2021 DC Pipe Bomb Suspects Arrested, Facing Explosives Charges

25:37That was actually in my piece that I wrote. Oh, wait, what? Let me check my notes. Listen to The Assignment with me, Audie Cornish, streaming now on your favorite podcast app. In our politics lead, a less than warm reception at the New Jersey state capital of Trenton for a sitting U.S. senator. Democratic Senator Andy Kim was there Monday to testify against a controversial bill that critics say would gut the powers of the New Jersey comptroller's office. The comptroller investigates misconduct by state leaders and government officials. According to The New York Times, Senator Kim was among the first three people who requested to speak at the hearing that day.

26:17but was instead called to testify dead last. The people of New Jersey are sick and tired of this. They feel this way. Sir, I have been here for five and a half hours. I'm missing votes at the Capitol. So is everyone else. Give me 30 seconds. Why do you think you're special? No. You're not. What happened was you gave Mr. Keller special privileges here. He came at my request. Yes. You didn't. Oh, okay. I see. Okay. So there is someone that is special. Joining us now to discuss Democratic Senator Andy Kim. Okay, first of all, let me acknowledge my bias right now. As a Philadelphian, I automatically think that New Jersey has dirty politics, right?

27:01You guys are across the river, and Trenton sometimes is a sewer. You went there to testify against the changes that they were going to try to make, which would make it easier for politicians to be corrupt. And that was a fellow Democrat. That was a Democrat. that was being rude to you. So tell me, first of all, why did you feel it was important to go there and testify? Well, look, right now, 84 % of people in New Jersey surveyed have a similar opinion to they believe that their elected officials are corrupt. You know, we have a reputation of being the Soprano state for a reason. And look, I'm in the U.S.

27:36Senate by virtue of the fact that a predecessor of mine was indicted and convicted of corruption and bribery. So you look, I'll be honest with you, what I said there, I'm sick and tired of it. You know, and I just, I can't stand it. And what I also say is, how can I be down here at the United States Capitol railing against the lawlessness of the Trump administration with any credibility if my own party in my own home state is taking steps that I consider to be corrupt, steps that I think are moving our democracy in the wrong direction, this importance in showing that you stand up against corruption in all forms.

28:11So the bill would strip key investigative powers from this watchdog agency. It passed out of committee unanimously in the Democrats' control, the legislature, right? It comes as the current comptroller's aggressive approach to corruption has angered officials, many of whom in New Jersey are your fellow Democrats. So what does this legislation say about the state of politics in New Jersey? Well, it's not just about the state of politics in New Jersey, but in the country. I mean, I think that we see a collision. What happened in that hearing is a collision between the old politics, the machine politics, that these people who think that they are not beholden to the voters, instead, you know, they just think about it as an exclusive club for the well-off and the well-connected.

28:57And then this new energy that I'm excited about, this anti-corruption movement that we're trying to build in New Jersey and across this country, that is standing up and saying, no, enough of this. We're tired of the status quo. We're tired of the same old, same old broken politics. We demand politics based off of transparency and accountability. And look, we're making progress in New Jersey. We were able to defeat a ballot issue called the county line that entrenched this machine power. And I think the anger that you saw from that gentleman, I mean, he is someone who is the head of the Democratic Party in the county that tried to stop me from making those changes.

29:34You could tell his anger towards me is one that shows that he thinks that their power is slipping away. And it's true. And I think that this is exactly what the American people need to see is a change in this politics, because it's not just about corruption. It's that this affects what you pay at the grocery store. It affects how much you pay in your health care and your housing costs. I call it this corruption tax. As these politicians are taking in money for themselves and their special interests and their buddies in corporations, we have to pay the cost. So I don't know, what's the next step for the legislation?

30:13You have a Democratic governor right now, Phil Murphy. Mikey Sherrill, your former colleague in Congress, she was just elected governor. Have Murphy or Sherrill said if they're going to sign this legislation that would make it easier to be a corrupt politician in New Jersey? Well, right now we're trying to still kill this in the legislature. I still think there is a possibility. And I frankly think that hearing and just the absurdity of it all is helping because I'm getting a number of calls from state senators and legislators saying that they were appalled by what happened and that they don't support the legislation.

30:46So I'm calling on them to kill this legislation. If it does move forward, I hope that our governor does stop it. But right now I'm trying to focus in on the legislature. But neither Murphy nor Sherrill has said they will stop it, right? No, neither of them addressed this legislation directly. I have had conversations with Governor-elect Mikey Sherrill about the importance of accountability and transparency in fighting anti-corruption. She's made some statements about it, and I hope that she'll be a good partner in this fight. Democratic Senator Andy Kim of New Jersey, thank you so much. We appreciate it.

31:15Some breaking news just coming in about the case of New York Attorney General T. James before a grand jury. That's next.

31:27Breaking news, a grand jury has declined to indict New York Attorney General Letitia James. Let's get straight to CNN's Caitlin Pollins. Caitlin, what are you learning? Well, Caitlin Collins and I have just confirmed through some sources that indeed a grand jury sitting in the federal courthouse in Norfolk, Virginia today, they looked at the possibility of indicting Letitia James for mortgage fraud and they said no to this Justice Department. Now, This comes just about 10 days or a week or so after a judge previously dismissed the case. That case was dismissed against James. It was the same mortgage fraud case, we believe, that the prosecutors were trying to get off the ground again today.

32:05It had been dismissed because previously a judge looked at it and said that the prosecutor, who had taken it through the grand jury the first time, wasn't validly doing that job. and so that they needed to try again with a grand jury to reconfirm an indictment if they wanted it. We do, though, believe that the Justice Department could try again before a grand jury, potentially a third time, to try and secure a James indictment. But we do not know exactly when that might happen. We were told that this could be not a time for premature celebration. Jake? All right, Caitlin Polance with the breaking news.

32:42Thank you so much. and our politics lead. President Trump is replacing the architect that he picked to design his$300 million White House ballroom. Sources tell CNN that President Trump and the original architect clashed over expanding the project. The White House strongly denies that Trump fired the architect, saying that he will instead stay on as a consultant. Here now is our panel. Staying on as a consultant. I always love that gambit. That's always a good one. That's the political exit in this town. Alencia, the White House originally said the ballroom would be 90 ,000 square feet with a seated capacity of 650 people, putting a cost of 200 million.

