Return to Transcripts main page

State of the Union

Interview With Rep. Mike Lawler (R-NY); Interview With Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD); Interview With U.S. National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan. Aired 9-10a ET

Aired December 01, 2024 - 09:00   ET

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

[09:00:37]

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

KASIE HUNT, CNN HOST (voice-over): FBI bombshell. President-elect Trump looks to fire his FBI director and replace him with a political firebrand. Will loyalist Kash Patel be confirmed and follow-through on his promise to pursue Trump's political enemies?

KASH PATEL, FORMER DEPUTY ASSISTANT TO PRESIDENT TRUMP: We're going to come after you.

Congressman Jamie Raskin is here exclusively to respond.

And rebel rising. Shocking images from Syria, where rebels overtake a key city. What does it mean for the region and the U.S. push for a broader Mideast peace? White House National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan is next.

Plus: It's complicated. As Trump's Cabinet picks face skepticism in Congress, his tariff threats raise consumer fears.

DONALD TRUMP, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES (R) AND CURRENT U.S. PRESIDENT-ELECT: It's going to make us wealthy again.

HUNT: With a razor-thin House majority, are there more bumps ahead? Republican Congressman Mike Lawler joins me exclusively.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

HUNT: Hello. I'm Kasie Hunt, in for Jake Tapper and Dana Bash, in Washington, where the state of our union is watching a new battle brewing.

President-elect Donald Trump is closing out his Thanksgiving weekend by setting up another major political fight. He wants longtime loyalist and partisan firebrand Kash Patel to lead the FBI. It's a move that would require firing the current director, Christopher Wray, who Trump appointed after firing his first FBI director in 2017.

Patel is a highly divisive figure. He's accused the so-called deep state of targeting Trump and proposed a -- quote -- "comprehensive house cleaning" -- end quote -- of the Justice Department, saying that, under Trump, it would go after members of the media. In his memoir, former Attorney General Bill Barr said he had tried to

block a move to install Patel as deputy FBI director during Trump's first term. Barr said that he'd allow it -- quote -- "over my dead body."

And multiple sources familiar with the Trump transition process had previously told CNN that Patel's rise is deeply concerning. It's not clear that Patel could be confirmed by the Senate, but his pick is another sign that Trump plans to follow through on his promises to disrupt Washington.

Joining me now is White House National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan.

Sir, thanks very much for being on the program.

We have so much to get to today, but since you are such a key national security official, I do want to ask you about president-elect Trump's decision to nominate Kash Patel as FBI director. I mean, as you know, he's a fierce Trump loyalist. He is vowed to go after the deep state.

You have worked closely with the current FBI director. What do you think it would mean to have Kash Patel in that role?

JAKE SULLIVAN, U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER: Well, look, I'm not going to speak to president-elect Trump's nominees. I will let him speak for his own rationale.

What I will say is how the Biden administration has approached the position of FBI director. We inherited Director Chris Wray, who has done a very good job in the role, from president-elect Trump, who appointed him to a 10-year term.

And what makes the FBI director different from most other nominees is, they're not just appointed for one term of a president. They're appointed for enough time to last past two terms of a president because they're supposed to be insulated from politics.

President Biden scrupulously adhered to that longstanding bipartisan tradition, and for a good reason, because the FBI director should not be subject to the whims of the tos and fros of politics.

But as for the announcement yesterday or the decisions president-elect Trump has made, they will have to speak to that themselves.

HUNT: Sir, Kash Patel also published a book where he listed people who are part of the deep state. Your name is on that list. Would it concern you to have him have all the powers of federal investigations? And would you fear personal retribution?

SULLIVAN: Look, I wake up every day to try to defend this country and protect the national interest. I have got 50 days left. I'm going to stay totally focused on every single one of those days to make sure that we have a smooth handoff to the next team and we put them in the best strategic position possible. And I can't spend my time worrying about other things at this point.

HUNT: Fair enough.

Sir, in that role in those 50 days that you have left, obviously, this weekend we saw Syrian rebels launch an offensive in the city of Aleppo, key strategic city, and this is the first time that they have taken control of it since it fell to government forces almost a decade ago now.

