Return to Transcripts main page

Don Lemon Tonight

Facebook Says Trump is Suspended Until January 7th, 2023; Trump Could Incite Violence Once Account is Activated; Conservatives Redefine Critical Race Theory; Vice President Harris With Daunting Task on Her Shoulders; U.S. Intel Shows No Proof to Back Up UFO Sightings; All Eyes on DOJ's Plea Deal. Aired 10-11p ET

Aired June 04, 2021 - 22:00   ET

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

[22:00:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CHRIS CUOMO, CNN HOST: So, I'm getting to come out of commercial and I feel this wave of intelligence, this wave of appeal. I'm like, wow, D. Lemon has got to be on his game tonight, and it turns out, D. Lemon isn't here tonight. You get the upgrade, and now, the energy I was feeling makes sense, because it is the OAO. Laura Coates.

LAURA COATES, CNN HOST: You know, maybe it was my personal like wind machine, I was trying to get going for a second.

CUOMO: It is intense. It's this intense intelligence that was taking on my basically little better than lizard brain.

COATES: Man, what a way to have a Friday night. Thank you for saying that, from UFOs, to waves of intelligence, maybe, maybe there is a bit of a connection there, what do you think?

CUOMO: Hey, listen, you know, some people around here believe, you know, your sense of what's right and wrong, your quickness, you're a plum, you know, maybe you got a little a green skin under there somewhere. Maybe, you know, maybe from somewhere else.

COATES: No, Chris, I woke up like this.

(CROSSTALK)

CUOMO: And by the way, that's OK.

COATES: I woke like this. I woke up just like this. What are you talking about? Green skin? What are you talking about? Do I have enough concealer on? Hold on a second.

CUOMO: All of a second your eyes flash red --

COATES: Whatever.

CUOMO: -- and none of us remember this conversation. Have a great night, my friend and a great weekend.

COATES: You too. Thank you so much. This is Don Lemon Tonight. I'm Laura Coates, in for Don.

Our democracy is at risk tonight with threats from the outside and the inside. There is a threat from increasing cyber warfare that this country is, frankly, not prepared for. New urgency tonight from the Biden administration over this country's vulnerabilities to attacks from criminal syndicates based in Russia.

Attacks on everything from a major gas pipeline, to government agencies, to one of the world's top meat producers. FBI director, Christopher Wray, saying it's like dealing with terrorism after 9/11. Citing the Wall Street Journal, quote, "there is a lot of parallels, there's a lot of importance, and a lot of focus by us on disruption and prevention.

The White House saying that President Biden views the attacks as a rising national security concern.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: All these ransomware attacks, does the president view those as a national security threat?

JEN PSAKI, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: I certainly think the president views those as a rising national concern, security concern and an area where we need to continue to keep our focus, keep our assets, focus on and energy and brain power on what we can do address this.

Certainly, this is a priority to him and an area where we will be spending a significant amount of time in the coming months.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Our democracy is in peril with threats from the outside and from the inside. America is becoming disinformation nation as social media is being used to spread lies from QAnon conspiracy theories to the big lie of nonexistent election fraud.

Facebook announcing today that the former president whose lies incited the insurrection will remain suspended from their platform until at least January 7th, 2023. The day after the second anniversary of the capitol attack. And that could mean he'd be back on Facebook just in time to campaign in 2024. The White House saying social media has a responsibility to crack down on disinformation.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PSAKI: Every platform, whether it's Facebook, Twitter, any other platform that is disseminating information to millions of Americans has a responsibility to crack down on disinformation, to crack down on false information, whether it's about the election, or even about the vaccine.

(END VIDEO CLIP) COATES: Disinformation about the election. That's what fueled one of the darkest days in this country's entire history. That's what almost got the then vice president killed. Yet, Mike Pence, well, he says this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MICHAEL PENCE, FORMER VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: President Trump and I have spoken many times since we left office. And I don't know if we'll ever see eye to eye on that day. But I will always be proud of what we had accomplished for the American people over the last four years.

(APPLAUSE)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: I will note, he had to look down at his script when he said that last part. Mike Pence's boss who incited the insurrection with his lies, who slammed his own vice president for failing to stop the certification of the vote, did nothing to help him. Yet, all Pence can muster is saying they don't see eye to eye on that day. I bet they don't.

