Return to Transcripts main page
One World with Zain Asher
Soon: Luigi Mangione To Arrive In New York; Georgia D.A. Fani Willis Disqualified From Prosecuting Trump; All 51 Men In Pelicot Abuse Case Found Guilty; Funding Deal Scrapped After Trump And Musk Derail Bill; CNN On Gaza Side of Israeli-Controlled Kerem Shalom Crossing; Russian President Holds Annual News Conference In Moscow. Aired 12-1p ET
Aired December 19, 2024 - 12:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[12:00:31]
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is CNN breaking news.
BIANNA GOLODRYGA, CNN ANCHOR: Hi, everyone. Live from New York, I'm Bianna Golodryga. Zain is off today. You are watching ONE WORLD.
And we are following three major legal stories today, from New York to Atlanta to Avignon, France.
We start with accused healthcare CEO killer, Luigi Mangione, who is on a plane right now heading to New York after waving extradition in
Pennsylvania earlier today. That's him that you see getting on the plane there in an orange suit.
Now once in New York, Mangione is expected to appear before a federal judge in Manhattan, where he faces four federal counts including murder through
the use of a firearm and stalking charges in the death of Brian Thompson.
Those charges are in addition to the ones he already faces in New York, including first-degree murder and 11 other charges.
Now, just hours ago, Mangione was led into a black unmarked SUV, clean- shaven and quiet after back-to-back hearings in Pennsylvania. The local prosecutor says Mangione will not face firearm and forgery charges in
Pennsylvania until the charges against him in New York are resolved.
CNN's Brynn Gingras joins us now from the helipad in Manhattan where Mangione is expected to arrive shortly.
Brynn, just walk us through what we can expect to see in the next several hours.
BRYNN GINGRAS, CNN U.S. NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes, Bianna. So we're expecting Mangione, that plane that you talked about, leaving Pennsylvania.
We expect it to land at an airport here in New York. And from then, he's going to be transported in an NYPD helicopter to where we are right now in
the southern part of Manhattan.
And from there, you can probably see behind me, there's a lot of police vehicles, both the NYPD are here, the FBI are here. We know after you just
mentioned the unsealing of that federal indictment that he will eventually be in federal custody.
Not clear if that actually happens at this very moment here at the heliport or once that happens once he's in 500 Pearl Street, which is the main
courthouse where he will eventually face arraignment.
So this is sort of the movement by movement of what is happening with Mangione at the moment. So at this point, we are still waiting for him to
get on that helicopter and then make his way here to the southern part of Manhattan, and then it's just really a short drive to that federal
courthouse.
And like you just said, he is expected to first face those federal charges, those four federal counts of murder through the use of a firearm, two
stalking charges, and a firearms offense.
In addition to that, we know that there is an arraignment at some point as well of those state charges, that indictment that was instilled earlier
this week on Tuesday, those 11 counts, including murder one and murder two.
So the mechanics of all this still sort of being worked out. Who takes precedent? Well, obviously the feds take precedent, but they go first, and
then at what point the state goes, that's still being all worked out.
But certainly, we know that he is in New York momentarily and will be at this heliport making his way to federal courthouse soon. Bianna?
GOLODRYGA: Yes. Fast-moving developments here after Mangione waived extradition earlier this morning.
And as we noted --
GINGRAS: Yes.
GOLODRYGA: -- he is expected to arrive in New York in just a short period of time. Brynn Gingras, you've been covering this for us and will continue
to do so. Thank you so much.
Well, the indictment still stands, but Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis will no longer be prosecuting Georgia's election interference case
against Donald Trump. A state court of appeals disqualified Willis after finding there was, quote, a significant appearance of impropriety over her
relationship with a fellow prosecutor.
Trump and other defendants are accused of crimes related to their efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election in Georgia.
Now, in order for the case to continue, a new special prosecutor would need to be appointed.
CNN's Katelyn Polantz joins me now live from Washington. So in theory, the case is still alive, but what are the -- what's the likelihood at this
point, Katelyn, that this case will indeed move forward with a new prosecutor appointed?
KATELYN POLANTZ, CNN SENIOR CRIME AND JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Moving forward is not something that is happening right now, because of this Georgia court
of appeals ruling.
There are very likely to be additional appeals over whether Fani Willis, the district attorney in Georgia is able to stay on this case, but this is
an abundantly clear sign that this case is backburnered, it is stopping, it is not going to be revived in any time soon as Donald Trump takes the White
House.
Just to highlight this, Trump's own attorney, Steven Sadow, provided a statement that ends this decision puts an end to the politically motivated
persecution of an ex-president of the United States. So their read is, it's over for Donald Trump in Georgia. He will no longer face the charges there
because the removal of Fani Willis takes her out of contention here.
