Return to Transcripts main page
The Source with Kaitlan Collins
Trump Announces $12 Billion For Farmers Hurt By Tariffs; Trump Loyalist Alina Habba Resigns As Acting U.S. Attorney In NJ; Paramount Launches Hostile Takeover Bid For Warner Bros. Aired 9-10p ET
Aired December 08, 2025 - 21:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST: That's tomorrow, on the podcast.
Thanks for watching. I'll see you, tomorrow.
The news continues. "THE SOURCE WITH KAITLAN COLLINS" starts now.
KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN HOST: Tonight. As Republicans are sounding the alarm about the state of their own party, President Trump reportedly has a plan to campaign like it's 2024 all over again.
I'm Kaitlan Collins. And this is THE SOURCE.
Tonight, as the alarm among Republicans is growing louder, here in Washington, President Trump is plotting a course of action to reclaim the issue that arguably put him in the White House twice. The economy. It's a message that the President is going to be taking on the road tomorrow, to Pennsylvania, as his White House Chief of Staff, Susie Wiles, says you should get ready to see a lot more of that.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SUSIE WILES, WHITE HOUSE CHIEF OF STAFF: Typically, in the midterms, it's not about who's sitting at the White House. It's, you localize the election, and you--
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Right.
WILES: --and you keep the federal officials out of it. We are actually going to turn that on its head--
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Good.
WILES: --and put him on the ballot.
I haven't quite broken it to him yet, but he's going to campaign like it's 2024 again.
The midterms will be very important to us. He'll work very hard to keep the -- keep the majority in the Senate.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: As Democratic victories in off-year and special elections have been piling up, the President has said one of the biggest reasons he believes is that he wasn't personally on the ballot. He won't be by name, of course, in 2026 either, but his policies certainly will.
And at the White House today, we saw a $12 billion attempt to shore up support with one of his core constituencies, American farmers, who have been struggling as a result of the President's own trade policies.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: This money would not be possible without tariffs. The tariffs are taking in, you know, hundreds of billions of dollars, and we're giving some up to the farmers because they were mistreated by other countries for, I don't know, maybe right reasons, maybe wrong reasons.
We're taking in so much money with the tariffs now that it's such a pleasure. Without it, we wouldn't be able to help you. We're making our country -- we're the richest country in the world now.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Just to note that these payments that are going to be going to farmers in the next few months aren't actually being sourced directly from the tariffs, like the President alluded to there.
This comes, as the administration is making a broader argument that the President's policies are working. And given that, I questioned the Agriculture Secretary today about that, as she stood with farmers in front of the West Wing.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
COLLINS: Secretary Rollins, is this bailout today an acknowledgement that the administration's trade policies are hurting U.S. farmers?
And what would you say to U.S. farmers who are worried that China is not going to hold up its end of the agreements that the President was touting?
BROOKE ROLLINS, AGRICULTURE SECRETARY: Yes. So two -- so two quick things to answer your question.
When we were out here, earlier this spring, I think I came out and gaggled with a lot of you after the President announced Liberation Day. And starting then, almost immediately, I said, This president is resolutely focused. If there is any evidence that trade is compromising these farmers' ability to sell their product, that we will ensure, just as he did in term one, negotiating China one, that we'll make sure that we are mitigating for that.
The really interesting thing is though, now that we're eight, nine, 10 months into this, there is almost zero evidence, if any evidence, that what they are doing and the challenges that our farm economy is facing in row crops has anything to do with these trade renegotiations. Instead, the input costs being so high, based on the last administration and not one new trade deal in four years. Those are really the two basically driving factors in why the farm economy is today what it is.
So you'll see we've pivoted from, We're going to do a -- we're going to do a -- an aid package, assuming the trade has been extremely, or potentially harmful, and instead now we're just going to support our row croppers based on those input prices, based on no new deals, as we continue to monitor trade.
On the China soybeans, Secretary Bessent, himself a soybean farmer, I think at least till a couple of days ago, I think he just divested, has said, and the President has said and made very clear in that room, that China will meet their commitment. And so, I have full faith in what they've said, and I'm very excited, and I'm encouraged by that.
COLLINS: But as you know, they failed before to live up to those agreements.
ROLLINS: That's true, but it's a -- it's a new day.
COLLINS: So, do you have concerns?
[21:05:00]
ROLLINS: I do not have concerns. I do believe that we will get there. 12 million, then 25 million, and 25 million, and 25 million metric tons. But it does go to the larger goal of opening up markets around the world, so that we are not so reliant on China. So, that's why we continue to focus on that.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
COLLINS: Now the White House is taking action with this $12 billion bailout, as the President is gearing up to get personally involved in the midterms, amid major concerns, even among some of his most loyal and at least formerly loyal and hardcore supporters.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
LESLEY STAHL, "60 MINUTES" CORRESPONDENT: Are you MAGA?
REP. MARJORIE TAYLOR GREENE (R-GA): I am America First.
STAHL: And that's not the same as MAGA?
TAYLOR GREENE: MAGA is President Trump's phrase. That's his -- his political policies. I call myself America First.
STAHL: But you're -- you're not saying you're MAGA. That's over?
