Return to Transcripts main page

The Situation Room

Sources Say, FBI Arrests Man in D.C. Pipe Bomber Investigation; Admiral That Pentagon Says Ordered Second Boat Strike Briefs Lawmakers; Unclassified Version of Signal Gate Report Expected Today. Aired 10-10:30a ET

Aired December 04, 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]

PAMELA BROWN, CNN ANCHOR: Happening now, breaking news, sources tell CNN that an arrest has been made in the D.C. pipe bomb investigation from nearly five years ago. What we're learning.

Plus, putting troops at risk, sources tell CNN that's what officials are saying in a new report into Secretary Pete Hegseth use of the Signal messaging app. But his department says the report is, quote, total exoneration.

And the CDC's vaccine committee is meeting to weigh a major change to the childhood vaccine schedule.

WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: Admiral Frank Mitch Bradley up on Capitol Hill. Soon, he'll be briefing U.S. lawmakers on the very controversial follow-up strike in the Caribbean as the White House and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth say he's the one who authorized it.

Plus, immigration crackdowns in New Orleans and Minneapolis. We'll discuss that and more with the former Homeland Security secretary, Jeh Johnson.

And U.S. Justice Department deadline, a bipartisan group of lawmakers putting pressure on the U.S. attorney general, Pam Bondi, to fully release the Epstein files.

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

We begin this hour with the breaking news, law enforcement sources now tell CNN that the FBI finally has arrested a man who investigators believe planted pipe bombs near the Republican and Democratic National Committee Headquarters here in Washington the night before the January 6th Capitol riot back in 2021.

The arrest follows an almost five-year investigation to uncover the identity of the alleged bomber who has only been seen in grainy surveillance video, shrouded in a hoodie, gloves, and face mask. Then- Vice President Kamala Harris, by the way, came within 20 feet of the bomb at the DNC on January 6th. Let's go live right now to CNN Senior Justice Correspondent Evan Perez. Evan, first of all, what can you tell us about this arrest?

EVAN PEREZ, CNN SENIOR JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Well, Wolf, the arrest was made earlier today. And the FBI believes that this is the person who placed those bombs at the DNC and the RNC buildings, just a couple blocks away from the U.S. Capitol.

Now, you remember that the bombs were discovered just on that morning of January 6th, just before the mob broke through the police cordons there. And because it drew police away from the Capitol complex, there was some belief that, you know, this was connected to the riot.

We don't know much more yet about the suspect. We expect that the FBI and the Justice Department are going to provide a lot more information.

But you could see some of the video that you were showing there, this is partly why this investigation thwarted resolution for so long. There was only these videos, it was a pandemic times where someone wearing a mask, and, of course, it was a cold winter night, where this did not really draw anything remarkable for any witnesses who encountered this person.

Earlier this year, the FBI brought in a fresh set of eyes. Dan Bongino, the deputy FBI director, said that they brought in a fresh set of eyes to take a look at some of the evidence that they had accumulated over the years, and then that has shown at least or choke loose some of new, some new clues that the FBI believes have brought him to today, which is bringing this arrest forward.

Wolf, one of the things that's really remarkable about this is that, you know, they've looked at, nearly 40,000 video files. They've talked to hundreds of people. They even looked at the data on sales of those distinctive gray and black Nike Air Max shoes that the bomber, the alleged bomber was wearing. Only 25,000 of them were sold about the time of this of this incident, and they still couldn't resolve it.

And so today, we expect to hear a lot more about how they made this arrest. Wolf?

BLITZER: All right. Evan Perez, thanks very much for that update. Pamela?

BROWN: All right, Wolf. For more analysis, I want to bring in retired FBI Special Agent Daniel Brunner.

So, Daniel, you just heard Evan lay out what a complicated case this has been for the FBI over the last several years.

[10:05:04]

What is your reaction to this news that there has finally been arrested this investigation?

DANIEL BRUNNER, PRESIDENT, BRUNNER SIERRA GROUP LLC: Well, my reaction is outstanding and I'm very proud of the FBI agents that worked this case, the FBI agents and the analysts, the evidence response team, the cyber tech team. This was obviously a collaborative effort by not only FBI. I'm sure there were, you know, coordination with the Capitol police and locals to determine who this individual is.

