Return to Transcripts main page
The Source with Kaitlan Collins
Grand Jury Declines To Re-Indict NY A.G. Letitia James; FBI Arrests Suspect In 2021 D.C. Pipe Bomb Case; Supreme Court Lets TX Use New Congressional Map In Midterms. Aired 9-10p ET
Aired December 04, 2025 - 21:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[21:00:00]
ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST, ANDERSON COOPER 360: --CNN.com/AllThereIs. That's where you can watch it. And it's my companion show to the podcast.
This week on the podcast, we talked to singer, songwriter, Nick Cave, about the death of his two sons. It's an incredibly moving conversation that's available wherever you get your podcasts, or at CNN.com/AllThereIs. Again, the show is in 15 minutes. I hope you join me.
The news continues. "THE SOURCE WITH KAITLAN COLLINS" starts now.
KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, CNN HOST, THE SOURCE WITH KAITLAN COLLINS: They say, a grand jury will indict a ham sandwich. But apparently not Letitia James. Her attorney is here to respond, after an embarrassing defeat for the Trump Justice Department.
I'm Kaitlan Collins. And this is THE SOURCE.
We begin tonight with major breaking news, and a pretty big embarrassment for the Justice Department and President Trump's relentless pursuit of revenge by using the powers of his office to go after his political enemies.
A federal grand jury in Virginia was asked today to re-indict the New York Attorney General, Letitia James. And the grand jury said, no.
A grand jury refusing to indict someone, which is a much lower bar than a trial, is pretty rare. But this is now the second time, the Justice Department has tried to prosecute James for alleged mortgage fraud and not had it work out.
You'll remember, a judge threw out the first case, because of the improper appointment of the President's handpicked prosecutor, Lindsey Halligan, as the interim U.S. attorney handling that case. A different prosecutor from a different office was brought in for today's attempted do-over.
There's been no reaction yet from President Trump, who has made his disdain for Tish James quite clear, since she took him and his company to court over business fraud, and won. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: She's the worst Attorney General in the country, by the way. On Letitia.
She's got serious Trump derangement syndrome. There's no question about Letitia James, the corrupt Attorney General of New York.
The Attorney General may be worse.
You ever watch her? I will get Donald Trump.
James ought to be looked at.
A crooked Attorney General, absolutely crooked.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: A spokesperson for the Justice Department declined to comment on grand jury matters. That's not surprising.
But late tonight, a source familiar with the situation told me that there should be no premature celebration here, because the Justice Department could, emphasis on could, try to seek this indictment for a third time.
My source tonight is the veteran attorney who has represented everyone, from Jared Kushner to Hunter Biden, and is currently representing the New York Attorney General. Abbe Lowell.
Welcome back to THE SOURCE. Thank you for being here.
Why do you think the grand jury declined to re-indict your client today?
ABBE LOWELL, ATTORNEY FOR LETITIA JAMES: Well, it is, as you said, unprecedented, in a federal case, for a federal grand jury to refuse to indict. So, it is something that people should take note of. And before I get to that piece, let me just set the table, because I think people haven't been paying as close attention as you.
First, President Trump basically ordered their Justice -- his Justice Department to indict her, based on her doing her job as attorney general that exposed his business fraud.
Then, the Virginia prosecutor who was in place that he actually kept in place for a while, said, That's not a good case. And he forced him out.
Then, a career prosecutor who's been there for years and knows a good case when she sees it, not only didn't do it, but wrote two memos, we understand, to the file, indicating why it wasn't a good case. Then, they fired her.
Then, he appointed his personal attorney with no criminal law experience to be the U.S. Attorney, for the purposes of doing this. But did that illegally, such that a federal judge had to throw that out because she was unauthorized.
And even still, then they brought some new prosecutor in from Missouri, to go to a grand jury who could not get an indictment today.
And it's possible that they're saying they'll try again. We need to put all of that into perspective.
So, the point is now, it's OK for him to say, All right, we're going to try.
But it's not OK for him doing it for political reasons, which we've exposed. It's not OK for him to violate the law, which he's done twice now. It's not OK for him to violate the constitutional protections of the grand jury.
And yet, as you pointed out, maybe they're going to try for a third time? In this case, three is not the charm.
COLLINS: You think they'll try again?
LOWELL: When somebody asks, what this President, and what this Attorney General, and all the people who carry out his orders are going to do? You better well just ask me, who's going to win the Super Bowl?
COLLINS: So why do you think that they didn't indict her today? Is there any indication?
LOWELL: I think this is what you can glean, and maybe you'll learn more in the next day, in the next day, and the next day.
In the last week, since they said they were going to indict, and did indict, what has happened? We were able to expose that there had been prosecutors who said there's no case here. We've been able to show the vindictiveness in bringing the case. We have been able to expose that the person who started this, this odd guy who's now changed the Federal Housing Authority into a mini FBI--
COLLINS: Bill Pulte.
[21:05:00]
LOWELL: --and who has his own issues, apparently. And his people have been going to the press and saying, We told him there is no case here.
That gets out, I suppose, in addition to which, once there are grand juries in the country who decide, You know, we're going to do our job, we're going to be the screen? I think this grand jury stood up and did its job.
COLLINS: So, is your understanding, the grand jury tomorrow would be the same grand jury today, if they went as soon as tomorrow, right?
