Return to Transcripts main page
Erin Burnett Outfront
Trump Defense Chief Issues Deadline For Senator Kelly Investigation; Report: Witkoff Told Russia How Putin Should Pitch Trump On Peace Plan; Dow Surges, Consumer Confidence Plunges. Aired 7- 8p ET
Aired November 25, 2025 - 19:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[19:00:30]
ERIN BURNETT, CNN HOST: OUTFRONT next:
Breaking news, Pete Hegseth issuing a deadline for an investigation into Senator Mark Kelly as Trump unleashes his FBI director on Kelly and the five other Democrats who told U.S. troops that they don't have to follow illegal orders. Is Trump on legitimate legal ground?
Also breaking, coaching Putin. A leaked transcript revealing that Trump's special envoy was advising the Kremlin on what to do to strike a deal with Trump. Russia says it's fake. But what's the truth?
Plus, we told you about this VW van. I don't know if you remember back in the Palisades fire that miraculously survived that horror of a fire in a neighborhood that was completely destroyed around it tonight, showing a whole new look. Wait until you see the arc of this story.
Let's go OUTFRONT.
(MUSIC)
BURNETT: And good evening. I'm Erin Burnett, an OUTFRONT tonight, the breaking news. Trump's defense secretary taking on Senator Mark Kelly.
In a new memo just out, Pete Hegseth is giving his Navy secretary a deadline to complete his review of Kelly's appearance in a video. Now, this is the video that Kelly appeared in, along with five other Democrats, in which -- and they were all had all served in the armed forces. They urged American troops not to follow illegal orders.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. MARK KELLY (D-AZ): Our laws are clear, you can refuse illegal orders.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BURNETT: And that there it was, right? You can refuse illegal orders. Now, Hegseth calls the video potentially unlawful, and it comes on the heels of Hegseth threat to court martial Kelly.
Now, Kelly and the five other Democrats who appeared in that video are now fighting back together after the FBI director, Kash Patel, notified them that the FBI would like to interview them, in a statement saying, "President Trump is using the FBI as a tool to intimidate and harass members of Congress. No amount of intimidation or harassment will ever stop us from doing our jobs and honoring our Constitution. We will not be bullied. We will never give up the ship."
Now, Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski is speaking out tonight. She says, "Senator Kelly valiantly served our country as an aviator in the U.S. Navy before later completing four space shuttle missions as a NASA astronaut. To accuse him and other lawmakers of treason and sedition for rightfully pointing out that service members can refuse illegal orders is reckless and flat out wrong. The Department of Defense and FBI surely have more important priorities than this frivolous investigation."
Trump, though, has seized on the video, and the Democrats in it, accusing them of seditious behavior and specifically telling them on social media, quote, "seditious behavior is punishable by death." Now, to say that there, of course, is a pretty incredible thing. The threats from president of the United States do have real and alarming consequences.
Just listen to the threats that Congressman Jason Crow, who is part of the video, says that he's received.
(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)
CALLER: He deserved to die. I hope you all get murdered. I hope you all get (EXPLETIVE DELETED) throat slashed.
CALLER: You disgraced America and I pray you die today, but not before your family does. I pray they die a painful death. Hurry up and die. You worthless (EXPLETIVE DELETED) traitor.
(END AUDIO CLIP)
BURNETT: It's pretty incredible to think about that. Think about people that would call and say that. Every Democrat in that video has received threats, according to "The New York Times".
But death threats as a result of his words is not something that has recently seemed to bother the president of the United States. Just listen to how he responded after Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene said she received death threats after Trump called her a traitor.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I don't think her life is in danger. I don't think, frankly, I don't think anybody cares about her.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BURNETT: Kristen Holmes is traveling with the president, who, of course, has left Washington for the Thanksgiving holiday. So, she is OUTFRONT in West Palm Beach, Florida. Kristen, how involved is Trump in the FBI and pentagon probes of these
Democrats?
KRISTEN HOLMES, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, he's fully involved. We know the White House is completely on board. We've talked to the press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, who said essentially that, that the White House backs this and that they believe that there was seditious behavior by these Democrats putting forward this video, which they say was encouraging these members of the military, as well as the intelligence community to go around the chain of command.
[19:05:03]
And I will tell you that the FBI director, Kash Patel, was at the White House this afternoon, same time we're seeing these letters that we know went from the FBI to the Senate sergeant of arms, which serves as essentially the chief law enforcement officer for the Senate as a whole, asking for these various appointments. Now, we don't know what goes on beyond that, but we do know that President Trump is all in on these investigations, on any pushback that were seeing.
And I do, just really quickly, I have to note, you know, that sound bite you played about Trump talking about Marjorie Taylor Greene. He actually went on and said, she's not a victim. She's painting herself as a victim.
