Breaking Down Jack Smith's Trump Report
45:14 Share

It's Tuesday, January 14th, right now on CNN This Morning. Breaking overnight, special counsel Jack Smith's report released to the public. Smith says he had sufficient evidence to convict Donald Trump and... Pressing hard to close this. Deal on the doorstep? Hostage and ceasefire talks between Israel and Hamas inch closer to the finish line this morning. Plus... Unfortunately, Mr. Hex's background is deeply troubling.

In the spotlight, President-elect Trump's pick to lead the Pentagon faces his first day of confirmation hearings. We'll discuss live with Trump fans transition senior advisor Jason Miller. And then... We are not in the clear as of yet, and we must not let our guard down. A dire warning near hurricane force wind gusts posing new threats to fire-ravaged Southern California as a new fire pops up overnight.

All right, it is 6 a.m. here on the East Coast. This is the full moon over the Capitol Dome on this Tuesday morning. Very pretty. Look, there it is. You can see it. Good morning, everyone. I'm Casey Hunt. It's wonderful to have you with us. Just in, overnight, special counsel Jack Smith claims there was enough evidence to convict Donald Trump at trial for his actions on January 6, 2021, and says that Trump has not been exonerated for his actions surrounding that day.

Smith's parting words released overnight by Attorney General Merrick Garland, part of a sweeping 130-page report from Smith's criminal investigation, as well as a letter that Smith wrote to Garland dated January 7th. The report doesn't have extensive new details from the more than 250 witnesses they interviewed.

But it represents a sweeping defense of the department's case against President Trump and the landmark decision to charge him with crimes and prosecute him even as he ran for president again. In the letter, Smith writes this, quote, I want to be clear that the ultimate decision to bring charges against Mr. Trump was mine. It is a decision I stand behind fully.

To have done otherwise on the facts developed during our work would have been to shirk my duties as a prosecutor and as a public servant." And in the letter, Smith takes on Trump directly over Trump's repeated claims of "complete exoneration" because the government ultimately dropped the case. Smith writes that Trump's claims that "dismissal of his criminal cases signifies Mr. Trump's complete exoneration," that is false.

The report itself outlines how President-elect Trump sought to overturn the 2020 election results in several ways, including putting pressure on state election officials to throw out the results. So, look, all I want to do is this. I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have, because we won the state election.

Smith also outlined Trump's efforts to pressure his own vice president, Mike Pence. Those efforts culminating on January 6th, 2021, after Trump addressed a crowd of his supporters before many of them marched on the Capitol to disrupt the transfer of power.

Smith recounts several events from that day, including when Trump sat back at the White House watching rioters attack the Capitol while sitting in the Oval Office dining room. While there alone, he sent off a tweet. Rioters then read it out loud in almost real time with a bullhorn. Mike Pence didn't have the courage to do what should have been done to protect our country.

In the conclusion of that report, Jack Smith writes that he believes the facts and law supported his team's findings against Trump.

but only the 2024 election derailed the prosecution. Smith writes this, quote, Indeed, but for Mr. Trump's election and imminent return to the presidency, the office assessed that the admissible evidence was sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction at trial.

Donald Trump's lawyers attempted to keep the report under wraps, but that was ultimately rejected by the courts. Trump himself responded directly to the report on social media overnight. He wrote this in part, quote, Jack is a lame-brained prosecutor who was unable to get his case tried before the election, which I won in a landslide. The voters have spoken.

Our panel's here to discuss Stephen Collinson, CNN Politics senior reporter, Elliott Williams, CNN legal analyst, former federal prosecutor, Kate Bedingfield, CNN political commentator, former Biden White House communications director, and Brad Todd, CNN political commentator and a Republican strategist. Welcome to all of you. Thank you all for being here. Stephen Collinson, I actually want to start with you as we think about the big picture here, because Donald Trump is correct. The voters have spoken. All of those things that we just saw play out, they happened, and the voters said,

Perhaps they didn't say we don't care about that, but they said we care about other things more. We want to send you back to the Oval Office. This reads to me as a sweeping defense by Jack Smith of how the department conducted itself in dealing with this matter. How do you read it? Yes, and I think it shows why the president-elect was so keen for none of this to come out before the election. And it's sobering when you think that the person who allegedly

committed these acts will next week swear an oath to uphold the Constitution. Just because we knew a lot of this stuff, we've seen it play out many times, it doesn't mean it's any less shocking. And while I think millions of Trump's supporters are justified in being jubilant that he will return to power next week,

This explains why so many people will see this as a moment of fear and trepidation. - Eliot, how do you understand it as the lawyer that you are, a person who has worked inside the department? They clearly, you know, Jack Smith is also under pressure, right? He has left, he's separated from the Justice Department, but Trump has suggested that he may go after him in some way. What do you think, especially this letter that accompanied the report was, I thought, particularly striking.

