Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Trump Team Feels Good About Hegseth Hearing; Qatar Officials Says Israel and Hamas Nearing a Ceasefire-Hostage Deal; Special Counsel Says Trump Not Exonerated in 2020 Election Subversion Case. Aired 3-4p ET

Aired January 14, 2025 - 15:00   ET

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

[15:00:38]

JIM SCIUTTO, CNN HOST: I'm Jim Sciutto in Washington. Thanks so much for joining me today on CNN NEWSROOM.

And let's get right to the news.

Our top story today, Pete Hegseth in the hot seat. President-elect Donald Trump's choice for secretary of defense appeared for four hours of, at times, contentious questioning before the Senate Armed Services Committee today. CNN reports that team Trump is in good spirits as to how it went.

There were, however, tough questions from Democrats on several topics, including personal allegations of alcohol abuse, sexual assault, as well as public statements about the military hammering diversity initiatives, calling for the firing of top military commanders, and saying that women should not serve in combat roles.

Not discussed at length, notably how Hegseth would lead the Defense Department against what it consistently identifies as the primary threats to U.S. national security, Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran.

Here is part of perhaps the tensest exchange. Virginias Senator Tim Kaine, questioning Hegseth over 2017 sexual assault allegations, which Hegseth claims was a consensual event.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. TIM KAINE (D-VA): So casually cheat on a second wife and cheat on the mother of a child that had been born two months before, and you tell us you were completely cleared. How is that a complete clear?

PETE HEGSETH, DEFENSE SECRETARY NOMINEE: Senator, her child's name is Gwendolyn Hope Hegseth, and she's a child of God, and she's seven years old.

KAINE: And she was --

(CROSSTALK)

HEGSETH: I'm glad she's here. KAINE: I assume that in each of your weddings, you've pledged to be

faithful to your wife.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCIUTTO: Crucial, however, Republicans, of course, have the majority, 50 votes is all it takes to be confirmed. Republicans on this committee seem to line up very much behind him.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. JIM BANKS (R-IN): It's incumbent upon this committee to confirm you ASAP to get you on the job.

SEN. KEVIN CRAMER (R-ND): You, Mr. Hegseth, are not the extremist. The people who would deny you your expression of faith are the extremists.

SEN. MARKWAYNE MULLIN (R-OK): How many senators do you know have got a divorce before cheating on their wives? Did you ask them to step down? No.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCIUTTO: Much more to discuss. I want to bring in two congressional reporters, Farnoush Amiri of the "Associated Press", and Mychael Schnell of "The Hill".

Good to have you both.

I mean, I want to begin with the most crucial question. Of course, there were some tough questions from Democrats. We largely heard Republicans seeming not just to support Hegseth, but almost to fall over themselves to praise him.

Farnoush, beginning with you, do you think that he has the votes now to get confirmed?

FARNOUSH AMIRI, CONGRESSIONAL REPORTER, ASSOCIATED PRESS: I mean, today was going to be the -- we've seen, you know, Republicans, including Senator Joni Ernst, who was at first the biggest obstacle for Hegseth confirmation, kind of, you know, backing down from her issues with him after she received rampage of assault online from many in the make America great again movement from any of Trump's allies. And you saw while she did push him on several issues during this confirmation hearing, she mostly was, you know, contained. And it wasn't this combative experience that we all thought in the first few weeks after he was nominated.

So it seems like he does have enough Republican votes to pass. You know, obviously, most of these defense secretaries usually pass with bipartisan support. You know, you saw Senator Jack Reed saying this is going to be the first time that he would vote against a defense secretary nominee. So it would -- it would break down that bipartisan pattern that has happened for decades. SCIUTTO: You mentioned Senator Ernst, of course, a veteran herself

served in the Iowa National Guard. She's up for reelection in 2026. She had previously expressed concern over Hegseth statement that women should not serve in combat, which he said as recently as November.

Let me play for you, Mychael, her exchange with Hegseth.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. JONI ERNST (R-IA): As secretary of defense, will you support women continuing to have the opportunity to serve in combat roles?

HEGSETH: My answer is yes, exactly the way that you caveated it. Yes, women will have access to ground combat roles -- combat roles, given the standards remain high, and we'll have a review to ensure the standards have not been eroded in any one of these cases. That will be part of one of the first things we do at the Pentagon is reviewing that in a gender neutral way, the standards, ensuring readiness and meritocracy is front and center, but absolutely.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

[15:05:07]

SCIUTTO: I mean, he said, absolutely, Mychael, there. But he caveated it by more than implying that standards were somehow lowered to allow women to serve in combat, which is quite a statement to make to a sitting U.S. senator who is a veteran herself.

Is that, from your understanding, a satisfying answer to Ernst and others on the committee, including Republicans who support women in combat?