I want to go right now to the urgency over the threat of cyberattacks. And joining me now CNN senior White House correspondent Phil Mattingly, and former FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe. He is now a CNN senior law enforcement analyst.

[22:05:08]

Thank you both for being here tonight. It's nice to see both of you, but not for this of course.

Let me start with you, Phil. Because FBI director Wray is comparing the threat of ransomware attacks to 9/11. That's a very dire warning. So, I mean, how is the Biden administration responding to this?

PHIL MATTINGLY, CNN CORRESPONDENT: You know, Laura, I think it underscores the rising concern, and really the rising urgency. You've heard from administration officials to try and address something that is just really laid bare the sheer scale of the vulnerabilities that the U.S. has and critical infrastructure pieces, which is trying to harden defenses as it relates to private companies that are in large part in control of these critical infrastructure pieces, but also trying to figure out what the U.S. can do in response.

In fact, the Biden administration has ordered a rapid strategic review where the president is expecting a series of options in terms of what they can do to push back on these attacks. And there is expected to be retaliatory measures that he's presented with to try and disable some these networks, to counter some of these networks.

But also, work with allies in terms of on lining up alliances to push back as well. And I think you're also going to see obviously a pretty large meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin while the U.S.is not blaming the Russian government for these ransomware attacks that have occurred over the course of the last several weeks.

They know that these criminal syndicates are located in the country, and they want to hold those countries accountable on some level. So, you got a series of things that are ongoing right now. But one of the biggest issues, Laura, that you hear repeatedly from administration officials, and really federal government officials in general on cybersecurity, is that the current federal law simply do not allow for the type of interaction, the type of communication between these private firms in the federal government to do a better job at defending than they've been able to do over the course of the last several years.

That's up to lawmakers to change. Like clearly, it isn't happening anytime soon. So, for right now, the administration trying to incentivize cooperation, trying to give people reasons to cooperate, these companies, reasons to cooperate and trying to make sure they have options to retaliate. Because everyone in the administration I've talked to knows this isn't stopping anytime soon, it's likely only going to ramp up, Laura.

COATES: I mean, week after week we hear about this. It's hard to imagine what greater incentive meant for it to not happen to you. We know ransomware is a very serious thing, and they are paying a pretty penny. And to get back online, it even cost and they've lost so much money.

And Andrew, you know, these attacks, they are hitting so many critical aspects of our society. In just the past few weeks alone, we're talking hospitals, food, ferries, and gas. They've all been impacted. So, I mean, where is our country the most vulnerable? It's something on the horizon that we can't even imagine it?

ANDREW MCCABE, CNN SENIOR LAW ENFORCEMENT ANALYST: Laura, we are vulnerable everywhere to this threat, and if the private sector and government housing hasn't gotten that message yet then it's long overdue. I think although, you know, clearly, it's not 9/11, it's a very different threat, but I think that the director's words were prescient in one way.

I think similar to the aftermath of 9/11, we need to think about this as a whole of government, whole of society approach. After 9/11, I mean, I know from my own experience in the FBI, we didn't just do one thing to try to deter terror threats, we did everything that we could think of. And that's the way the government and the partnership they had with the private sector needs to think of this threat today.

We need to build partnerships, we need to exchange intelligence better, we need to forge deeper relationships with our foreign partners to confront tis globally. And most of all, most of all, we need to impose consequences on those rogue nations like Russia that are responsible for many of these attacks, and are at least responsible for giving safe harbor to the criminals who are attacking us now.

COATES: And to be fair, you talk about the challenges that were imposed or posed by 9/11. You compare the challenges now of doing this very whole of government approach or speaking about.

But, Andrew, you know, on this point, and you raise this, and you did as well, Phil, Vladimir Putin is dismissing allegations that Russia is involved in these attacks, or, that they are harboring criminal hackers. He called it all nonsense. But, I mean, could Putin really put a stop to this if he wanted to? This kind of wink in a nod?