- The letter was particularly striking. So back up, what is the purpose of a special counsel report? The law says that whenever a special counsel does his or her work, he must submit, or she must submit a report to the attorney general detailing the reasons for why they either chose to prosecute, would have been prosecuted,

or did not. All these questions, to some extent, even what Stephen was talking about, about the politics behind it, don't matter, at least for the purposes of the report. It's laying out, these are the crimes that we think were committed and this was all of the evidence that we think did so. So, and that's there. I mean, it's clear that

regardless of what anyone thinks of Jack Smith or Donald Trump, evidence was there to convict on any number of offenses, including conspiracy, to obstruct an official proceeding. Now, to this question of that letter, it was really interesting because all the cover letter had to be was just a statement of, Mr. Attorney General, here's our work and here's what we did, but it really was a defense statement

almost in a defensive way of the work of the people of the special counsel's office. This is why we did what we did and who we are. - Yeah, Brad Todd, how do you consider all of this? I mean, every time I go back to that day, that footage is incredibly jarring. And yet here we are in six days, Donald Trump's gonna be inaugurated. - Well, the way Donald Trump conducted himself in the aftermath of the 2020 election, in particular on January 6th, made him rightfully less popular than he's ever been in his entire political career, which is saying something.

It was an overhang in the Republican primary. It's why Ron DeSantis started out 20 points ahead of him. It's because a lot of Republicans, a lot of Trump's own supporters, did not approve of how he conducted himself in the wake of the 2020 election.

However, the prosecutors overshot, and it's not just Jack Smith, it's also Alvin Bragg. They overshot, and the public made a decision on Election Day that perhaps Donald Trump was not near the threat that continued Democrat governance was. Some of that's on Jack Smith. Some of that's on Alvin Bragg for biting off more than they could chew, for moving too slowly, for not getting a conviction that would stand up with public scrutiny. So I view this today as mainly a PR report by Jack Smith. There's not going to be a competing report from the defense in this case. That's not how this works.

So this is, and there's not much new that the American public is going to be surprised by here. Yeah, I just, on the worst possible thing that Jack Smith had was Fannie Willis, Alvin Bragg, and all of the state prosecutors because the strongest...

potential cases against Donald Trump were the ones Jack Smith was bringing, particularly the one in Florida. - But even there he overshot. - Well, but again, look at the conspiracy statute and tell me he overshot. The law is pretty clear on that one. It's just, there's a mess of all these state, these really political state prosecutors. - But he didn't just bring the charge he could win on, he brought more, which gave Donald Trump time to chip the clock. That's his fault. - Had it just been obstruction of justice, he's convicted like that.

I think it's certainly true that the election results in November indicate that the politics of this moment, Trump has been victorious in the politics of this moment, but he's also about to take office again. He will be president for four years. He will have access to the levers of power that could potentially allow him to do something like this again. So it is important that this information be out in the public record, be laid out and detailed in this way when we're potentially looking at the possibility of Trump

you know, committing these kinds of acts again. And so I think it, I would disagree that it is solely a PR document because I think it is, it does lay an important predicate for this man who's about to take office and have his hands on the levers of power again. - The public knows this. I want to give the public credit. The public knows all of these things. They hold it against Donald Trump. They decided Democrats were a bigger threat this time. - And I think that the time, I think that the way that Jack Smith and Merrick Garland proceeded on all of this timing wise,

I think there are a lot of questions that can be asked about that. That's what I was going to ask you about specifically, because it's not just Donald Trump and the right that Jack Smith seems to address in this letter and in this report. He also defends himself against some of these charges on the left that it took too long, right? He kind of goes into great detail about these are the ways in which they delayed. We had to spend months convincing, going to court to get Mike Pence to testify, among other things. But, I mean, how much...

