Return to Transcripts main page
Anderson Cooper 360 Degrees
Reality T.V. Stars Todd And Julie Chrisley Released From Federal Prison After Trump Pardon; Federal Trade Court Blocks Most Of President Trump's Sweeping Global Tariffs From Going Into Effect; Interview With Rep. Sam Liccardo (D-CA); Rep. Liccardo's MEME Act Would Ban Presidents, Lawmakers And Their Families From Profiting Off Of Crypto; Celebrity Stylist Testifies That Combs Would Threaten To Release Sex Tapes Of Cassie Ventura If She Didn't Obey Him; Reality TV Stars Todd And Julie Chrisley Released From Federal Prison After Trump Pardon; Department Of Transportation Says New Fiber Optic Cable Installed To Fix Communication Problems Impacting Flights At Newark Liberty International Airport. Aired 8-9p ET
Aired May 28, 2025 - 20:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
DAVID CULVER, CNN SENIOR NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: There is a sensation of insecurity that extends well beyond politics. I mean, you talk to folks here and have had a few tell me that they don't even bother stopping at stop signs anymore because they could easily be robbed, carjacked, kidnapped, or killed, so they just roll right through.
ERIN BURNETT, CNN HOST: It's really incredible and that image you had, you know, from the air looking at those cars lined up to get their armor put on, that really brings it all home.
David Culver, thank you so much for that incredible reporting live from Mexico City tonight. And thanks, as always to all of you for joining us, AC360 with Anderson Cooper begins right now.
[20:00:30]
ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST, "ANDERSON COOPER: 360": Tonight on 360, Todd Chrisley, one of the two reality T.V. stars, the President pardoned just got out of prison. His wife is next, we'll talk to their attorney tonight.
Also, breaking news, a major blow to the Trump tariffs. A court has just blocked the bulk of them. And later, inside the training pilots are now getting for moments which have already caused chaos and could come again when radios go dead and air traffic control radar goes blank.
Good evening, thanks for joining us. We begin with breaking news just a day after reality show stars, Todd and Julie Chrisley received Presidential pardons. Todd Chrisley walked out of a federal prison in Florida today. His wife, Julie, is awaiting release from a facility in Lexington, Kentucky. The onetime costars the reality show "Chrisley Knows Best," were convicted nearly three years ago of conspiring to defraud community banks in the Atlanta area out of millions of dollars in personal loans, as well as tax evasion and attempting to defraud the IRS. Last summer, their daughter, Savannah, who was a vocal supporter of the Trump campaign, was a featured speaker at the Republican National Convention.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SAVANNAH CHRISLEY, DAUGHTER OF TODD AND JULIE CHRISLEY: Justice is supposed to be blind, but today we have a two-faced justice system. Just look at what they're doing to President Trump.
Donald J. Trump has only one conviction that matters, and that is his conviction to make America great again.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COOPER: Well, to a point about justice not being blind, her parents were indicted in 2019 during the first Trump administration by the Department of Justice. They were convicted in 2022 after a three-week trial, which included evidence they submitted false bank statements, audit reports and personal financial statements to obtain loans, money, they then spent on luxury cars, designer clothes, real estate and travel.
Jurors also heard testimony that when the money was gone, Todd Chrisley filed for bankruptcy, avoiding paying back some $20 million in loans. He got 12 years, his wife got seven. They appealed to the 11th circuit court, which upheld their convictions, but found a legal error in how Julie Chrisley sentence was calculated. The panel ordered her case back to district court for resentencing, which ended with her receiving the exact same seven-year prison sentence.
Now, it's important to note that the appeals panel found no other evidence of error by the trial judge or misconduct by investigators or prosecutors. In other words, no evidence they were victims of what their daughter. The Republican convention called rogue prosecutors, nor did the panel buy defense arguments that an IRS officer lied at trial, or that prosecutors failed to show evidence to convict the Chrisleys on several of the charges.
Joining me is Alex Little, appeals attorney for Todd and Julie Chrisley. I spoke to him just before air.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
COOPER: The Chrisleys were indicted by a grand jury in 2019, then convicted by a jury in 2022 after a three week trial, three days of deliberations. You were then hired to appeal and your appeal, which was very well argued, very thoughtful, was largely rejected. Why do you think they deserve a pardon?
ALEX LITTLE, ATTORNEY FOR TODD AND JULIE CHRISLEY: Yes, look, I mean, I think if folks want to go back and look at it, there's a difference between what your appellate issues might be and then the general issues with justice in a case. The biggest issue here was its very clear the case would have never happened if they were not celebrities. The FBI looked at this case way back at the beginning of 2016, 2017, the early days or 2006, 2007 and said, we're not interested. You know, years later, the Chrisleys become celebrities and all of a sudden the FBI picks up the case again. And I think that sort of targeting, based on who you are publicly is what this President has made very clear. He doesn't want to condone.
COOPER: But how can you say that they were targeted, I mean, their crimes according to what they were convicted of, continued well beyond 2006, 2007 when you said the FBI was no longer interested. I mean, 2008, 2009, 2010, I mean, all the way into the teens?