LOWELL: Correct. And that is something to note as well. There's no prohibition like people think double jeopardy. That works at a trial. You can keep going to a grand jury and try again, I suppose. The Justice Department's own policies indicate you don't do that like lickety-split, and you don't do that easily. The bar keeps getting higher and higher. In this world, in this administration, there is no bar.
That said, they could try that. I've also heard that they're just going to wait and try it next week in a different grand jury, in a different city in Virginia. That is, again, if they do that, people need to pay attention. It's not like this is normal. But what it does do is show how far they'll go, to break the rule of law, to do a revenge tour that President Trump has ordered.
COLLINS: Given how low the bar typically is to secure an indictment. It doesn't mean guilt, but it's not usually that difficult. That's why there's the phrase, you can indict a ham sandwich. What did your client have to say when she found out that they declined to re-indict her?
LOWELL: So the Attorney General has a statement of her own, and I hope people will read it. She has been fearless, and she has been courageous, and she has been steadfast in making sure people know that what's happening to her is because she's carried out her job, as being an elected official that was sworn to uphold the law, which is all that she has done.
So what her reaction is today? She is incredibly grateful that the system, even though it can bend, and sometimes this administration will want to break it, has stood strong, this day.
COLLINS: The more times they try to indict her, do you think that helps the argument about a selective prosecution that y'all have been trying to make?
LOWELL: I think you mean vindictive prosecution, and the answer is very much so.
COLLINS: Vindictive prosecution.
LOWELL: I mean this concept of the law, which is very hard to prove, basically, with all they've done? I think we filed a motion that probably had seven single-space pages of statements President Trump has made to go after her. And then the unprecedented nature of bringing such a case with no basis, given that career prosecutors have said there's no case? And now, if they re-indict, or if they try to up it again, and they keep trying it again? All they're doing is making our motion stronger and stronger.
COLLINS: And Bill Pulte, the official that you mentioned, he's the head of the Federal Housing Finance Agency. He has made clear that he's used the power of his job in order to seek out information like this.
What do you think this spells for him, if they have failed to seek a second indictment?
LOWELL: Well, I think there's two parts of that, Kaitlan. The first is, he has already been exposed in articles from his own people in the Inspector General's office, and other people inside the agency who have come forward in saying he's violated rules to do what he's doing. That is, I understand, under some review itself.
As to whether or not this teaches him that not everything he does turns in the way he wants? Remember, A.G. James was the first person he did this to. And then came Senator Adam Schiff. And then came Federal Reserve Board Governor, Lisa Cook. And then recently, Congressman Eric Swalwell of California. Maybe it will get the message that this is not the way that you're supposed to do your job.
COLLINS: Were you surprised that they couldn't get her indicted today?
LOWELL: I have to be surprised. I've practiced law for a long time. And in my experience, as both a prosecutor when I was that, in the Justice Department, and as a defense attorney, I can't tell you a time, in the federal system, not the state system, where a federal prosecutor thought a case was strong enough to bring to a grand jury, and the grand jury has said no.
COLLINS: So you haven't seen anything like this before?
LOWELL: I have not.
COLLINS: Coming from Abbe Lowell, that says a lot.
Thank you, sir for being here.
LOWELL: Thanks, Kaitlan, for the chance.
COLLINS: And we will, of course, see what happens tomorrow, or in the next week.
LOWELL: Yes, might have to be here, tomorrow night.
COLLINS: We'll have you back, sir.
And speaking of that federal grand jury's decision not to re-indict James, it appears to directly contradict the confidence that we've seen from these Trump administration officials, and how they've talked about this case, and what they thought the strength of it was, in recent months.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KAROLINE LEAVITT, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: You look at people like Adam Schiff, and like James Comey, and like Letitia James, who the President is rightfully frustrated. He wants accountability for these corrupt fraudsters.
BILL PULTE, DIRECTOR, FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY: These are very credible mortgage accusations.
I criminally referred Letitia James for mortgage fraud. We believe that that was mortgage fraud. She's now been indicted. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So that was you?
PULTE: Yes, that's -- that was our agency, yes.
This is somebody who went after the President, and went after many other people, frankly, for fraud and for different things. And it turns out, in my opinion, that she's the fraudster.
LEAVITT: I know there was a judge who was clearly trying to shield Letitia James, and James Comey, from receiving accountability, and that's why they took this unprecedented action to throw away the indictments against these two individuals.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[21:10:00]
COLLINS: My legal sources are joining me here tonight.
Former Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Tom Dupree. And the former Special Counsel in the Justice Department's Antitrust Division, Brendan Ballou. Are both here.
And Tom, just for everyone at home, Abbe Lowell has represented everybody in Washington. I mean, he represented Jared Kushner in round one. He represented Hunter Biden in his whole situation. Democrat. Republican. For him to say that this is something he's never seen before, is pretty remarkable, actually.
TOM DUPREE, FORMER DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL: It is. And look, he's right. This is exceedingly, exceedingly rare, what happened today. Your point about a grand jury indicting a ham sandwich. The ham sandwich was indicted. Tish James was not.
I think there is no doubt in my mind, though, that the Trump administration is not going away. I am confident that they are going to come back. They are going to try to indict her either in Norfolk again, or maybe they move up to Alexandria, where they got the first indictment.
And I think that's one thing I'm sure that's being discussed right now in the Justice Department tonight, is when and where are they going to indict her again? Are they going to try to bring the same charges? Are they going to indict her, maybe on a lesser charge? You'll remember, when the grand jury refused to indict the subway sandwich thrower, they came back with a lesser charge. They might try something similar here.
