Return to Transcripts main page

The Situation Room

Trump Names CIA Chief As He Rapidly Expands His Team of Loyalists; Wall Street Journal Reports, Trump Draft Executive Order Would Create Board To Purge Generals; Senate Reconvenes As GOP Leadership Fight Intensifies; How Trump's Pledge To Scrap Education Department Could Impact U.S.; State Department: U.S. Hasn't Determined Israel Violating Law After Report Finds Aid To Gaza Deteriorating. Aired 6-7p ET

Aired November 12, 2024 - 18:00   ET

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

[18:00:00]

WOLF BLITZER, CNN HOST: Happening now, breaking news, President-elect Trump just revealed his choice to be the CIA director as he's rapidly expanding his team of loyalists and MAGA diehards. We're tracking all of the new picks he's been announcing tonight.

Also breaking, a new report suggests Trump is being presented with a way to urge us military generals after he's openly expressed concern about their loyalty and fitness to serve. Stand by for details on the draft executive order detailed by The Wall Street Journal.

Plus, the U.S. Senate reconvenes, the fight to be the new majority leader intensifies on this, the eve of a secret vote to choose among three prominent Republicans vying to replace Mitch McConnell.

Welcome to our viewers here in the United States and around the world. I'm Wolf Blitzer. You're in The Situation Room.

And we start with the breaking news tonight. The Trump staffing announcements are coming in fast and furious, with the president elect revealing his choice to be CIA director just a few minutes ago.

CNN's Kristen Holmes is following all of these developments for us. Kristen, bring our viewers up to speed on who Trump is tapping, first of all, to lead the CIA.

KRISTEN HOLMES, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes, Wolf, that's right. We have just learned that Donald Trump is going to pick John Ratcliffe to lead the CIA. He'll be CIA director. Now, Ratcliffe is an interesting choice for a number of reasons. One, not that surprising if you think about the fact that he had been actually running the policy division of the transition team when it came to intelligence, two, interesting because he was on the shortlist for attorney general. We know that he had been in conversations about that position as well.

Now, a little history on Ratcliffe, he was the head of the director of -- he was the director of National Intelligence from 2020 to 2021. And at that time he did face accusations that he was basically weaponizing intelligence information to help Trump politically in 2020 in that election. Interesting to see how that plays out.

But one thing is very clear here. Donald Trump's team is really trying to fill these positions and fill them quickly.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

HOLMES (voice over): President-elect Donald Trump's administration is coming into focus as the president builds out his cabinet. Announcing Tuesday that former Arkansas governor and Trump loyalist Mike Huckabee would serve as ambassador to Israel, as Huckabee has been a staunch supporter of Israel's, and could strengthen ties between the country and Evangelical Americans.

CNN also learning that Trump is expected to select Marco Rubio as secretary of state. The two men, once rivals, facing off in an ugly and personal primary for president in 2016.

SEN. MARCO RUBIO (R-FL): Have you seen his hands? They're like this. And you know what they say about men with small hands.

DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT-ELECT: When Little Marcos spews his crap about the size of my hands, which are big.

HOLMES: Before Rubio transitioned into one of Trump's staunchest allies.

RUBIO: I think they love you a lot.

HOLMES: And was considered a top contender to be his vice president.

RUBIO: That is the choice in this election between a president, Donald J. Trump, who gave us the most secure border in modern history. We had an economy where prices were stable, salaries were going up, and people could afford to have a little bit of money left over at the end of the month.

HOLMES: Rubio, the most hawkish of his choices, is known for his tough stance on China.

Trump has placed loyalists in three other key positions. The president-elect posting on Truth Social today that he has tapped Florida Congressman Mike Waltz as national security adviser. A former Green Beret, Waltz was often by Trump's side on the campaign trail.

Trump also choosing South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem as head of the Department of Homeland Security, Noem also once thought of as a potential pick for V.P.

GOV. KRISTI NOEM (R-SD): We already knew that President Donald Trump was a fighter.

HOLMES: But faced political backlash after revealing in her memoir that she shot her 14-month-old dog, and falsely claiming she had met with North Korea's leader Kim Jong-un.

