escalation. Ukraine is being confronted by a nuclear armed Russia that is demonstrating a very aggressive intent, a very expansionist intent. And the
Biden administration has been right through this war, has been paralyzed by fear of escalation into a nuclear war.
So today's events with the launch of that missile that everyone thought might be an ICBM, but maybe it's not an ICBM, has probably compounded that
fear, that risk of escalation.
And I think that this is a problem that the Biden administration has allowed itself to be deterred by Russia through Russia's use of nuclear
saber-rattling, through use of Russia's threats of -- through use of nuclear weapons.
It hasn't deterred Russia. It's been deterred by Russia. So this is a real challenge for the Biden administration.
JIMENEZ: Malcolm Davis in London, I really appreciate the perspective. Thanks for being here.
DAVIS: Thank you.
JIMENEZ: All right. Still to come, CNN obtains a police report with really disturbing allegations against Donald Trump's pick to head the Defense
Department. We're going to have those details straight ahead.
And later, look at why so many of Donald Trump's cabinet picks are people he got to know by watching them on T.V.
Plus, something nearly all Americans can be grateful for. A top grocer says your favorite fixins this Thanksgiving can be the cheapest meal you'll have
all year. Details straight ahead.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[12:20:17]
JIMENEZ: A little drama on Capitol Hill, maybe an evergreen statement. Republicans on the House Ethics Committee have blocked, for now, the
release of a report on Matt Gaetz, Donald Trump's pick to run the Department of Justice.
Now, the report looked into allegations of drug use and sexual misconduct by Gaetz. The committee will meet again in early December to decide what to
do next. Gaetz has denied any wrongdoing here.
In the meantime, Democrats are trying to force the entire House to vote on making the report public. As for Gaetz, he says he is focused on convincing
senators he should be America's next attorney general.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MATT GAETZ, FORMER UNITED STATES REPRESENTATIVE: It's been going great. The senators have been giving me a lot of good advice. I'm looking forward to
the hearing. Folks have been very supportive. They've been saying we're going to get a fair process.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The ethics committee said they're not going to release the report after their meeting today, at least at this point, any response?
GAETZ: I'll be honest with you, I've been focused on what we got to do to reform the Department of Justice.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
JIMENEZ: Now Donald Trump's pick to lead the Defense Department is on Capitol Hill today to meet with senators, but Democrats are raising
questions about Pete Hegseth's qualifications for the job.
Now he has served in the military and was a commentator on Fox News, but doesn't really have much organizational or executive background.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. TAMMY DUCKWORTH (D-IL): He's not qualified. The Defense -- the Department of Defense is over three million soldiers and civilian
employees. I'm going to ask him, what is the largest organization you've ever led? What is the largest budget you've ever led? We're talking about a
defense budget that is over $920 billion.
You know, he was a platoon leader. He has no experience running a large organization of any sort.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
JIMENEZ: Now, CNN has also obtained a police report that details an allegation that Hegseth sexually assaulted a woman in 2017. The woman told
police Hegseth physically blocked her from leaving a hotel room and then forced himself on her despite her numerous protests.
Now Hegseth says, the encounter was consensual, but he later paid the woman to keep the incident confidential.
I want to bring in CNN political reporter Sara Murray with a closer look at all this. So, Sara, what is the latest that we're learning, especially on
that incident, on that alleged incident out of California?
SARA MURRAY, CNN POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes. Well, this police report really details the competing narratives around what happened this night in
October of 2017 in California around a Republican women's conference.
And the woman's account she's referred to as Jane Doe throughout the police reports she says, Hegseth was giving off a creeper vibe during the
conference that they were attending. She said she ended up in a strange hotel room.
And when she was there, Hegseth took her phone from her hands. He blocked the door with his body. And she said she remembered saying no a lot. But
there was a lot that she couldn't recall. She said at one point, you know, maybe someone slipped something into her drink. But there were other
eyewitnesses police talked to who said she seemed sober. She seemed to have her faculties about her as the night went on.
There were also competing accounts of what happened earlier in the evening when she encountered Hegseth at a hotel bar. There was one person who said
that she showed up and sort of was an intermediary between a woman Hegseth was hitting on, who wasn't interested in him. And so she intervened.
Another person said, though, she saw this woman, Jane Doe, and another person flirting with Hegseth.
Now, eventually, a couple of days after the incident occurred in this hotel room, the woman, Jane Doe, decided she wanted to seek medical care. There
was a rape kit. And the nurse was ultimately the one who reported this to authorities.
