Return to Transcripts main page

The Situation Room

Federal Appeals Court Says, Alina Habba Unlawfully Serving as U.S. Attorney for New Jersey; Lawmakers Question Legality of Strikes on Alleged Drug Boat; Soon, Luigi Mangione in New York City Court, as Defense Disputes Key Evidence. Aired 10-10:30a ET

Aired December 01, 2025 - 10:00   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:00:00]

WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: Happening now, breaking news, new reporting on what the White House is doing about the suspected drug boat strikes in the Caribbean. Calls growing louder and louder this morning from Democrats and Republicans about the legality of one of those strikes that killed civilians.

Plus, right now, crucial hearing Luigi Mangione in court, the key evidence his attorneys want tossed from a state murder case.

And a massive fireball sends flames shooting into the sky as hundreds of firefighters rush to contain the inferno.

Welcome to our viewers here in the United States and around the world. I'm Wolf Blitzer. Pamela Brown is off today, you're in The Situation Room.

And this breaking news just in to CNN, a legal blow to the Trump administration, a federal appeals court found that Alina Habba is serving unlawfully as the United States attorney for New Jersey. She previously served as President Trump's personal attorney.

CNN Crime and Justice Correspondent Katelyn Polantz has the breaking developments for us. Katelyn, this could potentially have very far reaching consequences across the country. What can you tell us?

KATELYN POLANTZ, CNN SENIOR CRIME AND JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: It could Wolf because other courts are very likely to look at this decision, the first from a federal appeals court on any of these people who the Trump administration has put into these positions serving as U.S. attorney and had them serve longer than the law allows without Senate confirmation.

However, this ruling today, it's from the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, so that oversees New Jersey where Alina Haba had been sent by the Justice Department to act as the U.S. attorney in that district, that federal district overseeing the federal courts there and the prosecutions there. It also would apply to the states around New Jersey, Pennsylvania, New York, a few others -- sorry, not New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware. But one of the things that's happening here is that the third circuit, they're looking at Alina Haba, and they're saying not just that she's not the acting U.S. attorney for the District of New Jersey at this time. She's disqualified from overseeing two criminal cases where people were trying to get her tossed from being the U.S. attorney there.

Wolf, she is also in a situation where the court's looking at what the Justice Department did and said the way the attorney general, Pam Bondi, the way the Trump administration was trying to give her power without having Congressional approval of her in that job. It's just not going to work.

Here's a quote from the ruling. This is all three judges on the third circuit panel today. Under the government's delegation theory, Habba may avoid the gauntlet of presidential appointment and Senate confirmation and serve as the de facto U.S. attorney indefinitely. This view by the Justice Department is so broad that it bypasses the constitutional appointment and Senate confirmation process entirely.

The Justice Department had argued in the court that if they can't do something like this, put somebody in power in a U.S. attorney position like this when there isn't anyone that was Senate confirmed, that it would erode their ability to have the federal government functioning as that part of the Justice Department. The court said that's just not the case, and that's where the implications lie.

This could be something then that other courts look at when they weigh where other U.S. attorneys have not had Senate confirmation, whether they can continue serving, also something the Supreme Court is very likely to have to take up at some point in time, whether it's with Alina Haba or another U.S. attorney, someone, say, like Lindsey Halligan in the Eastern District of Virginia, who was disqualified from some cases and had those cases dismissed against James Comey, Letitia James, just last week. Wolf?

BLITZER: All right. Katelyn Polantz reporting the breaking news, thank you very, very much.

There's other breaking news with following as well, including President Trump getting ready to hold an Oval Office meeting later today about the next steps when it comes to Venezuela, that according to sources familiar with the matter.

These developments come as new questions surround the administration's deadly strike on a suspected drug boat that had already been attacked. Sources tell CNN that Secretary Pete Hegseth ordered the military to ensure the strike kill everyone on the vessel, including those who were already injured, and Hegseth defended the military action taken, saying that those operations in the Caribbean, quote, are lawful under both U.S. and international law.

But now a bipartisan group of lawmakers, Republicans and Democrats, launching an investigation into whether the follow up strike constitutes or what their billing potentially as a war crime.

[10:05:11]

Let's go live right now to CNN Senior White House Reporter Betsy Klein over at the White House and CNN Senior National Security Reporter Zachary Cohen.

Betsy, let me begin with you. Who is expected to attend the important meeting at the White House later today when it comes to U.S. military action potentially involving Venezuela?