[09:05:11]

Were you surprised by, was the U.S. government surprised by how swiftly these rebels took over?

SULLIVAN: Let me tell you one thing we weren't surprised by. We were not surprised that these rebels would try to take advantage of a new situation, in which the Syrian government's main backers, Iran, Russia and Hezbollah, were all distracted and weakened by conflicts and events elsewhere.

So the Syrian rebels took a look at that. They took a look at three actors who had been pummeling them for years, Iran, Russia, Hezbollah. They had seen them a weaker and more exposed than before, and they tried to take advantage of it.

Now, the speed of this offensive I think very much surprised the Syrian government and other observers in the region. But the fact that we have seen activity in Syria coming off of all the other things we have seen in the Middle East and Ukraine and elsewhere, that is something that is the natural result of those adversaries ending up in a weaker strategic position.

HUNT: What does it mean for U.S. forces in the region, for U.S. assets? Is there a greater risk?

SULLIVAN: At the moment, we believe that our forces who are stationed in Syria to fight ISIS are not at proximate risk because they are in a different part of the country from where this particular offensive is taking place.

But they are under a different kind of threat. They are still under a threat from Iran and the Shia-backed militia groups in Iraq and Syria. And every single day, we work to ensure that they are protected and that we respond to attacks against them, as we have just done in the last week.

HUNT: So, do you think what the rebels have done here in Aleppo advances U.S. strategic interests at this point?

SULLIVAN: Well, this is a very good question, Kasie. It's a complicated question, because the group at the vanguard of this rebel advance, HTS, is actually a terrorist organization designated by the United States. So we have real concerns about the designs and objectives of that organization.

At the same time, of course, we don't cry over the fact that the Assad government, backed by Russia, Iran and Hezbollah, are facing certain kinds of pressure. So it's a complicated situation. It's one we're monitoring closely, and we're staying in close touch with regional partners about it.

HUNT: Let's move to another area of the Middle East that I know the president has been so focused on here in his waning days in office.

I mean, we saw that there's now a cease-fire between Israel and Hezbollah in Lebanon. It's still holding at this hour. But the big question here, what does this all mean for the war between Israel and Hamas in Gaza?

And Senator Lindsey Graham, who is a very close ally of president- elect Trump, he came right out and he said that Donald Trump wants to see a deal, a cease-fire deal, completed in Gaza before his inauguration. Does that make a deal more possible here in the final, I think you said, 50 days?

SULLIVAN: Well, first, we have had good communication with the incoming Trump team. I have engaged with my successor as a current sitting member of Congress, Mike Waltz, and we have been transparent and we have been coordinated.

And I'm glad to see they came out to support the Lebanon cease-fire. We are going to work tirelessly to try to produce a cease-fire and hostage deal in Gaza. The main stumbling block right at the moment is actually Hamas and whether Hamas is prepared to do a deal, to enter a deal in which they begin to release hostages, a cease-fire goes into effect, and humanitarian aid so badly needed can be surged in because there's been a cessation of violence.

So I think the calculus or decision-making of Hamas is not really about the tos and fros of American politics. But I think that it is more likely than it was before, because now they are isolated. Hezbollah is no longer fighting with them. And their backers in Iran and elsewhere are preoccupied with other conflicts.

So I think we may have a chance to make progress, but I'm not going to predict exactly when it will happen, because we have had -- we have come so close so many times and not gotten across the finish line.

HUNT: And, of course, one of the things here that just happened is the release of a video of the Israeli-American hostage Edan Alexander.

Have you spoken with his family? And what do you think the release of that video says about the potential for a hostage deal at this point?

SULLIVAN: Well, it's an absolutely cruel reminder of the brutality and viciousness of Hamas, who is holding still so many hostages, including American citizens, including young, innocent people like Edan.

[09:10:09]

My team spoke with Edan's family yesterday. I'm speaking with his family and all of the hostage families this week to give them a report on where things stand, as we intensively work and have just over the last couple of days to try to generate progress towards that cease- fire and hostage deal that will get all of the hostages, including the Americans, home.

