Return to Transcripts main page
Connect the World
Confirmation Hearings for Pam Bondi, Trump Pick for Attorney General; Marco Rubio, Trump Pick for U.S. Secretary of State; New Developments in Gaza. Aired 10:15-11a ET
Aired January 15, 2025 - 10:15 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[10:15:40]
ERICA HILL, CNN ANCHOR AND U.S. CORRESPONDENT: Thanks for joining us here for the second hour of CONNECT THE WORLD. I'm Erica Hill in New York. It is
a big day in Washington. We are following live confirmation hearings.
You see three underway at this hour for Donald Trump's cabinet nominees. You've just been listening in to the confirmation hearing for Pam Bondi,
who's been nominated for the role of attorney general.
She has just has just wrapped up her opening remarks and the questioning now beginning with the chairman of the committee, senator Chuck Grassley.
We will also be monitoring, of course, the confirmation hearing for senator Marco Rubio, nominated to be secretary of state in Donald Trump's second
administration. He'll be facing questions from the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
And John Ratcliffe, who's been nominated for CIA director, will face questions from the Senate Intelligence Select Committee.
(MUSIC PLAYING)
HILL: Joining me for a closer look at what we can expect out of Washington today, CNN Politics senior reporter Stephen Collinson and also Corey
Brettschneider, who is professor of political science at Brown University.
It's good to have both of you with us. I was struck in the opening statements from Senator Grassley and Senator Durbin, two very different
views, which we have now come to expect, I would say, in Washington, from two different parties about not only the role of the Justice Department.
They seem to want the same thing out of an attorney general. But their views, Stephen, of where the DOJ and the current attorney general are in
this moment, could not be more different.
STEPHEN COLLINSON, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: That's right. Political weaponization is in the eye of the beholder right now in Washington.
Chuck Grassley, the senator from Iowa, the chairman of the committee, went through this long litany of complaints, saying that the Justice Department
had persecuted president-elect Donald Trump, although he didn't say why those investigations took place.
Most principally, Trump's attempt to overturn the 2020 election, Republicans deeply believed this idea that was propagated by Trump that he
is basically a political -- politically persecuted during Biden's term.
The top Democrat on the committee, Dick Durbin, is taking exactly the opposite tack. He is saying that the biggest danger for the Justice
Department is that it will be weaponized by Trump, that it will basically serve as Trump's personal lawyer.
He spoke about how Bondi had helped Trump try to overturn the 2020 election; how the FBI pick, Kash Patel, has an enemies list. And he was
basically asking Bondi to ensure that she would not carry out any illegal or constitutional orders from the president.
So there is this clear divide between the Democrats and Republicans on this. And I think it speaks to the utter politicization ever since the 2016
election, really, of the way the Justice Department is viewed by different shades of political opinion in the United States. And that's something I
think is quite damaging for the rule of law here.
HILL: Yes, absolutely.
Corey, as we look at this, too, there will be a number of questions today for Pam Bondi about comments she's made in the past, specifically about
prosecuting the prosecutors, about her involvement in those efforts to overturn the 2020 election.
How much of those questions, especially when we're talking about Democrats here, do you expect to focus on process and experience versus hypotheticals
and questioning whether this would be about fealty to Donald Trump?
PROF. COREY BRETTSCHNEIDER, POLITICAL SCIENCE DEPARTMENT, BROWN UNIVERSITY: Well, I think its clear that she's qualified and especially when we compare
her to Matt Gaetz. She was the attorney general of Florida. And on the surface, she certainly does look qualified.
But the real question is about her complicity with Donald Trump as he tried to overturn the 2020 election and specifically with his false claims of
election fraud.
The job of attorney general is to be the chief law enforcement officer for the entire nation, to defend the law. And when she has a record of really
defending lawlessness, a lie, the Big Lie about the election and the supposed fraud, that's what really calls into question whether or not she
is qualified to do this job.
[10:20:04]
So it's essential, actually, that the president (ph) will pivot off the question of qualifications, which they should just concede on and will
concede on, I believe, and turn instead to this question of whether or not she's going to stand up to a president who has a history of not just
lawlessness but criminal behavior.
She is our check, the check of the American people on behalf of the rule of law. And the question is whether or not she can fulfill that role. And her
past actions and statements suggest that she cannot.