BETSY KLEIN, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE REPORTER: Well, Wolf, all eyes are going to be on the White House for this very critical and high- stakes meeting where President Trump will be briefed by top members of his cabinet on next steps for Venezuela. According to sources familiar with the matter, we expect Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Dan Caine, along with Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, among other top aides to be present for this meeting in the Oval Office.

And this comes after President Trump confirms that he has spoken by phone to Venezuela President Nicholas Maduro. It also comes after the president starkly warned over the weekend on social media that Venezuelan airspace should be considered closed. He was asked why as he returned to Washington last night. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REPORTER: Can you tell us more about why the airspace above Venezuela should be considered closed?

DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: Yes, because we consider Venezuela to be not a very friendly country. They sent millions of people, really, and probably a number in excess of that. And a lot of those people shouldn't be in our country from jails, from gangs, from drug dealers, from all of the people that came into our country, shouldn't have been in our country causing a lot of problems.

REPORTER: Does your warning --

TRUMP: And drugs.

REPORTER: Does your warning mean that an airstrike is eminent or should we not read it that way?

TRUMP: Don't read anything into it.

REPORTER: The New York Times reported that you had a phone call with Maduro. Did you?

TRUMP: I don't want to comment on it. The answer is yes.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KLEIN: Now, all of this as the U.S. military has amassed a massive show of force in the region and conducted roughly 20 airstrikes on suspected drug vessels in the Caribbean. In the region, we are seeing more than a dozen warships as well as about 15,000 U.S. troops. So, all of that, the president has been briefed by his team on a range of options, including airstrikes on key military or government facilities in the area, as well as the possibility of a more direct attempt to ouster the country's president, Nicolas Maduro, President Trump weighing all of this heading into this meeting. Wolf?

BLITZER: All right, Betsy, I want you to stand by. Zach Cohen is here with me in The Situation Room.

Zach, President Trump is backing up Defense Secretary Hegseth's version of all these events saying this aboard Air Force One. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: He said he did not say that, and I believe him 100 percent.

REPORTER: You don't know --

TRUMP: You're talking about the two men.

REPORTER: The second strike to kill the two men after --

TRUMP: Yes. No, He said he didn't do it. He said he never said that.

REPORTER: Would you be okay if with that if he did?

TRUMP: He said he didn't do it, so I don't have to make that decision.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: So, Zach, what else are you learning about what's being described as a double tap strike that killed Venezuelans on this boat?

ZACHARY COHEN, CNN SENIOR NATIONAL SECURITY REPORTER: Yes, Wolf. It was interesting because the president also leaving some room there saying Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth told him that they didn't conduct a second, what's known as a double tap strike, on an alleged drug boat in the Caribbean. But we're told by sources that the administration in the U.S. military appears to have deliberately killed survivors during a September 2nd operation in the Caribbean, carrying out, again, a double tap strike when the first strike on an alleged drug boat didn't appear to kill everyone on board. Again, that is called -- raising concerns about a potential war crime, bipartisan concerns. We're hearing from Republicans and Democrats who are really voicing consternation in the wake of this news and this reporting from our colleague Natasha Bertrand.

Here's what we know from our sources in which we're sort telling CNN, that on September 2nd, the first strike against an alleged drug boat appeared to disable the boat and cause deaths among the survivors. But the military assessed that not everyone on board was killed. So, there was a second strike that was carried out that did ultimately kill the remaining crew. 11 people in total were killed during this strike. We're also told that before the operation, Pete Hegseth apparently ordered the military to make sure the strike killed everyone on board. But it's unclear if he knew at the time it was ordered that there were survivors on board. But still, we know of subsequent strikes where survivors were ultimately picked up and rescued after their boat was disabled and others on board were killed. So, again, this is notable too because the Trump administration, when they announced this strike on September 2nd.

They didn't disclose this detail about the potential that survivors were ultimately killed. And so that is raising questions and calls for the defense secretary to release the unedited video from that strike. At the same time, these Senate and House Armed Services Committees, both led by Republicans, are vowing to investigate this as other lawmakers are calling for an investigation and raising the potential for a war crime was committed.

[10:10:04]

Take a listen to what a few lawmakers said over the weekend.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. ANGUS KING (I-ME): The law is clear. If the facts are as have been alleged, that there was a second strike specifically to kill the survivors in the water, that's a stone cold war crime. That is also murder.

REP. MIKE TURNER (R-OH): This is completely outside of anything that has been discussed with Congress.

Obviously, if that occurred that would be very serious and I agree that would be an illegal act.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COHEN: So, of course, for his part, Pete Hegseth saying in his statement that the, quote, fake news is delivering more fabricated, inflammatory and derogatory reporting to discredit our incredible warriors, fighting to protect the homeland. He goes on to insist that the current operations in the Eastern Pacific and Caribbean are lawful under the law of armed conflict. But, again, sort of a non-denial denial in his response to this very detailed reporting, not only from our colleague, but also The Washington Post.