Each of these roles, aside from Waltz, must be confirmed by the Senate. However, Trump is expected to create roles that hold an enormous amount of power that don't need to go through the same approval. Already evident in his recent choices to help implement Trump's ambitious immigration policy proposals, including mass deportations.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

HOLMES (on camera): And we have learned of a number of other positions that are going to be announced in coming days. That includes deputy chief of staff positions. Again, these do not have to be approved by Congress, but they are likely to wield an enormous amount of power. Among them are a series of loyalists, including Dan Scavino, who has been with Donald Trump since long before he was in politics, as well as Taylor Budowich, who ran the super PAC and then joined the campaign, and James Blair, who was in charge of the political operation for the campaign.

[18:05:10]

All of these, again, expected to be announced in the coming days, Wolf.

BLITZER: All right, Kristen Holmes reporting for us, lots going on, thank you very much.

I want to get to our other breaking news that we're following right now, The Wall Street Journal reporting that the Trump transition team is considering a draft executive order that would establish a board of retired senior military personnel with the power to review and remove three and four star generals and is raising fresh concerns about politicization of the U.S. military in the new Trump administration.

A source has confirmed to CNN the existence of the proposal, but a transition official says it did not originate with the transition team. CNN has not independently reviewed the draft order. Tonight, the Trump team though is not disputing it exists, telling CNN, and I'm quoting now, the American people reelected President Trump by a resounding margin, giving him a mandate to implement the promises he made on the campaign trail. He will deliver, close quote.

Joining us now, one of The Wall Street Journal reporters behind the story, Lara Seligman is joining us right now. Lara, thanks very much for joining us.

Tell our viewers what you and your colleagues have been learning about where this executive order came from and how seriously Trump's transition team is considering this?

LARA SELIGMAN, NATIONAL SECURITY REPORTER, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL: Well, Wolf, this would be a really drastic step. That would bypass the normal Pentagon process of having a panel of officers that are familiar with the officer's work and career decide, and then, of course, confirmed by Congress.

So, it is in keeping, though, with Trump's statements on the campaign trail. He's made clear that once in office, he wants to fire what he calls the woke generals over the Pentagon's diversity and inclusion programs. He's also said that he would ask all the generals involved in the Afghanistan evacuation to resign by noon on inauguration day.

So, this is not something that's completely unexpected, but it could create a chilling effect on the top military brass who are now facing, having their futures, their careers decided by a panel of people outside the normal Pentagon process. And, of course, it's not clear exactly who is pushing this policy right now, but it is certainly reflected in Trump's speeches.

BLITZER: What are the possible other implications, Lara, and who could be targeted specifically?

LARA: That's a great question. Of course, the president can fire whatever generals he wants, but it's rarely happened for political reasons. And this would give political cover to any effort to fire a bunch of generals en masse, as he said he might do.

You asked who specifically this could impact. One person that defense officials worry that Trump would want to fire immediately is General C.Q. Brown, who is the current chairman (INAUDIBLE) Chiefs of Staff, and he was appointed by President Biden.

Now, Brown is only the second black man to be appointed to that position, and during the George Floyd protests of 2020, he spoke out about the impact that movement had on him, and what it was like to rise through the ranks as a black fighter pilot. So, that could put him in Trump's crosshairs.

Honestly, though, all of the Joint Chiefs were appointed by President Biden, just about all of them. So, any number of them could be up for something like this. And that could, as I said, create really a chilling effect in the top ranks of the military,

BLITZER: Lara Seligman and her Wall Street Journal team doing excellent reporting, thank you very, very much.

I want to break all of this down with our military analysts and our political commentators who are standing by in our panel right now.

And, Colonel Cedric Leighton, what's your reaction to this, I would call it, a stunning executive order under consideration by the new Trump team?

COL. CEDRIC LEIGHTON (RET.), CNN MILITARY ANALYST: Yes, Wolf. I think it's -- you know, like you said, it is stunning. One of the key elements of this, of course, is the idea that there would be an extra body that would go into the promotion system. There's something known as the Defense Officer Personnel Management Act. And what that is a law that was established back in the early 1980s by Senator Sam Nunn of Georgia that basically runs the promotion system as it currently exists within the military.