They also are going to say, Look, we got the indictment the first time, when Lindsey Halligan went in. And she emerged with the indictment. The career prosecutors didn't. So they may say, We got one grand jury to indict her. Let's give it a shot with a third grand jury, since the second one didn't -- do it today.
COLLINS: So if they weren't successful today, why would they be successful upon another attempt at doing so? BRENDAN BALLOU, FORMER SPECIAL COUNSEL, DOJ ANTITRUST DIVISION: That's a question that people in the Department of Justice are trying to answer for themselves right now, and there is no clear answer.
Now, as he said, there's one option, which is just try a different grand jury. Go to Alexandria instead of Norfolk.
The other option that they've got is to rely on the first indictment, which, as you recall, was dismissed a couple days ago. They could try to appeal that.
COLLINS: And not because of that indictment. It was because of the legality of how Lindsey Halligan got put in that job.
BALLOU: Exactly. The challenge that they got there is the law is not on their side, you know? And if they appeal to an appeals court, they could develop some really bad precedent that could apply to other potential United States attorneys.
COLLINS: I mean, you used to work at the DOJ. If you're there tonight, how do you think they're talking about this behind the scenes?
DUPREE: I think--
COLLINS: Are they embarrassed? Are they angry? I mean, I don't -- what would you--
DUPREE: I think they are embarrassed, and I think they are angry. But I think they also know that they have a mission. As the President articulated, he wants to see Tish James indicted. And so, I think they are going to explore every avenue they can to see that happens.
I think what they are doing now is they're looking at their strategic options, figuring out, Is there a better place to try to indict her? And to the point we're discussing, maybe they come in with a slightly different charge, a modified charge, or something along those lines. But I don't think they're going to go away.
COLLINS: What does it say if they're struggling to even get the indictment, what does it say about if they do, the strength of the case, if it goes to trial?
BALLOU: It obviously means, at a factual level, they really don't have a strong case. And it really helps. We were just hearing from Abbe Lowell. He's going to bring a vindictive prosecution motion. Every time they struggle here, that motion becomes more powerful. Every time they fail to bring an indictment and then go again? That makes it look more like this was a vindictive prosecution. Every time they go against DOJ's own internal policies, it makes it more likely to be a vindictive prosecution.
COLLINS: Well, and Bill Pulte is the official that he referenced. He's probably not a household name -- he's definitely not a household name. But he has been at the center of all of these indictments, as Abbe Lowell noted. And we actually just learned today that Bill Pulte is now the subject of an investigation from a pretty big congressional investigation watchdog, over allegations that he is misusing his authority in this role. And I imagine this will also play into that investigation.
DUPREE: Look, I think it will. And I mean the fact is, is that these types of mortgage fraud charges are brought fairly often. But the big difference is they are not brought on this small scale, like what we've been seeing now. You typically would not federally indict someone for a mortgage fraud of a few thousand dollars. It has to be much larger scale. That's what makes this unusual.
And the fact that grand juries now, or at least one, is rejecting the claim, I think, is going to make all the prosecutors take a pretty skeptical look at other claims, other prosecutions they're bringing on the same theory.
COLLINS: So if they're successful tomorrow, what does that indicate to you, if anything? If they bring it as soon as tomorrow, or if they bring it somewhere else, starting next week.
BALLOU: I think it means that they're going to feel empowered and they're going to keep trying to bring these sorts of cases. The challenge that they've got is, so far, the facts here have just been terrible. For Tish James, the amount that they -- that is alleged, that she benefited, I think, was under $1,000.
So ultimately, the challenge that they're going to have is they're losing their credibility with grand juries, not just in D.C., which has a very informed grand jury system, but in Norfolk, in Alexandria. It means that their credibility is getting shot across jurisdictions.
COLLINS: And they're presenting other cases in front of these grand juries.
BALLOU: Exactly. And when you've been in front of a grand jury, you know, you develop a certain amount of rapport, you develop a certain amount of trust, with the grand jury. And it seems like they're absolutely failing to do that, and it's going to make their life harder, not just in this case, but in a whole lot of other cases.
COLLINS: Yes.
[21:15:00]
Brendan Ballou. Tom Dupree. Great to have both of you here, as we continue to see what's going to happen next here.
We have a lot more also on our breaking news ahead, because the military just announced tonight another strike on an alleged drug boat at sea. That's what you're watching here right now.
My next source, though, is one of the few lawmakers who has seen the full unedited video of that very first boat that was targeted, and he says, what he saw today on Capitol Hill was alarming. Also tonight. Nearly five years since someone planted those pipe bombs, here in Washington, the night before January 6th, the Feds say they have now made an arrest. And how they say they got their man after this long, a big investigation going on.
And it's also musical chairs in the new White House ballroom. The President's latest change, as his plans have only continued to grow for what you'll see here, eventually. Ahead.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[21:20:00]
COLLINS: We're back with more breaking news tonight, because U.S. Southern Command just announced another strike on an alleged drug trafficking boat, this time in the Eastern Pacific. That's what you're watching here, this video that they released today of this strike. The military says that this boat was carrying drugs, and they allege that four men on board had been killed as a result of this strike.
This is all coming, though, as Congress is now investigating the video of the very first of what is now the total of 23 strikes on these suspected and alleged drug boats.
The commander who led that initial mission is now under major scrutiny, and he was on Capitol Hill today, to brief lawmakers who have been demanding answers about what happened, and when. Admiral Frank Bradley was joined today by the Joint Chiefs Chairman, Dan Caine.