What blame do you put on the Justice Department? Because Democrats seem to lay quite a bit of blame for the delays that Democrats feel. Yeah, I mean, look, I think if you look back over the course of these four years, I think there are certainly moments where it is easy to argue that Garland and then Smith should have moved more quickly. I'm certainly not a lawyer. I obviously respect the challenges that Jack Smith had in moving forward legally in the process. I understand you can't just wave a wand and, you know, get compelled by- It says in the letter

at one point, well, we'll get it done by the summer of 23 and that'll be well in advance of the election. As a political reporter, I'm like, that's not in the advance of the election. That is the middle of the election. But the other thing that, I think the other overlay that we have to remember from a political perspective, and we've talked about this before, but when Biden came into office, one of the things he had campaigned on was the idea of restoring norms, restoring the idea of an independent justice department. And so there was a policy

prevailing political sense that it was, that Biden should not, and his administration, should not in any way be seen as putting their finger, putting their thumb on the scale here to try to move things forward. So this is one of those questions where it's sort of easy to sit in this moment and for Democrats to say it should have moved more quickly, it should have moved more quickly, but there were countervailing political imperatives when Biden came into office that I think he was trying to adhere to. Yeah, it's not your...

grandfather's Justice Department anymore. And I think Joe Biden is in many regards a relic and Merrick Garland to some extent a relic of that post-Watergate thinking about the Justice Department, that politics doesn't matter and we can take the time that it takes to observe. These are norms that simply don't exist more in American politics. I appreciate that clarity that you just laid out right there. As a Republican, you're just not going to convince me that Merrick Garland and Joe Biden weren't trying as hard as they could to get Donald Trump. I just don't buy it.

I don't buy it. They were doing everything they could. If they were trying as hard as they could to get Donald Trump, we would be having this conversation two years ago. And I can tell you, Joe Biden did not believe that it was good for the country for him to be seen as pursuing Donald Trump, as using the levers of the Justice Department.

to try to go after his political enemy. That was the way Joe Biden, I mean, I can tell you from having been there, that's the way President Biden was thinking about it. I'm not doubting you, but if he really believed that, he should have pardoned him the first day he got to country pastor. But that's a different, no, that's a different, that's like you're setting up a straw man here. That's a different argument. Do you want to pick?

Last word. Here's what I find fascinating. All these prosecutors end up in their final report justifying their own failures. Mueller, Ken Starr, Weiss, or they end up hitting out at the subject of the investigation. What it shows is we don't have a way to investigate

and cool presence to account. That's the system right there. Yeah, we're going to talk about that later on the show. A very interesting point. All right, straight ahead here on CNN This Morning. The biggest test yet for Pete Hegseth. Confirmation hearings as Democrats strategize to try to block

His nomination, we're going to discuss the path ahead for some of the president-elect's controversial cabinet selections with senior advisor to Donald Trump, Jason Miller, plus Los Angeles bracing for explosive fire growth as dangerous winds are expected near the fire zones. And in the final stage, negotiators hammering out the finishing touches on an Israel-Hamas ceasefire and hostage release deal.

It's really down to the brass tacks. So there's optimism, but it's cautious optimism, Casey. Again, we've been here before and we know that it's not done till it's all done.

All right, welcome back. Not only can you now access special counsel Jack Smith's newly released report into Donald Trump's effort to overturn the 2020 election, you can also read special counsel David Weiss's report on the six-year investigation into Hunter Biden's crimes. In it, Weiss slams President Biden as gratuitous and wrong for calling the prosecution of his son politically motivated when he pardoned Hunter.

With the Smith and Weiss reports released, there are now zero active special counsels at the DOJ, closing a turbulent eight-year era during which five special counsels oversaw an array of controversies.

The Justice Department tonight naming the former FBI Director Robert Mueller special counsel to take over the investigation into Russia's meddling in the 2016 election and possible collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians. We learned remarkably overnight that the Attorney General William Barr has appointed John Durham to be a special counsel. Today

I signed an order appointing Jack Smith to serve as special counsel. Moments ago, Attorney General Merrick Garland appointed a special counsel to oversee the investigation of classified documents found on President Biden's property. Tonight, the top federal prosecutor in the Hunter Biden probe now has special counsel status, giving him new authority to investigate the president's son.