This would seem to circumvent that law, and doing that would create a lot of problems, not only for officers' careers, but it would also if it is implemented the way we see it being reported now, it would potentially decimate the top ranks of the military and that could erode the quality of military that we have, could erode the ability of our military to act in ways that the president would want it to act. So, that would become perhaps a double edged sword for President Trump.

[18:10:02]

BLITZER: Yes, serious development indeed.

Alyssa Farah Griffin is with us as well. Alyssa, you served in the Trump administration, including as Pentagon press secretary. Trump said he would fire, quote, woke generals, his words, woke generals. Just last month he said that. Listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: We have a great military and we have a military that's not woke. You may have a few people on the top that are woke and we're going to get rid of them so damn fast.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Thank you for saying you would fire those few woke generals who are a big problem.

TRUMP: They gone.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Will you consider establishing a special task force office or position to ensure that these monsters never return to the defense department?

TRUMP: And you know what I'll do? And I'm pretty good at this stuff. Sometimes you get it wrong. I'm going to put you on that task force.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: So, just how seriously should we take this floated executive order based on your experience at the Pentagon?

ALYSSA FARAH GRIFFIN, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, listen, I have been a critic of the former president and what I worried about for a second term. And over the past few days, I've seen him choose people who are serious, qualified, and credentialed to staff his cabinet, from Marco Rubio to Mike Waltz as national security adviser, to John Ratcliffe at the CIA.

And I would just hope that my former boss would think that this mandate that he got from the American public on Election Day was about tackling issues voters care about, secure the border, be tough on Iran, be tough on China.

But this is the kind of distraction, the revenge and the retribution that so many people worried about and that I think often just comes with Donald Trump. It becomes this distraction from so many more important issues that, as a commander-in-chief, you should have.

And, you know, this panel could speak to it better than I can, but we have a military recruiting crisis already. We do not have enough people who are raising their hand to serve. To further politicize the military by showing some form of retribution to our general officers, officers who have served distinguishedly for decades, I think, could hurt that even more.

So, it's exactly the kind of thing folks like many of us who have spoken out didn't want to see. And I would just encourage the former president focus on the task at hand. There is so much to get done.

BLITZER: Scott Jennings, by CNN's count, there are over 203 and four star generals, officers at the Defense Department. If Trump takes up this order, are you concerned by the chilling precedent it potentially would set?

SCOTT JENNINGS, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: We haven't seen the order and the campaign or the transition has made no official announcements about what they might do on this front. Look, I think that the commander-in-chief -- and we have a civilian-run military, that's number one. And, number two, the commander-in-chief at the top ranks of the military does need to have confidence that the generals are going to carry out his basic vision for our national defense policy and how the military should be operated.

So, I guess I'm not going to jump to too many conclusions until I see the actual executive order, which I guess we haven't seen as part of our reporting. But I do think that he got elected president and he wants to make sure that whoever's over at the Pentagon and whoever's at the top ranks of the military see eye-to-eye with him about his vision for this. I mean, that's going to be true for every agency.

So, I'm not going to set off too many alarms tonight because I want to see the order first. But you got to give the president a little bit of latitude. He's the commander-in-chief and we do have a civilian-run military for a reason.

BLITZER: I will point out, as I did before, the transition team, the Trump transition team, is not denying The Wall Street Journal reporting at all. So, it potentially could be a chilling precedent to purge what he calls woke generals.

Jamal Simmons is with us. You heard the Trump transition team. They have a mandate from the American people to enact his agenda. How do you respond to that?

JAMAL SIMMONS, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: You know, Wolf, I think the mandate was sort of what Alyssa was saying, it was about inflation and bringing prices down, the price of eggs, they always talked about. It was about making sure that there's a secure border. I'm not sure how this is the part of that mandate.

Let me tell you not just about what we think. Let's talk about what happened. I studied this a few years ago for an article I wrote for the Democracy Journal. And back in the Trump administration, 40 percent of the U.S. military were people of color. 17 percent were African-Americans. There were only two African-Americans among the 41 most senior generals, admirals, the flag officers in the United States military. When Joe Biden came in the office, he tripled that number. It went from two to six and sometimes seven. And then we ended up with a General Brown, who was the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. It matters who the choosers are. It matters when you're making these choices.

