Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Tonight

Appeals Court Halts Special Master Review Of Documents; Federal Judge Orders Former Top Lawyers In Trump's White House To Testify; SCOTUS Keeps Block On Biden's Student Debt Plan; Murder Investigation Continues; William And Kate In U.S. As Buckingham Palace Faces Racism Controversy. Aired 11p-12a ET

Aired December 01, 2022 - 23:00   ET

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

[23:00:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

LAURA COATES, CNN HOST AND SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Former President Donald Trump suffering two major legal blows tonight. A federal appeals court stopping the special master review of documents that were seized at his Mar-a-Lago resort. This coming as federal judge orders Trump's former White House lawyer and his deputy to give additional testimony in the criminal grand jury investigating the efforts to overturn the 2020 election.

Plus, there are new developments tonight on the investigation into the stabbing deaths of four University of Idaho students. Coming up, we'll hear what police are saying about who else may have lived in the house where the students were found.

I want to bring in former Obama White House senior director Nayyera Haq, also former National Republican Senatorial Committee aide Liam Donovan, and national security attorney Bradley Moss. Glad to have all of you here on a night like this.

First of all, Nayyera, let me turn to you, because the significance of the judges saying, hmm, actually, you're not going to be treated in a specifically special way because you're a former president, you can't help but think about the idea of no one being above the law, maybe it's little more truth tonight. The idea of the indictment rule -- I mean, not being able to indict a sitting president, a former president now, what do you make of it politically?

NAYYERA HAQ, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST, FORMER OBAMA WHITE HOUSE SENIOR DIRECTOR: I'm not sure how much this is going to impact Trump politically or legally, especially since we have Merrick Garland, as the attorney general, no longer having a democratic Congress. If the moves were not made when there are all these other legal questions, all these other questions about national security documents, there were other opportunities other than continuing long investigations to hold the former president accountable.

How do you hold the former president accountable now with Republicans in control of Congress? What is the political incentive? What is the legal process? And is that even -- is that even necessary at this point for something other than saying, he did it because it's the right thing to do? There is an opportunity for that and to have an impact on how our country sees our democracy. And it seems like the White House and the attorney general have missed that window.

COATES: Brad, do you agree? This is your specialty as well in your wheelhouse. I'm just wondering, yes, there is going to be a Republican majority in the House, there's going to be a democratic majority in the Senate, albeit a very slim margin, irrespective of what would happen in Georgia, but the idea of a window missed, if you're DOJ, has it been missed? Is that door closed to you?

BRADLEY MOSS, NATIONAL SECURITY ATTORNEY: No, I have to respectfully disagree on that. It may have been missed from a political context for the January 6 Committee. I think they did about all they could to outline everything for the public. The public could take what they wanted from those facts. There is going to be historical record. There is going to be a public report.

For the Justice Department, their goal has to be, if we choose to do this, if we choose to indict a former president, which has never been done, we have to have it all, and we have to have every single I dotted and every single T crossed.

So then you can't be concerned about how the House switch or what the Senate majority is going to be. Their goal has to simply be, is there a crime, can we win at trial, and should we do it? That's the end of it for them.

HAQ: That's the concern that we should've had all along, is there a crime, no matter how egregious or minimal, and are we all equal before the law? That's part of a challenge we've seen with this Justice Department as this moves forward or chosen not to be forward when it had referrals sent, when it had the opportunity to potentially prosecute other situations of contempt. Every legal recourse has not actually been pursued up until this point. So, why now?

COATES: Let's unpack this to what the -- Bill Clinton what the is or the it is. We're talking about it. On the one hand, right, there is the January 6th, the idea of White House counsel and the deputy having to testify in a criminal grand jury investigation, January 6th- related. Then there's the Mar-a-Lago documents.