MCCABE: I mean, absolutely he could. Right? So, Putin and the Russian government does not respond to tough talk. They don't respond to warnings. They respond to power. And if we put them in a position where they are paying the price for this criminal malfeasance that's taking place from Russia, from groups that undoubtedly, Russian intelligence services are aware of and are possibly supporting. If they fuel the consequences from that activity, then they'll put a stop to it. But until that happens, he is going to continue to laugh it off, and deny it, and look the other way.

COATES: And of course, Andrew, you are talking about the idea of using some level of persuasion, maybe a forceful persuasion as opposed to just bald-faced assertions, et cetera.

[22:10:01]

But Phil, I got to ask you, I mean, you know, how do you think the president intends to handle this when he meets with Putin face to face next month, will it be similar to what Andrew is talking about and trying to ensure that they know that they mean business? Or this will be much more these sorts of conversations and the esoteric fashion about what one should not do?

MATTINGLY: You know, I think based on the conversations that the president has had with President Putin up to this point, it would be much more the former than the latter. And I think President Biden whenever he talks about his relationship with President Putin, obviously, they've known each other for a number of decades and have met in person before, they've spoken several times on the phone before.

The president makes clear that he just goes out and says what he thinks needs to happen. It doesn't mean necessarily that President Putin is going to respond and do exactly what he wants, but I think that since you've gotten from both the president and from his top advisers, is they don't feel like there is any reason to try and be delicate or try to be ginger (Ph) with the message that they're trying to get across.

I think the real reason that we have going into this June 16th meeting with Geneva. Look, you want to know how important this issue is, Laura, there's aggression in Ukraine, there's obviously the SolarWinds hack, there are no shortages of major issues that the president needs to broach with President Putin. And this is now risen pretty high up the list. That's how important this is for American officials.

I think the question is, what comes out of this meeting? Does the Biden administration feel like they will get immediate results from this face to face conversation? Or will more repercussions need to be imposed over the course of the next several weeks, months, or longer, for them to start seeing a result.

I think most officials I talk to think it's going to be the latter, but I think they want to see how this conversation goes, and they want to ensure that the U.S. position is a very firm position when they bring this up with President Putin, even if he's going to deny that Russia's government has anything to do with it.

COATES: Just about 11 days away. Gentlemen, thank you so much for your time. I appreciate it.

MCCABE: Thanks.

COATES: Now, you know, Facebook is announcing today that it's keeping a former president, Trump, former President Trump off its platform at least until January 2023. And at that point, Facebook says that it will reassess the risk to public safety.

Let's discuss now with CNN correspondent Donie O'Sullivan, and CNN national security analyst, Juliette Kayyem. Nice to see both of you as well on this Friday evening.

You know, I got to ask you, and Juliette, of course, you were a former official at the Department of Homeland Security, so this is your expertise area in particular as well.

Let me begin with you, Donie. Because Facebook is saying that former President Trump is suspended until at least 2023, so potentially, I mean, he'll miss the midterm elections, right, but he could be back in time for the 2024 presidential elections. Is that right?

DONIE O'SULLIVAN, CNN REPORTER: That's absolutely right, Laura. And I think a lot of people are asking tonight if inciting an insurrection on the U.S. Capitol doesn't get you suspended from life from Facebook, what does? So, Facebook is not guaranteeing that Trump will be allowed to return to the platform in January 2023. This is what they are saying, and I want to show you this.

It says, and the end of this period, so on January 23, we will look to experts to assess whether the risk to public safety has receded. We evaluate external factors, including instances of violence, restrictions on peaceful assembly, and other markers of civil unrest. If we determine that there is still a serious risk to public safety, we will extend the restriction. Which really, Laura, is quite remarkable if you think, you know, they are essentially acknowledging that Trump used their platform to incite, or to glorify, violence.

And, also, it's just incredible to read that in terms of the precedent that is being set here. Not with a tyrant or a dictator from some faraway land, but from a former president of the United States.

COATES: And by the way, Donie, I mean, even without Trump, the top 10 posts on Facebook are often from people who frankly, they are espousing the same sort of dangerous lies or conspiracies. So, what is Facebook is going to do about that? Same standards?