HUNT: And, finally, sir, before I let you go, as we have been talking about, you are about to hand over an incredibly difficult and challenging portfolio to the incoming administration.

What would you say is the single biggest challenge the Trump presidency is going to face on the world stage? And what's your advice to them?

SULLIVAN: Well, as you know, of course, there are ongoing conflicts in Ukraine, ongoing conflicts in the Middle East, and those are going to have to be managed day to day with resolve and with effective coordination with our allies.

At the same time, we haven't taken our eye off the ball of what I think is the biggest long-term challenge facing the United States of America, and that is the competition with the People's Republic of China, who is the only country that has the reach and capacity to challenge the United States across all dimensions.

And we have to continue to invest in ourselves and our allies and our power to make sure that we sustain our national interest over the long term in that competition. So I will be talking to my successor about that. He's someone who has thought deeply about China, and my counterparts on the Biden national security team will be talking to their successors about it as well.

HUNT: All right, National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan.

Sir, thanks very much for being with us today.

SULLIVAN: Thank you for having me.

HUNT: Next: Donald Trump wants to fire another FBI director. The top Democrat on the House Oversight Committee, Jamie Raskin, joins us to respond.

And a razor-thin majority for House Republicans. Congressman Mike Lawler joins us next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:16:32]

HUNT: Welcome back to STATE OF THE UNION.

House Speaker Mike Johnson might want to pack his Advil when House Republicans return to Washington this week. They're on track for a historically small majority, even smaller after Trump nominated several House members to his Cabinet. It means that any one Republican in the House can wield enormous power.

And joining me now is a Republican who's been known to go his own way on occasion, Congressman Mike Lawler from New York.

Congressman, congratulations on your reelection. REP. MIKE LAWLER (R-NY): Thanks. Thanks for having me.

HUNT: Thanks for being here.

We do have so much to get to, including that margin. But I do want to start with the news out of Mar-a-Lago overnight. And that was Donald Trump's announcement that he intends to nominate Kash Patel to be his FBI director. Do you have any reservations about Kash Patel serving in that role?

LAWLER: No.

Donald Trump campaigned on reforming the FBI and the Department of Justice, so I don't know why any of this is, frankly, surprising to people. President Trump has nominated, in Kash Patel, someone who served as chief of staff at the Department of Defense, someone who served as deputy director of the NSI, someone who served as a senior staffer on the House Intelligence Committee.

He was a federal prosecutor under the Obama administration, and so certainly has requisite experience for this role. I think there's no question President Trump made very clear that the Department of Justice and the FBI would be reformed if he was elected to a second term.

And I think, obviously, with the selection of Pam Bondi and Kash Patel, that's exactly what he's going to do.

HUNT: Do you have any reservations about Patel potentially going after president-elect Trump's political enemies? Patel has a list of names in his book.

LAWLER: Look, I don't think the American people are interested in a revenge tour.

But, obviously, if people did wrong in their official capacities, then that's something they should be concerned about. But if they didn't do anything wrong, if they upheld the law, then there shouldn't be a problem. The objective here, obviously, is to reform the Department of Justice and the FBI and get it back to its mission of going after criminals.

Growing up in New York, the FBI, in the aftermath of 9/11, was focused on going after terrorism. And, obviously, in recent years, we have seen the FBI and the Department of Justice weaponize in a way that it has become completely political. That's not good for the American people. It's not good for our system of justice.

The lack of confidence that Americans have in the Department of Justice and the FBI is terrible. And so, obviously, we want a system that is reformed, that works for the American people, and that prosecutes criminals. And that should be the objective and the goal of every American. And, obviously, that's what my hope is as the Department of Justice moves forward under Pam Bondi and the FBI under Kash Patel. HUNT: If the goal is partisan neutrality, is Patel not a partisan?

And it's also maybe worth noting, I mean, Christopher Wray was appointed by then-President Donald Trump.

[09:20:02]

LAWLER: Right. And Christopher Wray's FBI then went and investigated Donald Trump. These charges have since been dropped by the special prosecutor.