LITTLE: Well, no, and the teens the whistleblower went to the FBI, I think it was in 2013 and said, we want, you know, hey, you should take this case. And the FBI said, no, were not interested. There was a six- year gap there until the FBI and the U.S. Attorney's office came back and it was after they became celebrities. So, you know, this is a case. And that's in the record. It's pretty clear that there was not a lot of interest until they became, you know, folks you see on T.V.
COOPER: Do the Chrisleys accept responsibility for their crimes?
LITTLE: You know, I think they never testified at trial. I wish they had. I wasn't there to testify at trial because I think their story of what happened has been pretty clear. They were involved in a number of activities when the real estate, you know, the real estate collapse happened in 2008, that I think they probably wouldn't do again, or at least Todd wouldn't do again. There was very little evidence at all, ever, about Julie. And I think ultimately, you know, you'll hear Todd talk about that soon.
COOPER: There was evidence against them both. I mean, you're not -- there were bogus financial statements submitted to multiple banks, 2009, 2010. The government's indictment also went on to say that, like in 2012, in a sworn affidavit, Todd Chrisley asserted that the co- conspirator had used their accountants stationery and signature without the knowledge or consent of him, and then three months later, he emailed the co-conspirator saying, "Can you place this on the accountant's letterhead with his signature and then sign Julie's name below the accountant's address, the letter to whom it may concern?" I mean, these are things which you should not do. This is not -- this is illegal.
[20:05: 49]
LITTLE: Yes. I think, Anderson, that's a little bit of a slanted view. Everything you're talking about came from one person, a guy named Mark Braddock. And this was an individual who, at trial, admitted to stealing $6 million from the Chrisleys.
COOPER: Right? They were doing business together.
LITTLE: Yes, and the government decided to give him a complete pass. They said, we don't want you to go to jail. We don't want to charge you with a crime. We want you to come in here and say something about the Chrisleys, and he could never say anything. COOPER: Right, when you were a prosecutor, you know, that always -- I mean, that's how cases are made. This guy, they decided these two were the other were the other -- the movers of it, maybe or for whatever reason and they gave him immunity.
LITTLE: Yes and that happens. What they usually don't do is they let you have a pass. I mean, this Justice Department, generally you make folks pay a penalty and they get some benefit, they get cooperation, but they don't get full immunity. And I think that was incredibly unusual here, that the guy who actually filed those documents, you're talking about, who created them, was just left to walk home.
COOPER: But even after they weren't in business together anymore and I know Todd Chrisley blamed that guy. Todd Chrisley still went on to phony up documents, and there was evidence to that, even after this guy was no longer involved. So, it's not just this guy who was doing all the sleazy stuff and then was pointing the finger at the Chrisleys, right?
LITTLE: Yes, I mean, I think that was the government's case the entire way and the documents, they sort of had to do that. They had stolen out of a warehouse that they claim was the Chrisleys. I mean, on that exact issue, those documents you're talking about, Anderson, the state of Georgia paid the Chrisleys $1 million for civil rights violations related to those documents.
COOPER: Right, but that was part of your appeal --
LITTLE: So, it's not our case.
COOPER: That was part of your appeal and again, it was very -- it was a very thoughtful, smart appeal. But the court rejected it. The appellate court, looked at it all --
LITTLE: And rejected it because it said the attorneys at the time did not raise it soon enough. So, the issue wasn't that they actually agreed these documents were properly admitted, or they were stuff the jury should have heard. They said, oh, the attorneys missed a deadline. And again, you know, the trial attorneys made that mistake. We couldn't fix it on appeal.
COOPER: But you are denying the reality of these documents. I mean, these are documents which time after time show both Chrisleys lying in documents to get loans to spend millions of dollars, you know, on whatever they're going to spend millions of dollars.
LITTLE: Yes, I think that it's definitely true during 2007, 2008 that around the country, real estate professionals were trying to figure out how to extend loans. This is the time you recall of no doc loans.
COOPER: But wait a minute, you're not --
LITTLE: -- like Bear Stearns --
COOPER: Right, but come on, these are not --
LITTLE: We're talking about the actual content of when this is happening --
COOPER: The real estate professionals do not falsify documents repeatedly time and time again. I mean, its extraordinary when you, I mean, I've gone through the superseding indictment. I've read your -- I read the appellate court's ruling. I mean, you know, in an August 14th, 2012 sworn affidavit, Todd Chrisley falsely asserted that the coconspirator blaming the guy you're blaming had used their accountants stationery and signature without the knowledge or consent of Todd Chrisley or the accountant.
However, approximately three months later, earlier, Chrisley e-mailed that guy saying, can you place this on the accountant's letterhead with his signature and then sign Julie's name below the accountant's address the letter to whom it may concern. He's telling this guy sign Julies name, lie, make this up. And she repeatedly, when applying for to get an apartment, when was this? This was to rent a home in California in 2014. She submitted fabricated bank statements to the homeowner's realtor, including a city national bank statement that showed an account balance more than $86,000.00 when she really had negative $14,000.00.
