Return to Transcripts main page

The Situation Room

Lawmakers Briefed on Controversial Sept. 2 Boat Strike; Trump Announces Oil Blockage of Venezuela; Rep. Greene Warns "Dam is Breaking" in GOP; New Details in Reiner Murders; Major Developments on Capitol Hill. Aired 10:30-11a ET

Aired December 17, 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]

WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: Happening now. Senators on the Armed Services Committee are getting a closed briefing right now on that controversial September 2nd strike on an alleged Venezuelan drug boat. This comes as President Trump orders a total and complete blockade of sanctioned oil tankers coming to and leaving Venezuela. Joining us now is Republican Congressman Mike McCaul of Texas. He's the Chairman Emeritus of both the House Foreign Affairs and House Homeland Security Committees. Congressman, thanks so much for joining us.

REP. MICHAEL MCCAUL (R-TX), CHAIRMAN EMERITUS, FOREIGN AFFAIRS COMMITTEE: Thanks, Wolf.

BLITZER: Before we talk about Venezuela, I've got to ask you a quick question about the breaking news we're following. At least four Republicans, your colleagues, just broke ranks to sign House Minority Leader Akeem Jeffries' so-called discharge petition, forcing an actual vote on the House floor on an extension of the Affordable Care Act subsidies. What do you make of that?

MCCAUL: Well, I think these are obviously Republicans who are in swing districts that may be threatened in the midterm election, and there are apparently a sufficient number of signatories to the discharge petition to allow it to come to the floor. In fact, it must come to the floor. I would assume after the holiday season in January, my prediction is with a sufficient number of Republicans signing on to this that it would pass the House. I don't think the fate in the Senate will be very good, however. I don't think the Senate would pass it.

BLITZER: How about you? Are you going to vote for it?

MCCAUL: Well, you know, look, I've been against Obamacare my entire career. I don't believe in a government-run subsidy program. I think it needs to be more competition and choice than a private health care system. I'll probably vote no.

And certainly, signing a discharge petition is very dramatic. It breaks from leadership and the committee process. I've never signed one myself. But, you know, I do understand these members who are in tough districts, and it's a big issue for them back home. BLITZER: It's a huge issue for millions of Americans whose health care costs are going to skyrocket unless they get something passed and deal with this, right?

MCCAUL: Well, I think when they do expire at the end of the month, you are going to see a reaction by the American people. That's why, you know, on Friday, I'll be voting for the Republican substitute to Obamacare that I think we will pass in the House, and hopefully the Senate will take that up.

BLITZER: All right. Let's move to Venezuela, a subject that you know a lot about. I want to play what the U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said yesterday about that boat strike video after briefing lawmakers. Watch this and listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PETE HEGSETH, U.S. DEFENSE SECRETARY: In keeping with longstanding Department of War policy, Department of Defense policy, of course we're not going to release a top-secret, full, unedited video of that to the general public.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: You've called for the Pentagon to actually release the video. What do you say to Secretary Hegseth?

MCCAUL: Well, I think the president has called for that. What I would ask him to do, quite specifically, Wolf, is this. Right now, the Armed Services Committee are being briefed in a classified venue. They're watching this video as I speak. Yet the House Foreign Affairs Committee that I chaired has not been given access to this video, and it's hard to comment on something you haven't seen.

But my point is this. The House Foreign Affairs Committee has the power and the jurisdiction to declare war under Article I of the Constitution. It originates out of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, not out of Armed Services. I'm not saying that Armed Services shouldn't have access, they should. But I think in addition to them, the House Foreign Affairs Committee certainly should have access to this. I know House Intelligence has and the Gang of Eight. But to limit it just to armed services, I think is a big mistake.

[10:35:00]

And I would say to him, with all due respect, that the committee that has the power to declare war and authorize use of military force should have the opportunity to view these videos.

BLITZER: Do you feel you truly understand what the Trump administration is now seeking to achieve in this conflict with Venezuela? Is the goal to combat drugs, seize oil, or ultimately have some sort of regime change in Venezuela?