And I think for the -- I'm sure that my other panelists can speak to this, but when you're enlisted or you're coming up as a junior officer, it's helpful to see people who look like you who are reflected in the military, and it may make you want to stay and stick around and see whether or not you could become one of those officers one day. I just don't know how we have a military and a fighting force that's cohesive and is fighting as a team when we're having these kinds of discussions that are excluding people.

[18:15:03]

BLITZER: Well, let me get Colonel Leighton to weigh in on that. The Joint Chiefs chairman, as we heard, C.Q. Brown, Jr., is reportedly a potential target of this reported purge after he spoke out about the impact of the 2020 George Floyd protests. Listen and watch this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CHARLES Q. BROWN JR., PACIFIC AIR FORCES COMMANDER: I'm thinking about how full I am with emotion, not just for George Floyd, but the many African-Americans that have suffered the same fate as George Floyd.

And thinking about a history of racial issues in my own experiences that didn't always sing of liberty and equality.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: So, is that the type of message that you think that Trump wants to quash?

LEIGHTON: Well, it's hard to say, Wolf, but it's certainly a candidate for quashing, I would think, under the new Trump administration. And if that's the case, that, of course, does send a chill through the ranks because, you know, as was pointed out earlier, the military is a diverse organization and it does need to have leaders at the top who reflect that diversity. It doesn't necessarily need to be a DEI-type thing is, as people have talked about, you know, throughout our society, but it does have to be reflective of everything that we have.

And one of the great strengths of our military is that very diversity, and to quash that, to eliminate that would be a real problem.

BLITZER: It certainly would be. All right, everybody stand by just ahead. We'll have more on this breaking story, including we'll get reaction from someone who once led the Defense Department and the CIA.

Stay with us. You're in The Situation Room.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:20:00] BLITZER: Our political commentators are back as we cover the breaking news on the Trump transition, including the choice of former director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe, to become the next CIA chief.

Alyssa, let me start this block with you. From Ratcliffe for CIA Director to Rubio for Secretary of State, how do you assess so far Trump's foreign policy team now that it's clearly shaping up?

GRIFFIN: Listen, we're still waiting on SECDEF, but I think that sound you hear is America's allies giving a deep sigh of relief. I think there were fears that there could be a very isolationist second term of Donald Trump's presidency. And this team does not seem to suggest that. Rubio is extremely hawkish on China. He's tough on Iran. He's taken firm positions against Russia. Mike Waltz is national security adviser, I would say the same about, obviously, a Green Beret who served in combat. And John Ratcliffe is somebody who served as director of the Office of National Intelligence in the former term, was a United States congressman.

These are people with the credentials to do the jobs. They signal that he's putting serious people into these roles, not purely sycophants who are there more out of loyalty than credentials. These are, of course, loyalists, but they also have the credentials to be there.

So, I think this is shaping up to be a serious cabinet that I think Donald Trump should really be focused on the many things facing the world right now, and facing our country domestically, not retaliation against four star generals.

BLITZER: Scott Jennings, what stands out to you from this slate of picks so far? How does this contrast, you believe, with Trump's last transition back in 2016?

JENNINGS: Well, I think this time around he knows exactly what he's looking for. Last time, you know, he hadn't been in politics and I think maybe he ended up picking people that he just didn't mesh with very well. Truthfully, I think this group of people, A, they support his agenda, B, they're highly competent and highly experienced, and, C, they've all proven themselves in Washington, D.C., or in other levels of government.

So, I love the experience, I love the competence, and I love the fact that Trump is moving on this decisively. If there's one thing the government is supposed to be doing, it's national security, defending America, and going ahead and signaling to the world that I am going to put together a competent, experienced team of people to handle our national security, that's got to make our allies feel good, and it ought to put the rest of the world on notice, over in Iran, or China, or anywhere else. We've got a serious group of people who aren't going to put up with any crap from you guys, so buckle up in January.

BLITZER: And Jamal Simmons is with us as well. Jamal, Trump's choice for ambassador to Israel, Mike Huckabee, once said, and I'm quoting him now, there's really no such thing as a Palestinian. As Trump leans on fiercely pro-Israel voices, at least so far, what does that bode for his second term? What do you think? SIMMONS: You know, it's not -- it doesn't bode well. I mean, what we're seeing right now happening in the Middle East is it's really a cauldron, and it's a tinderbox. And we're seeing more and more, flares of fighting that are breaking out that are, you know, You know, hurting not just people in the Middle East. Also, there have been Americans from time to time being caught in this.