LITTLE: Yes, I mean, look, that's a great example, Anderson. They were they she was alleged to have been lying about income relating to the rental of a home. And as a result, the court here put her in jail for seven years. That is entirely disproportionate for what you see in cases like this.
COOPER: This is one of many of dozens of things, though. I mean, they were cutting and allegedly they were cutting --
LITTLE: It is the only --
COOPER: They were convicted of cutting and pasting on financial documents --
LITTLE: To make it seem like they have linked Julie to anything -- the only thing that links Julie to anything are those documents you're talking about.
COOPER: She was not involved in this LLC scam that they had going on.
LITTLE: Zero, testimony about her at trial, none. And so, you know, I think the --
COOPER: -- in superseding indictment, it does say that she was involved in that.
[20:10:18]
LITTLE: Yes, and superseding indictment said they had no proof and they didn't ever prove it up at trial. And I think that's sort of what's important about the pardon process is because the prosecutors have a great deal of leverage to do things like cut deals with people, get people to say what you want them to say, have the benefit of many of the evidentiary rules. If a defense attorney misses a deadline, they get, you know, out of luck. And the pardon process is here to say we don't think the end result was the correct one. And that's what the President did today. And so you can disagree with that --
COOPER: Right, but you are not fundamentally -- I mean, your appeals is not fundamentally that this evidence is not true, that all these faked documents were not faked. It's that this is a selective prosecution. It's that, oh, this cooperating witness was really behind a lot of it. It's not the fundamental facts which were I mean, the phony documents, right?
LITTLE: Yes, unfortunately, I never had the chance to come in and get to have those fights, Anderson. I mean, the documents you're talking about, I wasn't the lawyer, I didn't get to challenge those things. And so when you come in and you look at a case, here are the clearest thing to us was the selective prosecution and the fact that this would not have happened were they not celebrities? I mean, it's just -- that's just the facts --
COOPER: But you did get to a -- I mean, you did get to appeal this and the appeals court ruled and I quote, "We affirmed the district court on all issues except for the loss amount attributed to Julie," which the court then itself said was a narrow issue. And her subsequent resentencing ended up being the exact same.
LITTLE: Yes, which was another issue that we were currently still appealing and the issue were talking about, the documents we would have had to file more petitions to appeal because the attorneys had messed that up. So, the process is long. President Trump has cut that process off. Ultimately, I think the question is -- one of the things the pardon attorney or the pardon czar, Alice Johnson has talked about is some of these decisions about pardons aren't necessarily about guilt and innocence. They're about how the process works and whether it should work this way. And I think ultimately, the White House was convinced it didn't work the way it should have.
COOPER: Just -- once they're out, how does it work? They -- I mean, allegedly, they defrauded taxpayers because they allegedly they were convicted of cheating on their taxes repeatedly and defrauding banks, and then they declare bankruptcy so they didn't have to pay back banks. Do they have to pay back any money? Because I think there was -- I mean, there was more than $10 million worth --
LITTLE: Yes, so much of that have been resolved a decade before. It's sort of back to that question of why did this case start those sort of civil cases between the Chrisleys and the banks and how that was resolved? There were multiple civil resolutions before criminal case ever happened. And so, that's sort of been dealt with here between the banks and the family.
COOPER: Alex Little, thanks very much for your time.
LITTLE: Thank you.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
COOPER: Just as we we're airing that conversation, we learned that Julie Chrisley has also, like her husband, been released from prison. This caps a day that saw a string of new pardons, we should point out they include a former Republican Congressman, Michael Grimm, who served seven months for tax evasion but is perhaps better known for having once threatened a reporter saying he would, "break him in half like a boy."
Also pardoned today, Connecticut's Republican former Governor John Rowland, who was convicted of campaign related federal crimes. Earlier this week, Paul Walzak got pardoned. He pleaded guilty to tax evasion, committed as CEO of his mother's nursing home business. His mom has raised millions of dollars for the President over the years, and according to "The New York Times," recently attended that million- dollar head dinner last month at Mar-a-Lago. Today's pardon saves her son from serving an 18-month prison sentence and having to pay more than $4 million in court ordered restitution.
And speaking at the White House today, the President weighed in on more potential pardons, specifically something his pardon attorney, Ed Martin, floated clemency for the men convicted of conspiring to kidnap Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer in 2020. Martin compared them to the January 6th convicts. The President said this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP (R) PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: It's been brought to my attention. I did watch the trial. It looked to me like somewhat of a railroad job. A lot of people think they got railroaded. A lot of people think they got railroaded.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COOPER: Jury, however, did not, nor did juries, judges and appeals court panels think that about some 1,500 participants in the January 6th attack on the Capitol, including several doing long sentences for seditious conspiracy. The President, of course, made clemency for them. His first order of business.
More breaking news now. A federal court has just blocked the bulk of President Trump's sweeping global tariffs from going into effect. The ruling comes from the U.S. Court of International Trade in Manhattan. It's a unique and relatively low key division of the federal judiciary, but tonight it is flexing its authority in a big way. The three-judge panel ruled in favor of an injunction against the tariffs, which have roiled worldwide financial markets in recent months. Unclear right now whether the injunction is temporary or permanent, but the decision is potentially massive -- political, economic and legal repercussions.