MYCHAEL SCHNELL, CONGRESSIONAL REPORTER, THE HILL: I mean, I think we'll have to get the ultimate answer to that. When we talk to folks and talk to senators after this hearing. But it was absolutely a change in Hegseth's tune compared to what he had said in recent months that women should not serve in these combat roles. It's been widely reported.

And so we even heard from some Democrats today saying, you know, why should we trust you on these things? Why should we trust that you have changed? Can we trust that you are a changed individual and will not renege on these various statements that you have made?

However, Hegseth mentioned that he hashed through a number of these details and topics with Joni Ernst. Let's remember they had two really crucial meetings back December, so it seemed like she was satisfied with that answer. We're going to have to see if folks are widely satisfied, because while Ernst was one of the key folks to watch, there are still a number of moderate Republicans, Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, who are also going to play key roles here.

SCIUTTO: No question. Of course, going into this. And one of the reasons why initial thoughts were that Hegseth might not get the votes to be confirmed -- concerned are numerous allegations of personal issues, alcohol abuse.

We saw Mark Kelly zeroing in on these topics. He called in response -- Hegseth -- he called in response to those questions and allegations, he called them all anonymous smears. But you saw, Farnoush, Mark Kelly taking an opportunity there to list them and ask a straight up true or false question, to which Hegseth didn't really respond to most of them. He just said anonymous smears.

Has the view inside the Senate changed of those personal allegations the drinking, the sexual assault, the settlement in California? Have they been satisfied by his answers in those private meetings?

AMIRI: I mean, I think what you saw from just even the few clips you showed at the start of your show is that that, you know, you saw Senator Mullin not denying that that Hegseth drank or cheated on his wife, but saying we all do, right? I mean, that was kind of -- you'll see Tommy Tuberville's eyebrows go up, and because they're saying the quiet part out loud.

But I think the question now for the entire Senate, for the American people is, is that the qualifications? Is that the standard you want for the person, the secretary that's going to lead the most lethal, like lethal military in the world, right?

And so the question now is just whether these allegations, which, you know, even Hegseth, is not denying all of them. He's saying I'm a changed man. He's saying he has found faith. He's been able to, you know, renew himself and do better, and that we should give him a second chance.

Now, if that's enough, it doesn't seem to be enough for Democrats who keep saying, we would support you for, you know, press secretary for the Defense Department, but we would not support you to lead this agency.

SCIUTTO: Well, we'll see when the votes are counted.

Farnoush Amiri, Mychael Schnell, thanks so much to both of you.

Much of Hegseth's hearing focused on military readiness -- readiness, women's role in combat. Given Hegseth's recent -- recent opposition to that.

With that, I want to bring in someone who knows these military issues well. Paul Rieckhoff is a former U.S. Amy infantry officer and a veterans advocate who founded the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America.

Good to have you on. Thanks so much for joining.

PAUL RIECKHOFF, FORMER U.S ARMY INFANTRY OFFICER: My pleasure, Jim.

SCIUTTO: I want to begin on those personal issues, because how would a uniformed member of the military be treated in the face of similar allegations to what Hegseth who did, of course, serve but is now a civilian, would they be relieved of duty for the -- well, the infidelities, the drinking, et cetera, that Hegseth has been accused of?

RIECKHOFF: I think that's actually the most important question here, Jim, because we're not just talking about whether he's qualified. We're talking about whether he should be disqualified. And the truth is, the average enlisted soldier, marine, you know, airman would be judged harshly if they committed adultery, which is actually a violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice if they were drinking on the job, if they were lying to their subordinates or their superiors.

So this really cuts to the question of character, which is really why this is not a normal process. Nothing about this is normal. We don't normally have to worry about whether or not a nominee is going to pass an FBI background check, or whether or not they're going to get drunk on the job.

But this is kind of a setting of a tone, I think, not just for the Defense Department, but what we could be to come from the entire Trump administration here. We're kind of lowering our standards. We're not talking about China policy. We're not talking about recruiting. We're not talking about nukes.

We're talking about what he did and whether or not he took his staff to a strip club, which I think is really a bad reflection on where we are as Americans.

[15:10:07]

But we also saw the Democrats maybe scored some damaging shots, but they didn't deliver any knockouts. Nothing new came out. They didn't really get him, you know, to screw up in a way that's going to damage his overall nomination. And now I think we've got a wait and see period where it could be a week, maybe two weeks before the actual vote. And I think some of those moderate senators Collins, Murkowski, Ernst and others are kind of keeping their powder dry because this is 2025 and we don't know what's yet to come.