And the Secretary of Defense has asserted that the Admiral is the one who made the call for a follow-up strike that day, targeting the survivors who were in the water after the initial strike.
The military brass was taking questions behind closed doors from lawmakers. But CNN has exclusive reporting tonight from sources with direct knowledge of those briefings, that the Admiral told them that the two survivors in the water did not appear to have radio or other communications devices.
That matters, because defense officials, that we've been hearing from, have been quietly arguing that the survivors were legitimate targets, because they appeared to be radioing for help or backup reinforcements that could theoretically allow them to have continued to traffic the drugs that were on board that boat.
However, despite that, and according to our new reporting here at CNN tonight from my colleagues, Admiral Bradley today acknowledged that those two survivors were in no position to make a distress call.
The level of satisfaction with these answers that lawmakers got today seemed to depend, though, on whether or not they were Democrats or Republicans.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. JIM HIMES (D-CT): What I saw in that room was one of the most troubling things I've seen in my time in public service.
SEN. TOM COTTON (R-AR): They were exactly what we'd expect our military commanders to do.
I didn't see anything disturbing about it.
SEN. CHRIS COONS (D-DE): I have more policy questions than ever about the framing of the mission, the rules of engagement.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: My source tonight is the top Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee. Congressman Adam Smith of Washington.
What did you see on that video today that you can tell us tonight?
REP. ADAM SMITH (D-WA): Well, it's disturbing on two levels.
First, I agree with Senator Coons. The overall mission. What is the war that we are fighting here, and what are the rules of engagement? Because if it's a war, it's one thing. If it's not, it's a different thing. And the whole underpinning of the entire mission is in question. And this only raises those questions further.
And on this specific second strike, we got a lot of bad information from Secretary Hegseth. I remember, first of all, he said, Fake news, didn't happen. This what happened, but he took the shot. It was the fog of war, we couldn't see.
It's very, very clear in this video, which, by the way, should be made public. You had two shipwrecked people on the top of the tiny little bit of the boat that was left, that was capsized, the bow. They weren't signaling to anybody. And the idea that these two were going to be able to return to the fight, even if you accept all of the questionable legal premises around this mission, around these strikes? It's still very hard to imagine how these two were returning to any sort of fight in that condition.
COLLINS: So you could easily see the survivors?
SMITH: Yes. Yes, yes.
Now, there were times -- this video played out over an extended period of time. There was roughly 48 minutes between the first strike and the second strikes. They used three missiles, the second time. In those 48 minutes, sometimes there was a cloud cover and the drones weren't there. But at the time of the strike, you could clearly see the two people on the boat.
COLLINS: And they weren't calling, radioing in, anything like that?
SMITH: If they had a radio device on them, it must have been really small, because it sure wasn't apparent from looking at the video. And they certainly did not appear to be signaling to anybody.
COLLINS: Can you square that with Senator Tom Cotton saying that they were trying to flip a boat that was loaded with drugs over bound--
SMITH: Yes.
COLLINS: --that was bound for the United States.
SMITH: Yes, that--
COLLINS: Is that what you saw?
SMITH: That's patently ridiculous. I mean.
COLLINS: That's not true, in your view?
SMITH: Gosh. Admiral Bradley didn't even pretend that that was the case. There was no way they would turn this boat back over. The boat was completely disabled. And Admiral Bradley admitted that. It was drifting with the current. It was going to go wherever the current was going to take them.
And I don't know, I didn't see all 48 minutes between the first and second strike, maybe for the first 10. But it appears that the boat was split at least in half. I mean, there was this tiny little bit of the bow that was still capsized. They weren't trying to flip anything over, first of all.
Second of all, there is the claim that the drugs still could have been there. There's no real evidence of that. You see the first strike, boat's on fire, flips over. Maybe in that tiny portion of the boat, I mean -- but that's speculation, and it certainly wasn't -- wasn't clear from the video.
[21:25:00]
COLLINS: So those two survivors are floating on that small part of the boat that's left over?
SMITH: Correct.
COLLINS: Did he explain why they struck those survivors?
SMITH: Yes, because he was arguing, two things. One, that it was possible that the drugs, which were the target from this in the first place, were still there. Two, somebody could have -- could have helped them and helped them carry out their mission.
Now, they didn't see any other boat. They didn't see any other plane. It was -- it was just sort of possible. And the argument was they were in a position to potentially return to, quote, The fight. And that's where we get back to the original question. What is the fight?
In Iraq and Afghanistan, they were shooting at us. They were trying to blow us up. It was very clear what the fight was.
Here, it's, they're trying to ship cocaine, somewhere. We're not even sure that it was going to the U.S., by the way. I mean, that's a pretty broad definition of a fight that gives the President and the Secretary of Defense lethal authority, over a lot of people, without any due process, right?
COLLINS: So today--
SMITH: Yes, sorry.
COLLINS: Based on today's briefing, was that second strike justified?
SMITH: That's a legal conclusion. I have big questions of this -- about whether or not it was justified. I'm not willing to say, Yes, that was unjustified, this is a war crime. But what I will tell you is this demands much more investigation, much more transparency, to get those answers, to get greater clarity on what the rules of engagement were, and how they applied in this particular circumstance. This did not set that issue to rest.
COLLINS: You said at times there was cloud cover. But when Secretary Hegseth said the other day that there -- it was fog of war. Is that how you would characterize what you saw today?