[12:05:11]
We do expect her office to appeal this. And there is another court above the Georgia Court of Appeals, the Georgia Supreme Court, that can look at
this too.
But it's a strong statement from the Court of Appeals in Georgia today, because they are saying what Fani Willis was doing with the top prosecutor
in her office, a man named Nathan Wade, a man she had a relationship with, they went on trips together, that even if she wasn't benefiting from her
relationship with him financially, and even if she wasn't doing things that required her removal at the trial court level, something a trial court
judge looked at and said, she doesn't need to be gone from this case, Georgia Court of Appeals disagreed and said, the significant appearance of
impropriety that Fani Willis has had as the prosecutor on this case is enough, under Georgia law, to require her to step away from it.
So a big win for Donald Trump, as this was the last remaining criminal case that was lingering out there as he entered the presidency that we were
waiting to see exactly what would happen on this issue and what the appeals court would say.
GOLODRYGA: Right, because these were state charges that he could still face as a sitting president. There's no other way to describe it than as you
just did, a big win for Donald Trump.
Katelyn Polantz, thank you so much.
Well, CNN legal analyst Joey Jackson joins us now. A lot to go through, Joey. Let's start with this appeals court disqualifying Fani Willis from
prosecuting that Georgia election interference case against the president- elect now, at the time former president, and overruling the sitting judge in this case.
Do you think they made the right decision here?
JOEY JACKSON, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: So I'll tell you this, Bianna, that'll be an open question subject to debate. But what I can say, it is an unusual
ruling. And let me say why I say it's unusual.
Number one, what they did that is the appellate court in a two to one decision. That's how courts go. The majority prevails. Three Republican
justices, two saying it was in fact the wrong decision by the trial judge not to disqualify. One saying it was perfectly proper.
But here are the two reasons. Number one, they are disqualifying, based upon what is called an appearance, an appearance of a conflict of interest.
Now that is different from an actual conflict of interest. Well, what's the difference?
The difference is just as you would note it in layman's terms, because of this financial arrangement, she hires her boyfriend, there was the, right,
the indication that because of the hiring that she was profiting financially. Now the judge ruling it, you know, while that could be an
appearance of impropriety in bad judgment, it certainly is not an actual conflict of interest, right?
So, usually, and they say this in the ruling, the dissent does, over 43 years, there's not been on the appearance of impropriety a
disqualification, that's number one.
Number two, an appellate court usually doesn't sit in all -- in every judgment, right, doesn't review the entire judgment that a trial court
makes. They look for whether there's what's called an abuse of discretion. That means that the discretion that you exercise as a trial of lower judge,
was it so improper as to require a reversal. And they say, yes, it was. This is a unique case.
And so for those two reasons, people can argue as to whether it was the appropriate decision, but I could tell you from a legal perspective, it was
an unusual decision. And now we'll see whether or not it's appealed to the Supreme Court and what happens then.
GOLODRYGA: And that could take another lengthy amount of time to go through that process. But just to remind our viewers, it is the former president
and 14 of his allies who were charged with conspiring to overturn the election results in 2020.
And this is where we had an abundance of evidence in this case, specifically the most damning being that audio recording of the president
speaking with Brad Raffensperger, the secretary of state of Georgia at that time, saying, all I need is 11,780 votes for you to find me.
What happens to not only Trump now, but does this also apply to those 14 others that were charged in this case?
JACKSON: So the answer is, in terms of what happens is it's an open question. And let's just remember that while the appellate court said, hey,
you know what, trial court, you were wrong, you should have disqualified Fani Willis. She shouldn't have been here.
They also said that they will not, repeat, will not dismiss the indictment. So the indictment, that is the charging instrument that's used to charge
Trump and the other remaining defendants, as you've asked me about, it's still viable, it still exists. The question is, what is to be done now?
And so, yes, it does apply to Trump, and it will apply, and other attorneys will make motions and say, you know, hey, listen, it applies to us as well.
You didn't only have animus and ill will against the president, but we were his associates and thereby -- therefore by implication, you had ill will
against us and you micromanage this, right? You micromanage this prosecution. That'll be the argument, right?
[12:10:09]
To the extent that it appears that you engage in this activity because you hired your boyfriend. You had this financial arrangement where you were
paying him $250 an hour for 60 hours a week, $15,000 a month that equates to, and therefore it looks bad.
And so we'll see what happens next. It'll certainly -- they have an appeal, the next higher court, which is the Supreme Court of Georgia. And we'll see
what that court does.
And as you know, Bianna, it can take a significant amount of time, up to a couple of years. Maybe they'll do it sooner. And then it could certainly go
to the prosecuting counsel. And the prosecuting counsel can pick a special prosecutor to move forward.
But by all indications, it doesn't look good in terms of the viable prosecution moving forward against Trump or any of the allies who have been
accused.