All of this now done. And Stephen Collinson, this picks up on the point you were making just before we went to break. This is the end of an era of sorts. Right. I find it very difficult to believe that Pam Bondi, if she becomes the attorney general, is going to announce a special counsel into some issue that would inevitably rise in the Trump White House if there is alleged wrongdoing. If you have a Congress in this partisan era that is very unlikely to

whether it's a Republican and probably a Republican in the House of Representatives,

going forward, a Democrat as well. How do you call presidents to account? I think that's a massive question. And it speaks to the reversal of a process that happened after Watergate, whereby the powers of the president were constrained by congresses and special councils. Now we have a president coming in who believes he has ultimate power. And there's very little, it seems to me, apart from the courts,

to counter that. - And there's the Supreme Court immunity ruling on top of that. - The irony in all of this is that the whole point of the special counsel regulations and rules and statutes is to take politics out of prosecution. The goal of why they were invented in the first place was that you would have these special prosecutors

that could traverse administrations and had investigative powers. That's all sort of been blown up as people begin to see all institutions, not just prosecutors and government, as just more politicized. - This is not a new debate. You can go back to 1787 and the framers of the constitutions had this exact debate. How are we going to hold this new executive function accountable? They came up with an elegant solution, which is the impeachment process.

However, we're now in a partisan era where both parties are really, really alike within each other. And so it's very hard to pull off an impeachment process that both parties can support. That's probably the way it should be. It probably should be hard to bring charges against an executive president who's by himself the one person who controls a branch of government.

This is not a new debate, though. We're going to disagree with you, though, however, as there's a difference between the goals of prosecution and the goals of impeachment. Impeachment seeks to maintain integrity in the elected officials in the country. Prosecution seeks to punish people for committing crimes. Those are two very different things. I understand they sort of get blurred together in the public mind. But they set impeachment up as a trial process, I think, for that reason. But it's not to punish violations of criminal law. It's to violations, breaches of integrity. Mitch McConnell certainly saw a distinction.

in the wake of January 6th. All right, coming up here on CNN this morning. In a matter of hours, Pete Hegseth set to face senators for a confirmation hearing. He hopes, of course, to be the next Secretary of Defense. We'll speak live to senior advisor to Donald Trump, Jason Miller, plus a new fire erupting overnight as a critical 48 hours looms for Southern California. All right, fire crews now working to contain a new fire that erupted overnight in Southern California.

This one is called the auto fire. It's now at 0% containment. Wind gusts today could reach hurricane force up to 70 miles an hour. A rare type of red flag wind warning also in effect in L.A. and Ventura counties until Wednesday because of those winds threatening more new fire outbreaks spreading the Palisades and Eaton fires. I spoke to the L.A. County Fire Chief on Monday. Are you worried that these new winds may undo the progress that you've been able to make?

Oh yeah, absolutely. If we get a new fire start in a different location, it could be very difficult to contain. CNN's Michael Yoshida is live for us in Altadena. Michael, good morning. What are you seeing there and what have we learned overnight?

Hey, good morning, Casey. When you talk about that new fire popping up, just put in perspective, that's about an hour west of us, but it's the perfect example of that concern that officials have been talking about and why over the last day, throughout the overnight hours, as our team has driven through the Palisades, through Brentwood, here into Altadena, we've seen so many fire crews die.

staging, pre-positioning, trying to be ready for if one of those new sparks, those flare-ups happen so they can quickly get a handle on it. Now, while we have that ongoing concern and threat of those fires and new fires this morning, I'm not sure if you can hear, but we have a lot of work happening here in this Altadena neighborhood, utility crews, gas companies, others hard at work trying to begin some of that repair work. Obviously, as you can see behind me,

This, as we've been talking about, one of those communities that's been just devastated by the Eaton fire. You can see some of the lines as well still hanging down. Just an example of how much work

is ahead for these communities in and around Los Angeles. But again, right now, that most pressing threat, that biggest concern overnight heading into the rest of the day is going to be how those winds continue to potentially shift and what impacts they may have on those fires that they've already been working so hard to get those containment lines around and what any new fires such as that auto fire may pop up as well.

All right. Michael Yoshida for us this morning. Michael, thanks very much for that report. And that new fire burning right now in Ventura County could spread because of those gusty winds he was just talking about. And the area is under the highest possible threat level from wildfires. Let's go to our meteorologist, Allison Chinchar, with more on what to expect today. Allison, good morning.