I think about the last couple of ambassadors, whether it was Jack Lew, who was former White House chief of staff and treasury secretary, or Tom Nides, who was former deputy secretary of state. These were very serious people who understood international foreign policy and they understood some of the major issues that were taking place. They tried to have an even hand when they were dealing, because America leads not just with like our force, we also lead with kind of this moral suasion. We lead with hard power. We also have soft power of our economy. And we think about those big soft power presidents like Bill Clinton or Barack Obama and the hard power presidents like George Bush.

This is kind of a puzzling power, right? We just don't know what Donald Trump is up to. We don't know what his real objectives are. And if he's just going to try to govern by business deals, by figuring out how to cut this up like a sort of a land deal, or is he going to try to actually get to some level of justice where the people in Israel feel like they're secure and the people in Gaza and the West Bank feel like they have a future and they're secure and they've got some self- determination. That's what America's best role is. It doesn't feel like we're going to have that kind of an even hand.

JENNINGS: Can I just comment on that Wolf? I'm sorry that, first of all, Israel is America's ally and it is vital that we have an ambassador to Israel who believes in the special relationship between the United States and Israel.

[18:25:01]

He's done that with Governor Huckabee. That's number one. Number two, at the end of Donald Trump's first term, he implemented the Abraham Accords. And, largely, the Middle East was on a good path. Alyssa was there. She knows about it. She helped communicate about it. And that's an unequivocal fact about what he accomplished when he was the president.

Donald Trump ran on a platform of trying to settle down the world, and specifically settle down the Middle East, and he has a track record of doing it, and he has a track record of supporting our ally, Israel. And so for all the Republicans, and all the conservatives, and all the people who want a calmer world out there, I think Huckabee's a good choice, the national security team's a good choice, but we have to stand with Israel. This idea that picking Mike Huckabee, who supports Israel, is somehow bad, to me, is crazy. It's a great choice.

BLITZER: All of Trump's national security foreign policy choices so far are extremely pro-Israel, indeed.

And, Alyssa, let me get your reaction to another serious choice that was announced today. Were you surprised to hear Trump is now expected to nominate Kristi Noem for Homeland Security secretary after her controversies this summer over supposedly killing her dog and falsely claiming she met the North Korean leader, Kim Jong-un?

GRIFFIN: This was one of the ones that perplexed me. But to be honest, I think that Tom Homan, who's going to oversee a lot of border security and also immigration within the country, who's an alumni of the Obama administration and the first Trump administration, is going to be the border czar who's overseeing this. I'd honestly argue that Trump is kind of layering Kristi Noem.

Being a DHS secretary in a Trump administration has traditionally been a no-win job. I think somebody who's a lot more of a tactician, like Tom Homan, is somebody who is probably going to be more effective for what he's trying to do.

And I would just remind folks in the Obama administration, nearly 3 million people deported under Tom Homan overseeing that. And then, again, Trump actually had lower numbers of deportation in the first term.

So, as he's talking about these mass deportations he's going to do, I would imagine that this is the individual who's going to be running him. I don't necessarily know what the appeal of Kristi Noem in this role is, but I suggest -- I would guess that the border czar as the person who will be overseeing that.

BLITZER: All right. We're going to see what happens. To all of you, thank you very, very much.

Coming up, we'll get back to the breaking news, the reported proposal now being floated to President-elect Trump that could expand his powers to purge top military leadership. We'll talk with the former U.S. defense secretary, Leon Panetta. He's standing by live.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:30:00]

BLITZER: More now on the breaking news we're following, The Wall Street Journal reporting that Donald Trump's transition team has been presented with a proposal that could potentially lead to purges of top military generals.

Right now, I want to bring in the former U.S. Defense Secretary and former CIA Director Leon Panetta. Mr. Secretary, thanks for joining us. What's your reaction to this Wall Street Journal report of this draft executive order?