GOLODRYGA: Let's turn now to the other major story we are following now, and that is the arrival any moment, I believe, his plane actually just
landed there. You see it, Luigi Mangione charged with the killing of UnitedHealthcare CEO, Brian Thompson where he waived extradition this
morning.
And then things moved quite quickly, getting him on a plane from Pennsylvania here to New York, where he'll then get on to a helicopter to
Lower Manhattan, and will be brought in for arraignment.
In addition to the 11 charges, we now know that he's facing four federal charges, in addition to the 11 state charges he's facing. And walk us
through these charges, because they're murdered through the use of a firearm, through stalking charges, and a firearms offense.
What happens, Joey, once he is arraigned?
JACKSON: So a few things. First is it relates to the state charges in New York. He'll be brought right to New York court, whether that's this
afternoon, Friday or Monday remains to be seen. And he's what's called arraigned. That is he's given the opportunity to be told what the charges
are with the presence of counsel, whether he's aware of what the charges are.
And arraignment is notice, right? Given notice of the charges and an opportunity to be heard. I suspect that he'll plead not guilty.
Thereafter, as it relates to the state case, his attorney will get discovery that is the evidence relating to the case, will evaluate that
evidence, will make any and all motions. In English, that means they'll challenge the evidence, see what can be used in front of a jury, what can't
be, and then it's game on. There'll be a trial or they won't.
At the same time, you asked about the federal charges, and people may question, well, how is that possible? It's possible because the state
certainly can levy charges, right?
But also, the federal government has an independent obligation, an independent authority to exercise in this case, and they're doing that by
saying you violated federal law as well.
And so the question is going to be whether federal takes priority over state, whether the state goes first, and how that dynamic looks. And those
will be discussions with federal and state prosecutors.
But I think the core thing to remember here, Bianna, is that because of the federal charges, he now faces, right, potentially the death penalty as
opposed to a situation where in state court, New York State does not have that.
And so we'll see what happens as that develops and what state prosecutors do in working with each other.
GOLODRYGA: And there we see the first images of Luigi Mangione deplaning there as these just arrived in New York State and will be now, as Brynn
Gingras had reported, put on an NYPD helicopter to be brought to just a matter of 15 or 20 minutes or so it takes to get to Lower Manhattan, where
he will be brought into federal custody from there. And as we see him walking to that NYPD helicopter.
Let me ask you about those federal charges, because, as word came that they were looming, in addition to the 11 state charges, Mangione's attorney,
Karen Agnifilo, issued a statement. And here's what she said. The federal government's reported decision to pile on top of an already overcharged
first-degree murder and state terror case is highly unusual and raises serious constitutional and statutory double jeopardy concerns. We are ready
to fight these charges in whatever court they are brought.
Karen, obviously, is a well-seasoned and well respected attorney and prosecutor here, former prosecutor here in New York. What do you make of
her argument?
JACKSON: I make that she's advocating for her client and saying the things she needs to say. From a legal and practical perspective, however, it is
not double jeopardy, and the federal government has the authority to, if they want to, charge as well.
Why? Because they're a court of what we lawyers call concurrent jurisdiction. That means the state has a role to play as it relates to
prosecuting people, and the federal government does too.
The reason it's not a double jeopardy case is because there are charges that are different, distinguishable, and not the same and unrelated to what
the state charges are.
In a double jeopardy case, you get tried, for example, for murder, you're acquitted, you can't be tried again. What the state -- what the federal
government is doing is saying, hey, look, you cross state lines to do this, right? We, under federal law, can actually charge you. We will charge you.
And we will charge you appropriately.
[12:15:11]
So I think it's great advocacy on his attorney's part. But from a legal perspective, there's no bar to the federal government prosecuting. They
know that, and that's why they're doing so.
GOLODRYGA: Let me ask you about the decision to charge the first-degree murder here by New York prosecutors, leaning on a terrorism allegation.
Because there are some in the profession who argue that may be an overreach and that may be actually hard to win.
New York prosecutors are justifying this charge because they say it was intended to influence government policies and intimidate civilians. What do
you make of this decision to charge first-degree murder?
JACKSON: So -- yes, so I'm one, Bianna, who makes of it that prosecutors charge in a couple of ways. Number one, they charge based upon the relevant
conduct and what they believe the conduct shows.
Number two, they charge based upon what they believe they can prove beyond a reasonable doubt. You can argue, and it will be argued, in a court of law
as to whether or not it was terrorism. That doesn't operate as a bar to prosecutor's charging.
I do think strategically it was a wise move on their part for a couple of reasons. Reason number one, when you charge terrorism, generally speaking,
in any prosecution, you don't have to establish motive. That means you don't have to explain why someone did something, you just have to explain
that they did it.