SCIUTTO: I had exactly the same reaction you had given that the Pentagon quite clearly identifies China and Russia, the primary threats to U.S. national security, as well as Iran and North Korea. There's an active war on the European continent in Ukraine, threats to Taiwan, ongoing war in the Middle East, and the leader, the civilian leader of the largest military in the world, was not pressed on his plan for responding to those threats. And, by the way, not just by a failure by Republicans, but by Democrats to press effectively on those issues.

How much of a failure is that of this confirmation hearing?

RIECKHOFF: I think it's a total failure. I think it's a total failure by both parties. I think it's a national security risk. I think our enemies around the world see a hearing like this, and they're celebrating. And I also think there's the deeper issue, which is the Pentagon is supposed to be the least political part of our entire government, right? It's supposed to have a leader with integrity and character who can bring people together in a united mission to fight our wars and kill our enemies.

And here with Hegseth, the reality is you've got the most overtly political, arguably most politically extreme and least qualified person in history. I mean, this is the former secretary of war. Previous nominees have been things like the director of the CIA, have been chief of staff of the Army, but they've never been so overtly political.

So what you saw is kind of the manifestation of a culture warrior, and that's what Hegseth is. He's been built for this moment to bring the culture war on behalf of Trump to the Pentagon. And as for right now, it looks like he's won this battle, and we'll see if he wins the war.

SCIUTTO: Yeah. I mean, much more talk in this hearing about his allegations of a woke military than the threat from two super powers, right? Nuclear armed superpowers.

Before we go, I want to get into the exchange between Senator Slotkin and Hegseth, because in the first Trump administration, we had members of Trump's administration, including a former defense secretary, Mark Esper, speak about given being given unlawful orders.

So Slotkin attempted to press Hegseth on that. I want to play that exchange and get your thoughts on how he answered.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. ELISSA SLOTKIN (D-MI): Okay, so -- and are you -- so are you saying that you would stand in the breach and push back if you were given an illegal order?

HEGSETH: I start by saying I reject the premise that President Trump would be giving any illegal orders at all in a particular scenario.

SLOTKIN: I understand. You've done your genuflecting to him.

So, Donald Trump asked for the active duty 82nd Airborne to be deployed during that same time. Secretary Esper has written that he convinced him against that decision.

If Donald Trump asked you to use the 82nd Airborne in law enforcement roles in Washington, D.C., would you also convince him otherwise?

HEGSETH: I'm not going to get ahead of conversations I would have with the president. However, there are laws and processes inside our Constitution that would be followed.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCIUTTO: Was that a satisfying answer to that question?

RIECKHOFF: It was to Donald Trump, probably. I mean, it's a non- answer that is damning. And I think the question I would have asked is, who is your primary loyalty to, Donald Trump or the American constitution? Because that's what's at stake here. And this is really Trump 2.0. In Trump 1.0, you had General Mattis,

who was widely respected, 40 years of service, a nonpartisan person who you could trust to be loyal to the Constitution first and stand in that breach when necessary. Now you've got Pete Hegseth, who most of all is a loyalist and told you pretty clearly right there that he's going to do what the president asks him to do, potentially, even if it's in violation of the Constitution.

And that's what should I think -- I hope, alarm and move the moderate Republicans who are somehow still on the fence here.

SCIUTTO: We'll know in a few days. Paul Rieckhoff, thanks so much for sharing your views.

RIECKHOFF: Thank you, Jim.

SCIUTTO: Well, we are following breaking news out of South Korea as authorities are again attempting to arrest the impeached President Yoon Suk Yeol after, you'll remember, he declared briefly martial law back in December, the first attempt at his arrest ended after a six hour standoff between police and the presidential security service.

Since then, entrances at his residence have been blocked by vehicles. Barbed wire erected on walls around the compound. On Tuesday, South Koreas constitutional court adjourned the impeachment trial of Yoon after the suspended president did not show up in court.

Coming up, what is left to be finalized before a ceasefire and hostage release deal between Israel and Hamas, and the newly emerging details as to what that agreement looks like?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:17:52]

SCIUTTO: Mediators say they are at the closest point to reaching a cease fire hostage deal with Hamas in months, as they enter the final stages of negotiations. The deal follows the framework President Biden laid out some eight months ago. In it, the first phase would see 33 hostages, women, children, the wounded and men over 50 released. The fighting stopped for six weeks.

In exchange, Israel will release hundreds of Palestinian prisoners, although the final number of those prisoners released will depend on how many living hostages Hamas releases in the nearly 500 days of war in Gaza since October 7th, more than 46,000 Palestinians have been killed, the majority of them women and children. Israeli airstrikes killed 31 overnight.

If a ceasefire is agreed upon, it will be the first respite for those in Gaza in more than a year. In Tel Aviv, protesters have gathered calling for the release of all the hostages.

CNN's Jeremy Diamond is there.