LEON PANETTA, FORMER DEFENSE SECRETARY: Look, Wolf, I think all of us Americans are very proud of the military that we have. We have the finest military on the face of the Earth. Celebrated Veterans Day yesterday and all of us paid tribute to our military.

And what we've tried to do is to keep the military separated from politics. The military swears an oath to the Constitution, not to a political party, not to the president, but to the Constitution. And we ought to keep that separation in place.

And, thirdly, look, there are plenty of laws now in place. We have a promotion board. We have the unified code of military justice. There's something called Article 133 that can go after officers for conduct that is unbecoming of an officer. So, there's plenty of laws on the books to go after people who are unfit to be a general. And we don't need to burden the Defense Department or the military with some kind of vigilante hit team in the White House. Appoint the secretary of defense, give him the support he needs in order to be able to work with the military.

BLITZER: What kind of chilling effect, Mr. Secretary, could this potential order have on the senior ranks of the U.S. military?

PANETTA: Well, it would be horrible. It would obviously create a chilling effect because, you know, right now, look, these generals, they've gone to West Point, they've gone to the Navy Academy, they've gone to the Air Force Academy, they've fought in war. A lot of them have been in battle and earned their stripes fighting for the United States of America. And that's why they've been promoted to the positions that they now hold. To suddenly have something outside of the military come into this and review, for what, some kind -- what kind of behavior are they trying to get at?

I think what's involved here is anger about what retired officers have said. Retired officers are free, they can say whatever they want. But in the military, they can't say whatever they want. So, I think the president needs to understand that and hopefully put his trust in a new secretary of defense, so that he can deal with running the Defense Department and the military.

BLITZER: The Atlantic Magazine, Mr. Secretary, published an article last month that included Trump's complaints about America's senior military leaders and reports he said that this -- he said this during his first stint in the White House, and I'm quoting now, I need the kind of generals that Hitler had, close quote.

[18:35:12]

He said that in a private conversation in the White House, according to two people who heard him say this, people who were totally loyal to him, that follows orders. That's a direct quote also from the incoming president.

What do you think this potential order is trying to create now, given the history of what he has said?

PANETTA: Well, you know, I think it's important for the president that he's commander-in-chief, and that he's now head and responsible for our national security. And the way we protected our country is by having a military that responds to their duties and responds to the Constitution and is not a military that is somehow Hitler-esque and whose loyalty somehow goes to the president before it goes to the Constitution. That's not what our country is all about.

And the reality is that if the president gives the military the ability to operate as they should, which is to protect this country, to protect us from foreign enemies, that's what the military is for, if he understands that, he understands what the military role is all about, then he would not appoint this kind of committee.

He would not try to talk about making generals loyal to him in the same way Hitler's generals were loyal to Hitler. He would basically allow these generals and admirals and leaders of our military to do what they do best, which is to defend our country. That's what they're supposed to do.

BLITZER: Well said. Leon Panetta, thanks as usual for joining us.

And just ahead, we'll have a live report from Capitol Hill as the GOP prepares to pick one of the most powerful Republicans in Washington.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:40:00]

BLITZER: All right, there's breaking news we're following with the U.S. Senate now back in session. Republicans are vying for Donald Trump's favor as the party prepares to choose a leader not named Mitch McConnell for the first time in nearly two decades.

Our Chief Congressional Correspondent Manu Raju is joining us right now from Capitol Hill. He's got details.

Manu, as senators return to where you are, Capitol Hill, what does this leadership fight stand right now?

MANU RAJU, CNN ANCHOR AND CHIEF CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, right now behind closed doors, Wolf, Republican senators are huddled, listening to the pitches from the three candidates looking to succeed Mitch McConnell for one of the most powerful positions in Washington, the Senate majority leader, in charge of the agenda, the schedule and the party strategy in trying to keep the Republican majority. Those three candidates, Senator John Cornyn. John Thune and Rick Scott.

Cornyn and Thune are seen as the frontrunners in this race. Rick Scott has support from people outside of the Senate, people who are aligned with Donald Trump, but Trump himself has not weighed in. Cornyn and Thune are seen as the favorites because they are long time senators. They fundraise for their members. They've done -- they've built inroads and people (INAUDIBLE), which gives them a leg up in the secret ballot election that will happen tomorrow.