33:17That obviously has expanded in every way. The square footage, the people, it's now at least 300 million. I'm sure there's going to be more. Although we should know, paid for by private donors. What's your reaction to this latest news? I mean, it's just, it goes back to my reaction in general about this whole project and like the hypocrisy here, knowing that as a Democrat, had Obama or Biden done this, Republicans would have been outraged, but no one's really saying anything about this. The other piece, too, I was doing a little digging. This is not surprising that this is stalled or there's a change in the people working on this.

33:51Donald Trump has been known to start projects and not finish them, right? These big, massive projects. And so it's really unfortunate that this structure, this huge piece of our nation's history has been demolished. And now he's over here playing chess and chair, like rearranging the chairs for folks. But the reality is, where is actually the protocol in which this was supposed to have gone through in order for this to happen? And where are the Republicans holding him accountable? What do you think? I'm shocked to learn there's hypocrisy here in Washington. Look, I think that the vast majority of Americans are more focused on cost of living and prices.

34:24And I think as much as the media and Democrats want to focus on this story, I don't think that's where the vast majority of voters are. But, Mark, I would argue that's exactly the problem here. Because I have always wanted to use the word tchotchkes on TV. And when I've spoken to people about the ballroom project, the first thing they say is they don't like the style. They don't like the taste. Maybe the White House needed a ballroom, but they don't like the Oval Office full of its tchotchkes and gold, the way the demolition was done. And to your point, people are worried about affordability. This looks like let them eat cake.

35:02That's fair. The design is a contrast. I think that's fair, but I don't think that, you know, what's happened as far as a ballroom or what they do with an architect is really going to be dropping this. But I think it's a symbol. It's a symbol of this administration not focused on the priorities of the American people. President Trump does seem very, very involved in this. He cares more about this than lowering the prices for the American people. I'm not going to defend it, but I also think it's a symbol of a lot of American people wanting to come to bulldoze Washington, D.C. And so, yes, it's a symbol in a lot of ways.

35:28And replace it with a giant ballroom? Look, I just think their focus is going to be on what it's going to be at cost of living. I don't disagree, but I mean, I take Jamie's point. Like, it's like the Gatsby party that they had. Let's turn to another subject. The New York Times says it's suing the Pentagon over these restrictive press access rules. I want to play what the Pentagon press secretary told conservative influencer Cam Higby about why the Pentagon clamped down on journalistic access. They just waltzed in my office, rang my doorbell literally nonstop. my doorbell was going off probably every single second because they were just trying to come in, trying to hang out, would push their way in.

36:05If someone else came in for a meeting, would just follow them along and plop down and sit down. So they definitely had zero boundaries. And like you said, there were instances where they were hanging outside of the secretary's office trying to see who he was meeting with, if they could eavesdrop and hear anything. I mean, what the actual F? That sounds like journalists reporting. Yeah. Number one, I covered the Pentagon a long time ago when dinosaurs roamed the earth. I do not remember doorbells, so I found that interesting. Yes, that is how we do our job. We go, we talk to people. And in the past, it's been productive.

36:44I would argue that the Pentagon and the Trump administration has made a terrible mistake by not having the reporters in there. You can cover a building from outside the building and look at our Pentagon reporters, our national security reporters. They have just had exclusive after exclusive. Zach Cohen and I broke the inspector general report story yesterday. I want to get your feedback before we go. Politico is reporting, or actually it's Der Spiegel is reporting, on a leaked transcript of a call among European leaders talking about how to protect Ukraine, the French president Emmanuel Macron warned, quote, there is a possibility that the U.S.

37:23will betray Ukraine on the issue of territory without clarity on security guarantees. Finland's president said, quote, we cannot leave Ukraine and Volodymyr alone with these guys. Quick reactions from you two. I think it's a huge concern that I think that this administration is instead of deciding to say, let us help arm Ukraine to allow them to defend themselves, has wanted to carve it up. And I think that some of the reporting about the most recent trip to Russia, where it seems like there's a profit incentive that's being offered by the lead in negotiators, I think is tragic. I wish they'd be defending Ukraine like actually they did, Jake, in the first Trump administration.

37:55Yeah. Well, Vice President Pence was there then. There were a lot of people. Different cast of characters. Secretary Pompeo was an enormous influence on that. There was a lot of people that were defending it. And, you know, Trump in 2018 would campaign about the fact that we gave javelin missiles to Ukraine when Obama gave blankets. He did defend Ukraine in the first administration. It's very different. Very quick. Well, I mean, I think this just shows us, again, that Trump is not this master negotiator and able to bring about peace in a lot of these conflicts around the world, like he said he would, much like a lot of the other campaign promises that he can't deliver on.

38:23Thanks to all what CNN is hearing today from the Somali community in Minnesota after President Trump called the community garbage.

38:36In our politics lead now, two days after President Trump called Somalis living in Minnesota, quote, garbage, the city's police chief tells CNN that people are scared as new immigration operations are targeting undocumented Somalis. That's ramping up in the Twin Cities. CNN's Whitney Wild spoke with Somalis in Minneapolis, many of whom born in the United States, carrying U.S. passports just in case they get stopped.

39:03This is the Somali Mall. This is the heart of the community in terms of enterprises. At Carmel Somali Mall in Minneapolis, halls lined with cafes and shops are normally bustling. Today, they are quiet. And with the news of ice coming into Minneapolis, has that shifted? Has the energy changed in here? Are there fewer people? Yes, there is a certain amount of fear. Mohammed Ahmed is a Somali-born U.S. citizen. Now, President Trump is harshly condemning Ahmed's community, citing a three-year sprawling$300 million fraud case in which dozens of Somalis were charged. I don't want him in our country.