Jeremy, in these negotiations, and you and I have discussed near success for so many weeks and months, it does feel like this particular period is closer. Do we know what the remaining sticking points are?

JEREMY DIAMOND, CNN JERUSALEM CORRESPONDENT: Yeah, no doubt about it, Jim. You know, we heard from the Qataris earlier today who said that what remains to be done is really the implementation mechanisms. The Qatari foreign ministry spokesman even described it as kind of simple things that still need to be resolved.

And yet, despite the fact that it is the simple implementing mechanisms that still need to be resolved, we don't yet have the announcement of a deal and everyone involved, despite being very optimistic and forward leaning about the possibility of this ceasefire and hostage release deal, actually getting done is still cautioning that there is no deal until there is an announcement of a deal, and that is indeed what we are waiting for and what we saw. Thousands of people gathering here at hostages square voicing their support for.

But also really, it felt like people were here to stand shoulder to shoulder in this moment of uncertainty and in this rare moment where people are finally allowing themselves to start to feel some optimism, especially for the families of the hostages.

[15:20:08]

Every time we go through these moments where we are close to potentially reaching a ceasefire agreement, they start to feel that optimism. But because they've been bit so many times in the past, they once again, you know, have trouble feeling that optimism. But tonight, I spoke with the uncle of Yarden Bibas, whose wife Shiri, and their two redheaded babies were taken hostage on October 7th, images that captured the attention of millions around the world. Yarden's uncle told me that he feels frightened in this moment, frightened about whether or not this deal will actually happen, frightened about what kind of state his nephew will emerge in if indeed he is released as part of those 33 hostages set to be released in the first phase of this deal.

But he did tell me that he feels like this time is different, that he is hoping that not only Yarden, but also Kfir, Ariel and his wife Shiri will come out alive, despite the fact that Hamas has said that those children are dead. The Israeli government has yet to confirm that, and the Bibas family tonight still very much holding out hope -- Jim.

SCIUTTO: Yeah, goodness. So many days, weeks and months of waiting for those families.

Jeremy Diamond, thanks so much.

Joining me now to discuss, retired Lieutenant Colonel Jonathan Conricus. He's a former IDF spokesperson, the senior fellow now at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.

Jonathan, always good to speak with you. Thanks so much for joining.

JONATHAN CONRICUS, FORMER IDF SPOKESPERSON: Hello, Jim. Thank you.

SCIUTTO: So when you look at the outlines of this deal, beginning with this first phase, 33 hostages, six weeks of a ceasefire, then expanding from there -- I mean, those outlines have been consistent for months, at least. Something along those lines has been on the table for months.

So why now? Why do you believe that now it might finally get across the finish line?

CONRICUS: Well, Jim, if it gets across the finish line, I believe it's very much related to the visit this Saturday of envoy Witkoff, who was here probably to impress upon all the relevant decision makers in Israel, in Qatar and Egypt, that now is the time and you don't want to be the one that spoils the deal.

And I believe that all the relevant parties took notice and acted accordingly. And that is the action that we're seeing in the last few days, and the additional information coming out that a deal is near and the details.

And you're right, Jim, this is -- the deal as we understand it now, is not new. The details are not new. The conditions are not new. The numbers are not new, and the sticking points are not new.

This is very similar to what we've seen over the last few months. And what apparently has changed is incoming President Trump, who is setting down his foot and informing everybody that there best be a deal, or the person who foiled the deal will be held responsible.

SCIUTTO: How does he manage that? I mean, what is the difference in pressure if that is true? If Trump is able to get this across the finish line and he is the difference here, what is the pressure that he's putting on Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, and Hamas that President Biden was not willing or able to?

CONRICUS: If -- my assessment is that the at least on the Israeli side, Israel understands that this is a milestone, this is not the end of the confrontation between Hamas and Israel. This is a milestone, a very important one for the people of Israel, for the hostage families to get their loved ones home. But I think that Israel understands that this is probably the best way to get them home. But afterwards, we will still need to go back to fight Hamas, because unfortunately, Hamas will still be in power in Gaza.

And I think that's what Prime Minister Netanyahu, a very, very accomplished politician, is doing, is playing a long game and understanding that now is the time to get along with President-elect Trump's decision and his desire to see a deal made, understanding that there will be many more chapters to write in this horrible story of Israel and Gaza, and perhaps then we will see a different policy coming from the White House of president Trump, as opposed to what we've seen over the last 15 months under President Biden and his appointed people.

SCIUTTO: As you know, Israel's national security minister, Itamar Ben-Gvir, as well as other far right members, have been rallying to attempt to collapse the Netanyahu government if this deal is agreed to. In a post on X, he boasted about blocking an agreement, saying, quote, in the past year, through our political power, we succeeded in preventing this deal from moving forward time and time again.