HILL: Based on what we saw yesterday during the hearings for Pete Hegseth, Stephen, when we look at how Democrats came into that, there were some
important lines of questioning when it came to experience, which is a major concern for a number of folks in terms of whether he has the experience to
lead that massive department.
Of course, the $800 billion-plus budget. But it didn't seem, at least to me, that there was a cohesive strategy among Democrats when it comes to
their questioning. And the consensus this morning seems to be he sort of skated through that questioning and is set to be confirmed, as are likely a
number of the president-elect's nominees.
Are the Democrats in disarray here?
Do they have a plan?
COLLINSON: I think they had a plan. I'm not sure that it actually worked very well. The problem was -- and they were asking during the Hegseth
hearing pertinent questions about his attitude toward women in the military, in combat, for example.
Whether, you know, his -- whether he has the requisite experience after only heading rather small veterans' organizations to lead the Department of
Defense.
The problem was, was that when they were talking about issues like women in combat, Hegseth was quite happy to play upon that territory, because its
the kind of culture war that he's being sent to the Pentagon to carry out. And that's exactly what Trump wants.
He was able to argue that allowing women to take part in combat in the military was what Republicans call, you know, wokeness, and that they don't
deserve or are not sufficiently physically capable of doing so.
When a few Democrats took to asking questions about substance, that was when he was quite exposed. He didn't know, for example, about the members
of the ASEAN, Association of Southeast Asian Nations.
He didn't know that there were two treaty allies of the United States in that group, the -- Thailand and the Philippines. He thought that South
Korea and Australia were in ASEAN.
That's quite a worrying lapse for someone who is going to have to try to stop the boiling tensions in the South China Sea exploding into a conflict.
So he did seem rather weak on the substance. And I think perhaps more concentration on that might have helped the Democrats' case.
HILL: Stephen Collinson, Corey Brettschneider, I appreciate it. Thank you both. We'll continue to follow those hearings, of course, out of
Washington. We're also keeping a close watch on developments in the Middle East, where an official in Qatar tells my colleague, Becky Anderson, an
announcement is expected immediately, that Israel and Hamas have reached a ceasefire and hostage release deal.
Meantime, in Israel, two sources familiar with the negotiations say that it could be announced later today or tomorrow. Negotiators in Doha have, of
course, been hashing out an agreement to end the fighting in Gaza for an initial six weeks.
It would also then lead to the release of 33 of the hostages currently being held by Hamas as well as the return of a number of Palestinians. This
all happening, of course, as Israel is actually continuing intense strikes in Gaza.
Dozens of people reported killed, including children among them. Israel issued an evacuation order for a neighborhood in Jabalya, northern Gaza,
earlier today. Joining me now to bring us up to speed on all these developments, Jeremy Diamond joining me from Tel Aviv.
Jeremy, you have some of this reporting from Israeli officials as well about where things stand on this deal.
JEREMY DIAMOND, CNN JERUSALEM CORRESPONDENT: Yes, that's right. Erica. Two sources familiar with the matter telling me that the Israeli government's
expectation right now is that a deal could be announced within the next 24 hours.
We could potentially be hours away from that announcement happening. Now the two sides haven't yet signed on the dotted line but it appears that
they are down to some of the very minute details regarding the implementation of this agreement.
And therefore, there is a considerable amount, probably the most amount of optimism that we have seen thus far relating to the potential for an
agreement to be reached here.
Now once an agreement is actually reached and announced, we expect that that announcement will likely come from the mediators, perhaps even from
the Qataris themselves, where these final stage negotiations are still occurring at this hour.
[10:25:00]
The Israeli prime minister will take that agreement to his security cabinet, which is a small group of ministers in his government. And then he
will take it to the full cabinet of ministers leading his governing coalition.
An up or down vote will decide the fate of that agreement. But the expectation is that, once that happens, we could be, you know, within 24 to
48 hours of the actual implementation of this deal.
My sources have told me that, if an agreement is announced tonight or tomorrow, Sunday is the most likely date that the cease-fire agreement will
actually go into effect and that you would see the first group of Israeli hostages being released from Gaza on that day.
In exchange for that, of course, will be hundreds of Palestinian prisoners, some of whom have been convicted of killing Israelis, they will be released
in exchange for those 33 Israeli hostages over the course of 42 days of cease-fire.