BLITZER: Because the argument that these lawmakers, Republicans and Democrats, are now raising questions about is whether or not the decision to go ahead and kill the surviving suspects on this boat if they were wounded, for example, was a war crime.

COHEN: Raising even more questions from the ones that are already existing about the legal justification for these strikes in totality. But this is definitely raising a lot of concerns on Capitol Hill.

BLITZER: And they're also suggesting potentially if it was an alleged war crime that the U.S. military personnel should have disobeyed the order from the higher command, Hegseth and others, to go ahead and kill these wounded Venezuelans.

COHEN: That's right. Technically, lawmakers saying anyone responsible in the ordering or carrying out of this operation would ultimately be responsible for any potential violation of the law.

BLITZER: Zachary Cohen, thanks very, very much. Betsy Klein, thanks to you as well.

Also new this morning, a massive fire engulfed to waste facility near Sydney, Australia. Just look at this.

A huge fireball sent flames almost 500 feet into the air yesterday. One witness says it was like a nuclear explosion. Officials say a large chemical tank was blown into the air, and chunks of concrete blocks rained down on fire crews. Two firefighters suffered what are being described as minor injuries. No cause -- no word yet on what caused the fire.

And still ahead, winter storms wrecking travel, traffic crawling, flights grounded, and now another massive system is on the move with millions of Americans in the crosshairs.

And a frantic manhunt underway right now after a mass shooting at a child's birthday party, four people, including children killed. New details about the gunman behind the horrific attack.

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:15:00]

BLITZER: There's breaking news out of New York City right now. You're looking at live pictures. At any moment, we expect Luigi Mangione to arrive at a New York courthouse. He's the man accused of killing UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson last year.

Attorneys for Mangione are trying to get key evidence tossed from his state murder case. They argue items, such as his diary entries, which prosecutors refer to as a manifesto, were illegally obtained from his backpack without a warrant during his arrest. State prosecutors have denied these claims and the hearing over the disputed evidence is expected to last now several days.

CNN's Kara Scannell filed this report just before heading into court.

KARA SCANNELL, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Luigi Mangione is back in court this morning as his lawyers try to get some key evidence in this case thrown out. The focus is when Mangione was approached by law enforcement at a McDonald's in Altoona, Pennsylvania. It's there that his lawyers argue his constitutional rights were violated. They say the Altoona Police searched his backpack illegally because they didn't have a warrant. They also say they violated his rights by asking him questions without reading his Miranda rights, that it's his right to remain silent. So, what his lawyers want to keep out of this case and away from his jury are those contents that were found in the backpack, a gun, a silencer, and a notebook that had Mangione's handwriting samples in there.

But prosecutors say that that was his manifesto and led to the -- explained his motive for why he allegedly shot and killed UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson last December. Mangione wrote in that notebook, whack the CEO at annual parasitic bean counter convention. He also wrote, it conveys a greedy bastard that had it coming.

Mangione's Lawyers also want to keep away from a jury statement that he initially gave to law enforcement when he identified himself as Mark Rosario. That's the name of the person who rented a hostel room that authorities say the shooter stayed in just days before UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson was gunned down.

Prosecutors say that nothing improper happened. They are expected to call as many as two dozen witnesses. Mangione will be in court. He's been given permission by the judge to wear a suit. He's asked to have one hand unshackled so he can take notes. The judge has not yet ruled on that, but this hearing could last several days. Wolf?

BLITZER: All right. Kara Scannell, I know you're going to be heading into that court room and we'll be checking back with you often. Thank you very, very much.

I want to bring in CNN Legal Analyst Joey Jackson right now. Joey, break down what the defense is arguing for us right now. Why are they trying to get this evidence thrown out?

JOEY JACKSON, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: So, Wolf, prior to any trial, you have what are called pre-trial proceedings. At those pre-trial proceedings, the prosecution has to establish that any evidence seized was seized properly, that there was probable cause underlying any seizure.

[10:20:04]

Here, the issue in dispute is a backpack. Why is the defense trying to keep it out? Because it has damning evidence and information. As Kara Scannell just laid out, you have a backpack that has a gun, it has the silencer, it has the manifesto, quote/unquote, which gives the real intention behind this killing of the healthcare executive. And so it's very damning if the jury would see it, in addition to his identification.