39:40We're going to go the wrong way if we keep taking in garbage into our country. Those words are especially hurtful. Ahmed voted for President Trump in 2024. I've been a Republican for over 25 years. I'm not going to stop being a Republican. And now we are being called garbage. How did it make you feel when you heard the president say that? I got five children. My children are no garbage. The Minneapolis mayor says there are more than 80 ,000 Somalis in the Twin Cities area. Throughout Minnesota, 87 % of foreign-born Somalis are naturalized U.S. citizens, and nearly 58 % of the community were born in the U.S., like this woman who asked us not to share her name.

40:17I got my passport right here. I'm not going to lie to you. You have it right on you? I have it right on me. I don't even carry an ID with me. So to carry a passport now for my own safety is, I think, not right. The Department of Homeland Security says they are conducting a very targeted operation. Throughout Minneapolis, social media videos captured stepped-up immigration enforcement in recent days. CNN reporter Rob Kuznia captured the moment armed federal agents questioned a man outside a Somali mall, then quickly left. As we walk through this mall, the people here are suspicious, asking why we're taping or hiding their faces.

40:59Then one woman speaks candidly. Every woman gives some people bad, some people good. We understand. Right? Not all. The Somali people, it's a big name. What would you say to the president if he were standing here right now? Mr. President, we campaign for you. We have hope in you. We see hope in you. Please differentiate between good, bad and ill. Whitney Wild, CNN, Minneapolis.

41:50going to join me in moments. Also, from the pageant stage to the world stage, the new Miss Universe stops by the lead. Her message on female empowerment, some of it born from this year's pageant drama. And don't call it a comeback after speculation reignited this week about Serena Williams' possible return to the court. I'm going to be joined live by tennis champion Patrick McEnroe to talk about her decision.

42:17All the stories coming in just moments, but we're going to start with the breaking news. A grand jury in Virginia declining to re-indict New York Attorney General Letitia James. The charges against her in a mortgage fraud case were thrown out just 10 days ago. The Justice Department tried to bring the case again earlier today. It said that you can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich. Well, apparently the Trump people can't do that. Let's get straight to CNN's Kaitlyn Collins at the White House. Kaitlyn. Yeah, Jake, my colleague Kaitlyn Pullence and I are hearing that today a grand jury declined to reindict Letitia James on those mortgage fraud charges that the Justice Department has been seeking against her.

42:56And as you noted in a case that was thrown out against her about 10 days ago, they made clear when that happened that they were going to try this again. But today, Jake, they have failed and did not secure a new indictment against the New York attorney general, despite their best efforts today, that we are hearing from sources that there should not be premature celebrations on this front, Jake, which likely means that they are going to try again. But given what you pointed out there, that it's generally a pretty low bar for something like this, it's not clear if the Justice Department will be successful when it will try again or when exactly that is going to happen.

43:30And so this is certainly a blow to their efforts as the president has made clear that he wants charges pursued here and he wants this investigation to continue. Yet time and time again, ever since the beginning of this indictment when it first happened, we have seen them continuing to face roadblocks here. We did reach out to the Justice Department, Jake. They did not offer any comment on what happens in the grand jury. And so far, we have not heard from James's attorney either on this front. Kayla, we're also following the growing controversy around Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and that follow-up strike that the U.S.

44:01military carried out on a suspected drug boat. Yeah, Jake, the one way that the White House really registers whether or not criticism is something that they need to address or be concerned about is whether or not congressional Republicans are talking about it, especially Senate Republicans. And so I think given those two vastly different outcomes that we are hearing, depending on which party the lawmakers are in after they got those briefings today, is something that the White House is noting here. Obviously, Democrats are coming out of that saying they have real questions and real problems and are troubled by what they heard from these two top military officials today who are briefing lawmakers.

44:36But on the other side, Jake, Republicans are emerging from a lot of these closed-door briefings saying that they believe the administration made the right move and was well within the legal bounds when they carried out that second strike that killed those survivors. And one of those, notably, is Senator Tom Cotton, who called it not only highly lethal but highly lawful earlier today. And so the White House has been pointing to answers like that when it comes to the questions that have been surrounding Secretary Pete Hegseth and his call here and what exactly happened behind closed doors. But I will note, Jake, that I've been talking to some White House officials.

45:08They don't expect the scrutiny is going to stop, but they're hoping that today's briefing will at least certainly address it and stem some of the criticism and questions that even Republicans had about this matter. All right, Caitlin Collins at the White House. Thanks so much. And don't miss Caitlin on her show, The Source with Caitlin Collins. Tonight, she's going to speak with Democratic Congressman Adam Smith. He is the ranking Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee. That's tonight at 9 Eastern, only on CNN. man. Let's bring in Democratic Congressman Jim Himes of Connecticut. He's the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee.

45:39He was in the briefing today. Thanks for joining us, Congressman. So part of the briefing included video of the strike that has not been shown in public yet. What was your reaction to that video? Yeah, Jake, and I hope it will be shown to the public because it's going to be really important for the American people to know what is being done in their name. And, you know, it's pretty easy to get excited about, you know, efforts to take out drug dealers, but the video was enormously, enormously disturbing. And I can't describe it in detail, but to tell you that the initial strike, as you might imagine, when a piece of munitions falls on a small boat, did an immense amount of damage, caused a huge amount of fire, and ultimately the end result was two individuals without any weaponry, without any tools of any kind clinging to a wrecked boat, really what looked like flotsam.

46:32You know, and we observed them for a long time, and the commanders involved said that they believed that there might be some chance they would be rescued, that there might be some chance that the cocaine on board could be recovered. But these two individuals, to anyone looking at this thing, would say are moments away from slipping under the waves. The decision was taken to kill them, and that is, in fact, what happened. And that was pretty hard to watch. I must say. Earlier today, you told reporters that what you saw is a direct violation of what is written in the Defense Department manual for abiding by the laws of armed conflict.

47:06How so? Well, in the Defense Department manual on the laws of armed conflict, the example given of when you don't engage somebody, the military term is hors de combat, when they're removed from combat, when they're no longer capable of undertaking hostilities or threatening you. the example given in that manual is of shipwrecked sailors and again these were shipwrecked sailors bad sailors doing bad things making bad decisions but they were shipwrecked sailors barely afloat in a vessel that was completely awash without any tools there was no way these two individuals in that moment posed any sort of threat to U.S.