That's six weeks of a temporary ceasefire, that, of course, there is now hope that perhaps that ceasefire could be extended into a permanent end of
the war. That phase of negotiations will begin happening on the 16th day of the implementation of this agreement, to see whether or not they can get to
an end of the war -- Erica.
HILL: Jeremy, appreciate it. We're going to continue to follow, of course, all of those developments. I know you'll keep us posted as you hear more as
well.
I believe we may be going back to Washington if that -- at this point. Yes, we are. So let's take you now to Washington, where the confirmation hearing
for senator Marco Rubio as secretary of state is underway. Let's listen in.
SEN. MARCO RUBIO (R-FL): It's a reminder that the path that brings me to this moment was paved by those who are not here with us today, by two
parents who arrived here in May, on May 27th of 1956, from Cuba, and they had nothing but the dreams of better -- of a better life. And because of
them, I had the privilege to be born a citizen of the greatest nation in the history of mankind, and to be raised in a safe and stable home by
parents who made their children's future the very purpose of their lives.
I also want to acknowledge all the blessings that God has bestowed upon me in my life. My faith is critical and it's something I will lean and rely on
heavily. In the months that are ahead, in a tumultuous world where in my faith we are called to promote the cause of peace and the common good.
And that task has gotten harder than it's ever been. And I will rely heavily on my faith and pray for God's blessings that he'll provide me the
strength, the wisdom and the courage to do what is right in this tenuous moments.
At the end of the Second World War, the United States was, in the words of then Secretary of State, tasked with creating an order, a world order, a
free half, as he quote -- in his quote, "out of chaos", without blowing to pieces, without blowing the whole of the world into pieces in the process.
And in the decades that followed, that global order served us quite well. Americans incomes rose and communities flourished. Alliances emerged in the
Indo-Pacific and Europe that led to the emergence of stability and democracy and prosperity in these regions.
(UNKNOWN): And you've had (inaudible).
(CROSSTALK)
RISCH: Back to order.
RUBIO: Alliances emerged in the Indo-Pacific and Europe that led to the emergence of stability, democracy and prosperity, but it also prevented a
cataclysmic world war. And ultimately a wall in Berlin came down, and with it an evil empire.
Out of the triumphalism of the end of the long Cold War emerged a bipartisan consensus. And this consensus was that we had reached the end of
history, that all of the nations of the world would now become members of the democratic Western-led community.
That a foreign policy that served the national interest could now be replaced by one that served the liberal world order. And that all mankind
was now destined to abandon national sovereignty and national identity, and would instead become one human family and citizens of the world.
This wasn't just a fantasy. We now know it was a dangerous delusion. Here in America, and in many of the advanced economies across the world, an
almost religious commitment to free and unfettered trade, at the expense of our national economy, shrunk the middle class, left the working class in
crisis, collapsed our industrial capacity, and has pushed critical supply chains into the hands of adversaries and of rivals.
An irrational zeal for maximum freedom of movement of people has resulted in a historic mass migration crisis here in America, but also around the
world. It's one that threatens the stability of societies and of governments.
Across the West, governments now censor and even prosecute domestic political opponents. Meanwhile, radical jihadists openly march in the
streets and sadly drive vehicles into our people. While America far too often continued to prioritize the global order above our core national
interests, other nations continue to act the way countries always have.
PROTESTER: (UNTRANSLATED)
RISCH: Back to order.
RUBIO: I get bilingual protests, which is, I think is an entry call (ph).
RISCH: Yeah. As you know, that's the first year for us, at least in recent times.
RUBIO: All right.
PROTESTER: (inaudible) is a human right.
RISCH: All right.
PROTESTER: Education is a human right. Sections against (inaudible).
RISCH: Back to order.
[10:30:00]
RUBIO: All right. So while America too often prioritize the global order above our core national interest, other nations continue to act the way
nations have always acted and always will, and what they perceive to be their best interest.
And instead of folding into the post-Cold War global order, they have manipulated it to serve their interests at the expense of ours. We welcome
the Chinese Communist Party into the global order and they took advantage of all of its benefits and they ignored all of its obligations and
responsibilities.
Instead, they have repressed and lied and cheated and hacked and stolen their way into global superpower status. And they have done so at our
expense and at the expense of the people of their own country. And our very own hemisphere, narco-terrorists and dictators and despots take advantage
of open borders to drive mass migration, to traffic and women and children, and to flood our communities with deadly fentanyl and violent criminals.