MCCAUL: Well, I think it's multifaceted. And we just got a classified briefing from Secretary Rubio and Hegseth yesterday. You know, we've secured the land border. Now, we're looking at securing our maritime border. There is a push in this administration to stop the flow of drugs into this country.

As it pertains to War Powers Act, these strikes occur in international waters with a designated terrorist organization, cartel members. The criteria we were briefed on yesterday is very strict in terms of the exquisite intelligence we get, the layer of lawyers along the way before they can even strike.

In fact, Secretary Rubio said there are many vessels that they felt they could have struck, but they did not because it didn't meet that requirement. And therefore, they are just interdicted. He also said something, a big takeaway I got was that 90 percent of these vessels now have disappeared and gone away. In other words, deterrence works in this case to stop poison from coming into the United States. The president has authorities under Article 2, self-defense of the Constitution.

If they decide to go into Venezuelan waters and land territories, that is a whole other situation that, in my opinion, would trigger the War Powers Act and require the Foreign Affairs Committee to make a determination.

BLITZER: Should the Foreign Affairs Committee declare war on Venezuela and give that authorization to the president?

MCCAUL: Well, I think it's too early to judge that. I don't know if there's any plan to go into Venezuela and topple the regime. As you know, Wolf, better than anybody, we have a long history of trying to do this unsuccessfully in Latin America.

And so, I do think the president sees Maduro as a threat. He's under indictment in the Southern District of New York, for instance, by the U.S. attorney. He has been a threat to the region. And it'd be good to see him go in a context that doesn't involve an armed conflict between the United States and Venezuela. If it does amount to that, then we would have to make that determination. I think it would be premature to make that judgment call right now.

BLITZER: Well, can the U.S. engage in these kinds of military activities, boycotts and blockades of oil tankers, for example, and make these kinds of declarations without a formal act by the House of Representatives?

MCCAUL: Well, this is Article I versus Article II authority under the Constitution. I would say that President Kennedy's blockade of Russia, you know, from entering Cuba, that did not involve the Congress making a declaration of war. In fact, the only time Congress has done that is World War II, after Pearl Harbor was bombed. I know that Presidents Reagan and Bush 41 have had strikes. For instance, Grenada is a good example, Reagan going into Grenada.

But I would argue that Congress does have a role here under the Constitution. And if Venezuelan waters or territories are invaded or there's an armed conflict involving that, that we need to step up our Article I authorities and our powers. BLITZER: And before I let you go, Congressman, as you know, Congress is getting ready to leave Washington for this holiday recess that's coming up. There seems to be at this time some growing frustration among lawmakers. I want you to watch what one of your Republican colleagues told CNN's Kaitlan Collins. Listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. MARJORIE TAYLOR GREENE (R-GA): I think the dam is breaking. Many Republicans may not have called him out, but last week, 13 Republicans voted with Democrats to overturn one of President Trump's executive orders, which enabled him to fire federal workers. We also saw Indiana Republicans vote against redistricting. That is a sign where you're seeing Republicans, they're entering the campaign phase for 2026, which is a large signal that lame duck season has begun and that Republicans will go in, all in for themselves in order to save their own reelections.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: What do you make, Congressman, of Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene's assessment that you just heard? Is President Trump already a lame duck, as she says?

[10:40:00]

MCCAUL: Well, I think President Trump still has tremendous power in Republican primaries. There's no question about that. I do find this dialogue and this conversion, if you will, Marjorie Taylor Greene talking about how we need to tone down the rhetoric when she's been one that's thrown a lot of that out, has been very fascinating to watch. And what you're seeing is now sort of a break within MAGA between Marjorie Taylor Greene and the MAGA crowd, if you will, and maybe a division within MAGA itself. I don't know.

But to say that President Trump has no power in the midterm elections, I can tell you most Republicans desperately want his support in their primaries, because the voters are still, at least in Republican primaries, Trump is still very popular.

BLITZER: All right. Congressman Mike McCaul of Texas, as usual, thanks very much for joining us.

M MCCAUL: Thanks, Wolf.