O'SULLIVAN: Yes. Nothing. You know, the reality is that Trump has plenty of proxies on Facebook, you know, and Facebook is not changing its policy in terms of fact checking politicians. So, you know, people like Marjorie Taylor Greene, the president's son Donald Trump, Jr., they can post whatever -- Marjorie Taylor Greene as elected official can post whatever she wants about the big lie. And that's not going to really get taken down. So, the big lie is going to continue to perpetuate whether Trump is on the platform or not, Facebook is not really going to do anything about it.

COATES: And of course, Donie, you made a point early this evening, I heard you talk about the reason he was even suspended in the first place was not about comments around the big lie, it was about the insurrection. So, all of the other comments that precipitated that might very well have been allowed and were permitted. So, we'll have to wait and see.

But Juliette, you know, you're looking at this from a different angle, it's from the perspective of counter-terrorism, and anti-incitement, and anti-recruitment efforts. And you say that, look, this is a good move. But is this long enough when you consider it's these kinds of posts that can spark an insurrection. We're not talking, even six months ago that this happened. This is now going to be just until 2023, is it?

[22:15:03]

JULIETTE KAYYEM, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: Yes. And I think it's fine. For one, we don't know where Trump is going to be in 2023. We don't know what his physical or mental state is going to be. We don't know where the party is going to. I think Facebook essentially bought us time. And I couldn't be more thrilled. I have to be honest at this stage.

You know, Trump as I've often said, is the leader of a, you know, call him what you want, of a terrorist organization that he incites in ways that are both subtle and direct to fight. And that fighting is to undermine our Democratic institutions. It is something we now recognize. It is something it took us a long time to recognize.

So, if you just look at it from the counter-terrorism, counter- incitement perspective, this makes a lot of sense. Because while there is a lot of proxies, as Donie was saying, you know, others who are espousing, there's no one quite like Trump. He is the leader, and they follow him.

So, I -- you know, it may be too little, it may be too late. And look, Facebook is not fixed yet. But in terms of what the alternatives could've been, in other words, that he gets back on the platform. Given where we are right now in terms of the continuing lie, the violence behind the lie, the threat of violence that seems to be permeating our Democratic institutions right now, this is a tremendously important move and one that we can -- we can address again two years from January 6th.

But I think things will be very different. I guess I should just say, he's an imminent threat right now, and this was an imminent response. And that's exactly the way you approach the leader of someone who inspires terrorism and counter -- and, you know, essentially and undermining of our Democratic institutions.

COATES: Well, first of all, it's shocking for people to keep being reminded that this is a former president that we're talking about. And the most recent former president at that. But you know, there was an alternative, wasn't it, Donie? I mean, there was an alternative of being able to fully ban him. That's the point of the criticism that he's gotten about this very issue. I mean, the idea here that he could've had an opportunity to let Twitter has already banned him, they could've done the same thing. Could they not have, Donie?

O'SULLIVAN: Yes. And look, I mean, Twitter -- Twitter, you know, said that he is not going to come back. Now, could Twitter change their mind" Yes. But they firmly said that he is never coming back, he is gone.

Look, I think Facebook, you know, it's easy, you could potentially say Facebook is trying to kick the can down the road here, but I think they are also dealing with an extremely difficult situation which is to say, you know, it is an incredible power for a private company to be able to kick off a sitting president of the United States from its platform given the important role that Facebook has in our public discourse.

So, they are trying to, and this is not just in the United States of course, they are trying to create a rulebook because they didn't have one really up until this point. They didn't really expect a world leader to behave in the way that Trump did. So, they are trying to now a set of rules and standards that can be applied to leaders elsewhere in the world.

But, you know, for the next 18 months to two years as we go into January 2023, Facebook is going to have this lingering over its head and they eventually going to have to make that decision.

COATES: Juliette, Donie, thank you for your time. It's kind of like we're talking about the idea of, you're building the plane while you are trying to fly into the plane --

KAYYEM: Right.

COATES: -- and trying to figure out where you are going to land at the same time. It's novel, wild, wild west territory. But we've seen a lot of this over the last four years. Thank you for a time.

O'SULLIVAN: Thanks, Laura.

COATES: I appreciate it so much.

KAYYEM: Thank you.