Just moments ago, White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller wrote online -- the judicial coup is out of control.
We're joined now by former federal prosecutor Elie Honig and former senior adviser to President Obama, David Axelrod. Elie, is this a judicial coup? What is this court?
[20:15:17]
ELIE HONIG, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: No, this is a fully legitimate federal court. I should note this was a three to zero opinion. The three judges on this court were appointed by President Reagan, President Obama and President Trump. So, I don't know where they're getting this coup language from.
This is a huge setback for Trump and his administration. As big a deal as the tariffs were, this is as big a deal in the opposite direction. It essentially pauses for now. Rules illegal and unconstitutional almost all of the tariffs that have been in place.
And the core of the ruling is this, typically, it is Congress that controls the tariff power. However, Congress can pass laws giving that power to the President in certain instances. They did that years ago in a statute called the IEEPA, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Trump then declared, okay, we are in an international economic emergency because of our trade deficits, because of other economic worldwide factors. And this court unanimously three to zero said that is not an economic emergency.
That is not what the law means, having trade deficits, which we've had for 49 years continuously, that is not an economic emergency and has now struck down for the time being, all of those tariffs that were put in place on Trump's first day and then on "Liberation Day," April 2nd.
COOPER: David, how much of a black eye is this for the administration?
DAVID AXELROD, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, you know, Trump loves tariffs. We know that he thinks it's a cure all for all of America's problems, it will, you know, raise revenues, it will bring jobs flowing back here, manufacturing jobs, you know, it will restore American respect and balance -- in all of this.
So -- but, you know, in a weird way, I mean, in the short run, I think it creates a lot of havoc because everyone's trying to figure out when this -- in the long run, it could save him from himself because these tariffs are bad economic policy and these tariffs could raise costs on Americans. They're already starting to. And so, if the result of it is he's stymied in doing something that's going to raise costs for people. It may be a black eye, but it may also be a break for him.
COOPER: Just legally, what's the recourse for the White House here.
HONIG: So, like any other federal case, this will be appealed. I think the first thing the White House is going to do is ask the court of appeals, which in this case is called the federal circuit. Usually the circuits are the first through 11th, this is separate. They're going to ask the federal circuit, first of all, to block this ruling, essentially to unblock the tariffs. Then the White House is going to appeal to the federal circuit, which again functions as that mid-level court of appeals. And then whoever loses there, I think is very likely to appeal up to the U.S. Supreme Court. This could wind up in front of the U.S. Supreme Court.
Look, I think if we look at the recent U.S. Supreme Court opinions, they've been skeptical of these sort of dramatic invocations by the administration. As one example, the Supreme Court has found that the Alien Enemies Act. This does not involve an invasion or incursion. So, I think there's some skepticism there towards this sort of tendency the administration has of calling everything an emergency, everything an attack, everything an incursion, rebellion, et cetera.
AXELROD: Yes, I mean, I think that what we know is that Trump is not a great respecter of rules and laws and norms and institutions, doesn't want to be constrained, wants to expand the power of the executive, and declaring these emergencies has given him the legal pretext to do it, and now this is being challenged on a lot of different fronts. So, there are long-term implications for it.
COOPER: It also, I mean, it certainly throws a monkey wrench into any negotiations that are going on between the U.S. and other countries. I mean, do those continue during a period like this?
AXELROD: Yes, I mean, I think that's a very big question. I mean, I don't know how you negotiate if you don't know, maybe I just don't know. And I think that's one of the reasons why this is going to throw the whole trade picture into kind of havoc in the next --
COOPER: So, Elie, do tariffs remain in place right now?
HONIG: Most of them, no. Most of them are now suspended. So, the opinion specifies three categories of tariffs that are now declared illegal. The trafficking tariffs which were declared on the first day January 20th, directed primarily at Canada and Mexico and at China. Those numbers have shifted, but Canada and Mexico, China, those are now on hold. Those are now struck down.
Also, the so-called worldwide and retaliatory tariffs, those were the ones announced on April 2nd on so-called "Liberation Day." The 10 percent on everyone that Trump announced that day, the 11 to 50 percent that was imposed on other countries, and the retaliatory tariffs on China. So, all of those categories, they're all on hold.
AXELROD: Elie, what happens to the tariffs that have already been collected?
HONIG: Right, oh, that's a great question, do they go back? I don't know the answer to that. I think if this ultimately gets --no, it's good. I would imagine that if this ultimately gets struck down, if it goes all the way up to the Supreme Court, then there could be an action brought by those other countries to recover. I mean, it would be money wrongly paid according to this ruling that just came down.
COOPER: Elie Honig, David Axelrod, thanks very much.
Just ahead, breaking news in the Sean Combs trial, including what a witness says he saw the defendant do to then girlfriend Cassie Ventura.
And next, the Trump administration's friendly message to crypto and how drastically it differs from what the President said about it before owning a whole bunch of the crypto stuff.