If they would have just charged second degree murder, they would have just had to establish that he did, Mangione, shoot and kill, right, this CEO at
the specific time and place in Manhattan. None of the things relating to motive would really be something that would have to be litigated.
By putting terrorism at issue, prosecutors are going to be now allowed to talk about everything and anything relating to his motive, his prior
history, his psychology, what he was thinking, the manifesto. These are generally things that us defense attorneys would move to exclude from a
jury's consideration. Why it's prejudicial judge, it's not relevant, we don't -- the prosecutor doesn't have to prove it, they're piling on, it's
improper. Those arguments from the defense are now taken off the table. That's the first thing.
Number two, when you look to charge in terrorism, many believe it was. You know, some have said, well, it wasn't in the light of day. He was the only
one on the location at the time. That's not relevant.
The message that the shooting and killing sent, that's the relevant consideration in terms of how you're attempting to shock the public, to
influence the public agenda, to coerce the narrative, to change policy, that's what the terrorism is based upon.
So like any case, Bianna, it'll go to court. A jury will make a determination of 12 members, whether it's proven beyond a reasonable doubt,
and if it's not, it's not. But they certainly, that is, prosecutors thought they should charge it, and they did.
Finally, what that does, that being charging terrorism can also give him a life without parole mandatory sentence. And that certainly is appropriate
in terms of punishment, because as I just explained, New York State does not, repeat, does not have the death penalty.
GOLODRYGA: How often in -- which is a very high profile case. But how often in murder cases like this, when first-degree -- or are -- let me start
there, are first-degree murder charges brought and when they are how successful -- how successfully prosecuted are they?
JACKSON: So, Bianna, the successful prosecution of any case obviously turns on its facts and every case is factually different and we get that. So
it'll depend. In this case, we know from at least what's out in the public, that the evidence is strong. It's compelling, in fact, as to his guilt. And
we could speak forever about the evidence, whether it's his fingerprints on the water bottle or on the protein bar wrapper or the bullet casings that
match his gun, the manifesto, et cetera.
So in this case, I think it's pretty strong, right, in terms of whether they can establish it.
Here's the problem. Murder in the first-degree in New York State, many wondered, well, why didn't you charge it originally? It's generally
reserved for police officers, peace officers, judges, first responders. It's not really relating to this conduct, unless you could show something
else. Was it someone hire him to do it or was it terrorism?
So that's why they charged it because they felt, New York prosecutors did, that it could come within the rubric of being considered terrorism and that
gets you the first degree murder.
At the end of the day though, first-degree murder or second-degree murder is an A1 felony in New York. And what that means in English is that you
could face life in jail, right? Should a judge say so.
If the terrorism conviction is sustained, it'll be life without parole statutorily without a judge's discretion. And I think that's another reason
and basis that prosecutors said, hey, we're going to charge terrorism and it'll be up to a jury to determine beyond the reasonable doubt or 12,
whether or not it was proven or not.
[12:20:59]
GOLODRYGA: All right, Luigi Mangione set to leave any moment now on a helicopter, taking him from Long Island, New York, to Lower Manhattan,
where he will be then placed in federal custody. And we're expecting arraignment soon after that, perhaps as soon as today, then tomorrow, again
facing four federal counts now, in addition to 11 count indictment of state charges filed against him.
Joey Jackson, always great to see you. Thank you. We've had a very busy legal show this morning. Appreciate the time.
Well, now to France and a monumental verdict. It was a moment to celebrate courage and dignity in France today as the 51 men who raped Gisele Pelicot
were all found guilty. Pelicot took the unusual step of waiving her anonymity and allowing video of the rapes to be shown in court, saying she
wanted to bring attention to women being sexually abused all over the world.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GISELE PELICOT, RAPE VICTIM (through translator): By making the trial public on September 2nd, I wanted society to be able to understand the
issues it would raise. I've never regretted that decision.
I have faith now in our capacity to carve out collectively a future where everyone, women and men, can live in harmony, in respect and mutual
understanding.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: Her ex-husband, Dominique Pelicot, was handed the harshest sentence available, 20 years in prison. He drugged Gisele for a decade and
sought out strangers to come into his home and rape her. We get more on this sensational case from CNN's Melissa Bell.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
MELISSA BELL, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Gisele Pelicot, who has been admirable throughout this celebrated for her courage, her humility
from the very start and from far across the world, it was her decision, of course, to make it public that made such a difference that allowed a number
of things to happen.
First of all, the accusers and right to anonymity to be waived, and then the videos to be shown in court. All of that has meant that the impact of
this has really gone far beyond the borders of France.
As to what actually happened here in court today, there were large crowds outside, as there has been almost every day for the nearly four months of
this trial.
