Courtney Kuby (2:52)

So a couple of new things. The president spoke first. He said that he didn't even know anything about there being a second strike, that he looked at this as one full attack. So it didn't seem as if he really had the details of what happened here. Of course, they more and more are starting to emerge after the terrific reporting out of the Washington Post last week that there was, in fact, there were multiple strikes on this boat to ultimately kill all the individuals on board and sink the small boat. But then it was Secretary Hegseth, when he started speaking, that really gave us a little bit more detail into what happened that day. He said, we have heard before that he was in the room. He confirmed that, though, that he was watching the strike live on a video feed, and that, critically, he was the targeting authority for this. Now, what that means is he. He said himself, since it was the first strike, he wanted to be the one to ultimately give the order. What was carried out here. Now, as would be pretty common, he would essentially give the order, and then that would be delegated to a commander, someone more junior than him, to actually carry out those orders. In this case, it was the head of Joint Special Operations Command, Admiral Mitch Bradley. He was the one who then carried out the orders that were provided by Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth. But unfortunately, the one thing that we don't know based off the conversation today is what exactly were the orders that Secretary Hegseth gave to Admiral Bradley?

Ann Thompson (4:12)

Previously, it had been reported that the orders were to kill everyone on board. And at issue here is this second strike. What is the issue with the second strike?

Courtney Kuby (4:24)

So, essentially, the first strike would have killed some of the people, incapacitated at a minimum, and caused heavy damage to the boat. Now, after the smoke cleared, it appears that there were at least two survivors. This, according to officials who are familiar with the video, who are watching, watching it happen. And then Admiral Bradley ordered another strike. The critical details here are, did in fact, Secretary Hegseth say as his order, kill everyone on board and sink the boat? We didn't get that answer today, unfortunately. But even if he had ordered that, and then. Then Admiral Bradley was watching this unfold and saw two survivors. The question is, would the kill everyone then be a legal order, a lawful order, or not? Because there is a part of international law that says that the individuals who would have survived that, who would have essentially been somewhat incapacitated by the strike, they no longer pose a direct threat. Essentially, they are outside the battlefield, for all intents and purposes. And they would not then be a legal or legitimate military target anymore. There are these very specific nuances that we don't have answers to at this point. It doesn't appear that Secretary Hegseth actually gave a second order knowing that there were survivors and said, take out those survivors. But his previous orders, if they were to kill everyone would have potentially stood there to continue going until the boat was completely sunk and everyone was killed.

Ann Thompson (5:57)

The secretary mentioned something called the fog of war in this incident. What did he say about that? It's certainly a new term that we've heard today in regards to this incident. Could it be used as a defense for either him or Admiral Bradley?

Courtney Kuby (6:13)

I think given the way that we've heard Pete Hegseth speak about combat, both as the secretary and then prior to that when he was a host on Fox News, he has been very critical of senior commanders, senior officials in D.C. or back at some headquarters, making decisions for the men and women who are on the front lines in the fog of war, who are actually experiencing something in real time, and they have, in some cases, bureaucrats, he would say, making decisions for them on the ground. He has talked very openly, and in fact, he has tried to institute new policies that he has called taking the gloves off or unleashing the men and women on the ground to make these decisions on their own. So I'm not surprised that he talked about the fog of war here and delegating these kinds of decisions down to a lower level than the Secretary of Defense. The question is, is it still legal to do so? If you have two survivors who are clinging to a damaged raft in the middle of the ocean, do they actually still present a threat to the United States, or would the law of armed conflict say that you have to go in, pick them up? I'm not saying that you go and release them, but the law would say that they should face some sort of justice for the way that drug interdictions have been handled for years is more of a criminal activity. These individuals would be seen as potential criminals, not as combatants.

Ann Thompson (7:42)

We know that both the House and Senate are going to investigate this. Do we expect that Admiral Bradley will be called before these committees to testify? And then secondly, as somebody who leads special operations, what do we expect from him? He's a guy who holds things pretty close to the vest.

Courtney Kuby (8:02)

Yes, we do expect him to be not only meeting with members of Congress, especially congressional leadership, but also to testify at some point. The reality is, I would be surprised if there was an open component to that, just given the nature of these missions. As for Admiral Bradley, you know, he's a special operator. He has been in some of the most sensitive and classified environments for the majority of his career. So he's not considered a talker. He's not someone that I would expect is going to start hitting the talk show circuit. But you can bet that there are people on Capitol Hill who have been telling us that they are very interested to hear his side of what happened here.