TAYLOR GREENE: I'm America First. Yes.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Now, Marjorie Taylor Greene, that you heard from there, is not the only Republican who has been voicing concern about leadership in her party. Representative Nancy Mace, who is running for governor of South Carolina, also took aim at the House Speaker, Mike Johnson, in a New York Times opinion piece, where she wrote, Here's a hard truth Republicans don't want to hear: Nancy Pelosi was a more effective House speaker than any Republican this century. And she also said, The current House is restrictive and ineffective, control with barely any results.
We got a lot to unpack tonight with some of our best political sources who are here at the table with me, including:
CNN's Chief National Affairs Correspondent, Jeff Zeleny.
Former Hillary Clinton adviser, Karen Finney.
And former Republican congressman from Pennsylvania, Charlie Dent.
So, it's great to have all of you here.
Because Jeff, when you hear Susie Wiles say, Trump is going to be on the campaign trail, campaigning like it's 2024? Some Democrats might like that and want that to actually take place. But I wonder what you make of the calculation of what they're hearing.
JEFF ZELENY, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Well, look, this is not President Trump's first midterm election. It is Susie Wiles' first midterm election. So I was really struck by when she said, We haven't told him yet.
KAREN FINNEY, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, FORMER COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR, DNC, SENIOR ADVISER, HILLARY CLINTON'S 2016 CAMPAIGN: Yes.
ZELENY: He knows well what happens in a midterm election. He remembers 2018, and it was not good. And he's not alone. Every president in the modern age, with the exception of two in the last more than century, lose seats, their party loses seats, during the midterm. It's just how it is. But there's no doubt, if he goes out and campaigns more, it helps some Republicans, but it also can have the adverse effect in some areas.
And he's going to Pennsylvania tomorrow, just a little bit south of Scranton. And obviously, you know the area well. It's a county that he won by just a few hundred votes over Kamala Harris. He lost it to Joe Biden, four years ago, and lost to Hillary Clinton, eight years ago. So Donald Trump has not been in this type of territory for more than a year.
I think we've both been struck, covering the White House, how little time he has spent out in the country, talking about his policies. He usually goes to Mar-a-Lago, or to sporting events, and that's it. So, this is going to be a marked change. The question, does he stay on message and talk about the economy, or does he talk about everything under the sun? We shall see.
COLLINS: OK, but if he stays on message, and he talks about the economy, what -- how does he thread the needle of he's calling affordability a con job, and saying it doesn't really mean anything. When voters, including some of the ones who might be listening tomorrow, say, Actually, it's not a con job, in my view.
CHARLIE DENT, FORMER U.S. REPRESENTATIVE (R-PA): Well, the President is going up to Northeastern Pennsylvania for a reason. He's in Lackawanna County, Luzerne County. Luzerne County is a county that Obama won in 2012. Trump won it three times thereafter, and by big margins. This is not a swing county.
But you know what happened in November? The Democrats won control of the Board of Commissioners in Luzerne County. That's why he's going there. This is a seat that the Dem -- that Republicans flipped in the midterm. Congressman Bresnahan took it from Congressman Cartwright. And that's going to be a very competitive race. That's why he's going there. Because this is Coal Country, what we call the coal regions, up in Northeastern Pennsylvania. And the President's numbers are not -- he's not doing well up there.
COLLINS: Yes.
DENT: That's the bottom line. And he just have to go there--
COLLINS: Well, and Republicans who were so hesitant to speak out against Trump. I mean, they're taking shots at Mike Johnson and using that kind of, instead of going after Trump.
But the Nancy Mace Op-Ed, I thought, was really interesting, because not only does she say that Nancy Pelosi was more effective, even though she says they don't agree.
FINNEY: Yes.
COLLINS: She notes correctly that Republicans control all three branches of government, and she says that they fail to pass legislation that permanently secures the border, addresses the affordability crisis, improves health care and restores law and order. We will lose this majority, and we will deserve it.
FINNEY: Which I agree with her on that. I agree that Nancy Pelosi was a far more effective Speaker of the House and leader, frankly.
At the same time, Nancy Mace, the feminist, because she also gets in to kind of complain about Republican leadership and -- come on, girl, like this is a little bit also felt to me that this was a bit about she's running for governor. This is a way to sort of blame the system. It's not her fault that she has -- doesn't have a lot of accomplishments to tout in her gubernatorial.
And also, in a state like South Carolina, yes, it's a red state, but there are patches where there are people who are likely not happy with the Republicans. So, it's a way to kind of say, See, I can criticize my own party. So, I kind of took it with a grain of salt, because she's been on several sides of these issues at different times.
[21:10:00] COLLINS: Well, and Jeff, I wonder, as our Nebraska native at the table, what you make of watching the President there, in the room, with these farmers today, who were talking about their needs. I mean, $12 billion, obviously, is a lot of money, and people are sitting at home hearing that. But it actually kind of falls well short of the losses that farmers have been suffering this year.
ZELENY: It absolutely does. And I was just struck by the fact, I think for one of the first times, it was just an acknowledgement that his policies, his tariff policies, aren't working for the American farmer, for the American farm economy. So that's what was so sort of unusual about it. And you almost got this sense that he realized that, like midway through, and was kind of awkward during and not very pleased during it.