SMITH: That's idiotic. OK? I mean, I understand the fog of war. People are shooting at you. You see a guy. OK, you blew up the vehicle they're in. Are they armed? Are they -- we had video, for 48 minutes, of two guys hanging off the side of a boat. All right?
There was plenty of time to make a clear and sober analysis. I don't think Admiral Bradley would disagree with that.
There was no, Oh my gosh, we're in a hurry. Is this -- is this -- is there a car bomb? Is it going to hit us?
No. Two guys floating on a capsized piece of a boat in the middle of the ocean. This is not--
(CROSSTALK)
COLLINS: Did he argue as self-defense? That's the other thing that we have heard from the White House.
SMITH: Self-defense of what? I mean, the extended argument is, these guys were trafficking cocaine. It is conceivable that that cocaine still existed, might have wound up in the U.S., and then might have caused some harm. But that's, is so attenuated. I've already made that point, so I won't make it again. But, yes, it's a real stretch.
COLLINS: You want the video released publicly?
SMITH: Absolutely. There's nothing classified about that video. The OLC memo, the Office of Legal Counsel memo, justifying this whole thing, which is nonsensical if you read it, ought to be made public. Public--
(CROSSTALK)
COLLINS: And you want Secretary Hegseth to testify?
SMITH: Absolutely. It's his -- and also dumping this on Admiral Bradley? Completely wrong.
This is Secretary Hegseth's mission. He's out there, talking tough about everything, saying he doesn't have to obey the law, in many instances, putting the service members on the front line of this. Secretary Hegseth ought to own this. It is his choice, his call. He's the one who did this. And President Trump. That's the civilian leadership that drove this.
COLLINS: How did Admiral Bradley come across today?
SMITH: Very respectable. I mean, it was -- it was challenging. It was the, Senator Reed, Congressman Rogers, and Senator Wicker in the room, and Jack Reed and I in particular were very challenging. He's a smart, respectful guy, good at his job. You know? I have -- no problem with that. I have serious questions about the judgment on this particular decision. But it was a good conversation.
COLLINS: I think my question is, listening to what you had to say, what Jim Himes had to say, what Senator Cotton had to say is, how did Democrats and Republicans watch the same video and come out with two very different takeaways?
SMITH: Well, let me just say, in this fact -- factual situation, what I heard Senator Cotton say? Even Admiral Bradley wouldn't agree with that. This idea that they were -- they were active. They were radioing for help. They were getting ready to turn the boat back over? As I said, that's patently absurd, based on the video. All right?
Now, if you want to come out and say, Look, screw drug dealers. They should be killed anywhere, any place, anytime, no due process, no nothing. They're just that bad. We can't take the chance? OK. Make that argument. Let's have that conversation.
But they, throughout this process, they've been making stuff up. Remember, again, Oh, it didn't happen. Never happened. Oh, what happened but fog of war, we couldn't see anything. Oh, they were trying to turn the boat over. Oh, they were communicating.
All those things turned out to be lies. And keep in mind, Kaitlan, they had this video. All right? They weren't guessing. They could see clearly what happened. And they were spreading a story that was clearly untrue. And if it wasn't for The Washington Post, we wouldn't even be having this conversation, because they were trying to suppress it and not allow it to be public.
COLLINS: Congressman Adam Smith, we will see what happens next here, and if there is a public hearing into this.
Thank you for joining us tonight.
SMITH: Thank you.
COLLINS: Really appreciate it.
Up next. It's an arrest that was more than five years in the making here in Washington, if you can believe it. There are new details that we're getting in. This indictment is really something on the suspect who's just charged with placing those pipe bombs in our nation's capital, the night before the January 6th riot.
[21:30:00]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DAN BONGINO, UNITED STATES DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION: He said, Are you sitting down? He called me on the phone.
I said, Oh boy, why? Is this bad news?
And he said, I think we got him.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: After nearly five years without an arrest and no major developments, we have new details tonight on what finally led the FBI to the man suspected of leaving pipe bombs, here in Washington, the night before the 2021 Capitol riot.
[21:35:00]
Brian Cole Jr. is the Virginia man who's now been charged with planting these pipe bombs near both the Republican and the Democratic National Committee headquarters, on January 5th, 2021. He's a 30-year- old suspect who is now facing two charges related to transporting and attempting to use explosives.
According to this charging document, tonight, investigators linked Cole to this crime through his past purchases of bombmaking equipment, cell phone records that pinned his location to near where those bombs were left, and a license plate reader that caught Cole's car around where the suspect had been caught on camera.
It's still unclear tonight what his motives were. The investigation is still going on. But as law enforcement officials were searching his home today, some of them dressed in hazmat suits.
The Attorney General Pam Bondi announced that more charges could be coming, as she also slammed the Biden Justice Department for failing to make this arrest sooner.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PAM BONDI, ATTORNEY GENERAL: The FBI, along with U.S. Attorney Pirro and all of our prosecutors, have worked tirelessly, for months, sifting through evidence that had been sitting at the FBI with the Biden administration for four long years.
Let me be clear. There was no new tip. There was no new witness. Just good diligent police work and prosecutorial work.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: My law enforcement source tonight is the former Deputy Director of the FBI, Andrew McCabe.
And obviously, they were going through so much video here. I mean, they were even down to the Nike shoes he was wearing, and where those were sold, how many people bought them. There were fewer than 25,000 pairs actually sold, around the time that these bombs were placed.
What do you think it is that finally led them to Brian Cole Jr. here tonight?
