Return to Transcripts main page

The Situation Room

Inferno Rages Through Hong Kong Residential High-Rises; FBI Seeks Interviews with Dems About Illegal Orders; Social Media and Teen Mental Health; GA Prosecutor Kills Election Interference Case Against Trump and Allies. Aired 10:30-11a ET

Aired November 26, 2025 - 10:30   ET

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

[10:30:00]

IVAN WATSON, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: -- put towels around their doorframes and try to sit tight while taking note of which apartment number and which floor they're in. I -- if somebody is still in there, I cannot imagine how absolutely frightening it, it must be, this is a major disaster, the worst that I can remember in the city. And I've lived here for 10 years. Pamela.

PAMELA BROWN, CNN ANCHOR: I mean, absolutely terrifying if you're still trapped in one of those buildings. And you have to wonder, as we're watching this video behind you. You know, the risk of collapse, Ivan.

WATSON: And look, at this point, you can see one of the ladders, it's spraying water on that floor up there. That's only about halfway up that high rise. This is a densely populated city where many people live in apartment buildings. I live in an apartment building like this. So, this is your worst nightmare come to life.

There are going to be a lot of questions. How is it possible that this could have spread so quickly from one tower to six more towers? And we've heard firsthand from a resident who said she never heard an alarm warning her to evacuate. She just wandered out and saw that the fire was spreading. So, we're going to have to watch this to make sure that more people could not have been trapped inside.

BROWN: Yes. Massive failure. Wow. Ivan Watson and Hong Kong, thank you so much. Just ahead here in the Situation Room, they have been dubbed the Seditious Six by top administration leaders, but now the FBI is investigating them. Is it legal? We're going to break down the ramifications after the break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:35:00]

BROWN: New this morning, Democrats who called on U.S. troops to refuse illegal orders given by the Trump administration say they are now being investigated by the FBI. The group of six Democratic lawmakers made up of CIA and military veterans say federal investigators have contacted House and Senate authorities to request interviews with them. In a statement, the group's House Democrats accused Trump of, quote, "using the FBI to intimidate and harass members of Congress, vowing that they will continue to support and defend the Constitution."

So, let's discuss more now with CNN senior legal analyst, Elie Honig. Elie, the White House has painted this quote, "illegal orders video," or at least by the Democrats, as dangerous, seditious, claiming it undermines the president's authority as commander in chief, but is it illegal?

ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST AND FORMER ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY, SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK: Pam, there's nothing remotely illegal about the statements made by these members of Congress in that video. This is core protected First Amendment political speech.

Now, there's plenty of room to validly criticize those Democrats. I've seen some compelling commentaries. We had General Spider Marx on our air recently who said that the comments made by the Democrats were inappropriate and undermine the chain of command. I've seen similar sentiments by other retired members of the military. Fine, have that debate, agree, disagree, criticize, reply, rebut, that's what the First Amendment is about. You can comb through the statute books you will not find a crime that applies to any of this.

The other point, Pam, is all of these sitting members of Congress are protected by the Constitution's speech and debate clause which says that members of the House and Senate cannot be prosecuted or punished for statements that they make in the course of their official duties. So, I think even if there was some arguably applicable crime, which there's not, they'd still have that constitutional protection.

BROWN: Just to follow up on that, how robust of a defense is that if they weren't actually on the House or Senate floor making this video?

HONIG: Oh, so they don't have to be physically standing within the Capitol building on the floor of the House or Senate to make that defense. As long as they are members of the House or Senate and doing something that relates to their legislative job, then they'd be covered.

BROWN: And then I just want to ask you about Mark Kelly because as you know, our reporting is that Pete Hegseth, the secretary of war, is looking at different ways to punish him. One would be to bring him back to active duty and to have him court-martialed or to reduce his rank and pension pay, I'm told. When it comes to the free speech aspect, could he be held to a different standard as a former member of the military who is receiving a pension than the other members who were in this video?

HONIG: Right. So, clearly, that would be a retributive effort by the Secretary if he were to try to punish Mark Kelly that way. That would have to probably play out within the military courts. But yes, I think Senator Kelly would have a perfectly valid defense that he's being targeted, he's being singled out for his First Amendment expression, and that he's certainly not committed any crime. Whether he's committed some violation of the military code might be a closer call, but plainly any effort to punish Senator Kelly there would be political and retributive by the secretary.

BROWN: Elie Honig, always great to see you. Thank you so much and have a great Thanksgiving.

HONIG: Thanks, Pam. You too. All right.