But look, the bottom line here is that farmers have faced a perfect storm of low prices and high production costs.
And I was struck by this comment from the Republican Secretary of Agriculture in Iowa, after this announcement today. He said, Let's be clear: Farmers want reliable markets for their products, not government aid.
So the old saying, Trade not aid, we've heard it since the 1980s farm crisis, and probably long before that.
Yes, farmers are grateful for this. But not coming until the end of February. So, it's unclear if any new policies will sort of change.
And to your question to the Ag Secretary about China, are they going to hold up to their end of the deal? That's very much an open question.
COLLINS: Yes, because they didn't, last time.
FINNEY: Yeah. Look, there's a couple other things, though. I agree with Jeff. But let's remember the other part of this equation is immigration, and the raids, which are draining resources, in terms of people, for some farmers, draining actual -- their productivity, making it hard for them to meet those needs.
And secondly, this is a patch. This isn't a solution.
Also, this week, we know in Congress, they're going to have a conversation about the Affordable Care Act. So if we think about, OK, so you're going to get this money in February. A lot of low-income and middle-income people run up their credit cards, right now, to pay for Christmas, hoping that they'll get enough back on their taxes, early in the year, to then pay that debt off. Their health care costs are going to be going up. Those bills are going to come due. We're seeing rates of people defaulting on car loans going up.
So, this is a patch, but it's not actually solving the fundamentals of the economy, where Trump still sounds so tone-deaf on what's actually going on. COLLINS: Well, and one thing that everyone in Washington has been talking about, that maybe hasn't broken through to people, who are just kind of paying attention to what's going to happen in the midterms, is the retirements and what that's looking like, not just for Democrats, but for Republicans.
FINNEY: Yes.
COLLINS: And the President was asked about this today, is he worried about Republicans who are fleeing Congress and aren't running? This was his response.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REPORTER: There's at least 20 House Republicans who have either said they're going to retire or not run again.
TRUMP: And Democrats also.
REPORTER: Do you have any concerns about the--
TRUMP: And Democrats also.
REPORTER: Right. Do you have any concerns--
TRUMP: Well, why don't you mention them? How many Democrats are going to retire?
REPORTER: Well, do you--
TRUMP: How many Democrats?
REPORTER: Well that -- well, that's what I was going to ask. Do you have any concerns?
TRUMP: No. No. But why don't you tell me the number of Democrats too. You tell me about--
REPORTER: Well, are you concerned about the narrow margins?
TRUMP: No, I'm not concerned.
REPORTER: And Congresswoman Elise Stefanik--
TRUMP: I think we're going to do well.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: We looked at the numbers. There are 10 Democrats who are retiring from Congress. 18 Democrats, 23 Republicans, total, when you include people who are running for other offices, or have not said that they're taking that step yet.
But I wonder what you made of how the President answered that question. What do you think they really think about this? DENT: Well, and then there will be more. This is just the beginning. Wait till we get after the Christmas holiday. There're going to be a number of members who'll also announce their retirements.
In 2018, we saw the same thing, going into a rough midterm, significant numbers of Republicans chose not to running. And hey, I was one of them, for variety of reasons. I could have won again, but I didn't want to go back in the minority, and it's no fun. And that's what a lot of them are looking at right now.
And I'm not (ph) just talking about members in swing districts. I'm talking about members who are, you know, who want to get things done, who are in probably safer seats, but they don't want to come back and be in the minority. So there're going to be tons of members who are just not going to want to come back. It's that simple. No matter how much the President talks about the Democrats. He's got a problem with Republicans not wanting to stick around.
COLLINS: Yes.
DENT: It's a real thing.
COLLINS: Karen, I have to ask you about one Democrat who is not running for her seat again.
FINNEY: Yes.
COLLINS: She's running for the Senate, is Jasmine Crockett in Texas.
FINNEY: Yes.
COLLINS: Her announcement ad is basically the only thing people have been talking about, here in D.C. today.
FINNEY: Yes.
COLLINS: And this is why.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: Crockett. Oh man. Oh man. She's a very low IQ person.
Somebody said the other day she's one of the leaders of the party. I think you got to be kidding.
Now they're going to rely on Crockett.
Crockett's going to bring them back.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
FINNEY: I love it.
COLLINS: You think it's effective?
FINNEY: Absolutely. Look, it is so hard to break through in this media environment. And we are sitting here talking about it, and people have been talking about it all day. Mission accomplished, right? This woman is a prolific fundraiser. I would not count her out.
Because on the Republican side, look at what Ken Paxton has been doing. And there's a real controversy, right, between Ken Paxton and John Cornyn. Cornyn is not doing so well, right? And--
[21:15:00]
COLLINS: And they're running for the Republican nomination.
FINNEY: And they're -- for the -- on the Republican side.
And with Jasmine Crockett, what's interesting about her? So, Texas actually has the largest number of black Americans of the southern states. So, if she could actually shift the electorate and bring out younger voters, Latino, African American voters? It could be a very competitive race. And the Republicans, at a minimum, would potentially have to spend more if she gets through the primary, I should say.