Men and women who come to support Gisele Pelicot, again, as she arrived, shouting "merci madame" to her arrival. And again as she left, thanking her
for what she's done by achieving this, whatever the sentence is handed down today, the fact that the trial was made public has led to this sort of
societal reckoning.
The question of how this number of men could have come into someone's home, found an unconscious woman, and not thought to raise the alarm or alert
anyone or turn away themselves, is remarkable? And it's a very uncomfortable question that's really been placed before wider society.
We heard those sentences handed down. The only man who did receive the maximum sentence being sought was Dominique Pelicot himself. All of the
others received lesser sentences, as you mentioned. And that's led to a great deal of outrage outside the court here today.
There were shouts of rapists, we see you, as proceedings got underway, and when at least one of the men who walked free today because of a suspended
sentence walked out, he was jeered fairly violently by the crowd, even as he tried to hide his face.
We also heard beyond the strong words of Gisele Pelicot herself that you played there a moment ago. We also heard from a lawyer representing
Dominique Pelicot, the husband, again, the only guilty man here today to be handed the full 20-year sentence. This is what he said.
BEATRICE ZAVARRO, DOMINIQUE PELICOT'S ATTORNEY: The Criminal Court of Vaucluse has given its verdict, sentencing Dominique Pelicot to 20 years in
prison. Mr. Pelicot has taken note of the decision. And we are going to take advantage of the delay, which has given us 10 days to decide if we
will appeal this decision.
At the moment I am speaking to you, no decision has been taken.
BELL: So too do -- does the prosecution. And I think that's going to be really interesting to see what happens in the next 10 days.
If the prosecution decides that they feel that some of their sentences have been (INAUDIBLE) they can appeal, as you just heard, Dominique Pelicot can
and also appeal the decision, what that would mean is that this court room, which had a jury of five judges on it, there would now be a second Mazan
trial that's been called off, the name of the village not far from Avignon, where these terrible events unfolded, where the Pelicot couple lived.
There would be a second Mazan trial, this time in front of a jury.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
GOLODRYGA: And still to come for us, leading the charge. As the U.S. government barrels towards a weekend shutdown, the world's richest man once
again proves just how much power he has.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[12:25:33]
GOLODRYGA: Some Trump allies on Capitol Hill are calling for a government shutdown now. And as Republican lawmakers scramble to come up with a short-
term spending bill that's acceptable to the incoming president before the Friday deadline. But the clock is ticking and the pressure is on.
The chaos all began early Wednesday morning, after billionaire Elon Musk went on a posting spree on his social media platform, slamming a bipartisan
stopgap measure unveiled by House Speaker Mike Johnson hours earlier.
Later, Trump took to his own platform, threatening lawmakers who supported the bill and ultimately tanking it. Democrats say it's now up to the
Republicans to find their way out of this mess.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOHN BERMAN, CNN HOST: What's the status of this deal now non-deal?
SEN. DICK DURBIN (D-IL): I wish I knew. I can just tell you that for months, we've been trying to craft a bipartisan compromise to avoid a
government shutdown and to fund some critical areas of government spending. We had an agreement. Of course, you just described accurately what happened
to it last night. I hope the agreement moves forward.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: CNN's Sunlen Serfaty joins me now live on Capitol Hill.
Dick Durbin didn't seem like he was expressing a lot of hope, even though he said he hopes it moves forward. And the clock is ticking, Sunlen. We've
just got a little over a day and a half before we see a government shutdown.
And we just now have news to report from our own Manu Raju. He spoke to Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, who said that it's premature to negotiate
a debt ceiling now, but also said the Democrats would not save Speaker Johnson if he risks losing his speakership.
I mean, how close are we to a government shutdown?
SUNLEN SERFATY, CNN WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT: Yes, we are potentially very close. The clock is ticking, as you noted, towards that Friday midnight
deadline going into Saturday morning to get a deal in.
And as you noted, the tone coming from lawmakers up here on Capitol Hill is just not good. What you heard from Manu's reporting of Hakeem Jeffries
there, that is the message that we've heard from many Democrats today. They want to put the onus here on the Republicans. They're saying, in essence,
you guys blew up this deal. This was a deal that you reneged on. We had negotiated it for months and months, and everyone agreed to it.
So at the 11th hour, for it to get blown up by the President-elect Donald Trump and allies like Elon Musk just is not right, so they are holding firm
as of now.
Now, as far as Republicans, we know that Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, he has been huddling all morning with his top lieutenants and they are
coming up with a contours of a new plan.
[12:30:06]
And according to aides, they say, this new plan would be a clean debt limit, a mostly clean CR or include things like the pharm bill and disaster
aid, but notably, it really shaves off many of those extra provisions that got Democrats to support the first bill in the first place. So this bill
likely will be going nowhere with Democrats.