I've been a part of a cold case, which was a cold case for 12 years. So, this is not to say that the previous agents didn't know what they were doing. It's exactly like Evan said, bringing a fresh set of eyes to look at it from a different angle. As I was saying, I was part of a cold case that stood quiet in New Jersey for 12 years and I took on the case and plenty of other agents behind me were excellent agents. I just had a different look on it and a different -- and we ended up resolving that case in after 12 years.

So, this is a great resolution by the street agents, by the analysts, the people on the ground that really took this to heart and tore it apart.

BLITZER: Daniel, it's Wolf. Can you discuss some of the challenges the FBI now faces in these sorts of investigations, why, in your view, why did it take almost five years?

BRUNNER: Well, a lot of things, from what I understand, is this isn't a discovery of new technology. So, we have a lot of the things that are in the news now, new DNA technology to resolve serial killers. This is just a different way to look at it. Maybe the other -- another person, you know, person of interest, a different person was interviewed, a different thing. All it takes is one domino. All it takes is one piece for it to fall around the person that they believe is the individual as the target.

Now, obviously, the fact that they've obtained an arrest warrant and they arrested this individual, it means that they have sufficient evidence to prove that this individual. So, the United States Attorney's Office should not be moving forward with an arrest warrant unless they feel that they could go to trial right now.

When I worked with U.S. attorneys, I didn't get an arrest warrant until the U.S. attorney said, I'm ready to go to trial right now if I have to. Obviously, if they felt that there was an imminent threat, they wanted to take the individual and arrest him. But there's probably, at this point, but as soon as the arrest happens, now you're going to have another phase of the investigation. They're going to be looking at computers, phones, evidence. The individual's house is going to be searched right now. So, there's a trove of additional evidence that it's going to be coming in to the investigative team right now today, over the next few weeks and interviews. So, there's a whole new phase of the investigation starts today.

BROWN: Yes. What do you expect -- what else do you expect the FBI is doing now with this person in custody?

BRUNNER: Well, I think that every single person around the subject is going to be interviewed, family co-workers. Everyone is going to be interviewed. They're going to want to know what his state of mind was five years ago. They're going to look at his computers. They're going to look at what he owned back then. They're going to look beyond that, behind five years. What set this person onto their course to the pathway to violence to determine that they be needed to put bombs, to see if it was politically motivated. If it was politically motivated, you could have terrorism charges because there's an ideology right there.

So, you could have terrorism charges based on this if they were driven to do this for political ideology and political reasons, or if this was just a targeted attack. That's all part of it. And the evidence texts, the cyber texts, everyone on the ground and Washington Field Office will be working together, coordinating with the local law enforcement, some of their best friends, to find out and get more evidence to what they already have enough to get the arrest warrant, they're going to want more evidence to support any upcoming trials.

BLITZER: I am sure they're trying to figure out what was the motive in this particular incident and did this suspect have accomplices out there or was he simply working all by himself? We'll find out, I suspect, all those questions sooner rather than later.

Daniel Brunner, thanks very much for joining us. Pamela?

BROWN: All right, Wolf. Members of the House and Senate Armed Services Committee are meeting this hour with Admiral Frank Mitch Bradley. This morning, he was seen as you see right here, walking into the Capitol, right alongside the Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman, General Dan Caine. Bradley is the special ops commander, the Pentagon says, ordered a second strike on a suspected Venezuelan drug boat in the Caribbean in September, which reportedly killed members of the boat's crew who survived the initial attack.

Now, sources say Bradley is expected to say that the second strike was justified because the survivors were still in the fight and radioing in for help. President Trump says he's ready to release video of the second strike.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: I don't know what they have, but whatever they have, we will certainly release, no problem. You know, we stopped every boat we knock out, we save 25,000 American lives.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

[10:10:03]

BROWN: All right. Our Manu Raju joins us now from Capitol Hill. So, Manu, what else can we expect to hear from these briefings with the admiral?