In Moscow, in Tehran, in Pyongyang dictators, rogue states now sow chaos and instability and align with and they fund radical terror groups, and
then they hide behind their veto power at the United Nations Security Council -- or the threats of nuclear war.
The post war global order is not just obsolete, it is now a weapon being used against us, and all this has led to a moment in which we must now
confront the single greatest risk of geopolitical instability and of generational global crises in (ph) the lifetime of anyone alive and in this
room today -- at (ph) eight decades later, we are once again called to create a free world out of the chaos.
And this will not be easy. And it will be impossible without a strong and a confident America that engages in the world, putting our core national
interests once again, above all else.
Just four years ago, I believe, we began to see the outlines and the beginnings of what that would look like. During President Trump's first
term, American strength was a deterrent to our adversaries and it gave us leverage in diplomacy. There were no new wars. ISIS was eviscerated.
Soleimani was dead. The historic Abraham Accords were born, and Americans were safer as a result.
Now, President Trump returns to office with an unmistakable mandate from the voters. They want a strong America, a strong America engaged in the
world, but guided by a clear objective, to promote peace abroad and security and prosperity here at home. That is the promise that President
Trump was elected to keep. And if I am confirmed, keeping that promise will be the core mission of the United States Department of State.
Now, tragically, horrifying atrocities and unimaginable human suffering can be found on virtually every continent, and I am certain that today, I will
be asked about the array of programs and the activities the Department of State carries out to address them.
We are a nation that (ph) was founded on the revolutionary truth that all men are created equal and that our rights come not from man or from
government, but from God, and so, we will never be indifferent the suffering of our fellow man, but ultimately, under President Trump, the top
priority of the United States Department of State will be the United States.
The direction he has given for the conduct of our foreign policy is clear, every dollar we spend, every program we fund, every policy we pursue, must
be justified by the answer to one of three questions, does it make America safer? Does it make America stronger? Or does it make America more
prosperous.
Under President Trump, the dollars of hard working American taxpayers will always be spent wisely and our power will always be yielded prudently and
towards what is best for America and Americans before anything and everything else.
Prudence in the conduct of foreign policy is not an abandonment of our values. It is the common sense understanding, that while we remain the
wealthiest and the most powerful nation on the earth, our wealth has never been unlimited and our power has never been infinite and placing our core
national interest above all else is not isolationism, it is the common- sense realization that our foreign -- that a foreign policy centered in our national interests is not some outdated relic.
Since the emergence of the modern nation state over two centuries ago, countries acting based on what they perceive to be their core national
interests, that has been the norm, not the exception. And for our country, placing the interests (ph) of America and Americans above all else, has
never been more relevant or more necessary than it is right now.
[10:35:00]
For in the end, how America (ph) -- how can America promote the cause of peace on earth if it is not first safe at home? What good is America to our
allies if it is not strong? And how can America help end the suffering of God's children across the world if it is not first prosperous here at home?
I thank you and I hope I can earn your support, whether it's because you believe I would do a good job or because you want to get rid of me.
(LAUGHTER)
RISCH: Either way, the result's the same. Thank you, Senator Rubio, I've -- I've always been impressed with your view, particularly on a 50,000 foot
level of the kind of problems that -- that we face in our lane and national (ph) security lane, foreign relations and intelligence, so appreciate those
remarks.
We're now going to start a round, I'm -- I'm going to allow 10 minute questions since this is a Cabinet level position. That doesn't mean you
have to use 10 minutes, but the 10 minutes are -- are there. And what I'm going to do in this hearing, and what I'm going to do in future hearings is
I will call on people based on seniority on the Committee at the time the gavel goes down.
And if you come after that, you'll be put in line after that and we'll go down the list like that.
In any event --
HILL: You hear the chairman there, James Risch, of course, laying out the rules, if you will, for how that questioning will go during the hearing for
Marco Rubio. We will continue to bring you more of that hearing throughout our time with you here on CONNECT THE WORLD.
Let's just dig in a little bit more on what we can expect from Marco Rubio. I'm joined again by Corey Brettschneider, who's a professor of political
science at Brown University.