[15:25:07]

Is that right wing flank of Netanyahu a real risk to his government? If a deal goes through?

CONRICUS: First of all, as an Israeli, id like to say that I find it perverse that a minister boasts or thinks that its a point to his credit that he torpedoed a deal to bring back Israeli hostages. I can't understand it, but perhaps it's above my pay grade.

And I think that, you know, I'm a very intermediate understander of political things, but I am not entirely sure that Ben-Gvir and Smotrich have many alternatives if they cause the government to fall. And there's wide, almost wall to wall support across political boundaries in Israel for a deal to be made -- for the hostages to be brought back home.

I think -- I assess that it wouldn't be a wise political move to actually torpedo a deal and cause the government to fall, because there would be elections after that, and probably the ones who would do that would be held accountable by the electorate.

And all of the polls indicate that Ben-Gvir wouldn't fare well in any such scenario. I think his record as minister is also very mediocre and perhaps even below that. So I think the electorate will respond accordingly.

But what I -- what I hope is that the Israeli government will be able to take a deal that is now here and has been here for the last months, and it's not a perfect deal by -- by any means. And we will have to make sacrifices here. But at the end of the day, if Hamas remains in power, then Israel is short of achieving all of its goals that it set out to achieve 15 months ago.

And what that also means is that, yes, we will see a respite in fighting. Yes, there will be a chance to add humanitarian aid into Gaza and perhaps alleviate the suffering. Yes, there will perhaps be quiet nights in Israel, but we will still be fighting a jihadi organization.

SCIUTTO: That appears to be part of the deal going forward.

Jonathan Conricus, always good to have you on. Thanks so much for joining.

CONRICUS: Thank you.

SCIUTTO: For a wider look now at how this deal might impact the region, I want to bring in Firas Maksad. He's a senior fellow senior director at the Middle East Institute.

Good to have you on.

I wonder -- I'm going to begin with you the way I began with Jonathan Conricus. What do you think made -- and again, this is if the deal gets across the finish line and that remains an open question. But if it does, given the recent progress, what do you think made the difference this time? And is it as simple as Donald Trump saying, get the deal done?

FIRAS MAKSAD, SENIOR FELLOW & SENIOR DIRECTOR, MIDDLE EAST INSTITUTE: That's a great question, Jim. And it's one that everybody in our space is asking. Certainly, when you look at the -- the details of the deal itself, there's stark similarities to what was on the table back in spring, even back in July. And so that's why a lot of people are asking that question.

I do think that the political timeline in Washington is a major factor. I was just in the region. I just came back, meetings with some senior officials there. And I could tell you, I mean, we literally ran into the envoys of both President Biden and President Trump going in and out, meeting with these officials.

There is very close, unexpected coordination between the two camps here in Washington for their own political interests. President Biden, very much wanting to be seen as having achieved something in the Middle East, a ceasefire of sorts, leaving President Trump laser focused on the Middle East of wanting that deal of the century. Really, the Abraham Accords, the normalization between the Arabs and the Israelis, except bigger and better with Saudi Arabia and others now.

And for that he needs calm and quiet in Gaza, and he needs calm and quiet in Lebanon. And so we see both sides of the political divide pushing here. But, Jim, I would also say that there's a regional component.

SCIUTTO: Sure.

MAKSAD: Iran today is the weakest that I've ever seen. And so maybe the Israeli prime minister hasn't been able to achieve much and move the needle in Gaza. But the defeat of Hezbollah in Lebanon, the collapse of the Assad regime in Syria, those are all creating openings that Hamas is looking around and saying Iran and Hezbollah, they're not joining the fight anytime soon, maybe never.

SCIUTTO: Yeah.

MAKSAD: And that's conducive of --

SCIUTTO: So you describe the ambition of a second Trump term there of that broader agreement. And as you know, the read prior to October 7th is that that normalization deal between Saudi Arabia and Israel was quite close and October 7th blew that up.

Are the conditions in place assuming this deal with Hamas gets through to resurrect that normalization? And could it go more broadly than that? [15:30:01]

MAKSAD: Yeah, it's going to be a major aim of the Trump administration. No doubt. He's got four years only to achieve that.

From a Saudi perspective, I was in Riyadh, two weeks ago. I could tell you that the bar is that much higher. Saudi Arabia has a real public opinion to contend with, unlike some of the smaller Arab states that have normalized with Israel.

But Gaza situation, the horrible footage of human suffering playing out on TV screens for the last 15 months, they have to take that into account. I do think there's still a possibility it might be a colder peace than the one achieved between, for example, the UAE and Israel. I don't think that you're going to see Israeli tourists shuttling back and forth, or airliners going back and forth, maybe a colder peace.