MANU RAJU, CNN ANCHOR AND CHIEF CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, the first one just wrapped up. In fact, the House Intelligence Committee leaders had been meeting for about an hour with Admiral Bradley and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Dan Caine, and they both -- both Bradley and Caine just walked out of this closed door briefing, which lasted a little bit over an hour. They did not answer any questions, and they walked from here where they're now headed over to the Senate side of the Capitol to have their next set of briefings, that with the leaders of the House Armed Services Committee and the Senate Armed Services Committee before they have additional meetings throughout the day, leaders of the Senate Intelligence Committee, leaders of key committees chairing the House and Senate Appropriations Committee, they planted me with them as well.

The question is going to be the extent to which -- setting the details they provide in these classified setting and whether they satisfy the concerns that we've heard from both sides of the aisle. We had known coming into this that the members had wanted to see the unedited video of that strike and that second strike from early September. Did they provide that information in there?

And what to what extent was the secretary of defense, Pete Hegseth, involved in all of this? What Bradley says will be key to a lot of members who want to understand whether the secretary was personally responsible for this attack, whether he was not, as he's tried to distance himself from this, and whether or not these survivors were -- why they were attacked in the second strike, the circumstances around all that. The question is going to be the extent to which they provide details of it.

And I'm looking behind me just in case the two members who just got briefed come out. They have not come out yet, we've seen. But we're looking for Congressman Jim Hines, who's a top Democrat in the House Intelligence Committee, Rick Crawford, who chairs the House Intelligence committee, whether they provide any details. Another big question here at a critical day of briefings on the Hill.

BROWN: Yes. I know when they come out, you will be pressing them for some answers. Manu Raju, thank you so much. Wolf?

BLITZER: And still ahead, soon, the public will get the unclassified report into Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's use of the signal messaging app to discuss strikes against the Houthis in Yemen.

BROWN: And next, Democratic Senator Jeff Merkley joins us in The Situation Room to discuss the bipartisan push for the Justice Department to release the Epstein files.

You're in The Situation Room. We will be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:15:00]

BLITZER: In the coming hours, we're expected to see an unclassified version of the Pentagon watchdog report on Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's use of the Signal chat to share very highly sensitive attack plans. The classified version of the inspector general's report was sent to Congress yesterday, Tuesday night. Multiple sources familiar with its content told CNN investigators found Hegseth risked compromising very sensitive, classified information about the plan to target Houthi rebels in Yemen.

CNN Senior National Security Correspondent Zachary Cohen is with us here in The Situation Room. Zachary, the report allegedly raised deep concerns about that excess actions may have put U.S. troops and the overall mission objectives at serious risks.

ZACHARY COHEN, CNN SENIOR NATIONAL SECURITY REPORTER: Yes, Wolf. It looks like the inspector general came to a similar conclusion as critics who saw these messages when they were first disclosed back earlier this spring that the information that Hegseth was sending to this unclassified Signal group chat that contained several other top Trump officials was highly sensitive military information. And if it had fallen into the wrong hands, say, via hack or something else, that it would have likely endangered American troops and would have jeopardized the mission objectives that were ongoing at that time.

Now, it's important to remember that these messages were sent before and during a U.S. military operation targeting those Houthis in Yemen. And they were so specific that one literally read, quote, this is definitely when the first bombs will drop, and it included a timestamp next to it. So -- and, again, that's the inspector general assessing that information, that specific and that detailed, could have jeopardized both the soldiers who were carrying it out, the troops carrying it out, and the actual mission itself.

So, beyond that sort of top line takeaway, though, the I.G. also concluded that Hegseth does have broad declassification authority as the defense secretary, and Hegseth told the inspector general, according to our sources that he made a decision in the moment, an operational decision to declassify this information. But the report also acknowledges that there was no documentation to prove that that actually took place and raising more questions about whether Hegseth really properly declassified this information before sending it on an unsecure, non-government platform.

And, look, there is two issues at hand here, and one is this issue of classification and the legality. Republicans seem to not have a problem with what they're learning about that side. The questions about Hegseth's judgment, though, that's a completely different matter and those concerns will persist.

BLITZER: Did Hegseth know there was a journalist listening in on all of this discussion, a journalist with no security clearances?