And this really is a pattern here. And I know for her, from sources who are close to her, that was jarring to hear him say that because these were very real threats. But you can see that the president and to some extent, the White House, they are putting that to the side and not taking that into account, and instead doubling down on this narrative.
Now, we haven't heard President Trump say anything like he did the first day where he said that sedition is punishable by death.
BURNETT: Right.
HOLMES: He actually walked those comments back a little bit, saying that that's not what he meant. And of course, we heard the White House saying they didn't want these Democratic lawmakers executed. But when it comes to actually pursuing this investigation, these sitting down with these Democratic lawmakers, they have been all in on this. Karoline Leavitt telling me in particular, when I was asking questions about this, that she still is maintaining that the Democrats were wrong because no Democrats have been able to say if there have been any illegal orders.
So, there is no backing down from the White House when it comes to this.
BURNETT: All right, Kristen, thank you very much, as I said in Palm Beach tonight.
My panel is here. Mondaire Jones, you know, what do you make of Trump's response to this
video? I mean, especially now that they're upping the ante, right, that you have FBI investigations and an investigation at the Pentagon, essentially a court martial.
MONDAIRE JONES (D), FORMER U.S. REPRESENTATIVE: It makes my blood boil to see people who risked life and limb for this country, treated so despicably by this president of the United States.
You know, I know Mark Kelly, right? I've traveled the world with him on a congressional delegation. People in this country will be so proud to see how well he represents this country.
I served with Elissa Slotkin. I served with Jason Crow. What they did was not illegal. It was not inappropriate in any way. If anything, we've got a lot of evidence that this president has already and will in the future, encourage illegal conduct.
And so just to remind service members of the fact that they don't have to follow unlawful orders is a perfectly appropriate thing to do. And, you know, for a president who has talked often in bad faith about how Democrats have incited violence against him, for him to, especially after his own experience in the violent attempted insurrection at the Capitol on January 6th to proceed to incite violence against these six Democratic lawmakers, shows that he doesn't actually care about the safety of people and of a lack of, you know, about violence in our politics.
BURNETT: I'm going to play some more of the death threats that have been received.
Paul, let me ask you, though, you're obviously a former Army officer and you're the founder of -- and the CEO of Independent Veterans of America.
So how are veterans responding to this? I mean, the six Democrats that put this out, what they were saying was something that's in the code of conduct, right? Which is you don't need to follow illegal orders, right? And that's been -- everybody serving should know that. But how are veterans reacting to this?
PAUL RIECKHOFF, FOUNDER & CEO, INDEPENDENT VETERANS OF AMERICA: Veterans are not a monolith, but I think this is one of those examples of where they understand how things are supposed to work. They know they're not supposed to follow illegal orders. If anything, the Democrats video was obvious, clumsy, but everybody in the military from basic training all the way up, knows you have an obligation to refuse an illegal order. And that is separate.
Now, what the president has done is absolutely uncharted territories. I think he's crossed the Rubicon that should send a chill not just across members of Congress, but against all military folks who ever served, all retirees. Because what he's saying is, your free speech is not protected. I can drag you back onto active duty if you're a military retiree and try you under the UCMJ for sedition, for treason, and threaten you with capital punishment. I mean, this is absolutely egregious, dangerous. Its un-American. It's
the stuff you hear in North Korea and in Russia, not in America, because it's not just about Senator Kelly, who is decorated, who is respected.
BURNETT: Right.
RIECKHOFF: There are two million military retirees in America. And if Donald Trump can come after one of them for free speech, he can come after any of them.
BURNETT: So, is there any legal ground for this? I mean, on a certain you say, you say, I like the word you use. Maybe it's clumsy, right? Maybe they -- maybe they didn't need to do it. But there's nothing wrong with telling people something that is a fact, which is what they did. And now, the repercussions that could come from this. Is there any legal standing for it?
RYAN GOODMAN, FORMER SPECIAL COUNSEL AT DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE: There's not. As a military law experts are saying now, the charge --
[19:10:03]
BURNETT: By the way, I'm sorry to interrupt, but I want everyone to know because they see you here every night. You worked for the Pentagon.
GOODMAN: Right.
BURNETT: So you are very familiar with what the rules and process would be here.
GOODMAN: Yes. And I teach it. This is one of my courses that I teach. And the way I think about it, even the video and the way in which the Democratic lawmakers describe the law, I'd give them like an A-minus on their final exam. It's a perfectly good description.
Maybe I'd say more about manifestly unlawful orders, but they don't need that in there. It's perfectly reasonable what they said. It's accurate what they said.
They are also not just exercising free speech, but their members of Congress who have as a core constitutional authority, as members of Congress to make rules for the government and regulation of the armed forces. That's in Article One of the Constitution.
They have more authority to speak on these issues than somebody in the executive branch in some respects. And all they are doing is articulating what the actual law is. And I also found it fascinating that there were members of the House GOP veterans who put out a competing video, but their competing video states the same law. They just say, you may not refuse a legal order, correct.