[23:04:58]

So, there are maybe two bites of the proverbial apple to test this theory of whether the window is closed. When you think about it, Liam, on the issue of the Mar-a-Lago documents specifically, how do you see it panning out? Because this really becomes more and more a bit of an anvil because, to me, a single question has not been answered. Why do you have them? Why do you have them?

LIAM DONOVAN, FORMER NATIONAL REPUBLICAN SENATORIAL COMMITTEE AIDE: I was talking to Brad about this just a minute ago. We were talking about -- I think just like everything else, this is a guy who likes his trophies. He likes his mementos. He likes to show off that he was there. These are his precious letters from, you know, the great leader of North Korea or what have you. I mean, this is his proof that he was there in the room. He loves to show off, that's who he is, and they're his.

This is -- you know, he was the president and they're his personal items. And so, that's why he had them. The question is, why he didn't give them back when they asked nicely? I think that's the open question. He might be the one to answer it (ph).

COATES: So, if you think about this Brad, the idea -- just talk to me about this now. I want to hear your reaction and Nayyera as well. But the fact that this judge -- this circuit court, this particular panel, said no, said you can't take your ball and go home and keep it there, no one can test you on it, how significant is that given that the lower court judge was doing what was really unprecedented to have this special master?

We're talking about documents of extraordinary -- we're told through reporting, national security and classified levels that -- I mean, remember that display of photographs on the floor with a top secret, et cetera? You know this so well. What is the impact of this judicial panel saying no?

MOSS: This was the 11th Circuit bringing us back to reality. Judge Cannon issued her ruling back in September, created this whole new area of precedent with respect to a pre-indictment special master just for Donald Trump. This was the 11th Circuit with two Trump-appointed judges saying, no, enough is enough with this game, it's all a sideshow, there never was jurisdiction in the first place or authority for Judge Cannon to create a special master.

What is unclear at this point is to what extent this changes the timeframe for the Justice Department going forward. Do they already have enough? We know they're still bringing people before the grand jury. Are they preparing to indict or they're going to decide they don't have what they want in order to bring this kind of president indictment? That, I think, we are going to have to wait until after the holidays. It's a question of, how much did this slow them down in the processing?

COATES: This is, to your point as well, I mean, Nayyera, the idea of what Congress has to accomplish in the time that this lame duck session is going on. I mean, we're told from reporting that they are going to meet tomorrow to discuss criminal referrals, possibly January 6 Committee. But we also know that they are hoping to get -- this is the Washington D.C. talk for, we'll not get to it. They're aiming to get the report out December 12th.

I mean, my bureaucracy mind when you think about these things, sure, that'll be around that time. There's a lot to get done, Nayyera, between December here and December 12th, and then between now and, of course, January 3rd.

Look at this. You've got the final report due, the funding bill by the 16th, the annual Pentagon funding bill, the debt limit being raised, you've got the president signing off on the same-sex marriage bill. That's just a sliver of things going on. When you think about the politics of all of this, what is the likelihood that the American people, to your point, have faith that it will get done?

HAQ: Well, there is no universe, when I had my eye level security clearance, that I could even bring one document home to actually do real work and not have lost my job immediately. So, the idea that we all know that these national security documents were just sitting there and this long, protracted process has already eroded a little bit of that trust that we are all, as national security professionals, equal before the law. So, that's part of the personal perspective there.

Now, on the political side, there's always the opportunity for a Christmas surprise, right? That if you really want to make some news and get everybody hopping, but the reality is we've had those opportunities before. We have not seen that this is what the appetite for this Justice Department. They play it safe. They want everything buttoned up. That takes time and that means the accountability for any of these things may be well beyond the public's attention or any political consequences.

COATES: Liam, on the report, do you think the January 6 Committee -- Nayyera, excuse me, is saying that there is not the -- maybe the hope, credibility or, you know, not holding their breath on what's going to happen in DOJ, but I know I'm interested in seeing this report from the January 6th Committee, do you think there still is an appetite to figure out what's in it and what might not have been seen on television?