And Speaker Johnson, as you know, Bianna, He needs some Democrats to support this bill, if he wants to get it over at the finish line in the
House, because there are some Republicans that frankly will not vote for this going forward.
So that's all to say, as a lot is still up in the air, a lot is very fluid. People are negotiating behind closed doors all day as the clock ticks
closer to potentially a shutdown.
GOLODRYGA: And perhaps a preview of what the next two to four years may look like in Washington.
Sunlen Serfaty, thank you.
CNN's Stephen Collinson joins me now. And Stephenson, this seemed to be -- sorry, Stephen Collinson, this seemed to be a formality yesterday that a
government shutdown would be averted, at least through March, with the CR passed and for the president to sign.
And now, last minute, we see Donald Trump derailing this after Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy did the same.
What do you make of what Donald Trump is now demanding? And that is raising the debt ceiling or even eliminating it, posing a situation where there
could be some strange bedfellows here aligning with Democrats who have wanted to get rid of the debt ceiling altogether.
STEPHEN COLLINSON, CNN POLITICS SENIOR REPORTER: Well, I think what this shows is that there's a difference between anti-government burning down
rhetoric and the need to govern.
And however much he wants to gut the federal government next year, Donald Trump is going to have to govern somehow if he wants to get his immigration
plans through, his tax cut, and for more basic things, if there's going to be airport security in the United States or air traffic control or national
parks. So this is where the reality is starting to bite.
What happened yesterday was that Musk did a long 70 tweets screed against this bill. And the argument that many Republicans are saying is that they
just won a massive, what they see as a massive election victory on the basis of tearing down a government which many millions of Trump supporters
don't trust and don't really care about. So why would they turn around and then pass a bill of $100 billion of spending?
Of course, that doesn't take into account the dynamics of the existing Congress, where you have Democrats in the Senate. And the fact is, some of
them are saying that Johnson can't pass a bill in the House without Republican -- without democratic votes because the Republican majority is
so narrow.
So Trump and Musk, in many ways, have led themselves into a corner here. It's very unclear how they get out. A lot of Trump Republicans are now
saying, why don't we just shut down the government until the end of January -- January the 20th when Trump is inaugurated and start again? That would
bring a lot of hardship and complication to millions of Americans. And you have to ask, is that really the way that Trump wants to begin his second
term?
GOLODRYGA: And you also have Donald Trump not exactly offering a full- throated endorsement of Mike Johnson, the House speaker today, rather threatening, saying that if he wants to keep his job, he can easily remain
speaker, if he acts decisively and tough on the spending bill.
Is his job really on the line right now? You have Democrats, Hakeem Jeffries, coming out saying that Democrats will not save him if his
speakership is in trouble.
COLLINSON: It's definitely on the line. And Johnson needs to be reelected as the first act of the next Congress that will be seated on January the
3rd. He doesn't have the votes right now. That is pretty clear, just from the public statements of some Republican members.
The question is, if Johnson doesn't have the votes, who does have the votes? And even if Johnson were to act decisively as Trump wants, he
couldn't pass the bill because he needs democratic votes to pass the bill and Democrats run the Senate.
And it's given the fact that the Republican majority will be even smaller in January, it's very difficult to see how he's going to be able to pass
any bill. And there aren't that many alternatives to Johnson as Speaker.
So I think what you're going to see next year is absolute chaos in Washington, whereby populism clashes with the institution of government and
things can get very messy.
GOLODRYGA: Yes. And we've been there before, not so long ago, Stephen. Kevin McCarthy --
COLLINSON: Right.
GOLODRYGA: Remember that? OK.
COLLINSON: Yes. Fifteen rounds it took him.
GOLODRYGA: Yes, 15 rounds. And here we are just hours away from a potential government shutdown just before the holidays.
[12:35:02]
Stephen Collinson, thank you so much.
COLLINSON: Thanks.
GOLODRYGA: Coming up for us, the man accused of murdering a healthcare company CEO is on his way now to Manhattan where he will appear in federal
court. We'll provide you with an update, straight ahead. You're looking at live images.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
GOLODRYGA: Welcome back to ONE WORLD, I'm Bianna Golodryga.
An update on our breaking news this hour, the man accused of murdering the CEO of UnitedHealthcare, is on a helicopter headed for Manhattan right now.
He's expected to appear in a federal courtroom later today.
Luigi Mangione faces four federal counts, including murder through the use of a firearm in Brian Thompson's death. He also faces state charges,
including murder. Mangione's attorney says they are ready to fight the charges. And we'll stay on top of this story for you.