ZELENY: She has to win her primary first, we should say.
FINNEY: Yes, I will say.
ZELENY: She has a very challenging primary.
FINNEY: But people seem to love her. She's a great fundraiser. And Republicans would potentially have to spend more money there than they were probably planning on having to spend this time.
COLLINS: Yes, Jeff, what do you think of this?
ZELENY: Look, I mean, I think that it shifted the dynamics of the race, because Colin Allred had been in the Senate race for months and months, most, all year.
FINNEY: Yes.
ZELENY: So he today, announced he's running for the House. She's getting in. Look, we shall see. I mean, Democrats have been chasing this phantom victory in--
FINNEY: We got to try.
DENT: Great White Whale.
ZELENY: --in Texas, for a very long time.
FINNEY: Yes.
ZELENY: But look, we shall see.
I mean, I think she does hit upon one question, though. How much do Democrats make their campaigns all about Donald Trump versus other things?
FINNEY: Yes.
DENT: Yes.
ZELENY: And there are some limitations to that. But my thinking, an announcement video like this? Again, she alone sort of has that brand and so much sound out there that people have sort of used at her. So why not?
COLLINS: Yes, I don't even think she said a word.
ZELENY: What does day two look like?
COLLINS: In the ad.
ZELENY: She didn't say a word.
FINNEY: Yes.
COLLINS: It just--
DENT: She's going to have to win some crossover voters.
FINNEY: Yes.
DENT: If we learned anything from Tennessee, the Democratic candidate there went hard-left in a plus-22 Trump district. I mean, she would -- bringing AOC in was crazy.
FINNEY: But she won by -- he won by single digits--
DENT: I know.
FINNEY: --and closed the margin in Tennessee like that?
DENT: But the point is--
FINNEY: Come on.
DENT: Yes. But if they had a candidate who actually appealed to the center, she might have been able to get closer. But she didn't, I mean. So, Crockett is going to have to find a way to center herself.
FINNEY: Sure.
DENT: That did not happen in Tennessee. That race could have been closer, had they had a better candidate, who was able to talk to people who voted for Donald Trump. And Crockett is going to have to do that if she hopes to beat a guy like Cornyn--
FINNEY: And if you shift the dynamics of the electorate--
DENT: --through affordability (ph).
FINNEY: --again, by going out by -- this is the Obama model. Frankly, this was a Trump model. This was the Mamdani model.
ZELENY: He lost--
FINNEY: Chain--
ZELENY: He lost Texas.
FINNEY: Yes.
ZELENY: If you recall. Right.
FINNEY: But nationally, you shift what the elect -- you can't win in this electorate? OK, who do I need to be voting in order to win?
COLLINS: It's a great question. And speaking of, Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett is going to be joining my colleague, Laura Coates, live tonight, for an exclusive interview to talk about this decision. That is tonight, here at 11:00 p.m. Eastern. You don't want to miss that.
Up next for us here on THE SOURCE, though. The President's former personal attorney, Alina Habba, just said she is officially out as the U.S. Attorney, after that ruling from an appeals court. But she already has a new job in the government. It might actually be a promotion. We'll talk about that, next.
And also, speaking of court. Luigi Mangione was back in one today. What his defense team is fighting for, as the accused killer shared his to-do list for the cameras.
And there's also a plot twist tonight in that blockbuster Hollywood battle that is now underway. Netflix came out on top. But the saga is far from over.
[21:20:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: Tonight, one of President Trump's fiercest legal allies and former personal attorney, Alina Habba, has officially resigned as the U.S. Attorney for New Jersey. Her decision comes a week after a federal appeals court found that she was improperly appointed to that role.
And in a lengthy statement, Habba announced that she would step down to protect, quote, "The stability and integrity of the office which I love." She added, quote, "Do not mistake compliance for surrender... I will continue to serve the Department of Justice as the Senior Advisor to the Attorney General for U.S. Attorneys."
Joining me tonight is the Ranking Member on the House Judiciary Committee, Democratic congressman, Jamie Raskin of Maryland.
And Congressman, I wonder, were you surprised to see this happen today?
REP. JAMIE RASKIN (D-MD): No, because they've been losing all over the country on this question, as they've been trying to circumvent the Constitution. The Constitution is very clear that the U.S. Senate gets to render advice and consent on appointments to these executive positions, the U.S. attorneys' positions, which serve under the Attorney General.
So, the Trump administration, in its way, had tried to figure out a method by which they could continue to appoint whoever they wanted, without the Senate having any say in it, and they kept appointing political hacks and sycophants who not only were appointed outside of the constitutional channels, but also were making a hash of the law, and embarrassing the administration.
So, they kept getting struck down. And so, of course, she had to resign. They're endangering even legitimate prosecutions, valid prosecutions, that were brought by real lawyers and real prosecutors during the time in which these imposter U.S. attorneys were put in office.
COLLINS: What do you make of her new position that she says she'll have, overseeing all U.S. attorneys across the country?