47:43forces and yet nonetheless the decision and again I'll say it again the example that is given in the Department of Defense manual is of shipwrecked sailors. You do not kill them because they are out of combat, incapable of further hostilities, and doing so is, according to the manual, a war crime. So you're saying a war crime was committed? Well, you know, I want to be careful with my language here. You know, we didn't get the audio, but that's sure what it looked like to me. And again, I don't want to get into the details, but I want you to imagine two individuals clinging to wreckage in the middle of a vast ocean without any tools, without any weapons.

48:24Look, if this guy had had an AK-47 or an RPG or was, you know, calling in airstrikes or anything else, it would be a totally different thing. These were two guys who had survived a huge military strike clinging to a piece of wood. And in that moment, subsequent to the first strike, the decision was taken to kill them. Admiral Mitch Bradley, who was at the time commander of U.S. Special Operations, he was in charge of this mission, and also the chair of the Joint Chiefs, General Raisin Cain, they briefed you and the chairman of House Intelligence. What did they say about the mission that struck you as important for Americans to know?

48:59Well, they were there to explain this particular mission and to give us some background. They didn't have a good explanation, and I asked this question explicitly for why the rationale for this second attack on the individuals had changed so dramatically. If you'll recall, Jake, in early September the Congress received a briefing that said that the reason that boat was re-attacked and struck and ultimately sunk was for safety of navigation. I guess the idea was that if this little motorboat had been out there, another boat might have hit it. Now we get presented with a whole other story that is basically designed to, well, that is not designed to, but that is trying to get us to believe that these two individuals clasping wreckage in a vast ocean were a threat.

49:42That's the story we got today. And again, I was very clear with the Admiral that I respect his service, that I respect him. But there's no way you can look at that video and say these two individuals are in any way a threat to anyone around them. Was there anything that Secretary Hegseth had said to them that made them think, especially Admiral Bradley, that they needed to do the second strike or any other further strikes? Well, you know, so the answer to that question is probably no. I asked if there had been a kill them all order, as The Washington Post reported, or whether there was an order to sort of give no quarter.

50:17Those two things would have been clear war crimes. And the admiral said no, there was no such order. What worries me, and I'm speculating here, but what causes a man of real integrity and of storied professional history like the Admiral to order this strike? And my guess is it has something to do with the Secretary of Defense, who writes a book about how we need a lot less ethics and lawyers involved and a lot more lethality. It probably involves generals and admirals being fired because they're not towing the administration line. That's a lot of pressure for an individual. So, you know, culture and context matters.

50:51And even, and I don't think there was. I would have been surprised had Hegseth given the order to kill them all. That would have been just a naked war crime. But the context matters here. And this was a context in which the commanders understood that, you know, disagreeing with your superiors probably means you get fired, and that they are looking to stretch and maybe even exceed the boundaries of the laws of armed conflict. The admiral and the joint chiefs chairman also briefed the Senate Intelligence Committee. The chairman of that, Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas, was asked about your response to having seen the video.

51:30Take a listen. I didn't see anything disturbing about it. What's disturbing to me is that millions of Americans have died from drugs being run to America by these cartels. Jim may disagree with the entire operation. He may be OK with drug boats running to America, or at least thinking that it's an effective tactic to interdict them. If you think these strikes are justified and righteous, as I do, and I want them to continue, then, of course, the second strike, when you have two survivors who are trying to flip their boat back over and continue on their mission, remain in the battle. Your response, sir?

52:08Well, his facts are just plain wrong. This was probably a boat that was maybe 40 or 50 feet long. This is a boat that weighs several thousand pounds and that is awash, meaning it is largely underwater. These were two individuals, you know, they weren't 15 feet tall. There was no way, and the admiral conceded this to me, there was no way they were flipping that boat back over. So Tom Cotton's facts are just plain wrong. And look, I don't disagree with Tom that narcotics are a problem. Now, by the way, it's fentanyl that is the big problem in terms of overdoses, and this is all about cocaine. Somebody may explain that to me someday.

52:43But no, they were not going to flip this boat back over. There was no way they were physically going to be able to do that. They didn't have radios. They didn't have tools or anything. So again, Tom maybe needs to look into his conscience and say these two individuals were a threat in that moment to absolutely no one. And so when we have sailors awash in the Persian Gulf and they're United States sailors because their motorboat has been machine gunned by the Republican Guard. Does Tom Cotton really want the same logic he's applying to these two individuals to apply to what the Iranian Republican Guard might do to two sailors in distress in the Persian Gulf?

53:18I think he would probably answer that question with a no. Democratic Congressman Jim Himes of Connecticut, the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee. Thank you so much, sir. Thank you. We have some breaking news in our law and justice lead in a major update from the U.S. Supreme Court on that Texas redistricting case. You'll remember Republicans in the state in an unusual mid-decade review redrew the maps, the congressional maps earlier this year. Let's get right to CNN Chief Supreme Court Analyst Joan Baskupic. Joan, what is the latest news from the U.S. Supreme Court? Very big news, Jake, both politically and legally.

53:51The Supreme Court, the conservative majority over the dissent of the three liberals has said that Texas can use the map that it drew last summer to provide potentially five new districts that could flip Republican and enhance the Republican majority in the U.S. House. And what they said is that a special U.S. district court panel that had invalidated this map, saying it was drawn on unconstitutional racial lines, that Texas had actually divided people up by race. This district court had said that and Texas had come up here and appealed it, backed by the Trump administration. Today, the Supreme Court majority said no, that this map deserved more deference from the district court.

54:42The district court should have taken into account a presumption of legislative good faith. That's been a standard that Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito have been really pushing over the years to sort of let states do what they want to do, even if there could be a cloud of racial division there. So you had the conservative majority essentially now locking in this new Texas map that you remember has triggered all this off-year redistricting throughout the country and at the goading of President Trump to shore up his majority. Let me tell you a little bit about what the liberal dissenters said had happened here.