Now, on the House side, there's also a leadership election expected tomorrow afternoon after Donald Trump comes and meets with the House Republicans. Then they will actually vote to move on, decide who should be the next speaker of the House. Right now, the current speaker, Mike Johnson, believes he eventually will have the support in order to be elected speaker come next January.

The question will be if anybody decides to try to undercut his bid. He could only afford, potentially, to lose a handful of votes, assuming Republicans keep the House. We have now projected that the Republicans will keep the House, but if they do, it would be a narrow majority, meaning he could only lose a handful of votes, Wolf, and that's one of the things that the speaker told me earlier today. He believes he will not have the problems that the past speaker, Kevin McCarthy, had. He says he believes he'll have the support and the support of Donald Trump as he comes to Capitol Hill tomorrow.

BLITZER: Yes. You're going to be busy tomorrow, Manu Raju. Thank you very, very much.

Another major story we're following right now, the New York state judge overseeing Donald Trump's hush money case has just delayed a decision on whether to throw out his 34 felony convictions.

CNN's Chief Legal Analyst and Anchor Laura Coates is joining us right now with more. Why is this decision being delayed?

LAURA COATES, CNN ANCHOR AND CHIEF LEGAL ANALYST: Today was a deadline imposed by the judge to decide whether or not the Supreme Court's immunity ruling should have an impact on this actual trial. You might be wondering, why would an immunity ruling that says that a president doing his official duties would be impacting a case that dealt with a campaign before he was president? Well, because there was testimony, according to Trump's lawyers, that would have fallen under the scope of immunized testimony in the form of official conduct. Hope Hicks testified, for example. They believe that's enough to throw out the entire results of that jury verdict.

Now, the judge had said, tell me by today, what impact that would actually had. Now the parties got together and said, we need a little bit more time, one week from today, to really flush out these issues a little bit further. There is still a date of the 26th that is technically on the records of sorts to tenth NSM (ph), but it will likely be delayed if not. For a long time, indefinitely.

BLITZER: How likely do you think it is, Laura, that Judge Merchan will eventually toss the felony convictions out? If it doesn't happen, what happens next?

COATES: We are in such uncharted territory to have a president-elect who has a felony, let alone 34 felony convictions. Where we are right now is a balancing act. The prosecuting attorney in this case said, look, they have a regular jury guilty verdict.

[18:45:05]

You have to honor that. Then you've got the president-elect. He has to balance those two things. This is a federal office was opposed to a state level prosecution. So the judge will like to look at this and say, let's think about the cost-benefit analysis.

Is it in the interest of justice to have a president elect be burdened by an incarceration be burdened by a sentencing they'll balance those two things but we are in such uncharted territories, I don't believe that the judge will ever seek incarceration against Donald Trump in this capacity. I also think there's a real possibility that they would have if not a suspended sentence an indefinite one in the future and the defense counsel can certainly do a lot of things to slow this. They can appeal it. He'll be released on bail pending that appeal and it'll be stayed so to speak for the pendency of his presidency.

BLITZER: And there was a Supreme Court decision on this whole issue as well.

COATES: Yes.

BLITZER: There's another Supreme Court decision that I want to get to right now another legal matter. The Supreme Court today declined to move former Trump chief of staff Mark Meadows, his Georgia election subversion case to federal court as he was pitching. Does this mean this case will go to trial?

COATES: One of the things the reasons he wants to do that is to get some of the benefits of having federal law and the idea of official conduct may be giving him an escape patch, but his name is not Donald Trump. He's not a president-elect. The idea of having those same philosophies that the state prosecutors are considering right now very different.

But, remember, this is a case that has been suspended indefinitely because Fani Willis is still -- having been reelected, she still has a tentative disqualification proceeding that says she may not be able to actually preside over this matter. If she is not able to, the pacing of trying to find her replacement would kick this can down the road a great deal. So we're not yet at the point where this trial is going to have a date certain let alone a prosecutor certain.

Yeah, a lot of legal stuff going on, Laura, thank you very, very much.

Laura Coates, appreciate it.

And, Laura, of course, we'll be back later tonight, 11:00 p.m. Eastern for her program Laura Coates live.