BLITZER: Thanks for having me. And we'll get another perspective from Democratic Congresswoman Ilhan Omar. That's coming up in the next hour.

But coming up now, new images of the moment. President Nick Reiner was arrested for the deaths of his parents, Rob and Michele Reiner. And we're learning new details about Nick's behavior in the immediate hours before the killings.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:45:00]

BLITZER: Happening today, we're watching for Nick Reiner's first, first court appearance since he was charged with murdering his parents, Rob and Michele Reiner. New images from the LAPD show the moment police officers handcuffed and arrested the 32-year-old son of the Hollywood director, Rob Reiner, and his wife, Michele. This happened Sunday near the USC campus, a few hours after the bodies were found. Right now, he's being held without bail.

Joining us now is Casey Jordan, a criminologist, behavioral analyst, and attorney. Casey, thanks so much for joining us. What do we know, first of all, about Nick Reiner's behavior prior to the deaths of his parents? Were warning signs missed?

CASEY JORDAN, CRIMINOLOGIST AND BEHAVIORAL ANALYST AND ATTORNEY: Well, the warning signs were there. How you interpret those signs and what you do with them very often is an issue of family choice. But a lot is being made of the Conan O'Brien holiday party that Rob Reiner and his son, Nick, attended the night of the homicides. And the behavior was described of Nick by being extremely inappropriate, erratic. He was walking up to people, asking if they were famous, interrupting their conversations.

And one -- you know, there's a report of one famous actor, Bill Hader, just kind of turning to him and pointedly saying, you know, I'm in the middle of a private conversation. Like, what you're doing is essentially rude. And that apparently is what prompted, you know, Rob to intervene with his son.

But by all accounts, Rob and Michele asked Conan if they could bring their son, Nick, to this party. He was not originally on the invitation list, which shows that they were trying to work with him. They were being inclusive. They were doing their very best to work with him, keep him on the premises of their home, in their guest house, and had been doing this since he was a teenager and had been through rehab a dozen times. So, this is heartbreaking for any family. Yes, the signs were there. I don't think they were missed. I just think that they were miscalculated.

BLITZER: The 32-year-old Nick Reiner, as you know, Casey, has been very public about his struggles with substance abuse. But just three months ago, Rob Reiner was asked in an interview with NPR about his son, Nick. Here's what he said in September. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ROB REINER, FILMMAKER AND ACTOR: I was never, ever too busy. I mean, if anything, I was the other way. You know, I was more hands-on and trying to do whatever I thought I could do to help. And, you know, I'm sure I made mistakes. And, you know, I've talked about that with him since. You know, he's been great. He's -- you know, hasn't been doing drugs for over six years.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: What's your reaction to that, Casey? JORDAN: I think that so many of our viewers can relate to his anguish. So, many of us have experienced family members with addiction issues, with mental health issues. He was doing his very best. And it's so easy for us to Monday-morning quarterback and say, well, you know, you should have done more. But there is no one-size-fits-all answer to how you handle. And there's gradations to these levels of addiction and mental illness.

Could I argue that he enabled his son, perhaps because they were a family of wealth and privilege? Entirely possible. I mean, how many times do you put somebody through rehab and it doesn't work before you give up on them? And what would we have thought of Rob and Michele if they had let their son remain homeless and on the streets as he had spent some time being?

They tried and tried and tried, and they eventually paid with their lives. We see this over and over again. And yet when I look backwards, I can't imagine that they could have done anything different other than having him institutionalized, which, you know, involuntary commitment, civil commitment is incredibly hard to do if it's against someone's will. And I think that was probably the only thing they had left. And they weren't to that point yet.

They didn't think this was going to happen that night when they went to bed. It did. They paid with their lives. And yet I don't think we could ever say that they could have done anything differently to avoid this.

BLITZER: All right. Casey Jordan, thanks so much for your expertise. Appreciate it very, very much.

JORDAN: Good to be here.