Yeah, good morning. And I think that's really been the biggest concern all along. It's not necessarily, you know, the fires that are there. We have several that are at 100% containment. It's all these new fires that just pop up. What happens to those, especially as those winds continue to rage throughout the day? Here's a look at the red flag warnings that we have in effect for

today and some of these even go all the way through Wednesday afternoon. This is both the combination of those strong gusty winds up around 60 to 70 MPH, but also taking into account how dry the air actually is. But even embedded within the red flag warning, you have these two areas here that kind of like that darker purple pink color here where they are considered a particularly dangerous situation embedded in that does include

Three of the four fires that we are watching. They are in one of those PDS is, but it also includes places like Ventura, Thousand Oaks, San Fernando. Again, a lot of these towns and communities are inside of these, so it's going to be something we have to keep a very close eye on as those winds begin to tick up. You look as we go through the day. Look at some of these 4050 mile per hour gusts starting to pop up.

up even in some of the more heavily populated areas throughout the day today and continuing into at least the first half of the day tomorrow, possibly into the afternoon hours. You've got these wind advisories with the wind gusts of around 50 to 55 MPH. The high wind warning where they could get up to 60 even 70 MPH. And yes, this does include the areas where we have all four of those fires, so we'll have to keep an eye out. But the one

One thing, Casey, that they really need is rain. And we just simply don't have that in the immediate forecast. Yeah, really difficult. All right, Allison Chinchar for us this morning. Allison, thanks very much for that. Coming up next here on CNN This Morning, two highly anticipated special counsel reports into Donald Trump, Hunter Biden now available to the public. Senior advisor to President-elect Trump, Jason Miller, joins us all to discuss it all live. Plus, the ongoing battle in Washington over disaster aid for California.

If we're going to put hundreds of millions or billions of dollars into helping families recover, I want to make sure they're not going to face the exact same crisis two years from now because California has failed to take action on things they should have been taking action on decades ago.

All right, welcome back. We could soon see a ceasefire and hostage deal between Israel and Hamas. Today, mediators are meeting in Doha, Qatar, in hopes of finalizing the details on the framework of a deal. Israeli officials say that in this emerging deal, Hamas is expected to release 33 hostages during a 42-day ceasefire. But negotiations remain at a critical stage.

It's really down to the brass tacks, but as we've seen in the past, when you get down to that level of detail, you know you're close and you know the gaps can be closed, but that's when it gets really, really hard. That's when the negotiations become a little tougher. So there's optimism, but it's cautious optimism, Casey. Again, we've been here before and we know that it's not done until it's all done.

Looming over the negotiations, the imminent return of Donald Trump to the Oval Office. He says he wants a deal by Inauguration Day. We are very close to getting it done. And they have to get it done. If they don't get it done, there's going to be a lot of trouble out there. A lot of trouble like they have never seen before. CNN's Jeremy Diamond joins us live from Tel Aviv this morning with the latest. Jeremy, what do we know?

Well, Casey, I just spoke with an Israeli government official who told me that the Israeli government is ready for a ceasefire and trying to frame this very much as now being in Hamas's hands. This official told me that they believe that they have made all of the compromises that are needed to bring about a deal and that now they are waiting for Hamas to accept it.

That being said, what is clear is that there are still ongoing indirect negotiations between Israel and Hamas. And that means a back and forth over some of the final details of this agreement, including some of the what a Qatari official described as simple issues relating mostly to the mechanisms of implementation for this agreement. And in addition to that, we've also heard from Hamas in a statement themselves.

And they are sounding quite optimistic, quite positive about the current state of negotiations, saying that they are ready to reach an agreement with Israel here. So it does seem like all signs are pointing towards Israel and Hamas being able to finally bring this deal across the finish line, although everyone involved is going to remain cautious right up until the moment when that agreement is actually formally announced.

We also are still waiting for some detail about the exact number of Palestinian prisoners who would be released in exchange for those 33 Israeli hostages who would be released in the first phase, this six-week ceasefire that would begin this agreement. And this Israeli official I spoke to today said that until they know exactly how many of those hostages are alive,

They won't be able to say exactly how many Palestinian prisoners will be released. That's because there is a different kind of ratio of prisoners to hostages, depending on whether or not that hostage is alive and the identity of that hostage as well. If indeed this agreement goes through, it would be enormous, not only for those 33 hostages who would be released in the first weeks of this agreement who have endured

captivity for more than 15 months now, many of them not seeing daylight for months and months on end in Hamas's tunnels beneath Gaza. But of course, also for the hundreds of thousands of Palestinians in the Gaza Strip who have endured and continue to endure relentless bombardment from the Israeli military, a death toll that has now stretched past 45,000.

according to the Palestinian Ministry of Health. This deal would also bring about the entry of some 600 trucks of aid per day to alleviate what are really desperate and dire conditions inside of Gaza. Casey. All right. Jeremy Diamond for us this morning. Jeremy, thanks very much for that update.