[20:20:29]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
J.D. VANCE (R), VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: I'm here today to say loud and clear with President Trump, crypto finally has a champion and an ally in the White House.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[20:25:04]
COOPER: Some news just in, which was already true indeed, if not formal word until now. Elon Musk announcing the end of his service at DOGE Quoting from his post on social media, "As my scheduled time as a special government employee comes to an end, I would like to thank President @realDonald Trump for the opportunity to reduce wasteful spending." He continues. "The DOGE mission will only strengthen over time as it becomes a way of life throughout the government."
Plenty of news as well tonight on the growth industry, which inspired Doges name, Crypto, Vice-President Vance, as well as President Trumps two sons, Don, Jr. and Eric, all attended a cryptocurrency convention in Las Vegas today. Vice President delivering a clear message that the Crypto community can count on the Trump administration to have their back.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
VANCE: I'm here today to say loud and clear with President Trump, crypto, finally has a champion and an ally in the White House.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COOPER: The Vice-President also attacked the Biden administration's regulation of Bitcoin, and promised that the Trump White House would end what he called the weaponization of federal regulations against cryptocurrency. The Trump brothers both echoed Vance's enthusiasm.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ERIC TRUMP, PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP'S SON AND VICE PRESIDENT OF TRUMP ORGANIZATION: for bringing Bitcoin to America, and America is going to win the crypto revolution, that much I can tell you.
We have a President who loves this industry and is behind this industry 100 percent.
DONALD TRUMP, JR., FORMER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP'S SON: My father made a lot of promises to the crypto community, the Bitcoin community. When I see the growth from Nashville last year to this, you understand you're really on the precipice of something special.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COOPER: The Trump administration is betting big obviously on cryptocurrency, and we know at least some in the highest reaches of the administration have a personal stake in its success. Vice President Vance has between $250,000.00 and $500,000.00 worth of Bitcoin, according to his latest financial filings from August of 2024.
President Trump has already built the beginnings of a crypto empire. He launched his meme coin just before inauguration day, called Trump. First Lady Melania Trump launched hers two days later, called Melania. The parent company, the President's social media company, Truth Social announced this week they're raising $2.5 billion to invest into Bitcoin, and each of his sons are both involved in at least two cryptocurrency firms.
Just last Thursday, 220 wealthy crypto investors were invited to a private event. As you know, President Trump's golf club, it was a special reward for the top investors of the President's meme coin. The 25 biggest investors got a VIP reception with the President. President Trumps personal wealth from all of his digital assets is estimated at around $2.9 billion. That's according to the left leaning state Democracy Defenders Fund.
Now, some Democrats are calling this a scam, saying this might be the most corrupt thing President Trump has ever done and even a few Republicans and some right leaning crypto advocates have said they don't love the optics of President Trump and his family enriching themselves off an industry he and his administration are actively working to deregulate, as well as legitimize by purchasing crypto through a strategic Bitcoin reserve on behalf of the federal government.
When the White House Press Secretary, Karoline Leavitt, was asked about the dinner and any potential conflicts of interest, this is what she said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KAROLINE LEAVITT, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: The President is abiding by all conflict of interest laws that are applicable to the President, and I think everybody, the American public, believe it's absurd for anyone to insinuate that this President is profiting off of the presidency.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COOPER: Absurd, plenty of ethics watchdogs say that is not true. Jordan Libowitz from the nonprofit Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, described the dinner as President Trump, "Essentially selling access to the presidency of the United States and said it's the exact thing the founding fathers were concerned about when they included the Emoluments Clause in the Constitution."
It is certainly a turnaround with crypto for President Trump because back in 2019, during his first term, he tweeted his disdain for the currency along with a warning. I'm not a fan of Bitcoin and other Cryptocurrencies, which are not money and whose value is highly volatile and based on thin air. Unregulated crypto assets can facilitate unlawful behavior, including drug trade and other illegal activity. Joining me now is Democratic Congressman Sam Liccardo. He's introduced a bill that would ban presidents, lawmakers and their families from issuing, endorsing or sponsoring crypto assets. congressman, thanks for being here. so, you hear vice-President Vance tonight describing the president as crypto's champion and an ally in the White House. Is that an understatement?
REP. SAM LICCARDO (D-CA): Well, certainly there are many of us in Congress who want to see a sensible set of policies to support Fintech Innovation. But there's a big difference between pro-innovation and pro-corruption and if we had any doubts about whether or not this President's coin operated, those doubts have been erased, certainly in the last few weeks.
COOPER: We saw the black tie dinner that the President held last week at his golf club for top crypto buyers. Among the donors who were identified, the press, as well as those who publicly identify themselves were a number of foreign nationals. Bloomberg reported earlier this month that more than half of the top holders of the President's meme coin have used foreign exchanges that they say ban American users, which suggests those buyers are not residing in the U.S. How concerning is that to you?
LICCARDO: Oh, tremendously. Not only has the President essentially attempted to use this industry very successfully, apparently to supercharge grift. The fact that the grift is coming from foreign actors is particularly problematic, not just to me as a former federal prosecutor, but certainly to our founders who put it in article one of the constitution, the prohibition on emoluments. We know, for example, the largest contributor at that dinner, gentleman by the name of Justin Sun, faced charges from the SEC in an enforcement action that weeks later, of course, was halted.