But the bigger challenge here is going to be on President Trump, because a key component of that normalization deal is the defense treaty for Saudi Arabia. Will President Trump be able to get enough Democrats in the Senate to certify a treaty? That's an open question, and I think it's going to be a heavy lift on the incoming administration, but they're going to try.

SCIUTTO: Regarding Gaza, there are no current commitments on the second and third phases, negotiations for a second phase, they'd only begin until the 16th day of the ceasefire if it were to last that long. But that also leaves open the broader question of what happens to Gaza in the future, what happens to the West Bank? Will there still be any viable path for a Palestinian state which traditionally has been the demand of, say, a Saudi Arabia before it normalizes with Israel? They want to see at least a path there.

I mean, there's a long distance between where we are right now and getting to that point. I mean, is that a bridgeable gap?

MAKSAD: And thank you for bringing that up, because that is exactly -- I'll use that word, the bridge between the ceasefire agreement that we're hoping and talking about today, and the aspirations of the incoming Trump administration for normalization in the region, with Saudi Arabia and Israel being at the head of that.

You need to be able to make progress towards a two-state solution and the creation of a Palestinian state, the day after question in Gaza. Secretary Blinken today obviously outlined his views and his regards, his views in that regard. I would take that with a grain of salt. I think, you know, clearly the administration is on its way out.

SCIUTTO: Yeah.

MAKSAD: It's no telling what President Trump has in mind for the day after in Gaza. But I can tell you from the perspective of the Arab partners, the Arab partners of America, that there's going to be great hesitancy in getting involved in Gaza, whether at a security level, putting boots on the ground or throwing in those billions of dollars that are required for reconstruction. If there isn't a real change in how Israel is dealing with -- with the

Palestinians, and also amongst the Palestinians, the reform of the Palestinian Authority, which is riddled with corruption, as you know.

SCIUTTO: No question.

Looking north now, the Israeli-Lebanon, 60-day ceasefire, that comes to an end next week. Under that agreement, Israel is supposed to withdraw its troops from southern Lebanon, although now you hear Israeli officials saying they want to keep forces in some key areas. It's not unlike the debate you saw prior to these Gaza negotiations, right? Wanting to keep that presence here.

Does that ceasefire get extended in your view?

MAKSAD: Let me just say, Jim, that I understand the Israeli concern. I understand that post-October 7th trauma. I understand that the geography of south Lebanon, where you have sort of the first tier of villages overlooking Israeli settlements and Israeli towns, I understand the security concern there.

I don't think that a continued occupation of these villages or south Lebanon would offer a solution. I think that would only embolden the Hezbollah narrative of Israeli wanting to stay in Lebanon, even though Hezbollah has been much weakened.

There's an important role there for the Lebanese armed forces to play, particularly on those key border villages that geographically pose a challenge to Israel. We saw the election of a president in Lebanon that is American-backed last week, the appointment of a prime minister that is also anti-Hezbollah in his views.

There's a moment here in Lebanon, and there's an American two star general that is based in the American -- the Lebanese ministry of defense as a result of the ceasefire agreement. We need to create the space for the Lebanese authority to be able to stand up on that border. And I don't think, continued Israeli occupation would do that.

SCIUTTO: I've been up to that border area frequently, and you can see those firing positions and you understand to -- to your point, the Israeli argument there.

Firas Maksad, thanks so much.

Coming up next, how Jack Smith's report released just overnight spells out extensive, and, as he sees it, criminal efforts by Donald Trump to retain power after the 2020 election. We'll have more.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:38:20]

SCIUTTO: So the final report is out in the long awaited 137-page document. Former special counsel Jack Smith outlines evidence which he argues would have been sufficient to convict Donald Trump for his efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election.

Trump, as he does, quickly dismissed the findings as political, calling Smith deranged and a lamebrain prosecutor. Of course, the report comes in lieu of any trial for these charges. Those trials just didn't happen. The clock ran out. Trump's election win and upcoming inauguration shielding him from prosecution.

Still, Smith called Trump, quote, the individual most responsible for what occurred at the Capitol on January 6th, end quote.

Joining us now, CNN senior legal analyst and former federal prosecutor Elie Honig.

I want to begin, if we can, with the bottom line of his report, his belief that, quote, the admissible evidence was sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction at trial.

Do you agree with his assessment?

ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: I do. And that statement by Jack Smith comes as zero surprise. You know how we know? Because he indicted the case. You can't get an indictment as a prosecutor unless, first of all, you must believe that. You cannot -- you will not be allowed to proceed in any prosecutor's office in the country. You're supervised until your supervisor says to you, do you believe the evidence is sufficient to support a conviction? If you say yes, then you go to a grand jury as Jack Smith --

SCIUTTO: And the grand jury has to agree.