BURNETT: But you may not refuse a legal order. But you can refuse an illegal order. I mean, it's kind of absurd. The rhetorical, but that's right. It's saying the same thing from different perspective. Mondaire, the death threats that these individuals are receiving are terrifying. What Congressman Crow put out, I'll just play part of that again, that they released from calls that Crow has received.
(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)
CALLER: He deserved to die. I hope you all get murdered. I hope you all get (EXPLETIVE DELETED) choked, slashed.
CALLER: You disgraced America and I pray you die today, but not before your family does. I pray they die a painful death. Hurry up and die, you worthless (EXPLETIVE DELETED) traitor.
(END AUDIO CLIP)
BURNETT: So, Mondaire, obviously, you mentioned that you know the people who are receiving these threats, right? You know Jason Crow, who put that out there? We heard Lisa Murkowski say this is all unacceptable.
Are we going to see more people say that in this case?
JONES: You know, people talk about a red line, what that red line may be for House and Senate Republicans. And I'll just tell you, as someone who has the experience of serving that rhetoric essentially means nothing at this point from these people, if it ever meant anything. Okay?
What are you going to do to stand up to this administration? You have the gavel in the House and in the Senate. Are you going to hold hearings? Are you going to stop giving this president money, funding illegal activity like what were seeing? And, you know, obviously there was also earlier this week the dismissal of just baloney indictments against James Comey and New York Attorney General Tish James.
BURNETT: Yeah.
JONES: Are you going to do press conferences and make it uncomfortable? And politically painful for this administration to continue along these lines? Or are you going to do what I saw a House Republican do earlier this week, which was draw a false equivalency and say how terrible it is that the president is doing this and nothing more?
I mean, that -- I appreciate what Senator Murkowski is doing, but what is she going to do? Is she going to stop confirming this president's nominees?
BURNETT: Repercussions.
JONES: You know, what is the leverage that is going to be exercised by members of this co-equal branch of government? Rhetoric means nothing at this point.
BURNETT: So, but what are you hearing from active service members about their feelings and what is an incredibly fraught moment? Not just -- not just this, but I mean, fraught for the military in many ways right now.
RIECKHOFF: I think it's the latest escalation of a and weaponization of the military and the Department of Defense and the secretary of defense on a level we've never seen before. They are caught in the middle of the worst of our politics every single day. They feel like a political chew toy.
But I think it's important to also understand they know right from wrong. This is not about Democrat and Republican. This is about right and wrong. And it's good that Murkowski has spoken out. More Republicans need to do that because they know that this is wrong. This is very uncharted territory.
Because it's also about honor and integrity and trying to ruin a man and a woman, their reputation, right? People who have served our country, it's not about them being Democrats, but to impugn their integrity, to call them traitors.
BURNETT: We don't want to make this about one person or six people, because obviously, you talk about millions of people.
RIECKHOFF: Right, right.
BURNETT: But Senator Mark Kelly, I think does stand for some of the best our country has to offer. And I don't know any Democrat or Republican who would disagree with that.
RIECKHOFF: And I think that's part of why Trump has targeted him. He's made a list of political enemies and opponents that he wants to target. And that's the really chilling message here, is that if you oppose him on Ukraine or you oppose him on National Guard deployments, or you oppose him on Venezuela, that he can come after you.
And even if he doesn't have legal standing, he can tarnish your reputation. He can create a toxic environment that threatens your family, and he can make it bad for not just him, but for everyone in Congress.
This will send a chilling effect across Congress and across the entire country, especially folks who are watching right now who are thinking, hey, did I post something on my Facebook page that might get me in trouble from back when I was in the military?
[19:15:01]
That is a real fear right now. It's very dangerous.
BURNETT: Well, it's interesting you say that because it changes the Comey and Letitia James or Adam Schiff or even Mark Kelly, right, of people who I would put way down on Trump's list before now, but of people that he wanted to go after to open it up to a much wider aperture. Okay?
JONES: It's also not lost on President Trump and the people around him that Mark Kelly could well be the next president of the United States in a few years. And so, I don't -- I don't think that this is all happening in a vacuum either.
BURNETT: So, Ryan, as because of your role as special counsel of the Department of Defense, when you have Pete Hegseth involved, specifically with Mark Kelly and saying there's this investigation going on and what is what is the deadline, December 10th, that that there's going to be some result of this investigation.
What does this mean? What's actually at stake from the military legal perspective box?
GOODMAN: So, I think what's not at stake is Senator Kelly being convicted. I actually just don't think that hangs in the balance. There's no crime here.
And what Secretary Hegseth has done and the president have done have also polluted any attempt to really get at a criminal charge or conviction because of what's called unlawful command influence by besmirching the person and already suggesting that they're guilty, all sorts of things like that.