All right, let's turn now back home. House Speaker Mike Johnson now suggesting that any federal aid to California to help after the deadly wildfires in L.A. should come with conditions. But not everyone's on board with that idea. Over the last week, Republicans have questioned the state's preparedness and response. It appears to us that state and local leaders were derelict in their duty in many respects.

so that's something that has to be factored in. I think there should probably be conditions on that. That's my personal view. We'll see what the consensus is. All right, our panel is back. Stephen Collinson,

Typically, these things go through without conditions, not completely unprecedented, but there are also conversations that are politically perilous, including tying the debt ceiling in with this. And it does seem like Donald Trump went ahead and made this political pretty quickly. How do you think that's going to impact people in California getting the help they need?

It's going to complicate a lot of things. It could complicate the very delicate balance that Trump already has for passing his agenda through this very small majority in the House. I think we have to

Except this is the start of this if you listen to conservative media. There's this big drumbeat of criticism about the local officials in California so some of these politicians Perhaps are hedging their position right now and things will change when this all becomes you know when this all goes on the floor there's gonna be a big debate about it if you're using the power of spending to

force accountability, that seems to be a pretty reasonable use of federal power. If it becomes a point of punishing voters or trying to shape their behavior for political reasons and holding aid hostage to that, that seems to be completely different. Criticism is not just coming from Republicans. The fire chief in LA has criticized Mayor Karen Bass, and she's no Republican. You know, can

Gavin Newsom is the most partisan figure in American politics. I was working the governor's race in Mississippi in 23, and Newsom came in while the state was recovering from tornadoes and attacked the Republican governor. He's attacked Greg Abbott. He's attacked Ron DeSantis. He's attacked Republicans in the wake of disasters. He's getting what he gives. And so I don't fault Mike Johnson here. I mean, Gavin Newsom was getting ready to have a special session of the legislature to Trump-proof California. I don't fault Mike Johnson for holding Gavin Newsom accountable. I will say, if you want to see what

right-leaning, I suppose, media is saying. The New York Post has bonfire of the vanity on top of Gavin Newsom, which should give you a sense of how they view it. It's perfectly reasonable and important to ask questions about the response to hold state and local officials accountable. Those things are important. They should. The voters of California deserve that, too. There is a difference between raising those questions and holding disaster aid back.

back that is going to help California families who have lost their homes. I mean, and I actually think that there will be a political price for Republicans to pay if they continue down this road. I think these moments, these natural disasters are typically times when

voters on both sides of the aisle do come together. They look to their government to provide them support, to provide aid. And I think that if Mike Johnson and congressional Republicans are gonna hold to this line that voters in California don't deserve aid and help when they've lost their homes,

uh... because they don't they're happy with gavin newsom i actually think that that republicans are gonna wind up paying the price for that and i'm not saying that gavin newsom shouldn't be question about the response to the fire course he should as should any uh... elected official but it will get there a individually thread and this is gonna have to answer but i think it'll be very easy for the democrats to point to republicans and say you're not getting aid because my johnson and republicans are playing politics with the money curious question i have maybe i have

For you, Brad, I'm curious as to what congressional Republicans from California will have to say over the next couple months. There are Republicans in the California House. Well, the margin in the House exists in Southern California. Of course, we can say that about a lot of places because the margin is so tight. Individuals will get their aid, just like in North Carolina, they need to be –

that needs to continue to flow. That's going to happen. But Gavin Newsom, who is a partisan peacock, is going to be held to account. Okay. Coming up next here on CNN This Morning, Elon Musk's growing influence within the upcoming administration. The new report that says he could have an office space in the White House complex. Plus, a showdown on Capitol Hill. We're going to talk live with Jason Miller, senior advisor to the president-elect, about how far Republicans' loyalty may go in the battle to confirm Pete Hexeth.

There just seems to be plenty of evidence that this is a uniquely unqualified, dangerous nominee. If there's any cabinet position that ought to have a steady and drama-free individual, it is certainly Secretary of Defense. Unfortunately, Mr. Hegseth's background is deeply troubling. To put it generously, let's hope we get real answers and real documentation before anyone votes for Mr. Hegseth for Secretary of Defense.