[20:30:42]
There's no question there's pay to play going on here, and when it's coming from foreign actors it is particularly problematic because, obviously, we have no idea what their interests are, but they're certainly not necessarily aligned with ours.
COOPER: CNBC previously reported that, and I'm amazed by this because just how many people have lost money buying President Trump's meme coin. CNBC reported that while 58 crypto wallets, just 58 have made more than $10 million each on President Trump's meme coin, more than three quarters of a million wallets have lost money on it. Why do you think any outrage is relatively muted about this, it seems?
LICCARDO: Well, it's puzzling to me. When I introduced the MEME Act back in February with dozens of colleagues, essentially prohibiting federal officials like Trump or members of Congress from issuing digital assets, we made sure in the first paragraph of the press release, we noted that these 760,000 Americans or others who invested in this coin had collectively lost about $2 billion in this pump and dump scheme that was benefiting Trump and his family to the tune of more than $300 million. We need to do more to ensure that people know if they've lost money, they're not the only ones on this. We know this is a familiar rug pull scheme that we've seen before, in meme coins, and the president simply is the most stellar example of this kind of corruption.
COOPER: You call it a pump and dump scheme, that's what you think this is. That they announced this right before the inauguration to jack up the price, get investor enthusiasm. Those in the know, I guess, those 58 wallets or people who are entities sell when the price goes up, everybody else who maybe is a supporter of Trump and holds onto their meme coin, they lose money. And then, it gets goosed again by having this dinner and there's a competition, there's excitement about, it gets a lot of coverage. The price goes up, the people in the know sell at the right time, and others get holding the bag or the worthless coins, or the dropping in value coins.
LICCARDO: That's absolutely right. It's the same play. We just saw it happen twice. And the first time, by the way, it looked as though the primary investors were overwhelmingly from China, based on what we've been able to tell from investigations from the media, really. So, we know who's winning. Those are folks who are offshore overwhelmingly. And to the extent that 760,000 Trump loyalists are investing in this meme coin, they're the losers.
COOPER: Is there any interest in investigating, I mean, you're talking about investigations by the media. Is there any interest among Republican colleagues of yours in having any kind of investigations on Capitol Hill about this? I mean, I know the answer to that, I think.
LICCARDO: Well, I hear the griping. Yeah, I mean, I hear the griping quietly. But, we need to see certainly stronger spines among some of my colleagues to actually stand up on this issue. It's obvious what's going on. We saw some of it, certainly, with the grift relating to the 747 or 737 that was provided to the president. This is actually much larger in terms of magnitude and the impact and frankly, in terms of what it could mean for undermining American interests.
COOPER: Yeah. Congressman Liccardo, appreciate your time. Thank you.
LICCARDO: Thank you. It's a pleasure, Anderson.
COOPER: Coming up next, we have more breaking news, we had a police officer, arson investigator, and celebrity stylist testified about today in the Sean "Diddy" Combs trial. And later, our Pete Muntean shows how pilots train for the air traffic control outages that have hit Newark Liberty International Airport and could do the same elsewhere.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CAPT. MILES MORGAN, MANAGING DIRECTOR OF FLIGHT TRAINING, UNITED AIRLINES: We have a lot of different layers, and a lot of them rely on the external world, but we all have this internal system that our airplanes will talk to each other.
(END VIDEO CLIP) (COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[20:39:07]
COOPER: There's breaking news here in New York, in the federal sex trafficking and racketeering trial of Sean "Diddy" Combs, the jury heard from three witnesses today, a police officer, an arson investigator testified about the Molotov cocktail attack on Kid Cudi's car and the break-in into his home. Also today, a stylist told the jury he witnessed Combs be violent with his then girlfriend, Cassie Ventura, and how Combs allegedly controlled her, approving her outfits and her hairstyles. Joining me now CNN Anchor in Chief Legal Analyst, Laura Coates, who was in the courtroom today. What more did the stylist testify to?
LAURA COATES, CNN ANCHOR IN CHIEF LEGAL ANALYST: He was actually pretty consequential, Anderson, because he talked about having heard Cassie Ventura say that she did not want to participate in these so- called freak offs, while packing her bags, being essentially ordered to go to these hotels. She also told him -- or he was there when Diddy threatened her on a number of occasions that if she didn't do something in particular, he would release the sex tapes, not only to the public, but to her parents' jobs, that she would -- he would get her parents fired, that he would threaten her in various ways.
[20:40:10]
And he would talk about her reaction being hysterical, panicked, going into a depression. And so, he was connecting the dots in terms of whether corroborating, whether she actually in fact wanted to participate in these freak offs, the sex trafficking charges (inaudible).
COOPER: And how often were these things going on?
COATES: She testified it was once a week for several days at a time, at occasions, for over a period of years. It's astounding, I think about it (ph).
COOPER: Wow.
COATES: I mean, it's hard to wrap your head around the idea and the opening statement --
COOPER: That means like being drugged up for days, for years.