RASKIN: Well, obviously they think they've given the federal courts, both the district courts and the appeals court some kind of comeuppance, by naming her, I don't know, Senior Advisor or Big Cheese overlooking U.S. attorneys. And they've got a right to do that. They can make up whatever job they want, as a consolation prize for her.
[21:25:00]
But she cannot be a U.S. Attorney outside of the proper channels. You can't stretch the Vacancies Act beyond recognition, so that the President can completely bypass the Senate and just appoint whoever he wants to be the U.S. attorneys all over the country. And so, that's the same holding that took place in Virginia, with Ms. Halligan. I think it's come up in Nevada and New York. It will happen all over the country, if they decide to bypass and twist the law, beyond recognition.
COLLINS: Well, that was my question, when I saw that Alina Habba was stepping down was, is Lindsey Halligan going to follow suit? I mean, it's a different ruling, but it's not -- it's not that dissimilar in terms of them being able to serve in these positions.
RASKIN: Well, essentially, the courts are finding that they're illegally in office. They're not lawfully occupying those jobs, because they've not been lawfully appointed. There is a provision for a temporary appointment for 120 days. And after that, the courts can appoint someone if no one else has been put in. But you got to follow what the law is.
And of course, Trump has been advancing the argument that when it comes to Article II of the Constitution, he can do whatever he wants, and that would include bypassing the legitimate powers of the Senate to engage in advice and consent for executive branch appointments. And that's just wrong.
COLLINS: Right. Well-- RASKIN: The reason the Framers put that in there is, he's got the right to name -- to nominate the people he wants. But they have a right to vote on it.
COLLINS: Well, for people who haven't been paying that close attention, the President was -- he literally talked about this today, because he was talking about how Democrats, he says, will oppose anyone he nominates.
I want you to just listen to what he told reporters, earlier.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: I can't appoint a U.S. attorney that's not a Democrat, because they'd put a block on it. So if you appoint in Virginia, or in New Jersey, or in California, a U.S. attorney or a judge? I mean, the judge situation is ridiculous. The only people that you can get by are Democrats, because they will put a hold on it.
If I put up George Washington and Abraham Lincoln to be U.S. Attorney in New Jersey, or to be U.S. Attorney in Virginia, we have Democrat senators, they will not approve them.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Now, I was listening to the President answer that question, while sitting on a train, with your Democratic colleague, the Democratic senator from Virginia, Mark Warner, today.
And I was just thinking, I mean, the President did put someone up for the U.S. Attorney position there, that got support from the Senate. But then, obviously, was fired by the President and left that role, after he did not want to indict people the President wanted indicted.
But when the President makes that argument, would you lend your support and voice if he appointed a qualified Republican to that role, if he nominated someone that you thought was qualified, but was a Republican?
RASKIN: Well, his argument is just completely amusing, because in the first place, the guy that he sacked in Virginia, to put Halligan in, was his own appointee, Erik Siebert, who had been promoted by the Republican governor of Virginia, and had the support of the entire Republican establishment. The reason Trump sacked him is because he wouldn't bring a completely illegitimate prosecution against James Comey.
Now, he doesn't have a problem just with the Democrats in the Senate. He's got a problem with the Republican majority. If they would stick with him, he could get whomever he wanted. But they're going to look at a bunch of these nominees and say, Hey, they're just political hacks and sycophants.
And the other thing is that what you had in this Jersey decision coming out of the Third Circuit was Republican-appointed judges who struck down the legitimacy of the Republican U.S. Attorney there, Ms. Habba. So, his problem is with the Republican Party because he's got a problem with the Constitution. And those judges who are still loyal to the Constitution are not going to accept his efforts to finger-paint all over it.
COLLINS: You know, there's something else that has kind of gotten bipartisan support here in D.C. Which is not always the case. But it's come to that video that we've been talking about for the alleged -- the strike on the alleged drug boat, the second strike that killed the survivors who were on that boat. That's been confirmed by the White House. But they have not publicly released that whole video.
And today, the President was asked about whether or not it's going to come out. I want everyone to listen to what the President said today, how he answered that question, compared to what he said just a few days ago.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REPORTER: Mr. President, you said you would have no problem with releasing the full video of that strike on September 2nd, off the coast of Venezuela. Secretary Hegseth now says--
TRUMP: I didn't say that.
REPORTER: You--
TRUMP: That's -- you said that, I didn't say that. This is ABC fake news.
REPORTER: Will you release video of that strike, so that the American people can see for themselves what happened?
TRUMP: I don't know what they have, but whatever they have, we'd certainly release, no problem.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: What do you attribute that change to?
RASKIN: Well, your show is beginning to blend in with "Saturday Night Live." I mean, that's just comical that he denies precisely what he said before.
[21:30:00]
Look, they're trying to circle the wagons at this point. It's not just the second tap, which was a clear violation of international law, American law, and the Department of Defense's own rules of engagement, because they killed shipwrecked survivors who were hanging on to the flotsam and jetsam of the boat. That's like killing prisoners of war or wounded soldiers on the battlefield. It's a clear violation of the rules of war.
It looked like, at first, the President was going to come clean with everything. Now it looks like he's trying to stand behind his man, Pete Hegseth. Although now, all of this footage is coming out about Pete Hegseth, having said several years ago, that Donald Trump would attempt to impose unlawful orders on the soldiers, and he couldn't do that.