55:23Justice Kagan, writing on behalf of herself and Sonia Sotomayor and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, pointed to the fact that a district court had held nine days of hearing, combed through thousands of pages of testimony about what had gone on in Texas. And this district court had also put a lot of attention on a letter from the Office of Civil Rights in the Trump administration that had pushed the Texas legislature to draw along racial lines. And the district court had found that, indeed, that this had been an unconstitutional racial gerrymander, that it wasn't drawn just on political lines, which, Jake, is allowed under the Constitution.

56:06You can divide people up based on their politics, but you cannot divide people up based on their race. And that's what the district court said had done there. And let me just tell you what Justice Elena Kagan said in dissent about that. What basis does the majority have to thus substitute its understanding of the direct evidence for the district courts? The short answer is it has none. So this is the end of the line for this Texas map. It can be used going forward now for the midterm elections, Jake. All right, John Baskupik, thanks so much. Let's bring in CNN's Jeff Zeleny and also CNN senior legal analyst Ellie Honig.

56:41Ellie, your reaction? Well, Jake, this is going to have major consequences for the 2026 midterms. As the justices appear to acknowledge, this means Texas will get to use its revised map, the new map that would give Republicans up to five more majority Republican districts. Now, that's also it's important to understand this is not just some procedural stay. Sometimes we see the Supreme Court say we're just putting it on hold for now. Now, the six conservatives in the majority here say Texas likely will ultimately win on this issue. And as Joan said, the disagreement here is, is this new map a racially based gerrymander?

57:18The six conservatives in the majority seem to say no. And the three liberals in a furious dissent, it's 17 of the 20 pages of this ruling, say, yes, this was a racial gerrymander. It should have been struck down. Let me just read you one thing that I think encapsulates it. This is from the very end of the dissent written by the liberal justices. They write this court's stay, this court's decision today, guarantees that Texas's new map with all its enhanced partisan advantage will govern next year's elections for the House of Representatives. That result, as this court has pronounced year in and year out, is a violation of the Constitution.

57:53So you have your 6-3 split, conservatives on one side, liberals on the other, but Texas will get to use its changed pro-Republican map in 2020. And Jeff, the Texas Democratic Party just issued a statement that says in part, quote, the Supreme Court failed Texas voters today and they failed American democracy. This is what the end of the Voting Rights Act looks like. Courts that won't protect minority communities, even when the evidence is staring them in the face, unquote. This ruling will have huge political ramifications across the country, not just in Texas. It will. And Jake, the bottom line is this is the best news the White House has had politically speaking all week long.

58:32actually, perhaps all month long. The reality here is this is going to allow what the White House has wanted from the very beginning, these redrawn maps to help Republicans get elected, to help ensure that House majority. What this ruling does not do, however, though, is affect these individual races. These races still have to be won. And this does not change the environment in the economy. This does not change the environment on what voters think of the Trump administration, local issues as well. So what this does is basically reverts back to what the thinking was all along, that the Republicans in Texas were going to have an edge here.

59:07Of course, that set off a nationwide unprecedented series of redistricting rules. California, of course, is drawing it for the Democrats to have democratically favored seats, if you will. So there is still very much an open question of these new districts here that have been drawn. Based on the Trump 2024 election alone, are these truly as Republican-friendly districts as they were a year ago. We shall see about that. But for now, at least, this is a huge sigh of relief for Republicans and a huge concern for Democrats who thought that they had a sort of an upper hand in this redistricting fight.

59:43What it also may do is touch off battles in other states, like Virginia, for example. There is a heavy discussion there of changing the lines to favor Democrats, Maryland perhaps as well. So it does not end the discussion nationwide, but for Texas, it does. And Ellie, the Texas Attorney General, Ken Paxton, a Republican, just said, quote, in the face of Democrats' attempt to abuse the judicial system, to steal the U.S. House, I have defended Texas's fundamental right to draw a map that ensures we are represented by Republicans. The big, beautiful map will be in effect for 2026, unquote. The same issue is going through the courts after California voted in favor of redrawing its maps in response to what Texas is doing.

1:00:27How might the U.S. Supreme Court decision impact the Trump Justice Department's lawsuit against California? Well, Jake, if this decision is applied consistently, it's good news for California. It's good news for any state that wants to change its map, that wants to gerrymander. Important to know, a couple years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court came out with a controversial opinion where they essentially said, we, the federal courts, are basically out of the gerrymandering business. That's for the politicians. That's not for us in the courts. Really, the court's only very limited role, and this was reinforced today, is to make sure there is not a racially discriminatory gerrymander.

1:01:03Now, there was disagreement among the justices today about whether Texas did that or not. But basically, what this what this decision is signaling is that any state that wants to go ahead and change its congressional districts, even mid decade, like is happening right now, even if it's for partisan advantage, this is really a green light. And heaven knows where this could go with other states that already are underway with their efforts, whether pro-Democrat or pro-Republican, or as Jeff Zeleny says, other states that might want to get in on that action. Ellie Honig, Jeff Zeleny reacting to the breaking news from the U.S.

1:01:33Supreme Court. Thanks so much. More trouble for Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth as the official Inspector General report on Signalgate is released. The journalist accidentally added to Hegseth's war plans group chat joins me next to respond. Plus, is a key Republican senator eyeing the exit? What Susan Collins of Maine said today when asked about her future.

1:02:02Our politics lead now. Today's release of the unclassified version of the Pentagon Inspector General report that we reported on yesterday confirms what we reported on yesterday. The Secretary of Defense, according to the IG, put his own troops at risk when using a Signal group chat to share sensitive attack plans targeting Houthi rebels in Yemen. Hegseth seems to, for whatever reason, think he did nothing wrong. He posted on social media hours before the report went public, quote, total exoneration, case closed. That is not what the IG report actually says. It actually says, quote, the secretary's transmission of non-public operational information over signal exposed sensitive Department of Defense information.

1:02:49It says, quote, the secretary's actions created a risk to operational security that could have resulted in failed U.S. mission objectives and potential harm to U.S. pilots, unquote. The report says, quote, if this information had fallen into the hands of U.S. adversaries, Houthi forces might have been able to counter U.S. forces or reposition personnel and assets to avoid planned U.S. strikes. The report says, quote, the secretary's actions did not comply with a DOD regulation when he sent sensitive non-public DOD operational information over signal from his personal cell phone. I could go on and on, but let's just read some of the titles of the findings sections.