COATES: Yes. And the opening from the prosecution talked about that saying, imagine for an 11 year period, Cassie Ventura, and I'm paraphrasing here, was in a dark hotel, lit by candles, on drugs, not allowed to go to sleep, engaging in these sexual encounters at these freak offs for that long.
COOPER: Why is it -- I mean, given the length of her testimony, what is the role of these other witnesses? They're kind of filling in gaps. They're building out this idea of a racketeering enterprise, a trafficking enterprise. COATES: On the one hand, they're for corroboration, on the other hand, they're to move the needle. In particular, racketeering requires an enterprise, a group of people who were engaged in a so-called racket with an end goal towards accomplishing an illegal objective. In this case, they say it was sexual exploitation of women, victimizing for sex trafficking purposes and beyond. But in order to get there, you have to show these so-called predicate crimes, arson, robbery, kidnapping, the list goes on -- fraud, bribery, obstruction to justice. These witnesses are going to testify about the entity itself, the inside circle, the bodyguards, the staff, all conspiring together to further those things.
COOPER: She had a -- she was pregnant when she testified.
COATES: Yeah.
COOPER: She's actually now had her baby.
COATES: Yes. Imagine now, why everyone was wondering, hold on. Why would you call her first in all of this? I mean, you almost want a leading up to her witness because she really is a star witness in the culminating testimony. But you are against mother nature and the clock. And so, her giving birth a week or so after actually testifying, shows you why the prosecution was so intent on having her get through and be finished. And of course, the defense now having to ponder, would they ever think about calling her for their case in chief? I would think not.
But stranger things have happened. But this just tells you, now the jury is going to have to, the whole time she was testifying, trying to not conflate the person that was being described from five, 10 years ago under the control of allegedly Sean "Diddy" Combs. And the person now who was obviously married with two children and one on the way, now a third here. This is might -- this might play to defense's advantage and say, hold on a second. She told you she was under his control the whole time, consequences would abound if she ever left him. But you saw her. She's married, with children. That might play for the jury.
COOPER: The defense was calling for a mistrial, talking about prosecutorial misconduct.
COATES: That was a huge moment and a warning to the prosecutors, even though they weren't going to actually call a mistrial here. The whole theory was they had planted a seed that Sean "Diddy" Combs somehow has something (ph) to do with fingerprint cards in relation to the Molotov cocktail disappearing. The defense was right to be angry and say, I can't unring this bell, your Honor. You got to tell either a mistrial or a corrective instruction. He opted for the latter.
COOPER: All right, Laura, thanks very much. Appreciate it. Don't miss the special edition, "Laura Coates Live" at 11:00 p.m. Eastern focused on the Combs trial. Coming up next, the new step aimed at stomping (ph) air traffic control problems plaguing Newark. We will also take you inside a flight simulator, see just how pilots train for what happens when radars go blank. And later, more in our breaking news from the top of the hour, reality TV starts, Todd and Julie Chrisley released from federal prison today after the president pardons them. We'll look at how we got to this point.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[20:48:27]
COOPER: The Department of Transportation says a newly installed fiber optic cable will improve communications at the air traffic control facility handling flights out of Newark Liberty International Airport. Now, the major hub has suffered multiple equipment outages in the past month, resulting in radar screens going black for as long as 90 seconds and air traffic controllers actually losing contact with planes in the sky. CNN's Pete Muntean has the details on how pilots prepare for those kind of scenarios.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
PETE MUNTEAN, CNN AVIATION CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Back to back air traffic control meltdowns have plagued the busy airspace around the Newark Airport.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We don't have a radar, so I don't know where you are.
MUNTEAN (voice-over): Now, pilots are training for when air traffic control goes dark. Here at United Airlines Flight Training Center in Denver, I got a firsthand look at what pilots see from the inside of this Boeing 737 Max simulator. Captain Miles Morgan heads up training for the airline.
MUNTEAN: Would you say that these issues at Newark have caused any sort of degradation of safety?
MORGAN: If you've got pilots that are operating into the airspace, it is safe for us to do so. We are a hundred percent confident that --
MUNTEAN (voice-over): Morgan says pilots are ready to fall back on the plane's Traffic Collision Avoidance System or TCAS. It calls out collisions in the making and can even issue instructions to climb or descend.
MORGAN: So now, OK, I've stopped doing what I'm doing. I look, I see it on the screen, 700 feet above, I acquire it visually.
MUNTEAN: Yep.
MORGAN: And now, I'm monitoring, I'm making sure, Hey, I'm -- this is good. We're at a good airspace. We're safe.
MUNTEAN: The reason you're showing it is to show that there are other layers here. There are other systems.
[20:50:00]
MORGAN: Exactly, correct. We have a lot of different layers and a lot of them rely on the external world. But we all have this internal system that our airplanes will talk to each other.
MUNTEAN (voice-over): But when pilots can no longer talk to air traffic control, Morgan says they will try a radio frequency they were just on.
MORGAN: Push this button, the previous frequency pops back up.
MUNTEAN (voice-over): Or try the emergency backup frequency.
MORGAN: This would be a backup if we couldn't raise it any other way.