DONOVAN: I think the limited window is certainly a cause for urgency. I think, you know, there is an open question as to whether the January 6th proceedings, as they stood, would have an impact on the election. I think you can take away, as Democrats, from this election, everything when into making that a success relative to expectation. So, they can see that as validation of their process, of how they comport themselves.

[23:09:58]

And I think coming up with a final report in that time is the sort of culmination of that effort.

The laundry list of things Congress has to get done are, I think, separate from that parallel process of the democratic considerations of what we can do while we have the power. Everything else requires republican sign off to get funding done, to get (INAUDIBLE) done, things like that. So, I think this is a separate consideration, they have a lot to get done, but this is firmly in the hands of House Democrats.

COATES: Look, newsflash Congress, just because the new Congress will be sworn in, it doesn't restart the clock for Americans to go, oh, I guess I can't ask the questions any longer. We have a new Congress there. I wouldn't bet on that, Washington D.C., but, you know, we've all been wrong before about that. Look, 26 American -- 26 million Americans, excuse me, are on pins and needles. Why? They're waiting to find out whether they will get relief from their student debt. And the Supreme Court says they've got to wait at least until February, more likely June. So, what are borrowers supposed to do?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:15:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: There's a new legal setback for the Biden administration's student loan debt forgiveness plan. The Supreme Court today keeping a block on the president's plan, announcing that they will hear arguments on the case but not until February.

Back with me, Nayyear Haq and Liam Donovan. Also joining us, CNN correspondent Marc Stewart. Marc, let me begin with you here because look, this is pretty substantial, that the Supreme Court wants to weigh in on a matter like this. But also, they're keeping the debt relief on pause while they are anticipating the oral arguments. How long could we really be in limbo here?

MARC STEWART, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yeah, that is a very big unknown, but let's just look at the roadmap that we've been able to establish based off of our reporting so far. First of all, as you have mentioned, this is a program that has just been riddled with legal challenges and legal chapters along the way. But the goal again is for the Supreme Court to hear this case in February with a decision likely in June.

Now, again, we are talking about more than 20 million people who have applied for this program. And it's very important to stress that no debt relief has been issued at this point. There have been no cancellations, Laura, at least at this point.

COATES: That's a really important point because you don't want to have the idea that people initially who were able to get on and thinking about approval were able to benefit, and then the rest of the people waiting in line.

If you are to go to the website right now and try to reply, I mean, this is what you would see. They are alerting you to the fact that there is this outstanding litigation now before the Supreme Court.

Marc, I mean, what does this mean for people, though, who are trying to plan? I mean, people have to order their lives and their finances, and student loan debt is very significant for millions and millions of Americans. How can people plan? What is the course correction?

STEWART: This is very tough. The simple answer is just even more uncertainty. One thing, Laura, about reporting the story out, always learn something new, including the fact that student debt is greater than credit card debt, auto debt. That's according to the New York Federal Reserve. But it obviously, despite the politics, whatever you feel about the policy, I mean, it is a financial stress in people's lives.

In fact, the National Association of realtors did some research over the past few years and it shows that this type of debt gets in the way of home buying and other financial decisions. It is a burden that can haunt students well into adulthood.

COATES: Absolutely. Let me turn to the panel here in D.C. I mean, everyone who has ever taken out a loan or try to get a mortgage or anything else thinks about revolving credit limits, revolving debt, your debt to income ratio. And student loan debt is top of the heap for so many people for years, decades oftentimes.

And the idea that no one wants to be in the position politically to say, no -- I mean, you should have to -- you have to deal with this although that's not true traditionally, right, Nayyera, because that was part of the issue and reaction to his proposal. Some said, well, why should I have to pay for the debt that you chose to get? Is that part of the political conversation still to this day, do you think?

HAQ: Oh, I think there's a significant part of the population that still believes that because I suffered, you should have to suffer, too. So, the idea I paid off my student loans, you can figure how to do it. But we forget that this is a unique generational problem. That California public schools, some of the best colleges in the country, all used to be free up until Ronald Reagan decided that people should be paying tuition for them. There has been a 2,500% increase in college tuition since 1970.