So, I think what it is, is it's about a long, drawn out criminal process to smear a person's reputation. And that's what -- that's what it's really about. And I think it's about sending a signal to try to chill the speech of others by saying, if I'm going to be willing to go after senator Kelly, then I can go after other people who are not as powerful as him.
But I think Senator Kelly is doing the right thing in the moment, which is to stand up and be strong, stand by his convictions, say that he, in fact, will meet the moment which he's doing, which I think sends another signal that that's in fact, what the nation calls for, for people who have that kind of honor and are willing to speak about the truth.
BURNETT: Yeah.
RIECKHOFF: It's very different because he's using the Pentagon this time. This is not the Justice Department. This is the weaponization and politicization of the Pentagon in a way we've never seen before. I don't think there is any precedent for this in the time of the modern military.
BURNETT: Yeah. And obviously, I think it's so important you put it that way as to why this moment matters. Thank you all very much.
And next, we have breaking news. We have a shocking new leak actually revealing a top Trump official was coaching the Russians. How to butter up Trump to get what they wanted from him. Is this how Putin got Trump to push that peace plan that was Putin's wish list?
Plus, this:
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Our country is doing really well economically, like we've never done before. (END VIDEO CLIP)
BURNETT: Consumer confidence numbers show a very, very different picture. What is the truth? Einstein and Ives will be here tonight.
And remember the VW van that survived the California wildfires?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BURNETT: This went through the fire. You see the burnt headlight.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BURNETT: That van was the only thing standing in that neighborhood in malibu. That was decimated by the flames. And tonight, a big development in this story.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[19:22:23]
BURNETT: Breaking news a leaked transcript of a call between Trump envoy Steve Witkoff and one of Putin's top aides. Witkoff, a real estate lawyer, according to a transcript published by Bloomberg, is quoted advising a senior Kremlin aide last month about how to strike a deal with Trump, and he urges the aid to praise Trump on his Gaza deal as a way to curry favor and get Trump on board.
Here's the quote from Witkoff. He says, "Just reiterate that you congratulate the president on this achievement, that you supported it, that you respect that he is a man of peace. And you're just -- you're really glad to have seen it happen." Putin's aide replies to Witkoff, "I agree with you that he will congratulate. He will say that Mr. Trump is a real peace man and so and so."
Well, that's exactly what happened. Putin called Trump two days later. That's the day they spoke for 2-1/2 hours. If you remember, and Trump called that conversation very productive.
Well, the following day, Zelenskyy visited the visited the White House. And that had been sort of set up in the anticipation that Trump was going to provide Ukraine those longer range missiles -- well, that that could hit Moscow. But after the call with Putin, Zelenskyy shows up and boom, no, request denied.
Republican Congressman Brian Fitzpatrick, seeing all of these transcripts, tweeting, quote, "This is a major problem and one of the many reasons why these ridiculous sideshows and secret meetings need to stop, allow Secretary of State Marco Rubio to do his job in a fair and objective manner."
Republican Congressman Don Bacon, also posting, quote, "It's clear Witkoff fully favors the Russians. He should be fired." Blunt words.
It comes as Trump and Zelenskyy apparently now agree on some points of a possible peace deal. And guess who Trump has dispatched to meet with Putin to talk about it? Steve Witkoff.
OUTFRONT now, Christo Grozev, investigative journalist who has been placed on Russia's wanted list.
And Christo, I appreciate your time tonight.
So, Russia says some of these transcripts that "Bloomberg" has are fake. The White House is not denying their veracity. It simply says that the reporting proves Witkoff talks to officials every day to achieve peace.
What's your reporting, Christo? I know you've got a lot of new information here.
CHRISTO GROZEV, INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALIST: Well, first of all, this is an probably an unprecedented leak from my experience. I don't think we've ever seen a combination of two leaks. One is a call between Witkoff and Yuri Ushakov, the senior adviser to president Putin.
But the other one is between two Russian officials, the -- Kirill Dmitriev, who's the official -- unofficial official negotiator on behalf of the Kremlin with the United States on all matters relating to peacemaking in Ukraine.
[19:25:06]
And Ushakov, again the top senior adviser to Putin.
Now what these two calls show to us is that there was and in fact, a collusion. I couldn't say it in any other way, couldn't describe it with any other verb or adjective, but it's a colluding between, the person who is supposed to represent the United States interest in the negotiation, and the Russian official in how to actually gaslight, how to manipulate the American president into accepting deals --
BURNETT: Right.
GROZEV: -- that deal terms that favor the Russian government only. That's kind of the nuts and bolts of this -- of these two leaks. But equally, this sheds light on the origin story of these 28-point terms that that were passed on and given as an ultimatum to the Ukrainian side a couple of days ago, they were presented as an American invention, as an American creation. But in fact, my own reporting earlier suggested this was a Russian boilerplate that was created six months ago or more. And essentially it was just passed on to the United States to be presented as an American position to the Ukrainian government.