COATES: You know, why are so many people so uncomfortable with conservations about race in America's schools? Next, we'll explain the truth about what critical race theory really is, and why the right wants to bend it.

[22:20:00] (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: The Georgia State Board of Education passing a resolution that blocks the teachers of critical race theory in K through 12 classrooms. Georgia's Republican governor supports the ban. And GOP state lawmakers across the country are taking similar action, calling radical race theory divisive and anti-American. But the truth is very different.

CNN's Abby Philip explains what the theory is exactly and why conservatives want it banned.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNKNOWN: Just because I do not want critical race theory taught to my children in school does not mean that I am a racist! Damn it.

ABBY PHILLIP, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT (voice over): School children across the country are caught in the crosshairs of a political battle over how racist taught in American schools.

BETTY SAWYER, PRESIDENT, NAACP, UTAH CHAPTER: Why would you not include a diversity of people to talk about race, this baffles my mind.

PHILLIP: After last summer's nationwide protest against racism and police brutality, conservatives begin waging their own battle over American history and an academic theory called critical race theory.

CHRISTINE EMBA, COLUMNIST, THE WASHINGTON POST: Critical race theory is an academic concept developed by legal scholars Derrick Bell, Kimberle Crenshaw and others in the 1970s and 80s. And it states that race and racism are a big part of American history and are still embedded in our institutions, in our law, in our public policy. And so, affect the outcomes, of life outcomes of Black Americans and other people of color.

PHILLIP: Decades after the relatively obscure idea was coined, GOP political figures have seized on it.

JOE BIDEN, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Critical race theory teaches that America is an evil country and that you are part of the suppression from the moment you are born. I will not allow federal taxpayer dollars to be used to spread anti- American propaganda.

(CROWD CHEERING)

PHILLIP: But that claim is false. The theory's founders and others say.

EMBA: They use the umbrella term of critical race theory to describe basically anything that challenges conservative viewpoints on, you know, race and racism in America's history. They could be talking about anything from The New York Times' 1619 Project to K through 12 schools daring to teach students justifiably about. In fact, some of our founding fathers own slaves.

[22:25:01]

PHILLIP: Yet since dormer President Donald Trump left office, a slew of red states led by ambitious GOP politicians have picked up the torch he put down.

GOV. RON DESANTIS (R-FL): Let me be clear, there is no room in our classrooms for things like critical race theory.

PHILLIP: That was Florida Governor Ron DeSantis widely believed to be a 2024 presidential hopeful. And the issue has also taken hold in Oklahoma which just days ago marked 100 years since one of the deadliest race massacres in American history occured in Tulsa, Oklahoma.

GOV. KEVIN STITT (R-OK): As Governor, I will not stand for publicly funded K through 12 schools training an impressionable mind to define themselves by their sex or their race.

PHILLIP: The state's Republican Governor Kevin Stitt was removed from the massacre centennial commission after he signed a bill banning schools from teaching certain concepts about race -- at a time when Republicans are raging against cancel culture on social media, there has been no such outrage against bans of teaching history that they believe is un-American.

EMBA: This is cancel culture in reversed. If a teacher is acknowledging that, America does, in some way, have a racist past. Conservatives are so threatened by this, that they are the ones melting down.

PHILLIP: Abby Phillip CNN, Washington.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Thank you, Abby. I want to talk more about this with W. Kamau Bell who is the host of CNN's United Shades of America. Kamau, it's good to see you. You know, you are not at all, you know, uncomfortable about having these discussions, the very nature of your show which is so captivating, is to have these conversations.

But why is it that you think that so many folks are uncomfortable with talking about race in schools? I mean you've heard Governor DeSantis say, there is no room in the schools and this education system for this. Why so uncomfortable?

W. KAMAU BELL, CNN HOST: Because they don't want to know the truth. I think a lot of people, not in my household, were brought up in household where they're taught that America was created by God as a perfect nation in every way. And that's on the truth. I think there -- but also, let's be clear, the right is doing this as a distraction.