Now, all of this is very different from the account that Pete Hegseth gave authorities. He said that these were two consenting adults having sexual
intercourse. He described, he said, there was always conversation and always consensual conduct when the two of them were in the hotel room.
He said he and Jane Doe discussed the fact that she was married and she said she would tell her husband she had just fallen asleep on a couch in
someone else's room. And he said that she showed early signs of regret, although he didn't explain what those signs were.
Now, his attorney is insisting that he did nothing wrong. Timothy Parlatore told CNN this police report confirms what I've said all along, that the
incident was fully investigated. Police found the allegations to be false and this is why no charges were filed.
Now, Hegseth is on the Hill today. He just told reporters essentially the same thing. This was investigated and he was cleared.
We should know what we do and don't know from this police report, though. The police report doesn't say that this woman's allegations are false. And
we're still missing evidence, including the surveillance video, including a memo from the DA's office that could shed light on why they ultimately
decided not to pursue any charges in this case.
Now, as for this woman, again, who we're referring to as Jane Doe, CNN caught up with her last week. She declined to comment when our team asked
her about this incident. She broke down in tears, Omar.
JIMENEZ: Sara Murray, really appreciate the reporting.
[12:25:02]
I want to get more on the road ahead for several of Trump's cabinet picks. Joining me now is CNN political commentator and Republican strategist,
Shermichael Singleton. Good to see you.
I want to start where Sara left off there, because, you know, Peter Hegseth, he's on Capitol Hill today meeting with senators, likely some of
the very same, who will be put in a position to either confirm or deny his appointment at some point.
I wonder how much of an impact do you think some of this latest reporting will have on their perceptions of Hegseth.
SHERMICHAEL SINGLETON, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Look, I think if we're to base our judgment off of Sarah's reporting, without the DA's memo, one
could argue that this is a he said, she said incident.
But I think that memo will certainly shed some light on what -- why the district attorney in that particular locality decided not to move forward
with charges. Was it because of a lack of evidence? Was it because they believed it was consensual as Pete alleges? I mean, there are some
questions that we just frankly don't know.
And so if you're a senator and you're looking at this, you're thinking, well, I mean, it's troublesome for sure, but you don't have enough details
to really make a clear delineation whether or not you're going to believe Pete or you're going to believe the alleged victim.
And so as a result of that lack of detail, I'm not exactly certain that it would prohibit Republican senators from moving forward with their support.
JIMENEZ: And, you know, we've also heard from, I think, Senator Thom Tillis, Republican, who said that as Hegseth faces his scrutiny, Matt Gaetz
also facing his own set, which we'll talk about in a second.
But he believes that Donald Trump's team should be doing more vetting of their choices for roles in his administration. Do you agree with that? Or
are you satisfied so far with sort of what we have seen appointment-wise and then sort of what we've learned afterward?
SINGLETON: No. I think that's a fair statement. Look, some of the appointments I think are really, really great. Senator Marco Rubio, Elise
Stefanik, there are a litany of others that I also think, Doug Burgum, he's another good choice.
There are some solid choices who I think would do a great job in their roles once confirmed by the Senate. But I do take the Senator's point.
Look, I used to be an opposition researcher, Omar. And one of the first things that you would do as an opposition researcher when a client would
hire the firm that I worked for at the time, you would create an oppo book on the client. You would make sure that the senator or the congressman or
the governor didn't have any skeletons in their closet, if you will, that the team wasn't aware of, that they weren't hiding.
And if you did discover something, then you would give that information to their team so that they could create a response effort in case said issues
were to come up during their candidacy or maybe even after the fact. You just don't ever want to be caught off guard.
And so at this point, from what I am hearing, they are beginning to do things a little differently. The team is doing their due diligence. They're
looking into people's backgrounds. They're making sure that there isn't anything that could come out that could potentially embarrass the
president-elect during these hearings before the various committees.
Donald Trump, he believes he has a mandate. I would argue that he has a mandate. He won. He performed better this time around than 2020. And so you
want to be able to go in once he's ultimately sworn in.
Hitting day one hard, the first 90 days, focusing on the economy, focus on immigration. And you really don't want anything, if you're an advisor to
the president-elect, to potentially diminish or damage his political capacity and political capital that he has going into his first couple of
days in the White House.
So I guess in some ways, if I'm hearing you correctly, strategically, it may be even more advantageous to have some of these fights before he
actually takes office as opposed to --
SINGLETON: Oh, yes.