BROWN: All right. Coming up here in the Situation Room, social media giants had data proving just how damaging their apps are on teen mental health, but they hid it. At least that's what the details of this new lawsuit is claiming. Up next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:40:00]

BROWN: New this morning, a lawsuit is accusing Meta, YouTube, TikTok, and Snapchat of knowingly targeting teens with addictive features. This suit, filed by hundreds of individuals, school districts, and attorneys general, cites internal company documents and accuses the platforms of using features like infinite scroll, beauty filters, and late-night notifications that undermine the mental health of children. Spokespeople for Meta and Snap say the lawsuit paints a misleading picture, and the companies are trying to get that case dismissed.

Joining us now is Dr. Jenny Radesky, a developmental behavioral pediatrician and assistant professor of pediatrics at the University of Michigan Medical School. Thank you so much for coming on.

So, this lawsuit claims in internal documents that Meta researchers called Instagram, quote, "a drug." TikTok staffers noted minors' lack of self-control, and Snapchat staff acknowledged, quote, "addiction." I want to get your reaction to that lawsuit and these claims from the companies that are calling this misleading.

[10:45:00]

DR. JENNY RADESKY, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN MEDICINE: Well, it's really interesting to get a peek inside what these big, powerful tech companies know and how they've been thinking about the problem of tech and kids because we as clinicians or as researchers, we've been studying it with our own limited data of tracking families and seeing when kids use more social media, are they having more trouble sleeping? Are they having more mood difficulties?

And so, I think the purpose of these lawsuits is to try to kind of open the doors to what research is being done at the companies. How much did they know about how design features like infinite scroll, auto play, streaks, or other engagement designs that really make you want to come back again and again, this is going to have a natural effect on a young mind where kids are so interested in connecting with their peers or connecting with pop culture. So, I think it's a really important step in transparency in understanding how we could make these products design better.

BROWN: And what have you found as a researcher? What is the data shown? DR. RADESKY: So, the data is really complex. We know that a subset of kids really do struggle with their relationships with technology and social media, including video games and social media and video sharing platforms. Estimates are about 20 percent to up to 50 percent have more problematic relationships with media.

This is more compulsive, addictive like behavior where they can't put it down. They want to do it more than other things. This type of problematic compulsive use is the most strongly linked with trouble sleeping, mood problems, conflict in your family. And that's what we're really focused on trying to reduce. And it's going to be through a couple of approaches. One, you have to reduce these design features that keep kids coming back again and again and respect kids' time and their need to disengage and go do other things.

The other part is working with families so that they can have better family relationships and dynamics around media so that they can set some limits more consistently and they can get kids engaged in other things or more help for school or homework or other reasons they may be using a lot of media because they want to avoid the other things that are stressful in their lives.

BROWN: Yes, and you talk about the family policy because I know managing technology as a parent myself, it can be a little bit tough, right, because you -- I want to set a good example for my kids, right? But also, I do a lot of my work preparing and so forth, reading up, emailing on my phone. And so, I wonder what your advice is to parents trying to set that good example.

DR. RADESKY: Yes, I mean, my research tracks parents' phones and we see that parents use their phones for about five and a half hours a day on average. So, pretty close to teenagers. They spend the most time on social media, video gaming and YouTube. So, also pretty close to teenagers.

So, my recommendations for parents is you are going to be a much more effective limit setter if you also set your own boundaries. So, reflect on your own use, take a look at your screen time output, say, what am I using too much that's not giving me joy? What am I using that I have to use but maybe I can put a time boundary around it and they say not use it right before bed or not use it during family time?

You're going to be much more likely to set a new family plan for some boundaries around media use if parents are involved and you get kids buy in as well.

BROWN: I have a question for those parents that are playing video games. Like, how do they have time for that? That's a separate issue.

DR. RADESKY: They don't know. I mean, parenting is stressful.

BROWN: Yes, I guess sometimes we need a break.

DR. RADESKY: You know, like parenting is stressful.

BROWN: Yes. DR. RADESKY: So, exactly, parents all need a break. But what they tell us in interviews is that they go for one short break and then it goes on and on and on because all of those distinct features that keep you on your phone. So, I tell parents, you deserve some me time, but make it maybe cuddly time where you're watching a sitcom with your kids or make it something where you set a timer and you're like, this is my 20 minutes of laughing and then I'm going to go back to my family.

BROWN: And I know that there are apps now you can download that will give you a timer or will make you meditate or something to really think about what you're about to do when you get on social media. So, there are resources out there.

I want to ask you quickly about this Washington Post article that highlights a month-long digital detox program for kids. It costs 8,000 bucks. I mean, is it so bad that inpatient treatment is necessary for some kids?