COHEN: Wolf, that is a huge question and it doesn't appear so. But still, obviously, that's the only reason we know about any of this in the first place.

BLITZER: All right. Thanks very much, Zach. I appreciate it. Pamela?

BROWN: And it raises the question, why would you declassify information that could put troops at risk, as the I.G. found.

All right, right now, lawmakers are demanding answers and Republicans appear to be growing increasingly dismayed by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth after that controversial follow-up strike on an alleged drug boat in the Caribbean in September.

[10:20:00]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REPORTER: Do you have confidence in Secretary Hegseth?

SEN. MIKE ROUNDS (R-SD): We'll make our decisions based on the facts of the case. We haven't got the facts yet in front of us in a classified setting.

RAJU: Do you have confidence in him? Would you say that? Can you decide you do? (ph) Thanks for your time.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: And joining us now to discuss this and more Democratic Senator Jeff Merkley of Oregon. He serves on the important Foreign Relations Committee. Senator, thanks so much for joining us.

SEN. JEFF MERKLEY (D-OR): You bet.

BLITZER: As you know, CNN is reporting that Pentagon officials have been making the case for that follow-up strike because survivors were still, quote, in the fight, their words, in the fight, and radioing in for help. Is that a satisfactory justification for you?

MERKLEY: Oh, absolutely not. These are extrajudicial killings. Let's start with the first strike. There is a legal way to board a boat and check and see if there are drugs. It's done by the Coast Guard all the time. That's -- but the first strike was extrajudicial. And then you have two helpless men clinging to a debris and perhaps they made a radio call for help. We're getting details on that hopefully soon. But two hopeless men clinging to debris radioing for a rescue hardly means they're in the fight. They weren't in the fight even before the first strike. How could they be in the fight when they're helpless, clinging to debris?

BROWN: And the Defense Department has argued, you know, that, theoretically, they could have continued the mission by radioing from help and continuing the trafficking. That is what they're arguing. But based on what you just said, do you believe a war crime was committed? And if so, where do you see the accountability?

MERKLEY: If this was a legal action of war, which is still under dispute, then it would be a war crime. If it was not, it was a murder. In either case, again, the right way to find out if there are drugs aboard a boat is you stop the boat, you board it, you investigate it. And in the process, you learn if there are drugs, you learn about the strategies involved, which gives you information to help dismantle a broader operation, blowing a boat up. Not even knowing much about what the boat is doing simply destroys that type of information. So, it's not only extrajudicial, it is also stupid.

And so this is vast concerns about judgment. And, by the way, of course, this is all a prelude to the possible strikes on Venezuela itself.

BLITZER: And as you know, according to sources familiar with the Pentagon inspector general's report, Secretary Hegseth risked endangering the lives of U.S. troops by sharing very sensitive, highly classified war plans on the messaging app called, Signal, back in March. Hegseth and the Pentagon are painting the report in a very different light. They're saying it's a total exoneration, their words, total exoneration of the secretary. What's your response to that finding?

MERKLEY: You know, Wolf, I spent several years working for the secretary of defense. And in those years, there were posters that said loose lips, sink ships. And I keep thinking about that in the context of how could anyone in the Pentagon say, we are now going to say this information about when we're conducting a military operation, including when the first strike will happen, would possibly be unclassified.

Hegseth is arguing that, well, he unclassified the information right before he put it into the Signal. This is an after the action defense that makes no sense into anybody who has any understanding that that type of sensitive information really does endanger a military operation.

BROWN: So, between that Pentagon inspector general report and the controversial follow-up strike in the Caribbean, do you believe Secretary Hegseth should either resign or be removed from his office?

MERKLEY: Absolutely.

BROWN: Well, what are the conversations like with your colleagues across the aisle? Do you get the sense that that is a growing sentiment?

MERKLEY: There has been such a sense of my colleagues that they are not ready to confront Trump over the mistakes of this administration. But we have started to see cracks in that following the November election a month ago, where they're starting to feel like they have hitched their wagon to a horse that's going to take them over a cliff. And they better start separating themselves some.