Senate Democrats preparing for a showdown on Capitol Hill today with the first and one of the more controversial of Donald Trump's cabinet nominees appearing for his Senate confirmation hearing. Secretary of Defense nominee Pete Hegseth likely to face tough questions this morning from members of the Senate Armed Services Committee over allegations ranging from sexual assault to excessive drinking

in the workplace. Some of those committees rank and file members, however, expressing frustration they weren't able to access the FBI's background check prior to today's hearing and saying the report doesn't appear to be thorough enough. I only know that some of the folks that have the women in his past, women in his life have wanted to be interviewed, but have not been interviewed by the vetters. I am deeply concerned that

There are facts that so far have been hidden from this committee. What are they hiding that they won't give us this kind of information?

All right. Joining us now, senior advisor to Donald Trump, Jason Miller. Jason, good to have you back on the show. Thanks for being here. Let's start briefly on Pete Hegseth. But I also want to talk to you about the special counsel news and some other things today. For Pete Hegseth's nomination, is there something to hide in the FBI report that Senate Democrats on the committee shouldn't see this report?

Not at all. And in fact, that's why both the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee and the ranking member have had the opportunity to review that file. That is the historical norm for the chairman and the ranking member to take a look at that. I don't know why Democrats want to go and try to change the rules all of a sudden just because it's one of President Trump's nominees. But Casey, I would have to say I do find it rich. Well, didn't the Republican chairman suggest he might be OK with it? That's been our reporting. Our reporting has been that Roger Wicker had suggested, hey, it's OK if Democrats see this, but it was the Trump team that doesn't want it out there.

The historical norm is that the chairman and the ranking member have access to that. And that's exactly what we're doing here. We're doing the same thing that we did with Joe Biden. But Casey, I got to say, I find it a little bit rich that Democrats are now complaining about the FBI. But I have to say, don't worry, Democrats. In only a couple short weeks, we're going to confirm Kash Patel to be the next director of the FBI. We're going to get the politics completely out of it. And we can have confidence in our law enforcement once again. But today, Pete Hegseth,

I think is going to do ver right now. We have dozen and other supporters of p out there since four a.m. And when people see Pete this committee and talk of what we have to do to back to the Department of from the woke ism and t

Jason, are you concerned, or should I say, which nominee are you most concerned about at this stage?

There aren't any that I'm concerned about. All of the nominees that President Trump has selected are very highly qualified. I think they've been very impressive in their individual meetings with senators. I think all of them are going to be confirmed. And once we get to those hearings, once these nominees have the opportunity to show their knowledge and their leadership on this, and again, to implement what President Trump ran and won on with this mandate, he got 77 million votes, he won the popular vote, 312 electoral votes. President Trump won.

with this mandate to bring change. And that's exactly what these nominees are going to do.

Jason, I want to ask you about the report that was put out overnight by the Department of Justice, as well as an accompanying letter from the special counsel, Jack Smith, who took head on the idea that President-elect Trump has repeatedly said that he was completely exonerated for the events surrounding January 6th because that case was dropped. Jack Smith said, quote, this is false.

What is President-elect Trump's response?

Very simply, President Trump didn't do anything wrong, and that's why this case completely fell apart on Jack Smith. The Supreme Court ruled, we believe, in the right direction. And for Jack Smith to go and put this out on his way out the door, leaving town in disgrace, I think shows just how politicized the entire Justice Department has become. But I think with Pam Bondi, when she's confirmed as the next Attorney General of the United States, again, as I referenced before, Kash Patel coming in to lead the FBI,

KC, we have to get politics out of this. People have to have confidence in the legal system and our law enforcement, and that's what we're gonna do with this new set of leaders who are coming in. - Does President-elect Trump plan to investigate or prosecute Jack Smith?

Oh, President Trump isn't going to be involved in anything to do with aspects of investigations or things like that. I think that's really the latest thing that Democrats are trying to throw out there to distract away. Does his Justice Department intend to prosecute or investigate Jack Smith? Will the Attorney General, if it's Pam Bondi, investigate or prosecute Jack Smith?

Of course, I'm not someone who would speak on behalf of the Attorney General or anyone coming in to lead the law enforcement and Justice Department efforts. But I would say the only people who have anything to be concerned about are people who have broken the law. But this is the whole point. And I think a big part of the reason why President Trump won, we have to get the politics out of this. This is why people have lost so much confidence. And that's what Pam Bondi is going to do. Pam Bondi is very impressive.