Ann Thompson (8:39)

Our colleague Gabe Gutierrez asked a question after the Cabinet meeting, the formal part of the cabinet meeting, and then he asked about Venezuela. And what was the President's response?

Courtney Kuby (8:50)

This is one of the things that I was most fascinated of this whole long Cabinet meeting was the President was saying, he said that there will likely be strikes of on land in Venezuela and that they will be a lot easier.

Keir Simmonds (9:02)

You know, the land is much easier. It's much easier. And we know the routes they take. We know everything about them. We know where they live, we know where the bad ones live. And we're going to start that very soon, too.

Courtney Kuby (9:14)

I have no idea what he means by a lot easier. I mean logistically, okay, there, if there is a static target that would be easier to hit than a moving boat, okay, there's that piece of it, and it's a sovereign nation. I mean, remember we've been talking about the legality of these strikes for weeks, but they are conducting them in international waters as opposed to on land in a sovereign nation. Now, the reality is if the President wants to carry out strikes in Venezuela, he has everything in place right now to do it. And the way he was talking today, it certainly sounds like he has all but made the decision to move forward with that. He's teased this before and it hasn't happened, but I think we should all be ready for him for this to escalate even further with strikes inside Venezuela against cartels.

Ann Thompson (10:00)

Courtney Kuby, thank you.

Courtney Kuby (10:02)

Thanks.

Ann Thompson (10:04)

We're going to take a quick break. When we come back, President Putin is sitting down with US Negotiators over a deal to end the war in Ukraine. We're talking to our two correspondents on the ground. Stay with us.

LifeLock Advertiser (10:20)

The holidays mean more travel, more shopping, more time online and more personal info and more places that could expose you more to identity theft. But LifeLock monitors millions of data points per second. If your identity is stolen, our US Based restoration specialists will fix it, guaranteed your money back. Don't face drained accounts, fraudulent loans or financial losses alone. Get more holiday fun and less Holiday worry with LifeLock. Save up to 40% your first year. Visit LifeLock.com SpecialOffer terms apply.

Courtney Kuby (10:50)

Hi there and happy holidays.

Keir Simmonds (10:52)

Or as I like to say, holi Yays. It's Craig and Savannah from the Today show inviting you to spend the holiday season with us.

Courtney Kuby (10:59)

We're spreading holiday cheer with special live performances from Gwen Stefani, Lady A and Brad Paisley.

Ann Thompson (11:05)

Plus, some of Hollywood's biggest stars stopped.

Courtney Kuby (11:08)

By for our annual toy drive.

Keir Simmonds (11:10)

It's the most wonderful time of the year and there's no better way to spend it than with the TODAY show family every morning on NBC.

Courtney Kuby (11:17)

From our family to yours, happy holidays.

Andrew Goldman (11:20)

My name is Andrew Goldman. No story I've encountered in my 30 years as a journalist has gripped me by the throat quite like the murder of Martha Moxley and conviction of Michael Skakel. I thought I understood the case. It was a decades long story about the powerful and the privileged seemingly getting away with murder. But I discovered a much darker, more shocking tale than I ever could have guessed.

Ann Thompson (11:44)

They put a sign around my neck.

Michael Skakel (11:46)

That said, hi, my name is Michael.

Ann Thompson (11:47)

Skakel and I'm a murderer.

Andrew Goldman (11:49)

He's been talked about a lot, but he's never spoken up until now.

Keir Simmonds (11:53)

It was like the worst nightmare ever.

Andrew Goldman (11:57)

Dead certain, the Martha Moxley murder. Listen now, wherever you get your podcasts.

Ann Thompson (12:06)

We're back with here's the scoop from NBC News. Amid continued bloodshed and tense negotiations to end the war between Russia and Ukraine. Ukraine. Russian President Vladimir Putin is sitting down with US Special envoy Steve Witkoff and President Trump's son in law Jared Kushner in Moscow today. The meeting comes just days after US Ukrainian and European negotiators hammered out an updated peace plan. Witkoff is expected to present that new deal to Putin. As these tense talks drag on, we are joined by our correspondents on the ground in the region, NBC News chief international correspondent Keir Simmonds in Moscow and NBC News chief foreign correspondent Richard Engel in Ukraine. Richard is going to join us shortly while he establishes a connection there. Kir, let me start with you. What do we know about today's meeting and how did it come to be?