JIMENEZ: Yes. Yes, yes. You know --
SINGLETON: You want to get it out of the way, Omar. And again, the last thing you want -- you don't want a delayed process, right? Like let's say
you get half of the nominees confirmed.
JIMENEZ: Who?
SINGLETON: You have something called a beachhead team. I was a part of a beachhead team in 2016 with Trump One. And the beachhead teams are
essentially temporary political appointees. You go and you sort of run the agencies until the nominees are confirmed.
You don't want those individuals fulfilling those rules past three, four months, six at worst, right? And so if you can try to get everybody
confirmed as quickly as possible so that those cabinet secretaries can lead the agencies, that is the ideal scenario.
JIMENEZ: And, Shermichael, I just want to jump in here with some breaking news, because it's very relevant to this.
So Matt Gaetz just put out a statement saying he had excellent meetings with senators today, that he appreciates their thoughtful feedback. And
while the momentum was strong, it is clear that my confirmation was unfairly becoming a distraction to the critical work of the Trump-Vance
transition. There is no time to waste on a needlessly protracted Washington scuffle. I will be withdrawing my name from consideration to serve as
attorney general. Trump's DOJ must be in place and ready on day one.
[12:30:02]
I know we're just reading that to you live. We just got it a few seconds ago here. Are you surprised that we got to this point?
SINGLETON: I am not surprised. I mean, I've been on air since some of these names have come out and the biggest questions that I've been asked, whether
it's about Pete, whether it's about Tulsi Gabbard, who I -- who I know personally, it's really been about Matthew Gaetz.
Shermichael, can Matthew Gaetz get confirmed? And as you started to see even some very conservative sort of ardent Trump supporters in the Senate
come out and say, well, wait a minute. I want to see that ethics report.
I have a lot of friends on Capitol Hill on the House side and the Senate side, working for members, working for various committees. And the former
congressman just doesn't have a lot of friends, if I'm being honest, Omar, on Capitol Hill. So it was always a bridge, I would argue that perhaps, or
a mountain that would have been too high or too steep for him to climb.
And so I think he made the right decision. But, Omar, this goes back to that question you asked me moments ago and to the answer that I was giving.
You don't want to expend this much political capital this early when you've won an election.
There are so many exciting things that you want your president, your principal to be able to focus on. There's so many exciting things you want
the cabinet secretaries to be able to focus on. There are a lot of different regulations that they may want to reverse as instructed by the
executive.
This is a significant distraction. And so I think the former congressman made the right decision. It now gives the transition team the opportunity
to look at other names, to vet those other names well, give them to the president-elect with the greatest amount of information possible so that he
can select someone else.
JIMENEZ: And so on that point as well, you know, you and I have talked about this before on air as well, and that what some of the supporters who
wanted Matt Gaetz in this position said, well, look, you have someone like Merrick Garland, head of the DOJ, and this -- and they weren't satisfied
with how the DOJ has practiced over the last few years. Why not shake things up?
And so now you have an opportunity for a fresh start here, so to speak, and a search for another attorney general nomination here. What are you looking
for?
Because if -- I don't want to misquote you, but I do remember our conversation. You were in favor of shaking things up a little bit. So where
do you start here?
SINGLETON: So look, if I'm advising the president-elect, if I was a part of the team, understanding the premise of his argument, which is after his
experiences with DOJ, and look, I know a lot of my democratic friends would have some critique about the premise of the argument, but the premise of
the argument is pretty simple. Prosecutors have too much discretion, too much influence, too much power.
And I think, regardless of your thoughts about Donald Trump, I think there is validity, writ large for the most part, Omar, to that critique of the
problem, to that critique of DOJ in general.
So I'm saying, Mr. President, let us find someone with perhaps some institutional experience and knowledge of the DOJ, maybe someone who knows
where changes should actually be made. Maybe someone who understands if I'm going to make certain changes, maybe you can merge certain departments
together. Maybe certain departments can be smaller. Maybe you are going to change the level of influence by giving decrees to certain divisions within
DOJ because you want to minimize that access or that over access, I should say, of discretion that many would say that some of these federal
prosecutors have.
That would be my best advice to the president-elect in order to move or bring to fruition his critique of the problem, which again, I think a lot
of Americans, regardless of their thoughts of him, will probably say, you know what, I think he has a fair point. We should make some changes, but
you want someone with the experience and the knowledge who could actually bring those -- that change, if you will, into fruition.