So, I don't know. It's chaos over there. It's very hard to, you know--
COLLINS: Yes, that was during--
RASKIN: Yes.
COLLINS: That was when Trump was on the campaign trail in 2016.
But on this, I assume you have not seen the video, have you, of the second strike?
RASKIN: No.
COLLINS: So Senator Markwayne Mullin, a Republican, said earlier--
RASKIN: Yes.
COLLINS: --that he saw it. But he said that he just -- he simply asked. I mean, do you think if you ask, that Secretary Hegseth and the Pentagon would show it to you?
RASKIN: Look, it shouldn't be a game of hide-and-go-seek or cat-and- mouse. This is a matter of congressional power over war. It's not just the second tap. It's the first tap, that's the problem, because Congress never declared war on a bunch of alleged drug boats in the middle of the ocean.
The Framers wanted to vest the power just in the representatives of the people to decide to go to war. It's not up to Pete Hegseth, or Tulsi Gabbard, or their Signal chat group.
And so, if it's not an act of war, then it would have to be an act of law enforcement. But of course, they violated the presumption of innocence, due process, the right to a trial. They engaged in a mass summary execution. Now, I think it's up to 84 people, who have been killed, without a declaration of war and without any due process at all. These look like completely extra-legal killings on the high seas.
COLLINS: Congressman Jamie Raskin. I know there's a Gang of Eight briefing, tomorrow, with lawmakers and the administration. We'll see if any new answers come from that. Thank you so much for joining us tonight.
RASKIN: You bet.
COLLINS: Up next. Paramount has just said, Not so fast, to that massive Netflix deal with Warner Bros. What the President said today when he was asked about the new hostile takeover bid, and also how the President answered the question about his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, and how he figures into all of this.
My excellent media sources will join me, right after this.
[21:35:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: President Trump's Apprentice days may be long over. But tonight, he has found himself back in the middle of an extraordinary battle between two rivals, competing for the deal of a lifetime. Only now, the battle is for the future of Hollywood, and it really became a full-fledged war today.
That's because Paramount launched a hostile takeover bid to buy CNN's parent company, Warner Bros. Discovery, going straight to its shareholders with an all-cash offer that Paramount says is better than the $83 billion deal that Netflix announced last week.
Paramount's CEO, David Ellison, made his case this way on CNBC today.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DAVID ELLISON, CEO, PARAMOUNT: We're sitting on Wall Street, where cash is still king. We are offering shareholders $17.6 billion more cash than the deal they currently have signed up with Netflix. And we believe, when they see what is currently in our offer, that that's what they'll vote for.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Now, for its part, Netflix is downplaying this takeover bid. And today, the CEO, Ted Sarandos called it, Entirely expected, and insisted that Netflix still has a done deal with Warner Bros.
Of course, any deal will need to be the approval -- will need the approval of federal government regulators. And the President has weighed in on this, saying last night, on the red carpet at the Kennedy Center, here in Washington, that he does intend to get personally involved here. What he hasn't said is which deal he likes better.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REPORTER: Do you support the Paramount bid for Warner Bros. that came out this morning?
TRUMP: I don't know enough about it.
I have to see what percentage of market they have. We have to see the Netflix percentage of market, Paramount, the percentage of market. I mean, none of them are particularly great friends of mine. You know, it is -- I want to -- I want to do what's right.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: The President was also asked during that same Q&A session about how Paramount's hostile bid takeover is backed by a private equity firm that was founded by the President's son-in-law, Jared Kushner.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REPORTER: The Paramount deal is supported by Jared Kushner, Mr. President. Would that impact your decision?
TRUMP: If Paramount is -- I don't know. I haven't -- I've never spoken to him about it. He's really trying to work on Gaza.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: My sources tonight are deeply-sourced in the media world. I've got CNN's Brian Stelter, and Axios' Sara Fischer here.
And it's so great to have you both.
Because Brian, when the President says he's going to be involved, that in and of itself, is a big break from normally, traditionally, how this would go, where regulators review major corporate deals, they would keep an arm's length. I wonder what you make of this, and how Paramount's owners, the Netflix CEO, they're all directly appealing to this President.
BRIAN STELTER, CNN CHIEF MEDIA ANALYST: You -- I think you said it -- you said it best. You said it best, a minute ago, Kaitlan. This is right out of "The Apprentice," with contestants competing for Trump's approval, just the way he likes it.
[21:40:00]
But it's a change from his first term in office. In his first term, when AT&T was seeking to buy CNN and HBO and Warner, there was widespread speculation that Trump was trying to block the deal, trying to meddle in the deal, because of his disdain for CNN. There was some maneuvering behind the scenes, trying to influence CNN's news coverage. And the AT&T and Time Warner executives rejected those attempts.
But here's the thing. When the DOJ sued to block AT&T in 2017, Trump said, Ah, that wasn't me, I didn't make that decision.
Now, here we are in 2025, with Trump 2.0, and he proudly boasts about being involved in the decision. He wants this to be seen as his decision to make. Ultimately though, he does not get a veto. Yes, he can make these companies' lives a living hell for a while. He can make the process more painful.