MUNTEAN (voice-over): Or use datalink text messaging to communicate with the airline.
MORGAN: And I could say need frequency.
MUNTEAN (voice-over): Pilots can even dial in a special transponder code to signal that communication has been lost. Decades-old redundancies that air traffic controllers are also trained for.
MORGAN: We were always prepared for it. The pilots are always prepared for it. Unfortunately, we're having to use those safety nets.
So I'm going to start putting some flaps in for you.
MUNTEAN (voice-over): Maybe to prove that flying is safe, Morgan even let me do the landing.
MORGAN: A little flare. Perfect. Boom.
MUNTEAN (voice-over): Not my worst. As airlines insist, the worst will not happen when air traffic control fails.
MORGAN: I don't really worry when something is a little abnormal. We're trained for all these abnormalities. It's not just this, it's -- we're constantly training for whatever could be going wrong and how to make a decision to rectify that.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
COOPER: And Pete Muntean joins me now. It's so fascinating to see how they're doing that. When -- I mean, any sense of when the problems at Newark may end?
MUNTEAN (on camera): Well, Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy insisted today that problems at Newark approach control are fixed. There have been upgrades to software, there have been upgrades to infrastructure. A new fiber optic cable has been laid. It should be online sometime in July, Duffy said. But he also said that these problems prove that no air traffic control facility is truly immune to meltdowns. It's why the Trump administration is calling for a nationwide overhaul of air traffic control. We're talking 600 new radars, six new air traffic control centers. That could cost tens of billions of dollars. Anderson?
COOPER: All right. Pete Muntean, thanks very much. Coming up next, back to our breaking news on the Chrisleys, their rise to fame and how their personal reality show ended first in prison and now, with presidential pardons.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[20:56:57]
COOPER: Back to our breaking news from the top of the hour. Reality TV stars, Todd and Julie Chrisley, both out of federal prison tonight after their full pardon from President Trump. Randi Kaye tonight looks at their long journey to this point.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
TODD CHRISLEY, AMERICAN TV PERSONALITY: We're the Chrisleys, Todd and Julie Chrisley. We live in a neighborhood north of Atlanta, a gated neighborhood with celebrities here.
RANDI KAYE, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): When they rose to fame about a decade ago, Todd and Julie Chrisley billed themselves as self- made religious real estate tycoons. Their mansion outside Atlanta was 30,000 square feet. They drove fancy cars and wore designer clothes. The show chronicled it all, their lavish lifestyle along with their business and family drama. There were spinoffs too, among them "Growing Up Chrisley."
FAYE CHRISLEY, MOTHER OF TODD CHRISLEY: So what you want to do?
SAVANNAH CHRISLEY, DAUGHTER OF TODD CHRISLEY: We need to get out of Nashville. Try a different city.
CHASE CHRISLEY, SON OF TODD CHRISLEY: I got to let my wings fly, you know?
S. CHRISLEY: If we're going to move, we need to move to somewhere that makes sense for both of our futures.
KAYE (voice-over): Despite their success, prosecutors say it was based on a lie. They were convicted in 2022 of bank fraud and tax fraud. Todd Chrisley was sentenced to 12 years. His wife, Julie, sentenced to seven years. Their daughter, Savannah believed in her parents' innocence and continued to fight for their release. That included embracing MAGA world and spending time at the White House in President Donald Trump's orbit.
Last year, Savannah posted this photo with President Trump. She also spoke at the Republican National Convention.
S. CHRISLEY: My family was persecuted by rogue prosecutors in Fulton County due to our public profile.
KAYE (voice-over): She also posted on Instagram after her visit to the White House in February, writing "I will never stop fighting for my parents." Last month, another visit to the White House, then came this moment about a week ago. S. CHRISLEY: They referred to us as the Trumps of the South at trial. The prosecutors did. When I saw, obviously, what the president was going through, what my family has gone through, it was very -- it was eerily similar.
KAYE (voice-over): That appearance on Lara Trump's show on Fox is what Savannah believes changed the course of her parents' lives.
S. CHRISLEY: I think that that episode of her show reminded the president of my family's story.
KAYE (voice-over): Then suddenly, yesterday, President Donald Trump announced he was pardoning Todd and Julie Chrisley.
DONALD TRUMP, (R) PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Your parents are going to be free and clean, and I hope we can do it by tomorrow.
S. CHRISLEY: Thank you so much.
KAYE (voice-over): This was Savannah after learning of the pardon.
S. CHRISLEY: The president called me personally, as I was walking into Sam's Club, and notified me that he was signing paper -- pardon paperwork for both of my parents. I still don't believe it's real.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
KAYE (on camera): So, now that the Chrisleys are out of prison, there are a lot of questions about what happens next. Well, in terms of that, their daughter, Savannah has said that she just wants to get them home and wants to get them back to a normal life. Where that life will be is also a bit unclear. It does seem as though both of them, from what I'm told, are heading back to Nashville.
But, Savannah has said that she's been caring for her two younger siblings the whole time her parents have been in prison. She also said that she's spoken to her parents every single day while they've been behind bars.