JIMENEZ: Shermichael, stay with me for a quick second here. I want to bring in our senior crime and justice reporter, Katelyn Polantz.
Katelyn, obviously, pretty significant news here. How did we get to this point?
KATELYN POLANTZ, CNN CRIME AND JUSTICE REPORTER: Well, this has been a very quick and very intense nomination or intended nomination of Matt Gaetz to
be attorney general that has now ended with him saying he's withdrawing.
We got to this point because it has been known for some time that Matt Gaetz was under criminal investigation, at one point in time, was not
ultimately charged with any crimes, but that was related to sex trafficking of a 17-year-old girl at the time, an underage girl, a minor.
And then that criminal investigation was then something that was picked up by the House Ethics Committee and looked into. And that there was witness
testimony about this. And our colleagues here at CNN just broke a story, Sarah Ferris and Paula Reid, reporting that the House Ethics Committee, not
only was looking into these allegations of sex trafficking that the FBI had previously looked into, they also heard from this woman saying that there
were two sexual encounters that she had with Gaetz whenever she was 17 years old.
[12:35:17]
That was how things were evolving and at the same time we were waiting to see what the House Ethics Committee was going to do. They were the people.
They were the committee on Capitol Hill in Washington that had the most viable and possible documentation of what is known about Matt Gaetz and his
history with this underage girl and all of the investigations around that, all of the testimony, all of the documentation.
They were the ones that had the documents nearly together. And that House Ethics Committee was going to meet again December 5th to decide on what to
do with this final report.
But there's a lot of documentation around it. It isn't just an investigation the House Ethics Committee did. There's also documentation of
what the FBI's work around Matt Gaetz was, what they had been finding. There's a lawsuit seeking the FBI files on Matt Gaetz.
And so there were so many questions about the history of this congressman being put in the position of potentially becoming attorney general, the top
law enforcement official in the United States.
And that's even aside from the fact that the legal community in Washington, across the country was in disbelief that someone like Matt Gaetz, who had
extremely little time spent practicing as a lawyer, have been under investigation himself that he would be placed in charge of such a crucial
department that administers the rule of law across the United States.
So all of this broke down very surprisingly today with Gaetz withdrawing his nomination and as the heat has been on since the moment Donald Trump
picked him.
JIMENEZ: And, Katelyn, just quickly on that -- on that last point, because when he was first announced, there was reporting that we had that there was
reaction within the Justice Department from some employees who really were shocked.
I think one, there was some quote from a source hearing audible cries of, oh, my God, echoing down the hallway inside DOJ headquarters in some cases.
All that aside, you have a clean slate here for expecting a nomination to come forward.
Do we have any sense sort of why DOJ employees were so shocked in some cases at the announcement of Matt Gaetz and whether some of those shocks
may be essentially put to the side with the potential of a new nomination coming?
POLANTZ: Yes. So one of the things that caused so many people in the legal community, in the Justice Department, in U.S. Attorney's Office to be, so
shocked and in disbelief of Gaetz as a nominee, is that he has spent much of his time in Congress attacking that very department that Donald Trump
was asking him to lead, being publicly in opposition to cases that were brought through grand juries, through the court system, cheering on the
judge's dismissal of the Justice Department's work on the classified documents investigation into Donald Trump.
Not saying publicly that he didn't believe January 6 was an insurrection when there are many, many people in that situation, in the Capitol riot,
who were violent toward police, in that mob.
And so this is somebody who had positioned themselves as so opposite to what the career officials, the career employees of the department are
doing, the type of work they're doing every day in courts, that they want to maintain credibility.
So they were shocked because this was not somebody that they viewed as being on the side of the department.
And then on top of that, it just was a lot of disbelief given that he has never been a prosecutor before. You don't have to be a former prosecutor to
become attorney general, but it sure helps to understand how that department does its work. A lot of which is not political in nature, it's
about going before judges and arguing in courtrooms to enforce the federal law around the country.
JIMENEZ: Katelyn Polantz, Shermichael Singleton, stick around. I got to squeeze in a quick break. And I'll bring you back in, Shermichael, on the
other side of it. Everyone, stick around.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[12:40:47]
JIMENEZ: All right, everyone, welcome back. If you're just joining us, Matt Gaetz, the former Florida congressman and appointee for attorney general by
President-elect Donald Trump, has announced he is withdrawing from consideration for the position.