When we look at this, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and where things stand, it is it is notable for senator Rubio to -- he's stressing --
not surprising here but stressing, of course, his parents, immigrants from Cuba, how much that has meant to his personal story, what this means for
him in terms of what this role would mean for him as well.
We saw some protesters, which we saw yesterday, of course, during Pete Hegseth's hearing. He is expected to face more favorable winds, if you
will, during this questioning but will certainly be facing some tough questions on a number of issues and how Donald Trump's world view will play
into his potential tenure as secretary of state.
Where do you expect the most focus from Democrats from their questions?
BRETTSCHNEIDER: Well, I think one question is whether or not they're going to see a light of day between senator Rubio's view of the world and the
view that he'll bring to this role and Donald Trump's.
And, frankly, we are all, many Americans, including myself and many Democrats, I would say, are worried about the statements that Donald Trump
has made. They are erratic at best, threatening to try to either buy or even invade Greenland.
Similar statements about Canada; those are -- speak to a kind of dangerous isolationism combined with saber-rattling. It's a not a view of the world,
of the kind that you saw from President Biden outlined in his speech about the need for stable alliances.
Where is Rubio on this?
Is he going to go along with Trump if he continues the saber-rattling or if he threatens our alliances, specifically with Ukraine and against Vladimir
Putin along with it?
Or will he stand up to the president and speak in favor of principles like international law, the importance of the NATO coalition?
Those are the fundamental policy issues.
[10:40:00]
This is a seasoned politician. You saw that in the opening statements. But we're going to get into the meat of the matter, the world and the United
States, shortly.
HILL: And to your point about Ukraine, he, of course, has voted against Ukraine aid. He did note in his opening statement there that the top
priority, in his words, must and will be the United States homing in on what he saw as that focus from the first term of Donald Trump.
And also noting, he told CNN at one point that this would be, this second Trump administration, an era of, in his words, "pragmatic foreign policy."
What is your sense of how he defines "pragmatic foreign policy"?
BRETTSCHNEIDER: Well, I think that's really the puzzle here. He certainly has to telegraph that he's not opposed to the president's agenda or that
nomination would pretty quickly be withdrawn.
And the reason why he has this role is that he signaled enough to the future president, former president Donald Trump, that he'll support him in
his agenda. And you're not going to see him certainly criticize the president.
But when he speaks to things like pragmatism, I think that is a signal of a more sane kind of foreign policy, a kind that might differ from the
president. And the truth is that there aren't going to be a lot of people in this cabinet, certainly not Pete Hegseth, who are going to stand up to
the president.
But Rubio comes in with his own credentials, his own constituency, his own service as a senator. And so he at least has the possibility of
independence.
And Democrats are not going to vote against him. I think -- or, sorry, even if they do vote against him, he will be confirmed. But the key here is to
get some concessions on basic matters of international policy.
HILL: Do you think there will be many of those?
BRETTSCHNEIDER: I think they're going to be vague if they're there. But I think he's going to try to send multiple signals. He'll certainly continue
to telegraph support of the president and his agenda.
But he also will signal, I predict, to people on the committee that he's going to be the adult in the room, the adult that we need when Trump goes
off the rails, when Trump threatens war sporadically.
He's going to be the one, the chief diplomat, that talks us down. So I think you're going to see -- and he's already doing it -- his savvy and,
yes, some telegraphing of sanity.
HILL: And how is this, you know, take us outside, if you could, just outside of this bubble that we live in here in the United States, quite
frankly, in terms of his world view and how that is playing.
There has been so much made and so much discussed leading up to the election, of course, since the election of Donald Trump, about what a
second Trump presidency would mean globally for adversaries but also for allies, frankly.
How is Marco Rubio viewed broadly, with, as you point out, the important questions about whether or not he will push back if he feels it is needed
against Donald Trump?
BRETTSCHNEIDER: Look, the world needs some assurance. We shouldn't beat around the bush. The president has said things not just about traditional
enemies of the United States but about core allies that are raising concerns about NATO, for instance and his commitment to it.
And at the extreme, there is a possibility that this president would signal and even try to pull out of NATO. So the president, though, is not the
entire apparatus of the United States or even its foreign policy apparatus. He's at the head of it.
But cabinet officials like the secretary of state are essential too. They speak to the world on behalf of the United States. And what I'm suggesting
-- and I think we really want to look for this -- is ultimately he will have the obligation, at least, to speak back on behalf of the world to a
president who has acted, at best, erratically.