Turning now to Gaza where aid is still just trickling in. CNN has been on the Gaza side of a key entry point for crucial aid into the enclave. CNN's
Jeremy Diamond reports.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
JEREMY DIAMOND, CNN JERUSALEM CORRESPONDENT: We are on the Gaza side of the Kerem Shalom crossing, where you are seeing pallets of humanitarian aid
being off loaded here. But the problem is this aid simply isn't getting to the people of Gaza in the quantities that are needed.
Humanitarian aid agencies say that the Israeli government and the Israeli military are to blame for that, not facilitating the safe distribution of
aid. The Israelis deny that. They insist that enough aid is getting into Gaza and that they are facilitating that aid But I press one of the top
Israeli officials responsible for getting that aid in on that very question.
[12:40:11]
They say that the issues are the Israeli military's unwillingness to facilitate safe distribution of aid.
ABDULLAH HALABI, ISRAELI COORDINATION AND LIAISON ADMINISTRATION: No, the Israeli troops to the Israeli side, just in the last few weeks, facilitated
several options in order to enter the aid to the Gazian side.
DIAMOND: Does your role stop at this checkpoint? Do you believe that your role stops at this checkpoint that you're not responsible for how safely
the aid can get distributed inside of -- inside of Gaza?
HALABI: The national community is responsible to deliver the aid from the crossing points to the people of Gaza. It's their responsibility. We --
DIAMOND: But don't you have a responsibility for making it safe?
HALABI: We facilitated the crossings and the aid. Tell the crossing, we inspect the aid, we put it in the platforms, and we encourage the
humanitarian community and the organizations to come and to take the aid.
The main problem, the main obstacle is the capabilities distribution.
DIAMOND: Amid that dispute between the aid agencies and the Israeli military, these pallets of aid, they are piling up. And this isn't a
theoretical problem. We are seeing that the humanitarian conditions in Gaza, they simply aren't getting better.
In fact, there's a lot of chance that it could get worse. With the arrival of winter, the rains, the need for shelter is rising. Respiratory illnesses
are rising. And people are sometimes going without food for days.
Of course, a ceasefire deal could improve all of this, bringing an enormous flow of humanitarian aid into the Gaza Strip. We know that those
negotiations, of course, are ongoing.
Jeremy Diamond, CNN on the Gaza side of the Kerem Shalom crossing.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
GOLODRYGA: Russian President Vladimir Putin says that his forces are making advances along the entire front line of Ukraine. He was speaking at his
annual news conference in Moscow, a marathon session that allows citizens and journalists to ask questions directly.
President Putin touched on a wide range of domestic and international issues, including Russia's progress in the war and Ukraine, and how it
might play out.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
[12:45:58]
VLADIMIR PUTIN, RUSSIAN PRESIDENT (through translator): Let them identify some target for destruction, say in Kyiv, concentrate all their air defense
and missile defense forces there. And we will strike there with Oreshnik and see what happens.
We are ready for such an experiment, but is the other side ready?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: Let's bring in Ekaterina Kotrikadze, who was a news director and anchor at TV Rain, an independent television channel in Russia, which was
forced to shut down in March of 2022. She now lives in Europe and continues to broadcast online for TV Rain.
Katya (ph), it's been a while. It's good to see you, my friend. Once again, another defiant --
EKATERINA KOTRIKADZE, NEWS DIRECTOR AND HOST, TV RAIN: Good to see you, too.
GOLODRYGA: Another defiant show of force from Vladimir Putin for four hours there. Really showing little desire, serious desire to bring this war to an
end imminently, instead saying our soldiers are gaining territory every day, we're moving forward.
And what stood out to me is that, at least on one front, it appears he and President Zelenskyy of Ukraine have reached similar conclusions about an
immediate ceasefire. And here's what they both said.
Putin today said a ceasefire means giving the enemy the opportunity to consolidate its positions to rest and receive the necessary equipment and
ammunition. Similar talking points we've heard from Volodymyr Zelenskyy as of late.
What stood out to you from Putin today?
KOTRIKADZE: Well, Putin today was the same -- pretty much the same Vladimir Putin that we are used to. It was four and a half hours of flattering to
Vladimir Putin, of asking him very comfortable questions.
It was Vladimir Putin's moment when he was trying to show the Russian citizens and also the world that he is very, very strong, that he is
victorious. And what this press conference was about -- was about, if we talk about the situation in Ukraine, if we talk about the war, which is
actually devastating, not only for Ukraine, but for Russians as well, that he wanted to show to the population that Russia is winning this war.
And he could not talk about any, you know, any steps that would be bad for the interests of Vladimir Putin, because this was a moment he wanted to
proud of himself. He wanted to talk about the inflation that is, yes, problematic, but still lower than in other countries. He wanted to talk
about economy, which is -- which is perfect, as he was describing it. He wanted to talk about Oreshnik, which you have mentioned earlier, the
weapons that he invented, his engineers invented.