She did a very good job as Attorney General in the state of Florida. And when she has her hearing, which starts tomorrow, she's really going to make people, I think, sit up and realize, okay, finally, we have a non-politicized leader back in there. Merrick Garland, you're out. Pam Bondi, you're in. This is going to be a new dawn in Washington.

Jason, let me ask you also, of course, the story that we have been covering most frequently in the last week has been these devastating wildfires in Southern California. There were reports yesterday that the president-elect plans to visit Southern California, possibly soon after the inauguration. Does President Trump plan to visit the wildfire-stricken areas of California? And if so, when?

Yeah, good question. I know President Trump wants to get out to Southern California as soon as he's able to. Obviously, inauguration is coming up in just a couple of days here. The president has a very strong connection to Southern California, obviously owning a number of properties. He has the fantastic golf course there and RPV, but he has a very strong connection and really feels for the people. And especially when you have these natural disasters that are happening, the president has been on the scene, whether it be in

North Carolina, other places even more recently. But as far as the exact timing, I have to leave that to the president of the incoming White House to determine just how soon he can get out there. And Jason, we heard from the House speaker, we played what he had to say earlier on in the program about aid to the victims of these terrible fires and whether there should be conditions placed on that aid. Does the president-elect believe that there should be conditions put on any federal aid to wildfire victims in Southern California?

Yeah. And Casey, that's not something that I've discussed with the president and being someone who's a senior advisor on the transition team focused on the confirmations. That wouldn't be appropriate for me to go in a way and on something like that. That'd be something more for the White House to decide once President Trump is sworn in on Monday. All right. Jason Miller, very grateful for your time as always, sir. Thanks very much for being here. Thank you.

All right, let's turn out of this story. Trump ally Elon Musk could soon be very, very close to the Oval Office and the president-elect, Donald Trump. According to the New York Times, Musk is expected to have an office in the White House complex for the new Department of Government Efficiency, which he will help head up to try to find ways to cut government spending. Kate Bedingfield, let's talk a little bit about the geography of the old executive office building, which sits right next to the White House. There's a street that you do have to walk across. Yes.

But what does it tell you as someone who's worked inside in the West Wing about the proximity here? Yeah, well, physical proximity to the president is a sign of your influence. And so for somebody who would traditionally, were it not Elon Musk in this kind of outside role,

would traditionally probably not have space on the White House complex. For him to have space on the White House complex is obviously an indicator of the faith that Trump is putting in him. You know, it is, when you're in the executive office building, you walk across West Exec, it's, you know, depending on where you are in the EOB, it's, you know, can be as short as 20 steps down, 80 steps down toward the Oval Office.

or you can be up in a very, very small office on the fifth floor of the EEOB and maybe it will take Elon a little bit longer to get down to the Oval. I guess we will see, but certainly an indicator that Trump wants him there, wants to be able to call on him quickly. Yeah, I mean, Brad, it's another statement here about Elon's

Well, you know, in 2016, when Donald Trump won, he promised he'd have all the best people around him. And he was criticized for a lot of the people he brought around him. I don't think anybody could argue that Elon is pretty high caliber talent to put in the executive office building. And so he's going to have proximity to Trump no matter what because of the force of his ideas. Stephen?

I don't want to rain on the parade, but presidents can have who they want as their advisors. The fact that someone who had such a massive vested interest before the US government has an office

In EOB? That tells you something about this incoming administration and how there's been almost no talk about ethics and business and whatever as we go into the new White House. It is not plausible that Elon Musk is doing this for money. It's not plausible. Sure, sure. Yeah.

Well, but here's the thing. He knows that the space ambitions that he has are not possible without the federal government choosing him over other competitors. 60% of the satellites above Earth were put in place by SpaceX, his company. Like, we rely on him no matter what. No doubt. Civilization relies on him right now because the government failed. And that's wonderful. And that's great. We should support that.

the challenge is not to me his physical proximity to the president in the executive office building. It's that he might have business before the government and a conflict of interest. And if he is in fact an unpaid employee, I don't think he has to disclose that information to the public. That's the issue. Is there some sort of conflict and is he getting more business on account of his work there? And that

ought to be the thing that we're concerned about. I do kind of wonder how angry Jeff Bezos was when he read about this office. I want to see those two guys battling their way down the massive spiral staircase in the EOB, elbowing each other out of the way. Thank you guys for being here. Thanks to all of you at home for joining us as well. I'm Casey Hunt. Don't go anywhere. CNN News Central starts right now.