ANDREW MCCABE, CNN SENIOR LAW ENFORCEMENT ANALYST, FORMER DEPUTY FBI DIRECTOR: So, during the press conference, they made some kind of coy allusions to an aha moment, but they haven't shared that with us yet.
What we do know, from the indictment, is what the Bureau did here was like a masterful job of processing a ton of data and cross-correlating that data to ultimately come up with a population of suspects. Right?
So, they broke down the devices themselves into the component parts, found where all those parts could possibly have been sold. Got the data from all of those sales, and started comparing who bought these pipes, and these end caps, and these battery connector wires.
And when you layer all those different factors on top of each other, you go from a very large number of people, down to a very manageable one, and that is likely what brought them to Mr. Cole's front door.
COLLINS: Is it surprising to you that it took this long to find him? I mean, they were really critical of the Biden DOJ today, and said, All this evidence was there, when they were here. They weren't moving on this.
Evan Perez said slightly differently that they had still been working on. It's not like they had just left it there.
But what do you make of that? Do you think that they could have -- could have located him sooner?
MCCABE: No, no. I think if they could have located him sooner, they would have. Locating somebody quickly usually relies on a fair amount of luck. And they didn't have any luck with this case. You saw the videos. They are -- the person in those videos is unrecognizable. There's no clear like, facial details that you could use for biometric identification, that sort of thing. So they didn't have a lot to work with in the beginning.
These cases sometimes go into a very long, detail-oriented investigation. The Unabomber, classic example. From his first bomb in 1978, until his last? 18 years before he was -- that investigation spanned 18 years before he was arrested. So these can be very tedious, long cases.
COLLINS: Yes, and the timing obviously does matter, because in the indictment, it accuses him of still buying that bombmaking equipment-- MCCABE: Yes.
COLLINS: --weeks after he placed these bombs.
But Dan Bongino spoke today. He is in the job that you formerly had. I want you to listen to something that he just said less than a year ago, back in January, about where this suspect was.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BONGINO: I believe the FBI knows the identity of this pipe bomber on January 6th, four years ago, and just doesn't want to tell us, because it was an inside job.
It's going to be the biggest scandal in FBI history.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Those were not sentiments that he repeated today.
MCCABE: No. I mean, outrageous and ridiculous, I should say. Also insulting to the men and women of the Bureau who do this work.
I will give him some credit, though, for maybe returning a sense of urgency to this case. There's been a lot of reporting that he's been very focused on this since he went back. That's a good thing. I hope maybe in during the course of his hands-on involvement in the case, he apologized to the people that have been working the case, from day one.
[21:40:00]
Some of the political comments today, from the -- from the press conference, I thought, were not just inappropriate, but also demeaning to those people who have been working the case, since it started on January 6th. But at the end of the day, I'm sure they're all just proud of a great result today.
COLLINS: Yes. I mean, it's really remarkable, this development here.
MCCABE: It is.
COLLINS: Andrew McCabe, great to have you here, especially given your expertise in this. Thank you so much.
And up next. We are out with the old, and what sources are telling us about the new architect who is now in charge of President Trump's vision for his ever-expanding ballroom.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: You see that giant crane that is over my shoulder? That's the latest addition to the construction zone here at the White House, where President Trump's ballroom is going to go eventually.
(END VIDEO CLIP) (COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[21:45:00]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: You see that giant crane that is over my shoulder? That's the latest addition to the construction zone here at the White House, where President Trump's ballroom is going to go eventually.
And it comes as we're learning here at CNN that there is actually a new architect who is overseeing this project. That's because President Trump clashed with the original architect, who's supposed to be in charge of building his ballroom. And while the White House insists that original architect has not been fired, but will still be a consultant on this project, it remains to be seen how involved he'll actually be.
It comes as we know that the size and the cost of this ballroom have ballooned from the initial projections from President Trump and the White House, though they still maintain all of it is being paid for with private donations.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Here to talk about what we saw at the White House tonight, my two architecture experts.
Mitch Landrieu, the former Mayor of New Orleans.
And Chris Sununu, the former Governor of New Hampshire.
Governor. What do you think about the ballroom?
CHRIS SUNUNU, (R) FORMER GOVERNOR OF NEW HAMPSHIRE: I can't wait to see it. I mean, really, I can't wait to see it. They're going to go through some -- some changes here.
It definitely -- something needed to be done. For those of us, and Mitch, you've been in there, you almost feel like you're going to put your fork in your neighbor's salad. You can't really host anything with any, any amount of real people.
So, I'm more of the MIT engineering aspects of it. I love to see the engineering. We've all seen all these cranes come in and the structure going up.
COLLINS: They might bring you in. You better be careful.
SUNUNU: We'll see what happens. But I -- look, I -- it's being -- it's being designed, I think, in a way that tries to fit that architectural spirit of what the White House is. But it definitely needs to expand a little bit. And I would just tell folks -- everyone wants to criticize the President -- let's see what it looks like before we criticize too hard.
COLLINS: We're not criticizing.
MITCH LANDRIEU, (D) FORMER MAYOR OF NEW ORLEANS: It's the--
COLLINS: We're just saying.
LANDRIEU: Well, it's--
COLLINS: You might want to criticize him.
LANDRIEU: This is -- this is so typical, this is so absurd. It's like the theater of the absurd. The White House was a beautiful space. If they needed more space for a state dinner, which they did, you could build something.