And we'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:51:17]

BLITZER: Tonight, as President-elect Trump reveals his picks for more top administration jobs, the role of education secretary is unclear given Trump's pledge to scrap the Education Department altogether.

CNN's Brian Todd reports.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

BRIAN TODD, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): On the campaign trail this year, the president-elect said he's been dying to do it.

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT-ELECT OF THE UNITED STATES: We will ultimately eliminate the federal Department of Education.

TODD: Donald Trump's pledge to abolish the Department of Education, part of his push to wipe out what he's called corruption and waste in Washington.

TRUMP: We will drain the government education swamp and stop the abuse of your taxpayer dollars to indoctrinate America's youth with all sorts of things that you don't want to have our youth hearing.

TODD: Why does Trump want to get rid of the Department of Education?

Analysts say part of it is the Republican philosophy of getting the federal government out of education, and moving that to the states. But it also involves the culture wars.

JON VALANT, BROWN CENTER ON EDUCATION POLICY, BROOKINGS INST: Issues involving how sex was taught about race and ethnicity, about LGBTQ students rights. And so, what we've seen over these last few years is that a lot of adult politics have found their ways into our schools.

What does the Department of Education do: One of its biggest jobs, analysts say, is funding America's students.

ALFIE KOHN, AUTHOR, "THE SCHOOLS OUR CHILDREN DESERVE": The Department of Education exists mostly to send money back to schools for Pell grants, for student loans, for impoverished elementary and secondary schools, and for special ed.

TODD: The department's also tasked with investigating discrimination in schools what if the department was wiped out?

VALANT: It would be catastrophic for the country because so many students depend on those resources and those protection and it's students in poverty, it's students with disabilities, it's our whole student loan portfolio.

TODD: Politics has often crept into the debate. During the first Trump administration, Education Secretary Betsy DeVos, the first cabinet secretary to survive confirmation, thanks only to a vice president's tiebreaking vote, championed conservative causes like charter schools and vouchers.

And today, she seemed to back gutting the agency she once led.

TV HOST: So are you saying, you don't think disbanding the DOE is the priority?

BETSY DEVOS, FORMER TRUMP EDUCATION SECRETARY: I do think it's a priority but some of these more immediate things need to be done first.

TODD: When DeVos led the department, Trump tried cutting its budget. In the 1980s, Ronald Reagan tried eliminating the agency. Neither plan worked.

KOHN: Some Republicans have resisted this and presumably will resist this again, possibly because $14 billion goes to people with disabilities and even people on the right wing may have children and neighbors with disabilities.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

TODD (on camera): Experts say eliminating the Department of Education still may not wipe out federal funding for students with disabilities or from low income families. They say that money was given out by the federal government even before the Department of Education was established. And if the department goes away, that funding could simply shift to other agencies -- Wolf.

BLITZER: Brian Todd reporting for us, Brian, thanks very much.

And we'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: The U.S. State Department says it has not determined that Israel is in violation of a U.S. law after a report finding the aid situation in Gaza is actually getting worse in spite of an improvement deadline set by the Biden administration.

CNN's Alex Marquardt is joining us right now.

Alex, what is the Biden administration saying and what's the reality based on all of our reporting on the ground?

ALEX MARQUARDT, CNN CHIE F NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, Wolf, no doubt the situation in northern Gaza is horrific as the Israeli military continues to besiege the area. But today, the Biden administration said that Israel is not in violation of U.S. policy, they had given them a 30-day deadline essentially to improve the situation, the humanitarian situation in northern Gaza or face legal action, essentially a cut off of U.S. military aid.

The U.S. said, there were a dozen -- more than a dozen concrete measures where they wanted to see Israeli improvement. Now, Wolf, ahead of -- the announcement today by the Biden administration, we heard from eight different aid organizations who said together that Israel failed to not only failed to meet the U.S. criteria, but took actions that dramatically worsened the situation on the ground particularly in northern Gaza.

But we did hear from the State Department, they said they believe that some progress is being made. They want to see more changes happen, but they do not think for now that Israel is in violation of us law -- Wolf.

BLITZER: All right. Alex Marquardt, thank you very much for that report.

And to our viewers, thanks very much for watching.

I'm Wolf Blitzer in THE SITUATION ROOM.

"ERIN BURNETT OUTFRONT" starts right now.