But, again, Kasie, these issues have been litigated in this election that we just had. Donald Trump talked about this for two years, so I don't know why anybody is surprised. The American people voted for Donald Trump overwhelmingly, despite him campaigning on these issues.

So, look, I'm not concerned about partisanship here. I think we have seen a DOJ and an FBI that have been weaponized. You look at the New York state attorney general, Letitia James. She literally campaigned on prosecuting Donald Trump. I didn't see many in the media objecting to that.

The fact is that our system of justice needs to be depoliticized. And, unfortunately, under the Biden administration, we have seen it weaponized, and it's wrong.

HUNT: All right, sir. We should note those charges were, of course, dropped because Donald Trump was elected to become our next president.

But, sir, I know you also were eager to talk about the situation in the Middle East. And, of course, we saw that heartbreaking video from the Israeli-American hostage Edan Alexander. There also have been some comments from some of your colleagues on Capitol Hill, notably Lindsey Graham, who is, of course, a supporter and ally of Donald Trump's, who said that the incoming president wants to see a cease-fire deal between Israel and Hamas before he is inaugurated.

Do you think that's a plausible reality?

LAWLER: Look, I think you're seeing very quickly world leaders come to the table. You saw, obviously, the prime minister of Canada fly down to Mar-a-Lago. You saw the president of Mexico respond very quickly to the president's tweet the other day about the issue of tariffs and cracking down on cartels.

I think what you're seeing in the Middle East is movement. People recognize that Donald Trump is going to crack down on Iran in a way, frankly, this administration has not. Under Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, the illicit oil trade has exploded to over $200 billion.

That is what has funded Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis, and other terror networks. Obviously, with Prime Minister Netanyahu and the IDF taking out the leadership of Hezbollah and Hamas, and President Trump coming into office, there is more pressure now on these entities to enter into a cease-fire.

I think, obviously, it was welcome news that Hezbollah entered into a cease-fire. We will see how long that lasts. But I think the bottom line with Hamas is very simple. Release the hostages and surrender. The United States needs to use maximum pressure, including on Qatar, to get the hostages out.

It is outrageous that we still have seven Americans being held hostage...

HUNT: Yes.

LAWLER: ... four presumed living, three deceased.

And this should be the top priority of both the current administration and the incoming administration to get these hostages out. I have met with every one of these hostage families multiple times...

HUNT: Yes.

LAWLER: ... including the Alexander family. It is heartbreaking to watch that video yesterday and a shameful reminder that a terrorist organization has been allowed to hold seven Americans hostage for over 400-plus days. It is outrageous.

HUNT: Congressman, on the topic that we introduced you with, the incredibly slim margin in the House of Representatives, what do you say to all of your Republican colleagues, any one of whom could decide to basically grind the gears of government to a halt, about what they should do with this power?

And what do you intend to do with it? Would you be willing to -- for example, I know that state and local tax deductions are very important to you. Is it something you would consider holding up government over?

LAWLER: Look, the American people elected Donald Trump and majorities in both the House and the Senate for the Republicans.

And, obviously, the focus will be on the economy, the border, energy policy, the international crises that we are dealing with, tax reform, and spending and government reform.

I think, when you look at the issue of taxes, for instance, I have been very clear I will not support a tax bill that does not lift the cap on SALT. President Trump made clear during the campaign that he agrees that we do need to lift the cap on SALT. So we're going to negotiate and work through that process.

I think the key to remember, though, is there's no I in team. We all got elected, individually, yes, but we got elected to serve as a Republican majority and work to get things done on behalf of the American people.

[09:25:07]

I'm proud of my record in this Congress. I have been rated the fourth most bipartisan member of Congress. I have gotten 10 bills passed, five signed into law in a divided government, because I'm willing to compromise and work together. The fact is, all of us have that responsibility. There's not going to

be a lot of room for error here...

HUNT: Yes.

LAWLER: ... especially in the early months with three members down. So we're going to be at 217, most likely, or 218.

HUNT: Yes.