And these calls actually confirm exactly that. We hear in these calls, we see in the transcripts that the Russians are talking between themselves, whether or not the Americans will make even the smallest of changes to this.
BURNETT: So, Christo, I just want -- let me jump in here because I want to read these parts. So, you're talking about the peace plan, right? So, Witkoff was trying to do everything he could to help the Kremlin get a peace plan out there.
So, Witkoff says in the transcript that Bloomberg's put out between Witkoff and the senior Russian negotiator. Witkoff says, you know, I have the deepest respect for President Putin. Maybe he says to President Trump, you know, Steve and Yuri discussed a very similar 20- point plan to peace. And I think, Yuri, the president will give me a lot of ace and discretion to get to the deal.
Now, that's extremely disturbing to read. But then Christo, the call that you mentioned between the two Russian officials, this is, I don't want to say, the cherry on the top, because that implies something good. But this is the this makes the point. The two Russian officials say to each other, I think we'll just make this paper from our position and let them do it like their own. But I don't think they'll take exactly our version, but at least it will be as close to it as possible.
That is what your reporting said, Christo. And then you see this in black and white. This is incredible
GROZEV: Correct. I need to correct a little bit the translation that "Bloomberg" published, because the real translation of the Russian is let's give them our version and they'll pretend it's their own. They'll make it as if it's their own. And these are really disturbing words.
And they essentially confirm my own finding, which is that much of what we saw in these 28 points reflects something that I saw that I was read into six months ago by Russian insider who told me, this is what we proposed, what we plan to propose to the United States.
So essentially, we're seeing Steve Witkoff siding with something that is a Russian proposal, substantially Russian proposal. Maybe there are a couple of these 28 points that were added later, but they don't reflect the core of a pro-Russian position. And trying to convince Trump to make him believe that it's his own.
It's essentially gaslighting the American president. I don't see it any other way.
BURNETT: Well, I mean, there's other words that could be used in the context of what we talked about in our last block, though I want to be careful with words we use in this context, but it's very disturbing.
I am curious because, Christo, you've had this reporting, you've been saying this, right, that there was a Russian plan that matches this one. Now that these transcripts come out, this all becomes you know, disturbingly clear. Who do you think leaked these transcripts? How do you think they got them?
GROZEV: Well, what we can be sure is that it's not a U.S. leak. I cannot see any situation in which a U.S. entity such as the NSA would be -- would consider leaking this, considering that there's an American government official on the calls. But we have at least two other strong candidates for this leak. One is any European agency that would be disturbed, by hearing this, that they would have been able to see the danger of what they're hearing in case they were tapping this.
And the second one would be an actual insider in the Kremlin. One of their intelligence services that are trying to torpedo the peace process or any semblance of a peace process. And there are many of those.
But in terms of the feasibility of such a leak, let me just confirm that our previous reporting over 10 years early in my career at Bellingcat and recently with "The Insider" and "Ders Spiegel", has found numerous -- hundreds of cases in which government officials, Russian government officials in very sensitive positions are using a regular telephone lines instead of encrypted messengers just because it's easier for them and they feel that they're -- there's impunity for what they're doing.
[19:30:05]
And such regular telephone calls can be intercepted. And decrypted by most European agencies. So, it's either European country or the Kremlin or insider. The Kremlin that leaked this, in my view.
BURNETT: All right. So, Christo, Trump was just talking on air force one. You know, he just went down to Florida for the -- for the Thanksgiving holiday. And he is saying that Russia is making big concessions in all of this. Here's what he just said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: Making concessions. The big concession to say, stop fighting. And they don't take any more land.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BURNETT: What does it say to you that that's how the president of the United States defines a concession
GROZEV: Again, I mean, I -- now that we've seen the transcript, I have to give him the benefit of the doubt that maybe he's hearing a completely irrational version of events of the universe from the person that he's tasked with giving him the best read of what the Russians feel about it. If that's coming from Steve Witkoff, maybe Trump really believes that.
But in actual fact, none of the points that we saw in the 28-point proposal, present any concessions on behalf of Russia. All of that is pro-Russian. Even the one item that was included there that may have appeared to somebody reading it as a Russian compromise, which is the deployment of fighter jets in Poland to protect Ukraine, even that, most likely is something that the Russians insisted in order to prevent Ukraine from buying their own fighter jets from European providers, which is something that Russia has been very concerned about.
So, I do not see a single point that is a concession by Russia.
BURNETT: Christo, thank you very much. I'm grateful for your time. GROZEV: Thank you
BURNETT: And OUTFRONT next, the pope with a message tonight about something he thought was important that might surprise you when you hear it.