Keir Simmonds (13:04)

Hey, Anne. Well, it's a great question. And it began, I guess you could say, with another reach out from the Trump administration to a Russian interlocutor, a guy who is President Putin's envoy called Kirill Dmitriev. And now here we are with Steve Witkoff and the president's son in law, Jared Kushner as we speak, actually in the Kremlin negotiating with President Putin and his team. But here's the interesting thing, while they were walking into the Kremlin, President Putin was still busy preparing to give a speech. He gave his speech, and then while they were waiting in the Kremlin, stopped to talk to journalists and gave these uncompromising answers, doubling down on the idea that the Europeans are the ones that are not prepared to compromise, and saying that if Europe, we don't want a war with Europe, but if Europe wants a war, we're ready for it. All kinds of extraordinary things to be saying just before he's walking into negotiations with the Americans.

Ann Thompson (14:15)

So what did these optics tell us? The fact that Putin kept Wyckoff and Kushner waiting, that there is this diatribe, if you will, before the negotiations take place. Is this just all theater for Putin?

Keir Simmonds (14:31)

Well, he does love a bit of theater, and he does love to keep people waiting. I mean, he almost always keeps people waiting. I mean, when I interviewed him, he kept me waiting for hours. But those optics do tell us some important things. One is that President Putin is trying to send a message to President Trump that he is prepared to negotiate, but at the same time, he is absolutely sticking, and you have to say it steadfastly to his, what people call his maximalist goals. Things like that he wants all of a particular piece of territory in Ukraine, he wants international recognition of that territory in Ukraine, and that he wants a limit on the Ukrainian army. Those kinds of things, I'm told by Russia, Russian official with knowledge of the talks, are fundamental pillars of Putin's position that will not shift no matter what the Americans say or do.

Ann Thompson (15:22)

Why is Jared Kushner there? Is he. What is that significance? Is he seen as the closer? Does this suggest that there are business deals on the table? What do you read into that?

Keir Simmonds (15:35)

I hear you. I am wondering that, and I'm going to give it a give start with an answer that every journalist should be prepared to give at any given moment. And that is. I don't know why he's there, because Witkoff has been there the whole time. Listeners will be able to figure this out for themselves, I think, you know, it's always been Witkoff, and now suddenly it's Jared Kushner and why. And, and is that because some of the ways in which. But you could argue Steve Wyckoff has stumbled. Is that because the two of them seem to have made the Middle east ceasefire, made a success of that? And then you mentioned the business side of things. I'm, I'm certain, and frankly, Steve Witkoff has said it openly, that Steve Witkoff would like to see a shift in the Russian Ukraine quagmire that enabled business to be done with Russia. And obviously, Jared Kushner is also a businessman, so you can draw your own conclusions. I'm not. I'm quite clearly, both men would also like to see peace. They would like to see a ceasefire. But you can't just dismiss the reality that the two of them are business people. And by the way, so is the president.

Ann Thompson (16:56)

Keir, I understand that we have Richard joining us now. Richard, welcome to here's the Scoop. It's good to see you. I know you've been traveling around Ukraine. Where are you today? And what are people telling you about their hopes for these negotiations?

Michael Skakel (17:11)

Yes, I am in Ukraine. I'm in the city of Mykolaiv right now. And people here are have very complicated feelings, very mixed feelings about all of this. So it would be very easy to say, yes, everyone wants peace, because that's true. Everyone here that I've spoken to wants peace. If you ask someone, yes, but at what cost? And do they trust this process will actually deliver peace? Yes, people want peace. But then they say, well, if we give Putin really what he wants, which is all this territory, won't that just encourage him to take more? And will there be a lasting peace? And what if we make a bad peace agreement? Isn't that just going to blow up in our faces? A lot of people think that this peace deal or a bad peace deal could be a landmine that causes future conflicts down the road or invites Russian forces to come invade this country one more time. This war is being fought in Ukraine. Ukrainians are going to the front lines daily. And this, this whole country is mobilized for four years. It's been nearly four years, and kids still aren't going to school where I am. They're still living in underground bunkers. So it is a pervasive way of life now.