1:03:32Quote, the secretary did not retain the secretary's conversations on Signal as official records as required by federal law and DOD policy. And it goes on and on. Anyone who is suggesting the IG report is a total exoneration is either misinformed or lying to you. Joining us now is the Atlantic journalist, the editor-in-chief of The Atlantic, who was inadvertently added to that infamous Signal Group chat. Jeffrey Goldberg. Jeffrey, what do you make of the Inspector General report? Well, I make of it what you make of it, which is that it says that the Secretary of Defense endangered U.S. pilots by sharing information in a Signal chat on a commercial messaging app with other senior leaders in the United States.

1:04:21and to add insult to injury, he didn't even know who was on the chat. I mean, it's basic, you know, digital hygiene that we try to know who we're texting. And I happen to be on that chat. Now, I'm not a Houthi rebel, so that was good. But imagine if you had been texting someone who actually wanted to share upcoming attack information with American enemies or adversaries, you'd be in a whole different situation right now. I just I look at his his tweet, you know, total exoneration. And I and I and I kind of think, who are they trying to kid? I mean, he put he put upcoming attack plans into a signal chat, not even knowing who's reading it.

1:05:03And the point is the point is if this had been a subordinate official in the Defense Department or a military officer or enlisted person who had been sharing information, one one-hundredth as sensitive as the information that he shared, they would be fired, court-martialed, and imprisoned. So what we're talking about here is a culture of impunity that the senior leadership of the United States is allowed to make ridiculous mistakes. And then act as if they haven't made any mistake at all. The report also confirms that Hegseth declined to sit for an in-person interview with the inspector general as part of the investigation.

1:05:45why why do you think he wouldn't do that you know why because he could I mean that's why because he didn't believe that he did anything wrong and he was in a stonewalling posture and apparently he wasn't forced to do so so because he wasn't forced to do so he didn't do so he also hadn't you know he did not save the messages luckily the Atlantic published all the messages So the IG was able to use what we had published to see what he had done in the signal chat. Did the IG ever contact you for the investigation? No, no, they didn't. And I don't think that there was any need for that because I wrote everything I knew.

1:06:28Yeah. And I published everything I knew. I did hold back certain key details in my reporting because they would have compromised national security to my judgment and to the judgment of other experts I consulted. So we tried to be very careful about what we put out there. I mean, at least we tried. So as somebody who covers the military a lot and covers veterans a lot, to me, the part that is the most chilling is that this, I'm just going to read this, is from the inspector general. The secretary's actions created a risk to operational security that could have resulted in potential harm to U.S.

1:07:03pilots, potential harm to U.S. pilots. What must it be like, do you think, to be a U.S. pilot working under the secretary of defense and reading him say total exoneration case closed? This is exactly what I was thinking today when I was reading that section. You're a pilot flying off a carrier to Yemen to bomb positions that are covered by air defenses, including air defense operations provided by Iran. Right. And then you find out that your boss's boss's boss's boss, the secretary of defense, is willy nilly just putting out the upcoming time, the upcoming times and plans of your forthcoming attack.

1:07:47I mean, you have to have faith in your leadership when you're risking your life on behalf of the country. And so there are pilots right now who are reading this IG report saying, wow, you know, if that information had fallen into the wrong hands, I could have been shot down. That's what it's saying. Jeffrey Goldberg, thanks so much. Appreciate it. But coming up, she captivated millions worldwide and won the crown in perhaps the most controversial pageant of its era. Miss Universe is live in studio next.

1:08:27And our world lead, the Empire State Building tonight is illuminated in red, white, and green. Why? Well, those are the colors of the Mexican flag. And this is being done in honor of the brand new Miss Universe. Fatima Bosch, who was crowned in late November. Did I pronounce that correctly? Fatima Bosch? Bosch. Bosch, okay. She emerged as a fan favorite during a rather scandal-ridden year for the contest after a video of a male pageant director in Thailand berating her for not promoting the host country went viral. The moment sparked a walkout from her and many of her fellow contestants in global discussions about female empowerment, which is part of her new mission as the title holder.

1:09:05Miss Universe Fatima Bosch is here with me now. Congratulations. Thank you so much for being here. We have your crown right here. I've been told I'm not allowed to touch it. You can with one finger if you want. With one finger I can touch it. I let you. The pearls come from the Philippines. For good luck, yeah. So congratulations. How have your first few weeks as Miss Universe been? Well, I have like, I think 15 days, right? 15 days, yeah. Since they give me the job. So I'm just enjoying every time. It's been good? All good? Yeah, all good. I'm learning a lot of different stuff. And traveling, and I don't know, I'm trying to go step by step at the time.

1:09:47Let's talk about the video from before the pageant, because the pageant director in the video has now filed a lawsuit in Thailand. The host committee of Miss Universe denies that he used the word dumbhead. They said he used the word damage. OK, despite the controversy, how did it feel to have so many of your fellow contestants support you in that walkout? And also, there was this global support for you after the video became public. That must have felt, it must have felt great. You know, we were in a concentration, so I didn't have the time to see, like, what happened in the world. Oh, is that right?

1:10:24speak up, I thought, okay, Mexico now is not going to classify this year. But I did what I did because of my values and what I believe. So at that time, I didn't realize all the support that they gave to me. And of course, I was glad with all the different delegates of the countries to give me all the support. And then it was really weird because it's like you have all the support of the world and then you won and you have all the hate. So it's like so, so much to deal, you know? Then you won and you have all the hate? Yeah, I feel like in social media, so it's like, it's weird, but at the same time, it's like, you need to continue to be focused on what you need to do.

1:11:10You have got to not pay attention to social media. I don't even know how many of those are real people versus bots, versus people that are paid, versus people that are just miserable and unhappy. Do you go online and say nasty things to people? I don't. No. So what kind of person does it? You need to just put up the filters and don't read any of that. The world is behind you. You're an inspiration. We don't normally cover the Miss Universe pageant. This is a very special thing because of you and what you stand for and your courage and also your mission of female empowerment. Talk to us about that and how important that must be, especially with the president of Mexico going through some really tough stuff herself.