HILL: Yes, it's an important note, Corey, appreciate it as always.
I want to take everybody back now to that hearing with, of course, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, as we listen in for the questioning of
Marco Rubio.
RISCH: -- problems there. The court originally was intended, at least from our point of view, to be a court that focused on international crimes that
were committed by people from countries who did not have a robust democracy nor a robust judicial system, that held its own people accountable for
crimes.
The court has gone beyond that obviously. They are not only focusing on people who aren't accountable elsewhere but they're also focusing on people
who come from countries that solve their own problems like the United States of America, and like Israel. The most recent -- the most recent
obvious thing that flowed from that was the indictment on the same day of Netanyahu, plus a Hamas character.
Any court that is a court of law has to be able to recognize good from bad. And when you try to indict two people and show some type of moral
equivalency in that regard they're just barking up the wrong tree. And I think unfortunately we're going to have to rein them up. Your thoughts on
that?
RUBIO: Well I think it's done -- the ICC has done tremendous damage to its global credibility. First of all, it is going after a nonmember state on
the claims that I believe -- in fact I think just in the last 24 hours ,the Israeli High Court filed an appeal before the ICC ,even though it's not a
member state. And I saw some of the filings from the prosecutor, Mr. Khan (ph), was involved in that process, and he argues that they have the right
to go after nonmembers for their activities within the confines of member states, in this case.
And I think first of all the whole premise of his prosecution is flawed beyond the process of it and the precedent that it sets which is a very
dangerous precedent for the United States of America by the way because this is a test run. This is a trial run to see can we go after a head of
state from a nation that's not a member. If we can go after them and we can get it done with regards to Israel, they will apply that to the United
States at some point. And in fact there've been threats to do so in the past.
[10:45:20]
But the premise of the prosecution itself is completely and utterly flawed, as you said.
They went ahead. I think they also went after (inaudible). He's not with us any longer. But he doesn't -- didn't travel around the world. Was -- there
was no risk of being apprehended.
Second of all, the moral equivalency piece of it was offensive. Let me explain. And I think I don't need to explain to this Committee. Hamas
carried out an atrocious operation. They sent a bunch of savages into Israel with the express and explicit purpose of targeting civilians. They
went into concerts. They went into these music festivals. They knew that there were no soldiers at the music festival. They knew that these were
teenagers and young families that they went into this -- into different communities and the kibbutz and the like ,and they deliberately targeted
civilians, deliberately. It was (inaudible) -- in fact they kidnaped the ones they didn't murder, the families who they didn't eviscerate, the
people whose skulls they didn't crack open, they kidnaped and to this day continue to hold people that they -- innocents that they took deliberate
operation.
In the case of Israel responding to that attack, has had to go after Hamas. How can you coexist? How can any nation state on the Planet coexist side by
side with a group of savages like Hamas? It's -- they have to defend their national security and their national interest as I pointed out in my
opening statement. And so there is no more -- and they didn't target civilians. Now sadly and unfortunately and I'm sure we'll discuss it
further, some of the other questions that will come up here today. One of the horrible things about war, it's a terrible thing about war and it's why
we should try to prevent it at almost any cost is that innocent people are caught up in it. And that's true of every conflict on the Planet.
But there is a difference between those who in the conduct of armed action deliberately target civilians and those who do as much as they can to avoid
civilians being caught up against an enemy that doesn't wear a uniform, against an enemy that hides in tunnels, against an enemy that hides behind
women and children and puts them at the forefront and uses them as human shields. That's who Hamas is. There is no moral equivalency. And I think
the ICC if they don't drop this will find its credibility globally badly damaged. And I think the United States should be very concerned because I
believe this is a test run for applying it to American servicemembers and American leaders in the future.
RISCH: Well said. I couldn't agree with you more. And certainly the court has badly damaged its reputation and it's going to have a long ways to go
to recover from that.
So with that, Senator Shaheen?
SHAHEEN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Rubio, as I said in my opening statement, I hope that this Committee can better collaborate to swiftly confirm career Foreign Service
officers. These are patriotic Americans who have served under both Democratic and Republican administrations and they work to advance U.S.
National Security interests. Delays in vacant posts hurt America's interest. I know you agree with that because we've had that conversation
but will you commit to working with Chairman Risch and me to prioritize the advancement and confirmation of career State Department officials?