DR. RADESKY: I mean, we're kind of in a perfect storm right now where we have tech that wants our attention like 24/7 because that's how they make money and we have exhausted families who are working really hard and very stressed with this economy and with just all the other stresses that they're facing. So, it makes sense that a lot of parents are feeling so ineffective at managing media that they want to send their kids to a summer camp. But $8,000, most of the families I work with would not be able to afford that.

[10:50:00]

I really recommend that families think of a reboot if you feel like we need a detox. We have a handout on our American Academy of Pediatrics page. If you go to aap.org/socialmedia, we made this handout called the reboot where you take an inventory of like what tech is in my household, which of them are we using too much, which could we put some parental controls on or some Wi-Fi controls to just shut it off so it's not even an option. And then what -- you always have to have a replacement activity. Because if you decrease your screen time, you got to fill it with something else that's pleasurable or helps you connect.

So, you know, it could be time outdoors, cooking together, walking the dog. Parents tell me board games, listening to music are two things that are really easy for them to do instead.

BROWN: I love those ideas, aap.org/socialmedia. Dr. Jenny Radesky, thank you so much. And we'll be right back.

DR. RADESKY: You're welcome.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:55:00]

ANNOUNCER: This is CNN Breaking News. BROWN: We are following breaking news just into CNN. A Georgia prosecutor officially dropped the historic racketeering case against President Trump and others for attempting to overturn the 2020 presidential election. I want to go right to CNN's Kara Scannell. What are you learning, Kara?

KARA SCANNELL, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Good morning, Pam. Yes, this new filing in from the prosecutor who had taken the place to look into the Fulton County investigation of Donald Trump and others has filed a motion with the court saying that they are not going to move forward with the case or dropping the charges. What he filed was known as a null process and that means that in theory, because if the statute of limitations hasn't run out, a case could be refiled. But he attached to his filing about a 20-page statement explaining his rationales for why he did not think that they should move forward with this case.

You'll remember this was the case that began with Donald Trump making a call to the Georgia Secretary of State, Brad Raffensperger, urging him to find the votes. And then district attorney, Fani Willis, brought this historic investigation and filed those racketeering charges against Donald Trump and dozens of others for interfering with the 2020 election. She was then disqualified from the case because of an undisclosed romantic relationship with another prosecutor.

And that is how this case now fell into the hands earlier this month of a prosecutor who was assigned the job of trying to find someone to take on this case. He said that he couldn't because there were too many conflicts and he took it on himself. Now, we're seeing the results of that and that is that he is saying that they are not going to move forward with this case.

And he summarized it in part by saying that he made this decision by examining the case file, examining what the jury had been presented, and also considerations of the law. You know, he says that, you know, contesting an election is not unlawful but -- you know, and that is part of the reasons for why he decided not to move forward with the charges at this point.

But, you know, again, this is a null process filing, meaning that they're dropping the case right now. In theory, it could be revived if the statute of limitations doesn't run out. But of course, Donald Trump is still in office for another three years. You know, Pam, this is the last of the criminal prosecutions that have been hanging over Donald Trump as he entered the White House. The only conviction that he faced out of the four indictments was the one in New York for the hush money payments, and that one he is appealing. Pam.

BROWN: All right. Kara Scannell, thanks so much. I want to bring in former federal prosecutor and CNN senior legal analyst, Elie. How significant is this?

HONIG: Well, Pam, this means the Georgia case against Donald Trump is over. This means really all the criminal prosecutions against Donald Trump are over. Now, I just had a chance to quickly read some portions of the motion that this prosecutor put in. This prosecutor, Peter Skandalakis, is a 40-year career nonpolitical, nonpartisan prosecutor. He lays out his credentials in the motion.

And there's really two reasons that he says he's dropping the case. The first one is just a practical reason. He says there's no realistic constitutional way we're going to be able to try the sitting president of the United States, nor is there any realistic chance that when he gets done being president in early 2029, that we will be able to continue a prosecution. That part is technical and I believe correct.

But separately, there is a sharp rebuke in here of the DA who charged this case, of Fani Willis. This prosecutor, Skandalakis, says this case never should have been charged in the state courts here in Georgia. He says it should have been charged, if at all, federally by the Justice Department in Washington, D.C., which it was.

Now, to be clear, Pam, this prosecutor, Skandalakis, seems to think that Donald Trump's conduct was certainly serious and worrisome. He spends many pages laying it out. But he does say this was not appropriate for a state-level prosecution in Georgia, never should have been charged in the first place, and now it's over.

BROWN: Yes. And, you know, just to remind our viewers, right, because this case in particular has taken so many twists and turns. It started with that phone call between Donald Trump and the -- Secretary of State Raffensperger, where he said, I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have because we won the state. And flipping the state is a great testament to our country because, you know, this is just -- it's a --

[11:00:00]