So, generation X, millennials who are now in their 40s trying to buy homes, stuck with gig economy work, no pension guarantees are also saddled with student loan debt, trying to fulfill a promise that they were given that this is how you advance in society, this is how you get ahead, and it's simply not the same way it worked for our parents.

So, we are now looking for solutions to effectively following what our eldest told us and our elders are still largely the ones making the decisions on how the economic system is going to work.

COATES: Liam, those legislative solutions that Nayyera is talking about, I mean, they are not yet tangible, right?

[23:19:54]

The idea that President Biden, as part of the campaign promise, tried to have this policy implemented, some in a cynical reaction think it was just done to fulfill a promise, knowing full well it would never truly manifest.

Others said, hey, this is why prior presidents and prior Congress has not actually acted this way, you can't do. So, is this the untenable sort of limbo indefinitely because no one is going to want to try to restart it or be able to do it effectively?

DONOVAN: I think you have to think about the fact that this wasn't done until September of the election year. There were two years where the president obviously had substantive political and legal doubts about whether this was the right thing to do, and this is the manifestation of that and the fact that it's hung up in the courts.

But in terms of whether it's a solution to the problem, it certainly treats symptoms and it will be real relief for millions of people. It doesn't get to the systemic structural issues of the explosion of the cost. If anything, it might be exacerbated by -- if you -- it's like just the general inflation problems. If you make things cheaper to the consumer, then the institutions are just, you know, going --

HAQ: But that's the magical part of how the government back loans work. The government has already accounted for what's not being paid back. So, this is the financial magic that you don't get told about when you're 18, is that high-powered institutions have ways of writing these things off and the U.S. government writes off debt all the time.

So, this might not have an inflationary impact if it is forgiven. But as you said, it's that structural problem of, if you're giving free money to institutions, all of these colleges, private and public, had -- just all they did was raise tuition rates.

DONOVAN: I think if you want to get Republicans involved in a solution, that conversation has to be about how to fix that problem. You know, in this populist moment, I think you're not going to have problems getting Republicans to go after some of these institutions in a way that makes them either curb those costs or share in the solution.

I think the other piece of this is, as the educational attainment and political sorting of the parties has played out, republicans are dealing with a base that is less college-educated. The fairness issue informs all of this. Republicans are much more geared towards the idea of vocational trades, of different education than the traditional liberal arts degree. That's the other dynamic that I think there's opportunity there legislatively, but it's what makes this so difficult because --

HAQ: There has been a strong conservative history from the 1980s, Reagan, Nixon, Reagan advisers having admitted the danger of an educated proletariat. That there might be class divisions to happen if too many people get access to college educations.

So, it does feed into that sense of the base that it's not as necessary. But if you are a woman, if you are Black, you are denied these opportunities period in that area. So, this college degree, a legal degree, a medical degree to have that representation is necessary, and the only way to have done that is through predatory student loans.

COATES: Nayyera Haq, Liam Donovan, I did not forget about you as well, Marc Stewart, thank you for your reporting as well. Nice to hear from all of you. This topic is going nowhere. We have probably until the end of the Supreme Court term in June to figure out how this will all really go down.

Also, there are still more questions than answers in the brutal stabbing deaths of four Idaho college students. The latest developments are next. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:25:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: There are new developments tonight in the investigation of the unsolved killings of four University of Idaho students. People tell police -- tell CNN that there may have been a previously unknown person living in the house where the victims were found.

CNN's Veronica Miracle has the latest.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

VERONICA MIRACLE, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): For the first time, police tell CNN there may have been six people living at the house where four University of Idaho students were killed. Until now, police have only released information about five of the roommates, three of the victims and two other roommates who were not harmed.