HONIG: And the grand jury has to even a higher standard. It's still not that high, but probable cause. So we already knew Jack Smith believed that.

Important to understand, though, and a distinction that I think is getting a little bit lost in some of the non-CNN coverage out there, Jack Smith did not say I believe a jury would have convicted Donald Trump. No prosecutor would ever say that.

SCIUTTO: You don't know how 12 people decide.

[15:40:01]

HONIG: Right, exactly. You would never purport to say that. And it comes across in that strain as some sort of big boast. That's not what Jack Smith says in the -- in the report. What he says is appropriate. And I agree that the evidence is enough that a jury could convict.

SCIUTTO: Right. Okay. You wrote a piece today criticizing Smith's prosecutorial tactics. You called them oft celebrated, hyper aggressive and blaming those tactics in part for the failure of these cases. Can you can you explain why?

HONIG: Sure. The number one feature of Jack Smith's tenure as special counsel has been aggression -- attack, attack, attack, which is not unusual for prosecutors. It's not unusual for prosecutors, but it needs to be measured a bit. And I'll give you some examples. And a lot of times it backfired on him, as we saw.

For example, when it came to the gag order, Jack Smith first asked for a preposterously broad gag order that the district judge cut down, and then the court of appeals further cut it down. More problematic, Jack Smith asked for a completely unrealistic trial that he wanted to try Donald Trump. Five months after the indictment. Average case in D.C. takes 28 months. That is just patently unfair, and I think started to turn some questions about, is this guy playing straight?

He left himself wide open the way he drafted that indictment to the Supreme Courts eventual immunity ruling. He asked the Supreme Court to expedite, but he refused to give them a reason. So Jack Smiths mode from day one was pedal to the metal, pressed all the way to the floor. And ultimately, I think it undermined his success.

SCIUTTO: Okay, what about timing here? And because a lot of understandable criticism has been directed at the Attorney General, Merrick Garland, for taking so long to appoint the special counsel and get the process underway, is that -- is that the lions share of the blame in your view?

HONIG: I think that is the bigger of the two factors is just the fact that when Jack Smith became special counsel, it was November 2022. So it was essentially two years into the Biden administration, two years away from the 2024 election. There is no human way.

I wrote this in my book, before Jack Smith was appointed in mid-2022, I wrote it's already too late, and if they don't realize it, that's their fault. There was no realistic way Jack Smith was going to come in two years, get an entire comp -- two -- entire complicated investigations done, get them indicted, get through all the pretrial stuff especially, and they all should have seen this coming.

And Smith missed this or didn't properly account for it. The immunity issue, it was lingering out there. It was so obvious it was going to happen, and it took them off track for months.

SCIUTTO: Let me ask you a question then. Given the Supreme Court's immunity ruling giving quite a broad definition of presidential immunity, could even the best prosecutor in the world on the most favorable timeline have gotten this through, given the way they interpreted presidential immunity?

HONIG: So, we'll never know the answer to that. I think it would have been tough. I do, but my -- my criticism of Smith is the way he handled this case and the way he wrote the introductory -- introduction to his report last night is very aggressive. It's very defensive at the same time, it's very grandiose. He compares himself to John Adams and these famous old attorneys general.

And I think the way Jack Smith handled this case gave some lift to Donald Trump's claim that it was political. Now, Donald Trump vastly overstates it. And Donald Trump's conduct towards Jack Smith and the judge and the members of Jack Smith's team was utterly unacceptable and dangerous. That said, Jack Smith could have done better. And if you look at the

report last night, I submit to you if you read that four-page introduction, it is impossible to objectively read that and say, now, I believe that everything that follows is going to be completely impartial.

He comes across as a zealot. He comes across that he has a personal problem with Donald Trump and that he's almost possessed with getting him. And he could have very simply said, dear attorney general patches, my report. I just want to say in one sentence, my team did a great job. They were professionals and they were nonpolitical, onto the findings.

Instead, he gave us a sermon.

SCIUTTO: Yeah. Elie Honig, it's -- well, here it ends, right?

HONIG: This -- this show, other than for the history books.

SCIUTTO: For real. Thanks so much.

HONIG: Thanks, Jim.

SCIUTTO: And we will be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:47:10]

SCIUTTO: Hurricane force winds could again whip across Los Angeles today, as crews work around the clock to try to push back two of the deadliest and most destructive wildfires in California history. And now there is a new fire in Ventura County to contend with.

CNN's Veronica Miracle, she's in Altadena, one of the hardest hit neighborhoods there.

Veronica, first on this new fire in Ventura County, how big of a fire? And where exactly is it threatening?