Plus, the Dow soaring while American consumers confidence plunges. So, what is the reality? Einstein and Ives are standing by. They're about to join us next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[19:36:51]
BURNETT: Breaking news, the Dow jumping more than 600 points tonight, even though consumer confidence in the United States plummeted to its lowest level since Trump started a trade war. New reports also show inflation rising in September and layoffs over the past four weeks. There have been more of them from private companies.
Yet today, the president stuck with his message before he left for Mar-a-Lago.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: It's a great time of the year and our country is doing really well economically, like we've never done before.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BURNETT: That's not true.
And it comes as Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent dropped this hint today about a possible new chair of the Federal Reserve.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SCOTT BESSENT, TREASURY SECRETARY: I think that there's a very good chance that the president will make an announcement before Christmas, but it's his prerogative, whether it's the -- before the Christmas holidays in the New Year's. But things are moving along very well.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BURNETT: Einstein and Ives are OUTFRONT.
And, Dan, you know, the reason I came out of that and said that's not true is a very basic thing, which is that, yes, the Dow might be maybe A.I. all the all the things the president may be basing some of those commentary on may be true, but it is also true that a lot of people are suffering and they're suffering from prices going up, and they are suffering from layoffs. And they're -- and these are real problems, and they're tangible. And much of this country may already be in a recession. Okay. These things are all true.
So, what is the -- what is the reality? How long can you have the Dow keep going up and so many people be suffering the way they are?
DAN IVES, GLOBAL HEAD OF TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH, WEDBUSH SECURITIES: Well, I think right now, I mean, there's almost two economies going on. I mean, in terms of big tech, A.I. revolution, you know that's a bullish environment that we see in terms of specifically for U.S. big tech.
But no doubt, you look at consumer confidence. You look at some of these numbers. You're seeing a lot of consumers that are suffering. And I think you go into holiday season, that's definitely not going to be that cheery relative to, I think some of the consumer spending.
Look, but it also speaks to why and we've talked about this. That's also why Fed needs to cut. That's a shot across the bow from Bessent in terms of, you next Fed chairman, I think that's what we're seeing. This is -- this is a little white knuckle.
BURNETT: So, and the consumer confidence numbers here's our -- here's our board. This is the number we were talking about today. So, it came out today at 88.7. Actually, you know what? I want to write it down here, 88.7. Okay, 88.7. That's the lowest since the tariffs.
PETER TUCHMAN, TRADER AT THE NEW YORK STOCK EXCHANGE: Okay.
BURNETT: Okay. Here's positive, negative. When you're below zero -- below 100 --
TUCHMAN: Right.
BURNETT: -- you're negative okay. You're above 100, you're positive.
When Trump came into office November 2024, 112.4.
TUCHMAN: Positive.
BURNETT: Very positive, right? You're well above 100. But now, you're well below it. And this is a number that's pretty darn close to what it was at the moment of the tariffs, when there was like a real, palpable, tangible fear out there.
TUCHMAN: That was when, look, that's when the three of us started this thing, right? February 19th was when the beginning of that fall and over 11 weeks, the market sold off 20.8 percent. We called it -- Dan called it a self-inflicted economic Armageddon. Right? That's why.
I mean, there was fear and it was obviously a borne out by the consumer confidence number.
[19:40:01]
I sort of have a little bit of a dissent here because I think, yes, there is two different economies. Right? There's -- the people who are investing in and trading the market are not people who are living paycheck to paycheck. Let's be clear about that.
And very often, sometimes markets and the economy trade in concert. And sometimes they trade completely differently. And so, you get this impression that, oh, if the markets going up 600 points, we've had three back to back days now where the VIX, the fear index is going down after three large days up and the markets going up aggressively.
And so, you would think, oh, well, everything's fine but not necessarily, right? Because obviously the inflation numbers and what's a little bit disconcerting is we don't have so many of those numbers. We have been driving blind for the last two months.
IVES: But also it speaks to why, as we've said, Fed needs to cut and that's the reality.
BURNETT: Okay. Can I ask you about that? Said the Fed needs to cut and I know Trump wants the fed to cut. And that's why we might get a new fed chair. All of these things, okay?
But why does the Fed need to cut when inflation is a problem, and devaluing the dollar is a problem? And we have this massive debt crisis that's a problem. And then you're cutting into that. I understand you want to try to help people out with interest rates. I get that, but it's not that obvious, is it?
IVES: Well, no. Look, and that it speaks to some on the Fed that have descended. Right. And we've talked about it.
Look, I think the reality is, is that if you look what the markets telling you relative to the 10-year relative to what we see in terms of rates as a pressure in the economy, you want to see rate cuts to relieve, obviously, the banking system and especially what we see here.
TUCHMAN: And also housing.
BURNETT: Housing.
TUCHMAN: You've got sectors that are completely frozen --
IVES: Housing.