1:11:53Thank you for your words. You are really kind. I really appreciate it. And yeah, it puts me emotional because I'm here to speak up and I'm here to the philanthropy, to do philanthropy. So it's like really hard all the things that are going on because sometimes I think that people forget that we are humans. And this crown is only with a purpose to serve others and that's what I'm trying to do. And of course, I don't take personal like when they say kind things and also when they say rude things because everything is going to go. So if you have a goal and a purpose, just follow it and don't get distracted.

1:12:28So the president of Mexico, Claudia Scheinbaum, has been very supportive of you, both when the video came out and also after you won. She was obviously the victim of a groping incident we saw last month. She's been vocal about the harassment she's dealt with as a woman. A 2021 survey of women ages 15 and up in Mexico shows that 70 % have dealt with at least one form of violence. 49 % have reported sexual violence. It's just as bad in other places all over the world. I'm not trying to cast dispersions on Mexico. With your new role, how do you see yourself working to bring as much of an end to this as possible in Mexico and beyond?

1:13:05Well, I really admire her. I think that nowadays Mexico is living something really historical because it's the first time we have a female president. Yeah, we haven't had one yet in this country. And I mean, she's doing everything to support women in my country, and I know that. And for me, with this crime, I'd be glad to use my voice, not just for the woman in my country, but all the women around the world to make like this, I don't know, like campaigns of respect and they know the rights and a lot of different stuff. What else are you going to do with your position this year? What other issues are you going to talk about?

1:13:48What else are you going to do? Well, I think that I don't want to close just in one because now in all around the world are a lot of things that we need to put attention and to raise our voice for that. But I have been working since years ago with Migrants and Fashion Sustainable Design. And also since I was 14 years I worked with Kids with Cancer. And I also work for the preservation of the butterfly, of the monarch butterfly. So you have a lot of issues on your plate. Yeah, I mean like... Since you were 14 you've been working on that at Kids with Cancer. How old are you now? 25. 25, okay. Yeah, so I think that in any place that they need help and anything, I will be there.

1:14:31I want to use this current to bring light to the lives of others. And there is a lot of work and a huge agenda that we are going to have in this year. And I'm very glad that I can use this platform to make things with purpose. I want you to focus on the positive stuff this year, and I don't want you to read the comments on social media. I want you to take it all in. You're an inspiration to so many women and girls and men and boys around the world. And I don't want you to listen to the haters because it's not worth it. They're not worth it. And you're such an important person in the world right now.

1:15:05Thank you very much. So thank you so much. I will continue working because when God put a purpose in you, nothing can stop you. Well, we're all lucky to have you. And we're lucky to have you on the show. Thank you so much. Thank you. Universe Fatima Bosch. Gracias. The rising revolt inside the GOP. It had Speaker Mike Johnson answering questions today about whether he's been marginalizing women in his conference. That story's next.

1:15:35In the politics lead, brand new remarks from Donald Trump Jr. and the FBI Director Kash Patel reacting to that suspect arrested, accused of planting pipe bombs at the RNC and DNC headquarters the night before the January 6th attack in 2021. Take a listen.

1:16:19like a very clear setup operation. And look, you're absolutely right. What? A court affidavit shows the suspect of the pipe bomb incident. Brian Cole Jr. lived in Woodbridge, Virginia. That's outside DC with his mother and other family members. The documents state that he worked at a bail bondsman office. The FBI says it identified a bank account and six credit cards that he used to buy items to make the pipe bombs. The FBI also says cell phone towers have data associated with his cell phone in terms of purchasing the items that made up the pipe bombs. Back in studio is the panel. First of all, the idea that the January 6th attack was just grandmas with selfies.

1:17:01I mean, do I need to even at this point roll the tape of the violent attacks on police officers, one after the other after the other? But beyond that, almost like this as the backup plan if they didn't get what they wanted out of January 6th? What? I really don't know what he's referring to, but let's just take one line. The media has not ignored any of this. We have asked about it over and over again. The FBI, it took five years. Sometimes that happens, but now they have a suspect. I don't understand the premise of the remark. I was in the Capitol that day, and I was with a colleague, and I think we were on the forefront of covering the pipe bombs, and then we had to evacuate because of the Capitol assault.

1:17:45So we were covering it, but a lot of things were starting to rise to the top at the time, and then there was just no leads for so long on the suspects. So we were trying to figure it out, but, you know, it did take law enforcement a while. Also, this idea that the media doesn't cover violence against Republicans. I mean, just in the last year, obviously, the horrific murder of Charlie Kirk, the horrific assassination attempts against President Trump. I mean, that's just not true. I don't even understand what world these people live in. Yeah, it's a very bizarre statement that was made by Donald Trump Jr.

1:18:16there. We also haven't heard of any motive specifically given to this suspect of this pipe bomb. And so some of this seems a little irresponsible to be making these kinds of claims. Let's turn to another story in terms of the Republican Party this week. Congresswoman Elise Stefanik, she's leaving Congress to run for governor of New York. She called her own fellow Republican, Speaker Mike Johnson, a liar. Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene, also leaving Congress, has said Republican women have been marginalized by House leadership. Here is how Speaker Johnson responded earlier today. I think it's a spur-less claim.

1:18:49I think there's no foundation in it whatsoever. You know, people get frustrated, people say things, and there's a lot of people trying to stir division and dissension here, and we're just not playing along with that. So, I mean, the people trying to spur dissension and division, we should note, in this instance, are two Republican women criticizing him in the leadership. What's going on here? Yeah, you know, House speakers have typically always have to deal with different factions and people frustrated with their leadership. But what's notable here is that we have very prominent women in the Republican caucus speaking out, questioning his leadership and also saying that they're not being heard.