Because in this particular period of time, he thinks that he can actually be much wiser, much more smart, much more strong than Volodymyr Zelenskyy.
And this is because of Donald Trump coming into the office.
And he hopes, as I understand it, because I follow him for so many years, he hopes that when Donald Trump gets there after 20th of January, he gets -
- Vladimir Putin gets a good deal. And this deal would be much better for him than for Vladimir Zelensky.
GOLODRYGA: Yes. And he said that he hasn't spoken with the president-elect Trump in more than four years, but that he was open to talking to him.
And Donald Trump has said numerous times over the last few weeks that in his view, solving the wars and the conflict in the Middle East would be
much easier than the conflict in Ukraine right now, even though he had campaigned on ending this war on day one.
From the Kremlin's standpoint, what does any sort of resolution look like that Vladimir Putin thinks could work in his favor?
KOTRIKADZE: Well, actually, they have officially said what they want, which is absolutely impossible for Ukraine. They want officially to occupy
regions, four regions of Ukraine and also Crimea, which was annexed in 2014. They want to take this regions of Ukraine, including those which are
not occupied on this point -- at this point, including big cities populated by Ukrainians.
And they want Volodymyr Zelenskyy and other representatives of Ukraine to say, OK, you can take this parts of Ukraine, but at least you don't attack
us anymore which is also unclear because no one gives any kinds of guarantees to Ukraine and to Europe in general that Vladimir Putin would
not attack as soon as he's ready to do it again because a lot of promises have been made before by Russia included, but he has never kept his word.
So before 20th of January, it is absolutely impossible to predict what kind of steps Vladimir Putin would be able and would want to take to get this
deal done.
[12:50:03]
Maybe there would be some kind of compromises, but as I understand it, Donald Trump would be ready to give better compromises to Vladimir Putin
than to Volodymyr Zelenskyy because of a lot of reasons, including the fact that Donald Trump, as I see it, does not like Volodymyr Zelenskyy
personally. And he likes Vladimir Putin personally, who is a strong, autocratic man. So that's why Vladimir Putin has much bigger chances of
getting what he's hoping for than Ukrainian president.
GOLODRYGA: Yes. And Donald Trump has been public and his disagreement with the Biden administration providing so much military aid to Ukraine,
specifically saying that he does not believe that Ukraine should have the capability of launching missiles into Russia directly, which the United
States has just now green lit --
KOTRIKADZE: Yes.
GOLODRYGA: -- long range missiles.
It was notable, we've heard some policy shift that President Zelenskyy would be open to in his rhetoric for negotiating with Russia, but it seems
like what is non-negotiable is that he does want some security guarantees.
Do you think that that is something that Vladimir Putin will ultimately have to agree to at the end of the day? Because he may boast about the fact
that they're gaining ground and that this war is working in their favor, but they've had a tremendous number of losses this month alone, not to
mention over the past two and a half years, and huge blow to the economy as well.
KOTRIKADZE: Absolutely. Economy is the most important thing. As I understand for Russian citizens, the prices in the markets are much more
important than losses of lives.
Unfortunately, this is truth. Losses of lives of those who live in remote, far away regions and villages. So the inflation, the prices are very, very
important right now on this stage.
But what we can see is that Vladimir Putin has his principles that he would not -- he would not give up. For example, he is maintaining on that Ukraine
cannot be a member of NATO. And unfortunately, the Western partners of Ukraine are listening to it and they are not bringing Ukraine into NATO.
So what we can expect is maybe an idea, by the way, which is actually OK'd by Donald Trump, idea of peacekeepers, European peacekeepers in Ukraine. So
this is a thought that may be acceptable and is acceptable, as I understand it, for Ukraine, for Europeans, many Europeans, but not for Putin so far.
This is the topic that may be negotiated, Bianna. This is what they can sit and talk about. And Vladimir Putin, of course, will try to get the highest
price for himself. So let's see what would be the position of Ukraine and everything now depends on European allies of Ukraine, how strong they would
be in these negotiations, because Donald Trump, as I assume, would not -- would not be strong here for Ukraine.
Ekaterina Kotrikadze, we'll have to leave it there. Please come back more regularly.
KOTRIKADZE: Thank you, Bianna.
GOLODRYGA: It's great to see you. Thank you.
And we'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[12:55:56]
GOLODRYGA: And just before we go, we are waiting for the man accused of murdering the CEO of UnitedHealthcare to arrive in Manhattan. He's expected
to appear in federal court later today.
Luigi Mangione faces four federal counts, including murder through the use of a firearm in the killing of Brian Thompson. He also faces state charges,
including murder. Mangione's attorney says they are ready to fight the charges.
And that does it for this busy hour of ONE WORLD. I'm Bianna Golodryga. Thanks so much for watching. "AMANPOUR" is up next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
END