TUCHMAN: -- having higher interest rates for as long as they've been that way
IVES: Housing is right now essentially stalled --
BURNETT: Housing recession, which Bessent admits himself.
TUCHMAN: Correct. But I think you need to read. Look, I always joke on the floor saying that the markets telling -- the markets doing what it wants to do. It's telling you exactly what it feels about there.
There must be large funds and investors out there who are in portfolios that are very interest rate sensitive because given Palantir and Nvidia earnings came out last week, blowout, right? Palantir had sold off because it had rallied seven days into the earnings. Nvidia went up because it had sold off into the earnings. However, the minute we had that fear that we were not -- the minute
that Powell said that December cut is not a surety. Well, that was market sold off 1,000 points the minute that was retracted and we had an 85 percent probability, it went up three days in a row of 700 points.
IVES: It was 22 percent chance, okay, that they were going to cut --
TUCHMAN: Now 85 percent --
(CROSSTALK)
IVES: -- of a cut that they're going to --
TUCHMAN: We -- he even said he said the probability of us not getting a cut was the same as me playing center for the New York --
BURNETT: Candy all day long if you give him candy, and sometimes they need to have nutrients.
IVES: Well, look, and that's why it also comes down to like, who the next Fed chair. Right. Look.
(CROSSTALK)
IVES: But also not only up, but also, he likes candy, too. So, I mean, it's -- it's playing into.
BURNETT: One company, okay, in the dearth of data that we have, right, and actually, it's funny, in the whole world of A.I., I'm sort of like, okay, this data they're gathering, we shouldn't need it. We should have plenty.
But it's still -- it is scary. But you say there is one company because you follow a lot of consumer companies as well as A.I., but one company to watch.
IVES: Target, because I think if you look at Target, if you look at that stock, I mean, you've talked about it. That's really a barometer. What I think has happened from a U.S. consumer perspective.
Now, of course, big tech, we're in a bullish market. But that's when I look at that chart. That's been -- it's been a very tough year for target. And I think it shows the pressure on the U.S. --
TUCHMAN: They're saying that if people are -- if the economy is out there and not, they're not even shopping at Target, then that shows that's the barometer that people are really struggling.
IVES: And the pressure that you're seeing, even though he I mean, all he does is he caviar. The reality is, is that, you know, it's -- and he does like --
BURNETT: When from sugar to caviar. I know he likes caviar.
IVES: He does like it. TUCHMAN: I work hard --
IVES: But it shows, Erin, the reality is like we are in like -- we're in one of those moments where this is the moment that Feds going to need to cut and it needs to navigate to make sure that we don't get into recession next year.
BURNETT: Yeah, it'd be nice if we had some kind of fiscal responsibility along with it. But hey.
TUCHMAN: You know what? Look, it also -- look, hopefully, there'll be some back wind with the market going up and up and up as it is doing. Maybe it'll pull the economy up with it.
BURNETT: All right. Thank you both. And a happy Thanksgiving.
IVES: Happy Thanksgiving.
BURNETT: And next, Pope Leo says one spouse per person. Why does such a thing need to be said? Harry Enten will tell us something we don't know.
Plus, remember the blue WV bus? It was the only thing standing after the California wildfires tore through Malibu. Tonight, the symbol of hope gets a makeover.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[19:49:21]
BURNETT: New tonight one spouse per person. That is the plea from Pope Leo, who tonight signed off on a Vatican statement against polygamy and polyamory, saying monogamy is the only way which had us asking questions about how widespread polygamy and polyamory may be, that the pope felt the need to speak out about it right now.
Harry Enten is here to tell us something that we don't know.
So, Harry, why -- you know, we know the pope was responding in part to concerns from African bishops who are concerned about the rise of polygamy that they are dealing with. They had wanted this statement.
HARRY ENTEN, CNN CHIEF DATA ANALYST: Yes.
BURNETT: Okay, but what are the basics? Like why? Why do this now?
[19:50:00]
ENTEN: I mean, look, I think there are a number of reasons why you mentioned. Of course, Africa, where, you know, this pope is trying to make a real sort of statement. But more than that, you know, it's not just Africa where we see polygamy, you know, at high levels.
In America, for example, the number of Americans in a polyamorous relationship, I was crunching some numbers, we're talking upwards of nine million Americans in a polyamorous relationship. Now, I should point out it's an estimate because it turns out there's
no exact poll asking this question. But when you sort of put the different estimates together, we think it's about nine million people, which is a lot of folks.
BURNETT: It is a lot of people. I mean, when you think about it, I mean, I understand the percentage. Maybe it's not that large, but it is a lot of people. So let's talk about this.
I mean, polygamy, polyamory for a while were taboo, right? There were certain places where it would happen in this country that people would think, you know, so but it became something that wasn't very common. Is it now more morally acceptable?