LAWLER: And we will need every vote to pass legislation, which means we have got to compromise and work together. We're not going to get everything we want. Anybody who's ever been married understands the art of compromise.

(LAUGHTER)

HUNT: Yes.

LAWLER: But we have got to work together for the American people.

HUNT: The art of compromise, indeed. Can you imagine having 400 and -- or 218 people that you actually have to get all on the same page? It's going to be dicey.

Congressman, thank you very much for being here. I appreciate it.

LAWLER: Thank you.

HUNT: All right, up next here: deflated, discouraged, depressed. As Democrats start to look ahead, what role do they see for themselves in a second Trump term?

Congressman Jamie Raskin will join us on that and on Trump's FBI pick right here next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:30:44]

HUNT: Welcome back to State of the Union. I'm Kasie Hunt.

As president-elect Trump looks to replace his own FBI director with a partisan loyalist, it's underlining an increasingly urgent question for Democrats: How can they try to counter Trump in Congress?

And joining us now is the top Democrat on the House Oversight Committee, Congressman Jamie Raskin.

Congressman, thanks very much for being here. Congratulations on your reelection.

REP. JAMIE RASKIN (D-MD): Thank you very much.

HUNT: It's wonderful to have you here. I want to start with your reaction to the news out of Mar-a-Lago

overnight that Donald Trump intends to nominate Kash Patel to be the FBI director, which, of course, implies that he's going to fire the sitting FBI director, Christopher Wray.

What is your reaction? What are the implications?

RASKIN: Well, Christopher Wray, of course, is a Republican, appointed by a Republican, as he has said, but apparently has demonstrated too much the independence and objectivity in the job for Donald Trump, who wants much more of a personal loyalist in the position.

And that's why he's gone to Kash Patel.

HUNT: Do you think there are any issues inside the FBI around politicization, as many who voted for Donald Trump seem to say?

RASKIN: Well, undoubtedly, if you look at it historically, for example, during the COINTELPRO period, the FBI really was weaponized against Dr. King and the civil rights movement and the peace movement.

There was decades of the FBI being basically used as a political instrument. There's an interesting book about that about J. Edgar Hoover by Beverly Gage.

HUNT: Yes.

RASKIN: And people can look at -- I mean, and so I haven't seen what the proof is that the FBI has been weaponized against a political party or the Department of Justice.

Of course, this Department of Justice has brought charges against a Democratic U.S. senator in New Jersey, a Democratic congressman in Texas. And so some people just seem to think that it should go only in one direction, and, if it doesn't, then somehow it's politicized. And I think that's what they mean when they talk about politicization and the deep state.

I mean, the deep state, nobody's ever defined it. Apparently, it just means anybody who doesn't do the will of Donald Trump.

HUNT: Congressman you, of course, worked so hard around issues related to January 6. And, of course, the special counsel is now winding down the federal cases against Donald Trump.

And I just want to read you this. You wrote this in the January 6 Committee final report. You said: "If President Trump and the associates who assisted him in an effort to overturn the lawful outcome of the 2020 election are not ultimately held accountable under the law, their behavior may become a precedent, an invitation to danger for future elections. A failure to hold them accountable now may ultimately lead to future unlawful efforts to overturn our elections, thereby threatening the security and viability of our republic."

In the end, Donald Trump is not going to face accountability via the Justice Department for January 6. Do you blame Attorney General Merrick Garland for that?

RASKIN: Well, just go back to the accountability point for a second.

Donald Trump was impeached for his role in inciting a violent insurrection against the Constitution. And the January 6 Committee did, I think, a very good job of spelling out the plan, as much as we could get people to testify, as much as we could gather the evidence, to topple Joe Biden's victory in the election he'd won by more than seven million votes, 306 to 232 in the Electoral College.

And this was clearly an effort to overthrow the results and to hang Mike Pence...

HUNT: Yes.

RASKIN: ... and to drive the House and Senate out of the chamber.

So that is established. And so there has been some historical accountability. There was -- there's been some congressional accountability. Of course, the Senate voted 57 to 43, in the most sweeping bipartisan vote in American history, to convict an impeached president.