1:19:25And I'm not sure that the way that Speaker Mike Johnson decided to respond to this is the way to fix the issue here. Simply saying there's not a problem here. I don't agree with it. Probably isn't going to reach or change the minds of some of these women who are starting to speak out to him. So we'll have to see if there's any ways for him to try to smooth over these tensions because it does not seem like these women are going to stop speaking out. It also goes beyond these two women. You know, it's not easy being Speaker. asked Kevin McCarthy. It took him 15 votes. But it's these women, it's other members of the conference have become frustrated with Speaker Johnson.

1:20:05I think that there are two questions. Does Donald Trump have his back until the midterms? And then this may solve itself. If the Republicans don't hold the House, he's done being Speaker. So let's talk about the Trump of it all, because the speaker is taking some heat from other Republicans over the idea that maybe he and the Republicans in Congress are being too deferential to President Trump. Take a listen. We've been missing in action in a lot of ways. The House has not been in the driver's seat when it comes to key policy areas. You have a lot of intelligent, hardworking people who gave up a lot of things to be here in Congress, only to find out that all they get to do is come here and rubber stamp whatever Donald Trump wants.

1:20:55Because nobody wants to be a rubber stamp. You could get a monkey to do this job. We should point out, those are Republicans. Now, Kylie is a moderate Republican from California, who's probably about to be redistricted out of a job. And Massey is a very, very independent libertarian type from Kentucky. But still, those are two House Republicans criticizing the Republican Party for being too much of a rubber stamp. Yeah, I mean, I think you're starting to see some of this follow Speaker Johnson. A lot of his strength is because President Trump seems to back him and protects him. If he starts losing that, we're trying to examine whether he will start losing support.

1:21:29I will say Speaker Johnson does, just to kind of go back to the previous conversation, he does have women who like him. And some of the people who have gone out against him, there is a backstory. Marjorie Taylor Greene and Thomas Massey led the effort to remove him from speaker unsuccessfully. With Elise Stefanik, there is some blame there for her not being able to rise to the UN ambassadorship, but it was still kind of all culminating at the same point. Usually when they leave for recess, things calm down, but that did not happen over this time period. It seems like everything is bubbling up and starting to fall on him at the same time.

1:22:02There are those allies of Johnson who say this idea of blaming Johnson for Stefanik not going to the UN that that's not fair. It's true that Johnson, before Trump appointed anybody to his cabinet, said, you know, be careful in terms of how many House members you take. But then after she was nominated, I don't think he said anything publicly. But one other point that Johnson's allies say is the three people he picked, Matt Gaetz, Mike Waltz, Elise Stefanik, none of them actually serve in the position that they were, they left Congress to serve. Yeah, and so now he is facing Elise Stefanik, who is also running for governor of New York and is also trying to show that she is a fighter in some ways, maybe pushing back at parts of the rubber stamping of Trump that's been happening.

1:22:51But you have seen that frustration bubbling up from her, even as she wasn't able to rise to that post. All right. Thanks, one and all. Appreciate it. Is Serena Williams actually planning a comeback? I'm going to ask tennis champion Patrick McEnroe what he thinks next.

1:23:11Our sports lead now, tennis legend Serena Williams is making it clear that she will not be returning to the professional tennis circuit. In 2022, Williams announced she was evolving away from the sport to focus on her family. Speculation about a potential comeback started when the 23-time Grand Slam champion's name appeared in an international tennis drug testing pool, a move required for any professional comeback. Williams tried to quiet the speculation in an ex post saying, quote, I'm not coming back. This wildfire is crazy. Joining us now, Patrick McEnroe, former professional tennis player and host of the Holding Court podcast.

1:23:47Patrick, great to have you back as always. If Serena Williams doesn't plan on coming back, why is her name on that list? That's the$64 ,000 question, Jake. And that's what we are all wondering, because if you hear the word Serena and come back in the same sentence, you step up and you pay attention and that's what we're doing and uh you know i think the tennis world would love to see her come back she's 44 uh why would she come back at this stage she's won 23 majors she was trying to win that elusive 24th and single she couldn't get it done post pregnancy though she made it to numerous major finals so it's pretty amazing what she did just there so could she win another major that could be a bit of a stretch but um i think she's planning on coming back, Jake, and maybe playing a little doubles with sister Venus, who's a couple of years older, but has still been playing sporadically in the last couple of years.

1:24:39That would be something we in the sports world that culturally people would pay attention to in a big way because there's only one Serena Williams. Oh man, I sure would. I'm sure everybody would. Just to be clear, like some random person can't put her name on a drug testing list, right? I mean, okay. Just wanted to make sure. Yeah, you have to go through that process for six months. So she put herself on the list in October, Jake. So that means she'd be eligible to play again, having gone through the testing protocols in April of next year. So to your question, I don't see that. She's got to be thinking about a comeback.

1:25:15She likes to control the narrative, which is one of the great things about her as a tennis player and also as a celebrity and as a business person. She's been very successful. So I think the fact that this blindsided her is the reason that he put out that quick statement. I want to turn to the World Cup draw that's happening tomorrow here in D.C. at the Kennedy Center. FIFA president Gianni Infantino is set to present the new FIFA Peace Prize award. Infantino has remained tight-lipped over who is receiving the award. It is widely expected, however, that Donald Trump, president of the United States, is going to get the award.

1:25:47Some human rights groups say this is just the latest example of corruption at FIFA. What do you think? Well, I think that the Kennedy Center is going through some serious issues right now, Jake. I mean, it used to host, I mean, it's a bestie of hosting opera, ballet, world-class performances. Now they're worried about it just being truth social town halls and motivational speeches by the MyPillow guy. So that's problematic. But it seems like Trump likes to put his name on a lot of things. Look, the FIFA World Cup coming to the U.S. is a big story. Mexico, Canada, also hosting games. You got France, Spain, a couple of the favorites.

1:26:24So it's a big event. But of course, Trump, as he likes to do, will try to put his name around as many things as possible. Patrick McEnroe, good to see you. Thank you so much for joining us. You can follow me on Facebook, Instagram, Threads, Blue Sky, X, and on the TikTok, Edgy Tapper. You can follow the show on X and Instagram at The Lead CNN. If you ever miss an episode of The Lead, you can watch the show on the CNN app. Download it today. Aaron Burnett out front starts now.