They are alleging that, as a defense, that it was an improper search, that the bag was not in his possession technically, it was on a table that was nearby. It posed no danger to them. They should have gotten a warrant prior to going into the backpack, and as a result of not getting a warrant, it would be illegal and improper.

And the remedy in the event the judge determines that the bag was seized and opened and looked into illegally, the remedy is to exclude that from the jury's view. The jury is not there today. It's just the judge. And the prosecutors have to lay out the information to establish that that seizure of the bag and anything associated with it was done properly.

Now, the prosecution will argue that they had an emergency circumstance. It could have been a bomb of something else in that backpack. In addition, the prosecution will argue that it would've inevitably been discovered, meaning it would've been taken back, it would've been inventoried, et cetera. But the defense is alleging that, hey, in the event that happened, they still would've needed to get a warrant, which they subsequently did. Several hours later, defense says, hey, it's too late. You open up that backpack. It's not coming in.

Final point, Wolf, in that is there also, that's called a map hearing and other pre-trial proceedings called a Huntley hearing. That is to determine whether any statements that he made, that is Mr. Mangione, were in fact made properly.

Now, if you're going to question a suspect, we've all seen this, you have to issue them their Miranda warnings, but only if it's a custodial interrogation. That means they're in custody and they're being interrogated. Here, the defense alleges they should not have spoken to him at all, such that they would've illicit information as to a false name or anything else, and that the statement additionally should be thrown out.

And so all these witnesses are going to establish, the prosecution hopes, the propriety and legality of the search of the bag, the propriety and legality of the statements, and in the event they do, those statements will be shown to the jury. The event they don't, the jury will not see them. They will be concealed and the prosecution must go forward with other evidence, but not that evidence that was in the bag.

BLITZER: And that evidence is obviously very, very important.

The hearing is expected to last several days now. Tell us why.

JACKSON: Well, generally these hearings do not last several days. I think this case is a case like none other. Generally, these hearings last a day. Sometimes they go on more. But here, you have various jurisdictions. You have the Pennsylvania jurisdiction. I think we'll hear testimony as to the officers who initially approached him, where he was, why they searched the bag, what he was doing, why they felt the necessity of doing that. And so they have to establish it as the prosecution that the search was done with probable cause, because they want that evidence and information in.

Now, you don't have to show proof beyond a reasonable doubt. It's not that type of hearing, but you certainly have to give enough to the judge to show that it was proper, it was authentic, it was lawful, and it was predicated upon probable cause. In the absence of that, the judge will exclude that has prevent the jury from seeing this, but the trial will still move forward. BLITZER: And very quickly before I let you go, Joey. Does the prosecution acknowledge they never told Mangione he has a right to remain silent?

JACKSON: Indeed they do. But, however, there are other arguments, even though they eventually did, but at the time that they were making an accusation towards him, if it's a custodial interrogation, it doesn't mean you're in cuffs. But if you're not free to leave and they're asking questions that could incriminate you, you have to give Miranda.

However, if you're simply investigating a case and not really questioning him, such that you're eliciting guilty statements, you don't. And so there's a fine line with respect to investigatory information being supplied and incriminatory, meaning you're looking for evidence to incriminate them. The police say, we just needed to know what the lay of the land was, and that was the basis upon which we asked those questions.

BLITZER: Interesting. All right, Joey, thank you very, very much. We're going to, of course, continue to monitor this hearing throughout the next two hours. Joey Jackson will be standing by for more analysis. Thank you, Joey, very much.

Coming up, President Trump escalating his immigration cracked down in the wake of the National Guard shooting, as the U.S. Homeland Security secretary reveals new intelligence on where the radicalization of this suspect likely took root.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:25:00]

BLITZER: Happening now, President Trump says he will honor the two National Guard members shot last week here in Washington when the time is right. Staff Sergeant Andrew Wolfe remains in critical condition in a Washington Hospital while Specialist Sarah Beckstrom was honored in her hometown after she died as a result of the ambush-style shooting.

The U.S. Homeland Security secretary, Kristi Noem, says, the suspect in the shooting was radicalized in the United States after arriving from Afghanistan back in 2021. President Trump now indicating a pause on all decisions for asylum seekers could be indefinite as part of his immigration crackdown.

CNN Correspondent Priscilla Alvarez is here with us right now. Priscilla, take us through the potential fallout from this immigration crackdown.

PRISCILLA ALVAREZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, the actions that they have announced fall into due buckets, retrospective and prospective. And together, Wolf, they mark a remarkable and sweeping crackdown in the president's immigration agenda.

[10:30:02] So, let me walk you through them. In the retrospective category, they are reviewing all asylum cases that were approved under former President Joe --