He did beat the constitutional spread of two-thirds.

HUNT: Right.

RASKIN: We needed 67 votes.

But I wouldn't say there hasn't been any accountability.

HUNT: But criminally speaking?

RASKIN: Well, criminally speaking, yes.

[09:35:00]

And, look, I don't want to get into a game of second-guessing what's happened here or there. And a lot of those matters are still before the courts. There have been more than 1,200 criminal prosecutions of people who assaulted federal officers.

HUNT: Right, but for Trump himself...

RASKIN: Yes.

HUNT: ... I mean, did Merrick Garland wait too long?

RASKIN: Well, look, I remember when Mitch McConnell got up at the end of the Senate trial.

HUNT: Yes, I remember that too.

RASKIN: And he repeatedly said, well, this is not the only way to rectify a situation with a president who's engaged in such action. He said there can also be criminal prosecution. That was really never

my position. My position always was that it's got to be Congress' responsibility to impeach and then try and then convict someone who's actually engaged in what you could view as the most heinous constitutional sin of trying to overthrow an election according to the constitutional processes of your own government.

HUNT: Right.

RASKIN: So I didn't buy it when McConnell said, well, yes, Donald Trump is personally and ethically, morally responsible for everything that happened, but we didn't have jurisdiction to try a former president.

HUNT: Right.

RASKIN: That cut against more than two centuries of precedent. And we had decided that issue is a matter of law on the very first day of the trial.

HUNT: Fair enough.

We have been talking about the politicization, or lack thereof, inside the Department of Justice. And Hunter Biden, who is now facing sentencing in a tax case and a gun case, his lawyers are arguing that part of why he's facing this is because these charges wouldn't have been pursued against someone who wasn't the president's son.

Do you think President Biden should pardon Hunter Biden?

RASKIN: So let's go back to first the selective prosecution point.

And there is a defense called selective prosecution, if you can show that the government has a set of cases that all look alike, but they pick one person out to prosecute based on, say, a political animus towards the person, which essentially is the claim that Donald Trump has been making about why he was targeted.

HUNT: Right.

RASKIN: And so there are lots of claims of political prosecution and political prosecution.

HUNT: And was Hunter politically prosecuted?

RASKIN: Well, I mean, obviously, that's a judicial point. And you have got to look at what the evidence is. And I don't know enough...

(CROSSTALK)

HUNT: Yes, so should the president pardon him?

RASKIN: I mean, again, that is a unilateral executive power that...

HUNT: And should he use it? RASKIN: Well, the power exists for the president to show mercy for

people who have committed crimes and either suffered some kind of injustice in the process or the punishment is disproportionate.

HUNT: Do you think Hunter has? I mean, should the president pardon his son?

RASKIN: I mean, I haven't even remotely looked at it. I mean, I know, basically, what the alleged crimes were. One was when he was filling out a form about whether he was...

HUNT: I get the sense you're not going to answer my question.

(LAUGHTER)

RASKIN: Yes, I just -- I don't know the answer. No, I'm not in the Pardon Office.

HUNT: OK.

RASKIN: But it does give me the opportunity to say, there's a process for doing this with a pardon attorney.

HUNT: Sure.

RASKIN: And they shouldn't be passed out like Oreo cookies.

HUNT: Like Oreo cookies. OK, fair enough.

So, before I let you go, I need to ask you, do you think Jerry Nadler is the right person to lead the Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee, or are you interested in stepping up for the job?

RASKIN: Jerry Nadler is a great leader and a great friend of mine. And, obviously, we're just going through discussions within our caucus about who's going to be in different positions at this point.

HUNT: Are you ruling it out?

RASKIN: But I have great respect and admiration for Jerry Nadler. I really do.

HUNT: Are you ruling out possibly saying, hey, I would like to be a ranking member on Judiciary?

RASKIN: We're just getting back into that now as we form the Steering and Policy Committee. So I'm not ruling anything out at this point.

And we're engaged in conversations, all with the purpose of creating a strategic focus and capacity within the Democratic members of the House, so that we're going to be a really effective and muscular opposition.