This is no different than the war on Christmas, or a, hello, meet in New York street arts. This is just a distraction as a way to distract people from the things they're doing that actually damaging us. COATES: You know, I mentioned earlier that the Georgia State Board of

Education actually just banned critical race theory from schools. They banned it. I see you shaking your head. But you know, Governor Brian Kemp applauded them and saying this. He said, quote, "this dangerous anti- American ideology has no place in Georgia classrooms."

I mean, we just heard what critical race theory actually was at Abby's phenomenal explanation. Why are so many people casting it suddenly as being now anti-American?

BELL: Because it sounds like something. It's not about what it is, it's about what it sounds like. And I mean, we all know that no child in elementary school was learning about critical race theory before all of this were going down. But guess what, next year more kids are going to be learning about critical race theory because we won't stop talking about it.

And so, I think this is just -- this is just a way -- you know, it's no accident that the governor of Georgia doesn't want to teach critical race theory but he's also trying to restrict voting rights, especially the black and brown folks. These are all the same thing. The distraction is critical race theory, and over here I'm going to restrict voting rights.

COATES: Maybe we'll just call it history next time then, and everyone can have a, you know, party about that. Kamau, let's talk about your actual show, United Shades of America. Because this week you're looking ahead. This is a discussion about how America as it wants to look backwards.

You're looking ahead to the year 2045 when senses experts say the U.S. will become a majority minority country. You actually visit Philadelphia where people of color already outnumbered white people. Let's take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ANTHONY SMITH, ACTIVIST: But you have so called Black window ship. You know we have Black police commissioner, we had one before, now she's a Black woman.

BELL: Yes.

SMITH: So, we had the first Black Democratic mayor of Philadelphia. You know, you got the black people win in the seats, but the white power structure still exists. You know, so I think the future of Philly is one that is full of conflict between the people in the state, I believe. I think that that is the reality. It's going to get way worse before it gets better.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Worse before it gets better. I mean, why are people so afraid of a mix country, both racially and ethnically?

BELL: Well let's be clear about that. That was Anthony Smith, the celebrated activists in Philly, and he said that before January 6. We had that conversation before things actually got worse, so he knew what he was talking about.

I think what we're talking about the fact is that, some people, maybe on the left think that this majority minority era of America will automatically mean things are better and racial equality well done. When in actuality as Anthony is saying, if the power structures don't change, and as a Black person knows, a Black police officer doesn't necessarily mean a better police officer. If we don't change the power structures, then the country will go on the same path.

[22:30:08]

COATES: I mean, you talk really about the concept of race itself, what is important for people to know about the very idea of race? Is it tied to power in your mind?

BELL: Yes, in this country we have really -- you know, the system of white supremacy has really structured a system based on race. Now in the we talked about this, and maybe we've talked about this, and you start believing that race is a real thing. But it's not science, it's a social structure.

Now having said that, we have a lot of things tied into that social structure that are real. So, just because we get to think race isn't science, race isn't real it doesn't mean that the effects of our system based on race are not real. So, we live in a white supremacy system that uses race as a way to allocate power.

COATES: Well said. I can't wait see you. And be sure to tune, everyone. Thank you so much. There's an all new episode of United Shades of America with the very W. Kamau Bell. It airs Sunday at a special, the special time now at 10.15 p.m. Eastern and pacific only on CNN.

Voting rights, speaking of that issue. Voting rights, you have the southern border. Small business. Space council, internet, I mean, Vice President Kamala Harris is meant to solve all those problems. She's got the experience but this is still a lot. I make my case, next.

[22:35:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: When then Senator Kamala Harris was sworn in as the vice president of the United States, we knew it was historic. The first woman, the first Black woman, the first South Asian woman. We all felt the weight of that extraordinary American moment.

But now it seems the weight of some of the nation's most pressing issues of the moment rest squarely on her shoulders. Less than six months into this administration, it seems Vice President Harris is tasked with spearheading solutions to the most difficult challenges.

Immigration crisis at the southern border, who are we going to call? Call Kamala. State efforts to restrict voting rights without any evidence of abuse or fraud? Call Kamala. Expand broadband and solve small business issues? Call Kamala. But under -- at answering, answering that call is an incredibly tall order. Even for someone with the undeniable credentials of Vice President Harris. If it were that easy to solve, we wouldn't be where we are today.