Ann Thompson (18:31)

So where is the compromise? When I was speaking to Kir earlier, he was saying the Russians don't see any need to compromise. What are the Ukrainians willing to compromise on?

Michael Skakel (18:42)

Well, I think at this stage, they recognize that they're going to have to be some territorial concessions, that Russian positions haven't moved and Ukrainian positions largely haven't moved in the last couple of years. But Ukrainians are not giving up. I was just at a frontline command post, and these soldiers are determined, keep fighting, keep fighting, don't give in. Don't hand over to Putin everything that he wants, because he's not going to be satisfied. He's just going to come for more and more and more.

Ann Thompson (19:13)

Richard and Kier, thank you so much for your insights and sharing them with us today and take care of yourselves and most of all, be safe. Thank you.

Michael Skakel (19:22)

Thank you. It's great to be with you, Anthony.

Keir Simmonds (19:23)

Thank you.

Ann Thompson (19:26)

All right, let's get to some headlines. Former Honduran President Juan Orlando Hernandez has been released from a West Virginia prison after President Trump pardoned him, cutting short a 45 year sentence for facilitating cocaine trafficking. Trump argued the pardon was warranted because he claimed many Hondurans believed Hernandez had been targeted in a Biden administration setup. However, documents show the investigation into Hernandez began at least a decade ago. In that case, the trial judge found that Hernandez had in fact used Honduran police and military forces to protect drug operations while publicly presenting himself as tough on trafficking. Honduras Attorney General said on X that his office is obligated to seek justice and he will review the case, though he did not specify what charges Hernandez could face. In Honduras, tens of thousands filled the streets of Beirut, Lebanon today as Pope Leo XIV delivered a message of unity to a city still in crisis. Before Mass, the pope visited the site of the 2020 port explosion, a blast that killed at least 218 people and displaced hundreds of thousands, pausing for a moment of silent prayer. Then it was on to the waterfront, where crowds waving flags and flowers lined his route, some waiting hours for a glimpse of the popemobile. On the flight home, the pope held his first full press conference. He announced Algeria as his next trip, calling it a key to strengthening Christian Muslim dialogue. And he joked that just a few years ago he had been eyeing retirement. On geopolitics, he said the Vatican remains active behind the scenes in the Middle East. Noting the shifting dynamics in Trump's Ukraine peace push, with Italy now potentially playing a mediator role, the pope stressed that despite mixed signals in Venezuela, a military solution is never the answer. Holding out on getting a real ID? Well, you could get hit with a $45 fee when traveling domestically in February. The move was announced yesterday by TSA in hopes of encouraging real ID procrastinators into getting the enhanced identity documents. The fee would be non refundable, cover a 10 day period and take up to 3030 minutes to pay at the airport if the fee isn't paid beforehand online. Just what travelers need, more travel fees and longer wait times at the airport. Originally the fee was only meant to be $18, but it was raised due to expenses for adding the fee that were higher than expected. Currently, about 94% of travelers are displaying their real IDs at the airport. That remaining 6% could clog up TSA lines more than usual in the new year, unless they're able to show another form of acceptable id, such as a passport or a global entry card. Everyone remembers their first pair of glasses, whether they actually wanted them or not. For many children, it was an accessory that would sit on their face for life. But now the FDA just approved a new type of lens to slow nearsightedness in children age 6 to 12. The lenses are from the brand Essler Stellis, and their data shows a 70% reduction in the progression of myopia after two years. Myopia is the scientific name for nearsightedness. Studies across the globe show that rates of nearsightedness are on the rise due to increased time looking at screens, books and other objects held close to the eyes indoors. The suggested retail price is $450, according to the company, and are expected to be covered by major US Insurance providers. The Oxford Word of the Year is out, and it's two Rage bait It was a tough choice with two fierce contenders, Aura Farming and Biohack, but Rage bait ended up reflecting this year the most, and I can't say I disagree. Oxford considered votes, public sentiment and analysis of their lexical data in their decision. The official definition of rage bait revolves around online content that deliberately elicits anger or outraged to increase engagement. An online equivalent of poking the bear. A worthy successor to 2024's Word of the Year Brain rot. That's going to do it for us at here's the scoop from NBC News. I'm Ann Thompson, and if you like what you heard, subscribe. Wherever you get your podcast.