VERONICA MIRACLE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Jim. It was in Ventura County. It actually erupted overnight. It ended up being contained to about 55 acres, and they're still kind of working on getting the full containment around it. But firefighters, when we were there, we spoke to them and they were very pleased with how quickly they were able to get a handle on it, because major concerns about this wind event.

Now, the good news is the wind event, as originally forecasted by the National Weather Service, that did not come to fruition. But when I was speaking with firefighters out there, they said they are on high alert and they are worried that these winds could pick up in the afternoon.

And of course, everybody here on edge, how could they not be in Altadena just across the street here is the National Guard. They have a checkpoint still right next to a burned out lot. Many, many homes that are burned.

And I want to show you over just this way what has bloomed, this beautiful community here has come together. The man who lives here in this home said that his house is standing, and so he knew he needed to jump into action. And on Friday he posted, hey, would love some donations and it has now expanded and exploded to this, where they have so many donations. They're actually asking people to stop and now, they're ready for all of those who have lost everything to come and take whatever it is that they need, from diapers to food to clothing.

And it's just a really beautiful outpouring of support. The -- the person who lives here who organized all of this told me they're getting donations from as far away as Indiana.

So just an incredible show of support here, but of course, major concerns this wind event is not over expected to go through at least Wednesday in a community that's already very stressed -- Jim.

SCIUTTO: Yeah, and those winds -- those wind predictions and forecasts have just been so all across the board, right? And people imagine they're getting relief and then, you know, they get some bad news. So I know you'll be watching closely. Veronica Miracle, thanks so much.

For more information about how you can help Los Angeles victims, go to CNN.com/impact. Together, you've already raised more than $540,000. We thank you. I'm sure the victims thank you for your support.

Coming up, attacks on character, questions dodged, heated exchanges. We'll have more on the confirmation hearing for U.S. secretary of defense nominee Pete Hegseth.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

(CROSSTALK)

SEN. TAMMY DUCKWORTH (D-IL): Yes or no, did you lead an audit?

[15:50:02]

Yes or no, did you lead an audit? Yes or no?

(CROSSTALK)

DUCKWORTH: What are you afraid of? You can't answer this question. Yes or no? Did you lead an audit? Do you not know this answer?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:52:46]

SCIUTTO: We continue to cover the at times fiery Senate confirmation hearing for Pete Hegseth to be the next secretary of defense. In his opening statement, Hegseth promised to be, quote, a change agent and get the Pentagon to become laser focused on war fighting.

Democrats grilled Hegseth on allegations of excessive drinking, which he called, quote, anonymous smears as well as accusations of sexual assault, which he has denied.

CNN's Pentagon correspondent Oren Liebermann, he's been following the hearing from Capitol Hill.

Oren, you know, you listen to the questioning today. Republicans were clearly behind him. I mean, some of their, quote/unquote, questions were really just expressions of support. Democrats focused a lot on the personal allegations, as well as his past statements on women in combat.

All in all, when you walked out of that room, is it your sense that he's going to get confirmed?

OREN LIEBERMANN, CNN PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: Probably. He appears to have the votes. One of the senators we watched most closely was Senator Joni Ernst. She has been careful about what she's said to this point. She said she would support him through the confirmation process, but has not made any promises beyond that.

And yet, in terms of -- of her appearance there, her questioning, it looks like she may well vote for Pete Hegseth, which means that in all likelihood, he has the votes to get confirmed.

Now, Democrats, of course, tried to change that calculus. A big part of the first set of questions he faced was on his statements about women in combat roles. He effectively said they should be removed from those roles, and there were a number of attacks on that. Here, he didn't quite apologize, but he showed some contrition and tried to say that he supports any gender and any race, being in any role for which they are qualified. He tried to make that a question of qualifications based meritocracy.

He also tried to say or attack this idea of quotas for infantry officers who are women. He was shut down on that point very quickly because there are no such quotas. So he tried to make his argument when it came to the attacks from Democratic senators. In the end, though, Jim, you're right to point out, it may not matter because he looks like he has the Republican support that he needs here to get confirmed.

I'll also point out that he has advocated openly in the past for the firing of the chairman of the joint chiefs general, C.Q. Brown, over perceived wokeness.

[15:55:02]

He was asked whether he would advocate for that. He kind of avoided the question a bit, and instead said that he would argue or push for a merit-based qualification system where those who are qualified stay and are promoted.

SCIUTTO: Yeah, it's quite -- it's quite a charge to make against a standing four-star general currently serving as chairman of the joint chiefs.

Oren Liebermann --

SCIUTTO: A highly regarded one at that too.

SCIUTTO: Exactly, across the board.

Oren Liebermann, we know you'll continue to follow it. Thanks so much.

And thanks so much to all of you for joining me today. I'm Jim Sciutto in Washington.

"QUEST MEANS BUSINESS" is up next.