But ultimately, if the Justice Department does sue to block whatever deal emerges here? Ultimately, it will go to a court, it'll go to a judge. And Trump is not the final say, even though he might be perceived or portrayed that way.
COLLINS: Yes.
Sara, just as you're watching how all this has played out. I mean, it really did turn into a war today, basically. It went from this battle, where it seemed like Paramount was going to fight back on it. But then they came out today to watch that interview with David Ellison. Was fascinating to hear him pushed on their logic here, why they think it's a better deal. What are you hearing on this tonight?
SARA FISCHER, CNN MEDIA ANALYST, SENIOR MEDIA REPORTER, AXIOS: Oh how the tables have turned, Kaitlan. I mean, a few weeks ago, Paramount seemed like it was in the lead for this. They had submitted three bids, all of which were rejected by Warner Bros., before the official bidding war happened just last week.
And now, Netflix seems like much more of the darling, not just to the Warner Bros. Discovery folks, which selected its bid last week, but also to folks in Washington. You had Senator Thune, on the right, Senator Warren, on the left, both of them slamming the Paramount bid. And I think part of it is because the ties to Jared Kushner's fund, as you mentioned, but also the raising equity from three foreign sovereign wealth funds from the Middle East. That is putting up a lot of red flags for a lot of regulators here in Washington.
COLLINS: Can you explain how that would work, to people who are wondering what that actually means for what this would look like, if Paramount is successful here.
FISCHER: OK, the Ellison family has committed $11.8 billion for this deal, but they say that the three sovereign wealth funds have committed $24 billion for this deal. That's an astronomical amount of money.
But the catch, Kaitlan, is that they had to surrender voting rights, board seats, in order to get this deal through. Because if they didn't, there's a committee called the Committee for Foreign Investment in the U.S., which is mostly Trump Cabinet members, they would have had a tough time approving this deal, if those sovereign wealth funds were all given voting power.
So, you have to ask yourself, Why would you give up voting power, if you're putting $24 billion into a deal? The obvious answer is, for political sway, for soft power. And so, the shareholders that the Paramount folks are appealing to, they have to make a decision like, does a financial bid outweigh that type of soft power play?
COLLINS: Yes.
And Brian, I think the question also has been, what this is going to do to the industry? How this could change this? What that could look like? As we're waiting for all this to play out. What is the timeline here? How will we know when they make a decision, and if this--
STELTER: Right though--
COLLINS: --if Paramount is successful, what that looks like?
STELTER: With the hostile takeover bid, it's a matter of weeks. We're going to hear about this every day, for the next several days. Maybe Paramount will sweeten the offer again, go above $30 a share. The WBD Board will have to consider that. We will hear more throughout the month of December about that.
But let's say that Netflix does continue on, in 2026. This is going to take months. And if there is a government action to try to block the deal, it could take years. And time is money in these streaming wars. One of the reasons why Netflix became what it is today, became so powerful, is because some of the other companies in the marketplace were too slow. They were tied up by regulatory scrutiny. They were tied up for other reasons. So, it is notable how this timeline will unfold.
And ultimately, as Sara was just saying, all these media moguls, they really value these entertainment assets. They see a once-in-a- generation opportunity to own a really powerful movie studio, to own a giant streaming service, the HBO library. These assets simply do not come up for sale very often. So it's no wonder why David Ellison is trying so hard now, going directly to shareholders, to try to win.
COLLINS: Yes, and he was arguing that the longer this plays out today, David Ellison was saying, it's anti-competitive by nature, because it slows them down. And to your point.
I mean, I thought the President, one, this morning, he was trashing Paramount, saying -- because he was critical of an interview that Marjorie Taylor Greene did on "60 Minutes," saying that the new ownership has not changed it in the way that he wants it to.
STELTER: Yes.
COLLINS: He said, They are no better than the old ownership.
And then today, in the -- you know, when he was saying that, he's not great friends with either of them? That really stood out to me, because obviously, we've seen him -- he's met with Ted Sarandos at the White House. He sat next to David Ellison at a UFC fight, I believe. I mean, they have certainly been cultivating these relationships.
FISCHER: Oh, Netflix's head of policy that they hired earlier this year is a former Trump administration official. They have been all- aggressively lobbying the Trump administration for months, ahead of the any sort of deal-making, whether it would be for Warner Bros. Discovery or something else. So President Trump is very familiar with these executives.
[21:45:00]
What he's trying to do is distance himself from the intricacies of each bid. One, he doesn't want to seem as he's favoring Paramount politically, because they're going to potentially give him assurances about the news division. And then two, he doesn't want to seem that he's favoring Netflix for any sort of a reason, because Netflix, big Hollywood, that's not exactly his ally. So, he's trying to tow a fine line here too, looking in control, but not too in control.
COLLINS: Sara Fischer. Brian Stelter. Great to have you both. As we will be watching this play out, as Brian noted, for every day for the next few days and few weeks, potentially.