HUNT: All right.

RASKIN: We have got to win the House back in 2026. HUNT: All right, Congressman Jamie Raskin, so grateful to have you.

Looking forward to seeing what you do next.

RASKIN: Thank you very much, Kasie.

HUNT: Hope you will come back soon.

RASKIN: You bet.

HUNT: Thank you.

All right, Trump's pick to run the FBI has set off alarm bells even inside Trump's inner circle. So can Kash Patel be confirmed? Our political panel weighs in next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:43:47]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PATEL: I shut down the FBI Hoover Building on day one and reopening the next day as a museum of the deep state.

We will go out and find the conspirators, not just in government, but in the media. Yes, we're going to come after the people in the media who lied about American citizens, who helped Joe Biden rig presidential elections. We're going to come after you.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUNT: All right, welcome back to the STATE OF THE UNION.

My panel joins me now.

That, of course, was Kash Patel, who has been chosen by president- elect Trump to run the FBI.

Brad Todd, let me just start by asking you about what he says right there. This is -- there is the element of many Republicans want to, as they put it, clean up the FBI and the Department of Justice. But there's also this question about whether he's going to go farther than that and use the department to go after President Trump's perceived political enemies.

What are the implications?

BRAD TODD, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, I think, on the first point, no one should underestimate how much desire there is among Republicans, how much skepticism there is about the current FBI and its setup.

You remember, this FBI is the one that said the Catholic Church might be breeding grounds for domestic terrorism. They sent out a memo signed off by the attorney general saying that people who went to school board meetings to complain might be domestic terrorists. [09:45:02]

So there is a real skepticism on the right, in particular, about this FBI. And I think that means there will be a change agent. Whether Kash Patel is confirmed to be that change agent or not, this director will be a change agent.

KATE BEDINGFIELD, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: But the FBI is also one of the lead institutions of law enforcement in this country. And we just had an election in which Republicans, in particular, were very aggressive on the idea that crime is out of control in this country.

So for Trump to come in and put somebody like Kash Patel or, if he's not able to be confirmed -- which, by the way, we have this open question of what is Chris Wray going to do, so this is not a foregone conclusion. For him to make the sort of tip of the spear of his argument that he's going to gut one of the institutions in this country that works to keep people safe, I think, is actually going to be a big messaging opening for the Democrats.

TIFFANY SMILEY (R), FORMER WASHINGTON SENATORIAL CANDIDATE: Well, there's a lack of trust in the FBI with the American people. And that's exactly what we saw with Donald Trump getting elected.

And, with Kash, I mean, he has worked national security roles. In fact, he was a prosecutor at the DOJ with the national security under Obama. He's worked with Democrats. He's worked with Republicans. Donald Trump wants change agents.

And I think the fact that people here in D.C., D.C. insiders, people within the FBI, perhaps, don't want Kash is a really good sell to the American people.

HUNT: I mean, do you think that's the case for Bill Barr, who wrote in his memoir that Kash Patel should be the deputy FBI director -- quote -- "over my dead body"?

SMILEY: You know, look, everyone has their opinions. But at the end of the day, Donald Trump won the election. And this is the path that he's going down for the American people to bring change and to restore faith in the FBI, to restore respect and trust in the FBI. And...

ASHLEY ALLISON, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Yes, I think, though, when you put a partisan hack in place of the FBI, that doesn't restore faith with the general American public, not just people who voted for Donald Trump, but the people that he has to represent, which are all Americans.

I think, like, look, elections have consequences. We were trying to ring the bell that people like Kash Patel, who let's just say he talked about also going after the media. And I just want to be very clear that everyone sitting here at this panel is part of the media. So we should all be mindful of that -- was that this is kind of the authoritarian approach of come in, disrupt without a real plan forward. We will see. I think that Kash Patel could be one of those nominees

that if he doesn't, I mean, go through an actual FBI background check for the agency that he wants to run, he might have a steep hill to get confirmed.

TODD: Well, he's been a former prosecutor. So he's going to clear a background check.