So, it'll be very interesting to see what the Republicans say after they come out of these briefings today. I think some may say they have serious concerns. It may be more general language like that. But we are certainly starting to see that my Republican colleagues in the Senate are getting very nervous about being tied to not just to Hegseth but some of the overall actions of this administration.

BLITZER: Senator, yesterday, you called on the U.S. attorney general, Pam Bondi, to provide a briefing on the U.S. Justice Department's efforts to comply with the Epstein Files Transparency Act that was passed by the House and the Senate.

[10:25:08]

Have you received any response at all, or do you have any insight into when the Department of Justice plans to actually release those Epstein files?

MERKLEY: So, Senator Murkowski and I and a couple other senators who were involved in the Epstein bill did ask for this briefing tomorrow. We've not received a response. I doubt we'll receive a response because that's been the general pattern of things. This administration is not responsive even to a bipartisan request for information.

The deadline is December 19th. I will be shocked if we get a transparent release on December 19th. I think this administration will do everything it possibly can despite the passage of this act to control and limit the amount of information that is shared.

BROWN: According to a new court filing, Jeffrey Epstein's accomplice, Ghislaine Maxwell, is planning to make a new plea for a judge to release her from prison. What is your response to that?

MERKLEY: It's just awful. I mean, the entire operation in which she was interviewed and then put in a minimum security location, rumors of a possible pardon if she behaves herself, I mean, all of this, I mean, she was so deeply involved in the grooming and the rape of young girls, and she deserves to spend a very long time in a very high security prison as a result. And so I have little sympathy for any plea she might make.

And I want to note, there's a second set of Epstein files that are very important. Let's call it Epstein Files 2.0, and that's the treasury files. There's $1.5 billion in suspicious activity reports about the Epstein empire. And when you know when money was shipped, where it was shipped, who received it, you have an incredible treasure trove of information to understand the entire Epstein operation. So, those files are so important, and I really want to praise Senator Wyden, my colleague from Oregon, for leading that effort to get that information.

BLITZER: And are those going to be released together with all the other Epstein files?

MERKLEY: No. And the Epstein files bill only covered the judiciary. But this second bill led by Senator Wyden addresses the treasury file. So, let's start talking about the Epstein Files 2.0 and the need to get those files for Congress to be able to follow up an investigation.

BLITZER: We'll see if those are eventually released.

Before we let you go, Senator, those enhanced Affordable Care Act subsidies that became a major flashpoint for Democrats during the government shutdown, they expire at the end of this month, and premiums are expected to skyrocket all across the country. Was it a mistake for Democrats to reopen the government and lose their leverage just ahead of this looming healthcare crisis?

MERKLEY: It's an entire tragedy. It's an entire tragedy that those enhanced premium tax credits are going to disappear. And on average, the cost will more than double for 20 million Americans, many will not be able to afford healthcare. We actually put forward a compromise before the end of those 40 days in which we said, look, you all, Republicans, you are saying that you want to come up with a new healthcare plan. We know you can't do that overnight. You tell us you can't do it overnight, so we will just ask for a one-year extension of the existing enhanced subsidies. And 75 percent of the people who get them come from red states. So, we're going to be criticized for helping you out, but it's the right thing to do for those 20 million people, and it gets you off the hook. This is a fair compromise.

And it was just absolutely rejected straight out by John Thune. And then, bizarrely, the president who said basically resisted any form of a deal, said, oh, I think now we should do an extension of those tax credits. Half the Republican world said, that's a good idea because we've got so many constituents are going to be harmed. The other half said, hell, no, we're not going to do anything to help Americans buy, middle class Americans buy health insurance, nothing associated with the Affordable Care Act.

So, it's not really a question at this point whether it was a mistake or not to reopen. What was a mistake was failing to address this huge, devastating attack on the healthcare of 20 million Americans.

BLITZER: Senator Jeff Merkley, thanks so much for joining us.

MERKLEY: Thank you.

BROWN: Thank you.

MERKLEY: Thank you, Pamela.

BROWN: And coming up happening now, Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s handpicked vaccine advisers are meeting in Atlanta. This is a really important meeting because they're examining the childhood vaccine recommendations and they're expected to vote amid these concerns coming from the medical community. So we're going to talk about that after this break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:30:00]