Solving our greatest problems shouldn't be the responsibility of one person. Democracy actually contemplated the coordination between three coequal branches of government all working together.

The overwhelming reliance on her speaks volumes about the state of our democracy. It shows the dysfunction of Washington, D.C. Where at times bipartisanship is a pipe dream, other times a punchline. We watch with baited breath counting defectors from the party line on one issue. Waiting to see how just one or two senators will vote on another.

The needle doesn't move, it just hovers around dysfunction. So, who are we going to call to move it? Kamala Harris. The Senate's decisive tie breaking vote. And now apparently, the decisive political jack of all trades.

Next, if this isn't aliens, what is it? I'll speak to someone who might know, he's been tracking aerospace threats for the Pentagon for years. Stay with us.

[22:40:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: So, new tonight. Sources telling CNN that an upcoming government report says U.S. intelligence officials have found no evidence confirming UFOs that were seen by U.S. navy pilots in recent years were in fact alien spacecraft. But that report making no definitive assessment as to what the objects might actually be. Are there now even more questions about what's flying in our skies?

Here to discuss, Luis Elizondo, former director of the Pentagon's Advance Aerospace Threat Identification Program. Luis is the right person for this conversation. Welcome to the show. I'm glad that you're here. Luis, you know --

LUIS ELIZONDO, FORMER DIRECTOR, PENTAGON ADVANCE AEROSPACE THREAT IDENTIFICATION PROGRAM: Thank you so much for having me.

COATES: Thank you. And sources are telling CNN that the upcoming Defense Department report does not actually determine what these unidentified flying objects actually are. It doesn't say, it doesn't say that they're alien spacecraft but it doesn't say that they're not. It doesn't rule it out. It's going to add some fuel to the debate that's already going on, isn't it?

ELIZONDO: Well, indeed it is. You know, the U.S. government has already stated now for the record, according to some of these inside sources, that this is definitely not some sort of secret U.S. technology. So that argument now is finally for many decades now is finally off the table. So that really only leaves two options, doesn't it? And that is, one, it's some sort of foreign technology that has

somehow managed to leapfrog us. Or, it's something completely and totally different. And I think it's important that when we look at this, we also look at the context of the U.S. government's involvement in this topic historically.

And so, there is truly documentation now that is coming forward. Some of my team members have been able to uncover through the FOIA process and that also by the way has been available for quite some time. That demonstrates that the U.S. government has actually indeed been dealing with this issue for over 70 years.

And that's a little bit problematic. Because if we say this is a formal adversarial technology, we know that the Russians after the Berlin Wall came down, had shared a lot of their UFO files with us. And so, we know they had the same problem we did.

Furthermore, if that leaves let's say a country like China, that would then, in essence, we would have to consider the fact that China or another country now has had some sort of beyond next generation technology for the last 70 years. And as we know, that's a really hard secret to keep. And furthermore, that these technologies have been deployed over controlled U.S. airspace.

So, I think you're right. There's a lot more questions now that we have to ask ourselves. And let's be clear too, that the report did not say this was some sort of alien type, or extraterrestrial technology. It simply said, it could not rule that out. I think that's an important caveat.

COATES: I want to go to that data that you are talking about. About that history to give people the context you're speaking of.

[22:44:58]

Because you actually did share new declassified report with our team, and they detail -- they detail intelligence on UFOs resembling something like a Tic Tac going all the way back to 1947.

You got a CIA report from 1953 says Swedish airline pilots encountered a silver, or white-flying lozenge traveling at high speed. You got an FBI report from 1964 that detailed a UFO that's like a butane tank. And then some navy pilots say that they have seen something like a flying Tic Tac in recent years as well. So, I mean, why do you think of this pattern? The similar characteristics over time, what's your thoughts?

ELIZONDO: Well, first of all, thank you for doing your homework. I think a lot of media has been lazy about this topic. I also want to thank you for your courage for reporting this topic. I do know that there's still some stigma and tableau associated with it.

I think the fact that you have pilots separated by decades, if not generations, reporting the same type of observations describing what is the same what is essence the same object, a 40-foot long whether it's a white flying butane tank, or a white flying Tic Tac, or a white flying lozenge, at the end of the day there are describing the same thing. They are just describing it from the context of the generation that they're growing up in.