ENTEN: Yeah. This is where -- so, you know, building a trend line as to how many people are in a polyamorous relationship now versus 20 years ago is a little bit difficult. But we do know that the percentage who say its morally acceptable is up like a rocket. I mean, you compare it to 20 years ago, we were talking about just 6 percent.
Look at it now, 21 percent say polygamy is morally acceptable. Now, that is a rise of more than three times.
BURNETT: Can I just say something? That's one in five people --
ENTEN: Yes.
BURNETT: -- think it's okay to have multiple spouses.
ENTEN: That's exactly right. One in five. And that is led by younger folks where that percentage is over 30 percent.
BURNETT: One third.
ENTEN: Yes.
BURNETT: This is really incredible. This is I mean, you know, it starts with a question in the morning and we say, well, what's going on here? I mean that's wow. That really has you thinking, okay, there's a lot -- a lot, a lot there.
You've already told me a lot of things I don't know. Tell me something else.
ENTEN: I'll tell you two things you don't know. First off, polyamorous. That word did not actually enter the English language until 1990. That is a very new word. Polyamorous becoming a new word.
And more than that, you might think, okay, polygamy, you might think of the state of Utah, Mormonism. But in fact, the two states where that Google polyamorous relationships the most are actually Alaska and Oregon, not very religious states.
BURNETT: Wow, that is very interesting. It's also interesting the pictures you pick to put in a bunch of people --
ENTEN: I got -- I got people with hands going on top of hands --
BURNETT: Faces because --
ENTEN: Yeah, you know?
BURNETT: I like that you picked --
ENTEN: Monogamy for me. Thank you.
BURNETT: All right. Thank you.
ENTEN: Thank you.
BURNETT: And next, an incredible update tonight about that blue VW bus that we showed you earlier this year, a bus that was still standing when we went to this neighborhood in Malibu where absolutely everything and every other car had been completely melted down
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[19:57:17]
BURNETT: Tonight, a symbol of hope. Remember the vintage Volkswagen bus? The 1977 bus there in Malibu that was miraculously on a street after the L.A. fires? The rest of the neighborhood around it was totally obliterated.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BURNETT: It is just a couple hundred feet from where I'm standing tonight. It miraculously survived the flames, which destroyed everything around me on this street.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BURNETT: It's just such an incredible thing to remember. I remember going there saying, could this be real? And then it was. And you could see all the parts of it that were burnt out, and somehow that bright blue was there.
And since the bus has undergone a full remodel, now getting love and national attention and Nick Watt is OUTFRONT.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
NICK WATT, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): So many people saw hope in this picture. The little blue miracle, a 1977 VW microbus, among the grays and blacks of destruction and despair.
BURNETT: This went through the fire. You see the burnt headlight.
WATT (voice-over): OUTFRONT was on the case. This was back in January. Found the bus and --
BURNETT: So we wanted to know who owned it to get the story here. And we found them. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Wow. It is magic.
WATT (voice-over): Current owner Megan Weinraub (ph), Malibu surfer.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I'm speechless to see all the houses burned and I can't believe that Azul, the bus, that's what we named it survived. Like it's -- I'm just in shock.
WATT (voice-over): Now, more shock. Good shock. The magic bus has had a makeover, now reunited with her owner.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: She's beautiful.
WATT (voice-over): How did this happen?
Well, Volkswagen folks also saw that viral pic of the little singed survivor. And they asked if they could help. Picked Azul up and got to work.
GUNNAR WYNARSKI, VEHICLE TECHNICIAN, VOLKSWAGEN: We found the car with a busted rear windows. We had ashes inside. We had embers inside and nothing combusted and we drained 11 gallons of fuel of the car.
Why didn't it burn? I don't know.
WATT (voice-over): They worked on Azul for 2,000 hours to bring a bus back to life. Every part was restored. That eye catching blue paint had to be custom mixed.
But what about the Palisades then, now? Nearly 7,000 structures destroyed so far, only one home has been completely rebuilt. A certificate of occupancy was issued just last week.
Azul is now back, charm intact, and even better than before. Can we hope for the same for the Palisades?
(END VIDEOTAPE)
WATT (on camera): And the reaction Azul is getting here at the L.A. Auto Show. Wow. People still can't quite believe that Azul survived. And the detail people remember is insane.
Rory, if you come around here, one guy I saw looking at it, he said, oh, yeah, that's the light that melted. He remembered.
His wife said, you know, this was a symbol of survival. It's now a symbol that you can bring stuff back. You can restore. One part that they couldn't find, they eventually found on a warehouse shelf in France that have been gathering dust for 40 years. Now, it's in Azul -- Erin.
BURNETT: It's amazing. What an amazing report. The little singed survivor, as Nick said.
Thank you so much, Nick.
And thanks so much to all of you.
"AC360" starts now.