But you don't -- he fired the architect, because the architect told him what he did not want to hear. So he didn't want to tell people, he fired him. He just hired somebody else, and then he doubled the size, and then he now -- the cost is $300 million.
The real challenge here, for him, is that the American people are basically saying, Mr. President, I need you to focus on my costs. I want you to focus on cost of living.
And this juxtaposition of not focusing on reducing health care costs, not reducing the cost of groceries, and all that kind of stuff, versus building a $300 million thing? People are going like, This just feels really, really weird.
It may come out to be nice. It may. My sense is it's going to be big, and it's going to be audacious, and it's going to be gold, and it's going to be really ugly, and it's going to be out of scale. But I'm not an architect. So maybe we should just ask a couple of those folks--
COLLINS: Or an interior designer.
LANDRIEU: No, but I built a lot of stuff. And you can see when something's four times the size of the original stuff, it's a little bit out of scale, and it looks weird.
COLLINS: Yes.
LANDRIEU: For something that he's doing.
COLLINS: Well, and speaking of what you're talking about there, costs and stuff. I mean, that is -- affordability. The President's been calling it a con job. That is obviously what Republicans really believe is going to be a big centerpiece of the midterms, next year.
And we got that new ruling out tonight from the Supreme Court, Governor, from -- on Texas, and that redistricting map that we've been talking about. It was overturned by a lower court. The Supreme Court says, no, they're going to be able to use this, which is actually really important for Republicans, and a pretty big win for them, when it comes to trying to maintain the power of balance in the House.
SUNUNU: Well, so yes, so you have two issues, that you have redistricting and you have affordability.
You're absolutely right. Just like it was in 2024, affordability, cost of living. Can we afford our rent? Can we afford our groceries? That is going to always be the key issue, especially as you go into 2026.
So, I think what the President and Scott Bessent are trying to do is say, OK, we have all this big investment coming in. We want to keep interest rates low, that allows people to make investments. Keep the banks excited about making that investment into the bond market, because you want that to be strong, by getting some of the deregulation aspects going. There was a lot of regulation under Biden that costs a lot of money, that cost the American taxpayers a lot of money.
And to make sure that happens? The Republicans do need to win, right? Because tax cuts mean things are more affordable. Tax cuts mean more money gets flushed into the economy. That only happens if Republicans win. It doesn't happen with gerrymandering.
I don't like the whole gerrymandering thing on either side. I think what California is doing is disastrous. I don't -- I don't love what Texas is doing. I don't like any state that does it.
But you win on your own merits, and that's -- that's the goal. And there's a slight margin here. If you have good candidates with a good message? It can work out really well in 2026 for Republicans.
COLLINS: How are you feeling, as the Democrat at the table, about that argument?
LANDRIEU: Well, I think that the Governor and I agree on this. Affordability is the issue. The President is making the same mistake that President Biden made, when he's trying to tell people what to feel.
If, over Thanksgiving, you were hanging out, and you went to Home Depot, or you went to Lowe's, or you went to CVS, or wherever, you would witness people going, Wait, this stuff is really expensive.
[21:50:00]
And even though the Governor says Scott and those guys are trying to bring costs down. The fact of the matter is, costs have gone up. They're not going down. People are still feeling the strain. Now they're betting on the economy, saying, Well, next year it's going to be better, and then next year it's going to be better.
But the truth of the matter is, the experience that people who voted for Donald Trump were having is, He said he was going to lower costs on day one, and that has not happened yet.
And they basically, on the tax cut thing, are sitting there, going, I don't understand why you're giving a tax cut to the top 1 or 2 percent, and my health care costs have gone up? Why are you cutting Medicare and Medicaid? Why is everything so expensive for me, when you're giving those guys a break? They don't like that, and they don't like the President focusing on this ballroom.
Voters, real simple folks, like, from where I'm from, they see that, and they go, I don't like that. Which is why we ran the table, last month, and why we kind of closed the 13-point gap, the other day, even though we lost the election.
So, I'm not advising Republicans. But if I was, I would say everybody needs to focus on bringing down costs--
SUNUNU: But you don't think people--
LANDRIEU: --because that's what the American people want.
SUNUNU: People don't really care about the ballroom. You're absolutely right. They care about affordability.
LANDRIEU: They--
SUNUNU: They're not (ph) saying, I can't believe you're worrying about a ballroom right now.
LANDRIEU: They--
SUNUNU: Maybe the Democrat base is.
You're right. They are worried about fuel costs. They've come down. They're worried about some food costs, which have come down. I represent the airlines now. It's never been more affordable to fly, anyone should buy their tickets.
COLLINS: But a bunch of food costs have gone up.
LANDRIEU: Well but listen--
COLLINS: Like, eggs come down.
SUNUNU: Right.
LANDRIEU: On that--
COLLINS: But bread products, all of -- the cereals--
SUNUNU: Yes--
LANDRIEU: But if you're in a -- if you're in a ballroom--
COLLINS: --those are going up, right?
SUNUNU: Yes.
LANDRIEU: --and the guys -- had a couple, they would say, What's the deal with the big ballroom, when everything costs so much money? If that's what they care about--
SUNUNU: But it cost so much money back in 2021, 2022, and 2023.
LANDRIEU: I'm not saying -- I'm not saying it didn't.
SUNUNU: Yes.
LANDRIEU: But costs have not gone down.
SUNUNU: Yes.
LANDRIEU: You remember, the President said on day one, I'm going to bring costs down, which he has not done. And he's going to say, By the end of my first year, I'm going to cut gas prices in half, which he has not done.