He just announced saying, I had excellent meetings with senators yesterday. I appreciate their thoughtful feedback and the incredible support of so
many. It goes on to say that his confirmation was unfairly becoming a distraction to the work of the Trump-Vance transition. And because of that
he will be withdrawing his name from consideration to serve as attorney general. Trump's DOJ must be in place and ready on day one.
He does also say he remains fully committed to see that Donald Trump is the most successful president in history.
Joining me now is CNN political commentator and Republican strategist, Shermichael Singleton. You've been with us since we got this breaking news.
And, you know, one of the things that you had talked about, you said you'd done work in opposition research before. You try to get ahead of these
things. You try to find sort of, OK, what controversy might pop up? What might senators ask about in a confirmation process in this context as well?
We have a new reporting that's from some of our colleagues that the woman who says she had sex when she was a minor with then-Rep. Matt Gaetz told
the House Ethics Committee she had two sexual encounters with him at a party in 2017, according to sources familiar with her testimony.
So as we sort of get these drip, drip, drip details from this alleged incident, I mean, what sort of conversations do you have if you're on a
team that was responsible for oppo research or whatever, seeing this type of news drip out?
SINGLETON: I mean, obviously, the oppo research either didn't occur or it wasn't very thorough. Because again, when you're doing that oppo book on,
let's say a nominee, right, or potential nominee, and you're listing all of the potential concerns and net negatives, knowing what's already out there
on the former congressman as it pertains to those investigations.
Whether they went anywhere or not, I'm focusing all of my attention there because you want to be able to give to the principle, the president-elect,
right, the opportunity to know, wait a minute here, if we put out there that we're going with this particular individual, this could potentially
come out. It could derail this. It could be embarrassing.
[12:45:06]
Then you also have to think about the Republican senators. You want to protect them being members of your party.
The last thing you want is for Republicans to go on record saying, we're going to back this person. And the Ethics Committee will say, you know
what, we're not going to release this report to anyone. And then someone leaks it anyway.
And now you have Republican senators having to go on the record to defend. Well, why would you vote for someone with these types of allegations out
there against him, against a minor? Are you okay with that?
I mean, so there are a litany of variables here, Omar, that as an oppo researcher, you try to calculate for, you try to predict, you try to plan
so that you can give the principal the best advice forward.
And what we know now, I probably would have said, Mr. President, I'm just not certain this is the best name to move forward. Let's look elsewhere.
There are just too many uncontrollable factors here that we just can't predict or plan for.
JIMENEZ: And look, politically speaking, there may be some advantages here because obviously this is happening now, well before any confirmation
hearings as opposed --
SINGLETON: Yes.
JIMENEZ: -- to this all coming out during that.
I think it's fair to say that many did not think that Matt Gaetz was the strongest attorney general pick. He did have his fans. I think that's also
fair to say.
But just talk to me a little bit about the timing of this happening and the potential advantages politically it provides the president-elect that this
is all happening now as opposed to some advanced stage.
SINGLETON: I mean, look, you have the holidays coming up next week, then Christmas, then New Year's, have the opportunity to find someone else. And
we were just talking about this before Katelyn joined us.
I'm almost certain, Omar, that the team around the president-elect have other names. I'm almost certain of that. And my hope is that they will have
done or they're currently doing that thorough research and background check on each of these individuals.
After the holidays, people will have moved on. They will be thinking about other things. So you have an opportunity to not have a complete reset, but
somewhat of a reset with a new name.
And again, if I'm looking at a new name to what we were talking about earlier before, I'm looking for someone with the institutional knowledge,
with the legal experience, to change the agency in the way that the president-elect would like to see it occur.
You can still move forward with his agenda, if you will, with a far more experienced individual who would receive the support of Republicans and
maybe even receive some support from some Democrats, at least making it out of committee.
JIMENEZ: We will see. That's -- it's been -- it's been proven to be a tall task these days, but we will see what happens depending on the names that
come out.
Katelyn, I want to bring you on one point here, because -- I mean, do we have any more of a sense as to why this ended up happening the way that it
did?
POLANTZ: Yes. I mean, we're already starting to hear from Republican senators saying, yes, this was the right thing to happen. And what that
comes down to is it surely looks like perhaps Gaetz was not going to get enough votes in the Senate to be confirmed.
JIMENEZ: Trump just posted on Truth Social.