But I think the question, let's go through a hearing. And on that hearing, you have some very senior Republicans. John Cornyn, who's a former Texas Supreme Court judge, he will have serious questions for him. Charles Grassley, who's been on the committee forever and has some proprietary interest in the agency, he will have tough questions for him.

So...

HUNT: Is he going to get confirmed, do you think?

TODD: Well, I think it'll depend on how he does in his hearing.

But whether Kash Patel gets confirmed or not, there will be someone that the Washington establishment doesn't like running the FBI. That's going to happen. You can write that down.

HUNT: All right, let's also talk about what else we saw out of Mar-a- Lago over the weekend.

Elon Musk was given a table at Thanksgiving, literally. He was there. They were sharing a meal. There was dancing. It involved the "YMCA," et cetera. And, of course, there we go. There they are. And now he's going to be coming up to the Hill. Mike Johnson tweeted that he's looking forward to hosting Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy next week on the Hill to look at reforms.

Kate, what is the implication of having a billionaire like Elon Musk being in this kind of role? I mean, certainly, I know that there are some members of Congress who are going to get their backs up at the idea that Elon Musk is going to do stuff they feel like is in their purview, but, that said, they might not have a lot of power to do anything about it.

BEDINGFIELD: Yes, I mean, look, I think there's certainly appeal in having somebody who is a Washington outsider come in to take on this role. And you can see the messaging value of that.

You can see he's somebody who has spent his time in the private sector being innovative, being a disrupter. And you can see why Trump would embrace that in this kind of role.

I think the reality -- I think there are a couple of realities. One, obviously, you kind of alluded to members of Congress, a lot of these things that we saw -- we saw Musk, for example, over this last week suddenly discover the debate over the F-35, right? This is something that has been debated in Washington for many, many years. Musk is acting like suddenly he's discovered this. Members of Congress, who have facilities in their districts where this plane is being built, are not going to be eager to let it go.

(CROSSTALK)

BEDINGFIELD: So there's going to be the reality of that.

And then the other piece of this is, Elon Musk is somebody who has quite a bit of business before the federal government. And so there will need to be I think a close eye paid to whether some of these changes that he's making that are supposedly in the name of efficiency are actually benefiting him.

And, again, I think that will be a messaging lane...

(CROSSTALK)

SMILEY: It's not benefiting him. Like, he is the picture of the American dream.

(CROSSTALK)

BEDINGFIELD: Well, we haven't seen his proposal yet.

SMILEY: And we also need the best and the brightest in our country to help us get back on the right track.

[09:50:00]

And when I look at it, the American people also don't elect bureaucrats. And bureaucrats run a lot of D.C. So it's good to have people like Elon, the best and the brightest with excellence, who will show the American people where their money's going.

We have never had that before, and cut back on the regulations, cut -- streamline the government, make the government work more like a business.

TODD: I don't think Elon needs the money, first off. And I think it's preposterous to suggest he's trying to do this for money.

Secondly...

(CROSSTALK)

HUNT: Well, the money that he can access in the federal government for the things that he does is actually outside...

(CROSSTALK)

TODD: I will make a prediction it costs him money.

But I think, secondarily, that the American public elected him. Like, they knew Elon was going to be involved. This was part of the package. And it was -- so they deliberately chose it.

ALLISON: I will say again, yes, the American people did make a choice.

But we all sat at these tables before the election, and the choice was to bring down the cost of eggs. And many people said it was because of the border. When -- on January 20, when Donald Trump has to start governing, I think the American people will have more questions about the people he's surrounding them and how they are benefiting before their pocketbooks start benefiting.

HUNT: And, of course, the major question, how long will Elon Musk remain in Donald Trump's good graces?

BEDINGFIELD: Yes, a lot of egos in that room.

HUNT: Very much so.

All right, we will be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:56:00]

HUNT: Who should be the 2024 CNN Hero of the Year? It's up to you.

Meet this year's honorees, learn about the life-changing work they're doing, and then cast your vote at CNNHeroes.com.

Thanks for spending your Sunday morning with us.

"FAREED ZAKARIA GPS" starts next.