And people -- the people feel that. And when he says in the Oval Office, it's a hoax? They now go, Well is this the guy that I voted for? And I think it's--
COLLINS: Well, and you mentioned--
LANDRIEU: --I think it's struggle.
COLLINS: You mentioned Tennessee. The new Republican there, Matt Van Epps was sworn in today.
But Tim Burchett, who is the very outspoken and candid congressman from that state, he said that he thought that election was a wakeup call, and that complacency within our party, the Republican Party, is a problem.
Does he have a point that they should be worried about it?
SUNUNU: As a former governor, you should always run like you're three votes behind. I don't care--
LANDRIEU: Yes.
SUNUNU: --I don't care what -- Democrat or Republican, right? You always run as hard as you possibly can. Could there be headwinds, could there be tailwinds, wherever you're? Absolutely.
But you don't say, Well, that happened, 10 percent was an election with an open race in Tennessee, so therefore I'm going to do X, Y and Z. You just got to -- you got to go out there and meet the people and work hard to earn it.
LANDRIEU: You're not--
COLLINS: Why are you smiling?
LANDRIEU: Well I'm smiling, because Mike Johnson swore that guy in before he dried off from his shower, when it took 50 days for him to swear in -- the Congresswoman from Arizona.
COLLINS: Adelita Grijalva.
LANDRIEU: Which is just -- which is just absurd. And he kept Congress out of session for a long time. So, I think the vote is generally are not as -- as they don't -- they don't really consider themselves to be Republicans and Democrats the way people in Washington do. They're kind of like, This is fair. It's not fair. I vote R. I vote D. But I need somebody to focus on my issues.
If we haven't learned anything as a country, any of us, on both sides of the aisle--
SUNUNU: Yes.
LANDRIEU: --is like, that's what the voters want. And if the President is off doing whatever he's doing, and not focused on their affordability issues? They're going to pay a price.
SUNUNU: Mitch, what would happen if there's another shutdown at the end of January? I'm honestly asking. Like, what do you think?
LANDRIEU: It's hard to--
SUNUNU: Politically -- politically speaking.
LANDRIEU: It's hard to -- it's hard to tell.
SUNUNU: I can't imagine that's a good thing for Republicans.
LANDRIEU: On these shutdowns.
SUNUNU: Let's keep the government open.
LANDRIEU: It's not--
SUNUNU: Keep things moving.
LANDRIEU: It's not good for any--
SUNUNU: It's really important.
LANDRIEU: Shutdowns are generally not good for anybody.
SUNUNU: Yes.
COLLINS: OK, I got to ask you. Since Lane Kiffin's tweeting about our interview with Paul Finebaum.
LANDRIEU: Lane--
COLLINS: What do you make of Lane Kiffin?
LANDRIEU: Lane -- look, I know Verge Ausberry, who's our new A.D.
COLLINS: Worth a $100 million?
LANDRIEU: I think Nick Saban was right, Lane Kiffin's a good dude. So, I'm just saying, Go Tigers. You can say, Roll Tide, if you want. But I'll see you on the field. COLLINS: Which field? When? Next year?
LANDRIEU: We have -- we have when -- whenever LSU and Alabama want to play.
COLLINS: Not these playoffs.
LANDRIEU: Not this year. You're right about that.
COLLINS: Mitch Landrieu.
SUNUNU: Go MIT. Go MIT.
COLLINS: Chris Sununu.
LANDRIEU: Not this--
SUNUNU: Go MIT.
COLLINS: We're going to teach him what the SEC is, after this commercial break.
Up next here. My colleague, Anderson Cooper, is back in Nairobi, revisiting a story that he first covered six years ago.
[21:55:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: In a new episode of "THE WHOLE STORY," Anderson Cooper goes to Nairobi with a rare look inside of Africa -- some of Africa's harshest prisons. These are jails that are often overcrowded with men and women who have been waiting years, before they even have a trial.
There's a remarkable program, though, in place, that teaches these inmates about the law, and their rights, and it's run by a group called the Justice Defenders. Take a look.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (FOREIGN LANGUAGE).
COOPER (on camera): How common is it to meet people who have never had an attorney, and they've been incarcerated for years, awaiting a trial?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: In countries like Kenya and Uganda, but all around Sub-Saharan Africa and far beyond, you'll find that an often 70 or 80 or 90 percent of the prison population has never met a lawyer.
COOPER (on camera): I mean, that's incredible.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Many people don't understand that they have a right to speak.
Nicole (ph), a senior officer in the Kenya Prisons Service said to me once, you reckon about half of our prisoners are innocent because they've gone to court, they've gone for trial, and they've had no one to speak on their behalf.
COOPER (voice-over): At Thika, incarcerated men and women from a nearby prison have come to hear the presentation by Justice Defenders.
COOPER (on camera): This is a legal training session that Justice Defenders is holding. There's probably about 150 maybe 200 incarcerated people here. Some have already been convicted of crimes. Many, though, are still awaiting trial, and they may be here for years. A session like this will give them just some basic information about what lies ahead for them.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
[22:00:00]
COLLINS: Be sure to tune in for all of that on the brand-new episode of "THE WHOLE STORY WITH ANDERSON COOPER," this Sunday, 08:00 p.m. Eastern and Pacific, only here on CNN.
Thanks so much for joining us tonight.
"CNN NEWSNIGHT WITH ABBY PHILLIP" starts now.