So, were definitely, I think it's safe to presume that we're seeing the same objects in the sky time and time and time again. And obviously that's a concern, because if the argument is that there is some sort of foreign technology that has somehow mastered this and is 1,000 years of the United States, and by the way, has been demonstrating this technology for the last 70 years. I think we've got bigger problems on our hands.

COATES: Well, speaking of that, I mean, because of the pattern, because of the over time you're talking about, I mean, if we don't have an answer soon on what exactly this flying phenomenon are, is that a failure for our national security?

ELIZONDO: Well it is certainly -- it would be a -- it would be a failure, an intelligence failure that would eclipse 9/11 by orders of magnitude. If it turns out that this is some sort of foreign adversarial technology. But I think it's important, we have to keep all options on the table. There's a lot of information right now that suggest it's not.

And I know as hard as that may be to digest for some people, as an intelligence officer, it is important that we approach this topic objectively. We have to really try to keep our emotions out of this. There's a lot of preconceived narratives, we, as Americans have about this topic. Part of that is because of the socialization of this topic over the last, well, the last 70 years.

I think we have to really keep an open mind, keep all options on the table. And if it turns out, if it turns out that this technology is not foreign adversarial, well, then we need to be prepared to have that conversation as well.

COATES: Well, you know that NASA says that they're now looking into UFOs as well. But I mean, does that -- is there need to be a whole of government approach to figure what these things are? I mean, especially if they could be intelligence gathering tools for other countries. Is a whole of government approach the right way to go?

ELIZONDO: Right. Well, look, from a Department of Defense perspective and an intelligence perspective, our government should be looking at this from a national security perspective. But there is a whole lot of other, if you will, facets to this issue. And I do think we need a whole of government approach.

I think we need to have the FAA, and NASA, and NOAH. I think we need to have also have our academic institutions and our scientific community all involved in this. And then, maybe we can start fining some answers. I don't think it is the purview of our national security apparatus to give us answers on things that aren't necessarily national security-related.

Frankly, I don't want my government telling me what I should think about something. I want my government to provide the facts and then allow us as the people to make our own determination on what this means.

Ultimately, this is a topic that impacts everybody equally, and yet differently, depending on perhaps the way we were raised, and some of our philosophical and theological views. So, I do think a whole of government, frankly, maybe a whole of society conversation about this.

COATES: Luis Elizondo, thank you for your time. I appreciate it so much. We'll stay tuned.

ELIZONDO: My honor and privilege. Thank you.

COATES: Thank you. You know, a plea deal is imminent. The man assaulted -- accused of assaulting Officer Michael Fanone at the capitol, they are in talks with the DOJ to strike a deal. And Officer Fanone is telling us what he thinks about that. That's next.

[22:50:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: The Justice Department is preparing to offer a plea deal to the capitol rioters accused of brutally assaulting D.C. Metropolitan Police Officer Michael Fanone. Thomas Sibick, Kyle Young, and Albuquerque Head are all accused of beating Officer Fanone on the capitol steps. He was pulled into the crowd, beaten with a flagpole, and repeatedly tased. His body camera footage shows just how gruesome the attack was.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNKNOWN: I got one.

UNKNOWN: All right. Easy.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Every time I hear that, guys, he's got a family. Do you hear it when they say it? Officer Fanone has been speaking to Don since just a few days after the insurrection. Don's team spoke to him about today's development, and he says, he's, quote, "very confident and how his case is being handled, both from investigators, and prosecutors."

[22:54:59]

Tomorrow, marks 150 days since the capitol insurrection. And the Justice Department confirms approximately 465 defendants have been arrested from nearly all 50 states. More than 130 people have been charged with assaulting, resisting, or impeding officers.

Remember when Republican Senator Ron Johnson said to this about January 6th?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. RON JOHNSON (R-WI): This didn't seem as an -- like an armed insurrection to me. (END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Well, according to the DOJ, more than 40 people have been charged with entering the capitol with a deadly or dangerous weapon. Or, causing serious bodily injury to an officer. Those are the facts.

Thanks for watching. Our coverage continues.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)