RUBIO: Well the answer to that is yes. But I would also point to the fact that I think we're going to begin by prioritizing -- we're going to look at
what are the key issues in the world are. Obviously every post in the world is important or shouldn't exist. And then the question is which are the
ones we bring to you first. And those are the ones that I think are most critical. So obviously I think you'll see our nominees for the deputy posts
which are critically important, all the undersecretaries as well. And what I've endeavored to do is, we interview and identify people and I believe
I've met with and interviewed most of the candidates for those top posts is I want to bring you people that are three things. Number one, are aligned
to the mission. I think that's critically important whether they be Foreign Service officers. I'm not talking about political alignment. I'm talking
about alignment with the mission that we've outlined for American Foreign Policy which is one of the things that I think has hurt the State
Department under numerous administrations, is sometimes the mission or what it is the core mission of the department has not been well defined. That's
on our -- us and it's our obligation to define that. So number one aligned to the mission.
Number two ,the capability to do the job. And I can tell you now that entire -- in my entire service on this Committee which spans 14 years we
always had fellows from the Department of State I believe all of whom are still in the service of our country. And I intend because I know them and
I've worked with them to utilize their skill sets in our -- in the department. And in fact a couple who we hope will be returning home soon
from foreign postings to work with us at the State Department closer to my office.
[10:50:11]
But the point is that --
HILL: And you've been listening in there to Marco Rubio, his questioning, of course, after he was nominated for secretary of state for Donald Trump's
second administration.
We're going to take a quick break here. We'll continue to follow these developments as well as developments that we are monitoring very closely
out of Doha. Stay with us. You're watching CONNECT THE WORLD.
(MUSIC PLAYING)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(MUSIC PLAYING)
HILL: In new comments from secretary of state Antony Blinken just now, in an interview with our Christiane Amanpour, his final interview, TV
interview of his term, Blinken says negotiators are, in his words, "on the brink" of a Gaza ceasefire and hostage deal.
Here's more of what he had to say just moments ago.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ANTONY BLINKEN, U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE: We're on the brink. And it could, it should happen in the coming hours. But until it actually does, we're not
there. But if and when it does, two things.
It'll be on the basis of the plan that President Biden put forward back in May and that we rallied the entire world behind and ever since then. We've
been working to negotiate the details, the implementation. It's been delayed and derailed by different events.
But we're, I think, finally, at the point where this gets over the line. Once that happens, here's what happens.
First, the firing stops. Hamas, Israel stopped firing. Israel pulls back its forces. Hostages begin to be released. Prisoners come out of Israeli
jails and go back. And we surge humanitarian assistance to people who so desperately need it.
All of that happens during a six-week period. But also during that six weeks, we have to negotiate the understandings to get to a permanent cease-
fire so that Israel pulls all of its forces out of Gaza, Hamas doesn't come back in.
And there's the necessary governance, security, reconstruction arrangements so that Gaza can move forward.
CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Is that sorted?
BLINKEN: That's not sorted. We've worked on it intensely for the last six or seven months, intensely but quietly, with Arab partners, with others.
I think there's some basic understandings that we've reached. But the cease-fire itself hopefully would concentrate minds and get people to agree
on what's necessary to get that day-after post-conflict plan in place.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[10:55:05]
HILL: And there you hear it now from the outgoing secretary of state. Again, just speaking moments ago there in that interview with my colleague,
Christiane Amanpour. We are going to continue to follow those developments out of Doha, as we are hearing that an announcement of this deal could be
imminent.
Sources from the Israeli side also saying the same to my colleague, Jeremy Diamond.
As we continue to watch those developments in the Middle East, we're also keeping a very close watch on what is happening in Washington today. A
number of important hearings underway, Senate confirmation hearings for Donald Trump's pick for his incoming cabinet and officials.
You see, on your screen there, Pamela Bondi, who has been nominated for attorney general. We're also following the hearings for Marco Rubio, of
course, Trump's pick for secretary of state, and also John Ratcliffe, his pick for CIA director. They will all -- they are all being questioned at
this hour on Capitol Hill.
So we'll continue to bring you those developments as well. We're going to take a quick break here on CNN. The news continues at the top of the hour.
Stay with us.
[11:00:00]
END