Up next here for us, though. I'm going to check in on what happened in New York, this morning. The accused killer, Luigi Mangione, was back in the court. It's notable that we're even seeing these pictures tonight, as one key thing his lawyers were trying to get done inside that courtroom. We're going to look at why, with my best legal source, right after this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[21:50:00]
COLLINS: Tonight, the defense team for Luigi Mangione is fighting to toss out key evidence in his New York State murder trial.
The accused killer of UnitedHealthcare's CEO appeared in court today, where police bodycam footage from his arrest at that McDonald's was played in court, and it revealed officers on the scene debating if they needed a search warrant.
As back-and-forth was going on between the officers, as the search was underway of his backpack, where officers found a passport, a phone, a laptop, a loaded magazine for a gun that had actually been wrapped in wet underwear. Also recovered were writings that appeared to be a to- do list for Luigi Mangione, including a trip to BestBuy, a digital camera, a hot meal, water bottles, an intel check in, and a survival kit, as well as a hand-drawn map.
My legal source tonight is the retired New York State Supreme Court Justice, Jill Konviser.
And it's great to have you here, Judge.
Because, given his team is fighting to suppress this evidence, basically arguing, they can't use it in this case. How do you -- how convincing did you think that their arguments actually were today?
JILL KONVISER, FORMER NEW YORK STATE SUPREME COURT JUSTICE, FORMER NY STATE INSPECTOR GENERAL, ADJUNCT PROFESSOR, FORDHAM AND CARDOZO LAW SCHOOLS, FORMER ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY: Look, in any suppression case, which is what this is, there's a motion to suppress evidence.
They're going to fight to keep out anything that hurts them. That's their job. That's what they're going to do. So, in that sense, it's not unusual. The evidence is particularly damning against this defendant. And so, they're going to work hard to try to exclude it in the way they do that within the meaning of the United States Constitution. The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution is, to point out that there was inappropriate, lawless police conduct, and as a result, evidence that was collected pursuant to an unlawful search is therefore going to be suppressed or excluded. That's what they are hoping for, and they did hit some notes today.
But the standard is whether those searches are reasonable under the law, based on a totality of the circumstance, and based on what the officers knew at the time. That's the question for Justice Carro to decide, which is what is the purpose of this lengthy hearing.
COLLINS: Yes, and the officer who had gone through his backpack was saying, We were looking for a bomb. Was he immediate threat? She was citing a previous instance, where someone brought a bag to their headquarters and it had a bomb in it. I mean, they were making that argument.
But I also thought the other thing that stood out today from court was just being able to see what happened inside court.
I mean, right now, we're showing pictures of what they found in his backpack, this evidence that they're trying to suppress.
But also, we just saw Luigi Mangione himself today. He's obviously created this huge following from people who are like cheerleading him. But the pictures of Mangione and his defense attorney. Is that normal that we would always -- is that guarantee that we'd get that always in court, I guess?
KONVISER: No. And if it were my case, you may not get it.
Certainly, if you want to know what's going on in court, you got to come down and come into the courthouse and listen.
The judge has a responsibility here, as in every case, to make sure the defendant gets a fair trial. And if information is out and about and in the community that could affect or infect the jury pool? Well, that's something he needs to be cautious of. The most important thing is to make sure the defendant, and the people of the State of New York, get the fair trial to which they are entitled. And that is precisely what he is going to try to do.
Curious were some of those pictures taken of the defendant today, sort of pumping his fist in the air and smiling? I'm not sure what that was about. But perhaps, that's also about making the prospective jurors see him as some icon, something along those lines.
COLLINS: Yes, and right now we're -- these are new pictures that we actually just got. Shows the handgun that was in his backpack. You see the notebook there, where they recovered these writings, and then you see the digital camera, a few other things that he had. Just remarkable images as we continue to watch this case.
Judge, it is always great to have you. Jill Konviser, thank you so much for joining us tonight.
KONVISER: Thank you.
COLLINS: And we'll continue to follow that case.
Up next. Also, another update on the college football playoffs. A shocking snub of Notre Dame. It didn't come without retaliation. We have more on this gut punch that has some people in the college football world reeling tonight.
[21:55:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: There's a bit of anger in the air tonight over two words that have dominated the sports world in the last 24 hours or so. Roll Tide. You've heard that phrase here before. Now the college football playoffs are going to include the Alabama Crimson Tide, and it's a decision that has everyone from Tuscaloosa to the nation's capital feeling quite pleased tonight, though maybe a little confused, after that game on Saturday.
[22:00:00]
But not everyone is pleased. Notre Dame was actually left out of the college football playoffs despite their 10-2 season. The Fighting Irish though had no wins against top 15 opponents and a schedule that included last-placed teams from three of the Power Four conferences.
Notre Dame responded to this snub by opting out of the bowl game, effectively ending their season with this decision, saying that they are withdrawing.
And that decision has been called by critics everything, from short- sighted and embarrassing, to a case of basically taking their ball and going home. Friend of THE SOURCE, and legendary college football analyst himself, Paul Finebaum, said the result of that call is making them the laughing stock of college football.
We'll continue to check on that, and see how Alabama fares in the playoffs in two weeks.
Thanks so much for joining us.
"CNN NEWSNIGHT WITH ABBY PHILLIP" starts now.