[10:50:00]

BLITZER: Also happening now, a big day unfolding up on Capitol Hill. Four House Republicans have now backed Democrats to force a vote on extending Obamacare health care subsidies. And we're expecting more briefings on that controversial double tap strike in the Caribbean. We're following all these developments closely. And a lot more right here in The Situation Room.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:55:00]

BLITZER: A federal judge is indicating he won't stop President Trump's work on that massive new White House ballroom, at least for now. The National Trust for Historic Preservation sued, arguing the project lacks required approvals and public input. The judge said the plaintiffs had not shown irreparable harm, but left open the possibility of intervening later.

Joining us now, the CNN presidential historian, the former director of the Nixon Presidential Library, Tim Naftali. Tim, thanks very much for joining us. As you know, the president is making some very dramatic changes to the White House. Have we ever seen anything as dramatic as this?

TIM NAFTALI, CNN PRESIDENTIAL HISTORIAN, FORMER DIRECTOR, NIXON PRESIDENTIAL LIBRARY AND SENIOR RESEARCH SCHOLAR, COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY: No, we haven't. And we haven't for a couple of good reasons. One, presidents have wanted to change the White House campus, but they lack the money. So, Truman, for example, had an idea that there should be a second floor on the West Wing, but Congress wouldn't appropriate the funds. So, it didn't happen. Theodore Roosevelt creates the West Wing, but he gets money from Congress. He doesn't go to the Vanderbilts and the Astors to build it.

But we have at the moment a political climate in Washington where a billionaire class, which might be afraid of the president or might just want to participate in special projects where they make money with the president. A billionaire class is willing to give money anonymously, and Congress is not willing to ask where that money is coming from. So, this is the first time that a president has been able to self-finance a major change to the White House.

BLITZER: It's a huge change indeed. Is there anything that could slow down these sweeping changes over in the East Wing of the White House? President Trump plans for the White House complex are very intense.

NAFTALI: It's all about the public, Wolf. The president fired all the members of the Commission of Fine Arts. So, the Commission of Fine Arts, under a series of executive orders and a statute from Congress signed by President Taft, is supposed to advise the president.

Now, the president alone makes the decisions, but that whole advisory process hasn't happened regarding the campus of the White House because the president fired all the members of the commission. There's a way to slow down this process. But until there's a change in Congress's view of all of this, we're not going to have the investigations that you'd have to have to slow it down completely.

In the end, the president can do what he wants, but other American citizens cannot participate in a corrupt bargain. And so, those people giving money to the president secretly, if Congress was doing a job, would have to explain to Congress why they were doing it. And I think many of them would not give the money, in which case the president could not finance this massive ballroom.

BLITZER: Yes, he keeps making the point that taxpayer money is not going to be used for this new ballroom, all private donations by various individuals. The president has a lot of plans, though, beyond the White House. As you know, Tim, a new arc to commemorate the country's 250th anniversary that's coming up. The president has also inserted himself into the planning of a new stadium for the Washington Commanders NFL football team. And that could bear his name. Is he literally building, building his legacy?

NAFTALI: Well, here's the thing. Again, I'm not a lawyer, but under our system of laws, the president has a lot of sway over the campus of the White House, where he lives and works. It's not clear to me that the president of the United States can start building things all over Washington. Congress will play a role. Public buildings are affected -- again, outside the White House are affected by a series of laws. I'm not sure the president will be able to just tear things down the way he tore down the East Wing while Congress was paralyzed.

BLITZER: How do you expect history will look upon these various changes?

NAFTALI: Well, I'll put it this way. If Congress does not require that the names of the people. Who are giving money to this gargantuan ballroom are public, if that money is dark money, that ballroom will be viewed as a symbol of most corrupt political era in our modern history.

BLITZER: Yes. Well, that's a pretty serious charge. Do you want to elaborate a little bit more?

NAFTALI: What I mean by that is that we had a corrupt system in the 19th century. We had a system where people paid for jobs in the federal government where the federal government privatized certain things that we now do publicly, and that went to friends of the president or friends of major chairs of Senate or house committees. That system never went away completely, but we were a much less corrupt country in the 20th century, and the American people came to believe that that president should not benefit --

[11:00:00]