POLANTZ: Oh, yes. Yes. I am seeing that as well. Donald Trump's posting on Truth Social saying, I greatly appreciate the recent efforts of Matt Gaetz
in seeking approval to be attorney general. He was doing very well, but at the same time did not want to be a distraction for the administration, for
which he has much respect. Matt has a wonderful future and I look forward to watching all the great things he will do.
So Trump's saying, OK, let's let him go. He don't want him to be a distraction. Gaetz posting that this was a needlessly protracted
Washington's scuffle he was facing.
And what you're seeing come together here in real time, Omar, is the balance of powers. The power of the Senate to look at nominations that even
a president of their own party is putting forward and decide whether that is the correct person in these types of positions.
There had been discussion before with the Senate, even if they didn't have the votes, just decide to recess and allow Trump to put these people in,
those are conversations we were beginning to have from the moment, essentially, Matt Gaetz was acknowledged as Trump's pick for this job.
But it certainly looks right now that there were Republican senators who just weren't going to be on board with Gaetz as attorney general, that he
was on the Hill this week. And it just wasn't a nomination that even if Donald Trump desperately wanted him as his top pick for any cabinet
position, it wasn't going to happen.
JIMENEZ: And it seems like a source familiar with the situation told our colleague Pamela Brown that the meetings with senators did appear to go
well, but that eventually it just turned into a math problem. Some of what you laid out there as well.
Senior crime and justice reporter Katelyn Polantz, CNN political commentator and Republican strategist, a lot of words there, Shermichael
Singleton, I really appreciate you both being here with us on this breaking news.
[12:50:09]
For everyone else, we'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
JIMENEZ: All right. More breaking news to you. Russian President Vladimir Putin has just made his first comments on a missile strike on Ukraine,
which had been suspected by Ukraine to be an intercontinental ballistic missile. Now, he refuted that and is identifying the weapon that was used.
Let's bring in CNN Pentagon correspondent Oren Liebermann. All right. Last time we spoke, it was described as an experimental medium-range ballistic
missile. What do we know now?
LIEBERMANN: And that seems very much to be confirmed from Russian president, Vladimir Putin who, as you just saw a second ago, issued the
first televised statement about this attack.
He says it was in response to the use of U.S. and U.K. long-range missiles, those are ATACMS and Storm Shadows, to carry out strikes on Russia.
So after that, Russia used this new type of weapon. Here is part of his statement. He says, and I quote here, in combat conditions, one of the
newest Russian medium-range missile systems was also tested.
In this case, with a ballistic missile, a non-nuclear hypersonic equipment armed missile and then call it Oreshnik. The tests were successful. The
launch goal was achieved.
So he gives there the name of the missile, Oreshnik. We don't yet have confirmation on the exact type of missile, what specific capability it has,
but it confirms first that it was experimental, some sort of new type of missile. You can see some video from what we believe is the missile strike
there near the city of Dnipro.
And then he also says a new type of missile, non-nuclear, and goes on to describe sort of its capabilities. He uses the word hypersonic just about
every ballistic missile is hypersonic, so that doesn't tell us all that much about the missile itself, but it certainly seems to confirm the U.S.
assessment that this is an experimental, medium-range ballistic missile that was used to carry out an attack on the city of Dnipro.
U.S. officials say there isn't a large number of these, according to the U.S. assessment, in the Russian arsenal.
And in addition, Russia has used more powerful weaponry to attack Ukraine in the past, attacks Ukraine has withstood. That being said, this is still
noteworthy certainly as an escalation.
Putin did go on to say that this type of missile is impossible for Ukraine to intercept or stop as it's incoming. We have heard that claim before
coming from the Russians in relation to other weapons they have fired, and yet, we have seen patriot missiles from the U.S. successfully intercept
some of the missiles that Russia had claimed were impossible to do so.
[12:55:06]
So that's certainly worth keeping an eye on here, as well as we wait to learn more about the specific type of missile here, its capabilities, and
then of course what is Ukraine able to do in response.
JIMENEZ: And, of course, this all comes on the tail end of what we've seen the Biden administration approving, sending some anti-personnel mines to
Ukraine. And then, of course, the ATACMS, which you mentioned, that had not been approved prior to recent days at this point.
Oren Liebermann, appreciate the reporting and perspective as always.
For everyone else, we've had a lot of breaking news this hour. I've appreciated you sticking around from Capitol Hill over to Ukraine and even
Israel as well with the latest news out of the ICC.
That does it for this hour of ONE WORLD. I'm Omar Jimenez. Thank you all for watching. "AMANPOUR" is next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
END