A fourth victim, Ethan Chapin, did not live at the home. A spokesperson for the Moscow Police Department tells CNN investigators are aware of a sixth person who could potentially live at the residence. That person was not at the residence on the night of the murders.

An employee with the property management company for the home tells CNN that six people are listed on the lease, but they would not release the names. It remains unclear if that sixth person lived at the property at any point.

(On camera): We asked police if they have found this potential sixth. They may question him and clear him as a suspect. All they can tell us is that they continue to investigate anyone who potentially has information about this case.

(Voice-over): Kaylee Goncalves's mother tells CNN -- quote -- "Kaylee had never mentioned that they were looking for a sixth roommate. If there was a sixth person on that lease, I didn't know about it." But she also said she had never been to the home and didn't know the other roommates besides Kaylee's best friend and victim about it. But she also said, she had never been to the home. And didn't know the other roommates besides Kaylee's best friend and victim, Madison Mogen.

The Goncalves family among those at the University of Idaho candlelight vigil where hundreds of students came together to honor their fallen classmates.

UNKNOWN: They shared everything. They've been together into the same apartment together. And in the end, they died together, in the same room and same bed.

MIRACLE (on camera): We did reach out to people connected to the house, and we have not heard back. So, we don't know if a sixth roommate really did live in this house. We just know from the leasing company that there were six people on the lease. Laura?

(END VIDEOTAPE)

[23:30:00]

COATES: Veronica, thank you so much. I want to bring in former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, criminologist Casey Jordan, and forensic scientist Lawrence Koblinsky. I mean, just thinking about what might have transpired in that house and seeing those vigils and seeing the parents, it's just so heartbreaking.

I want to begin with you here, Casey, because I have to know -- I mean, we don't hear any significant or at least clear leads that are being vocalize to the public. You're a profiler. Tell me what you think this person or persons -- what is your thought about who may have done this?

CASEY JORDAN, CRIMINOLOGIST: Well, Laura, you are correct. We are coming up this weekend. It will be the three-week anniversary. And we talk a lot about getting leads and looking on clues in the first 48 hours. But now they were talking three weeks, I think my theory is shifting, because statistically speaking, the investigators who insisted it was targeted, meaning that it wasn't random, it was an isolated event where the victims or perhaps the location was the target.

This might fit if we're just looking at probability, based on similar sorts of cases. Usually, you're talking about a perpetrator who knows the victims or at least knows of the victims or has been in the house before.

But as time goes on, they really would have had to eliminate virtually everybody. The fact that we are hearing in almost week three that there was a sixth roommate and that theories could be that -- I don't think they're suggesting this person might be the perpetrator but perhaps the target was the sixth roommate. I mean, all of this convolutes everything.

What we know about these similar types of attacks is kind of limited. And as time goes on, I'm more willing to believe that it is an outlier. It is a stranger. It is a transient perhaps. Somebody who may have known the area but not necessarily known the victims.

COATES: Larry, when you think about that, I mean, what she had to say about the idea of there is a world of possibilities. That's the scariest part about this and so unsettling for the community and, of course, the loved ones. That first 48 hours, obviously, critical to the crime scene itself, also very critical.

Tell me what you think the process of trying to get evidence and extract maybe DNA from the crime scene, the ways you would go about trying to not only secure it from the interventions of other people and being contaminated, but how you actually get the evidence out. What would it tell you?

LAWRENCE KOBLINSKY, FORENSIC SCIENTIST, PROFESSOR EMERITUS OF FORENSIC SCIENCE, JOHN JAY COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE: This is a very frightening situation because we don't have any suspect and we don't have a murder weapon. But, you know, there's an old saying, follow the evidence, and I believe strongly in that. That may be the way that the police actually can turn up the name of the perpetrator here.

We know that the police have collected at least 113 different items from the crime scene. Those items could really multiply because one single item can have subitems like, for example, a bloody bedsheet may have multiple stains on that sheet. So, there may be literally hundreds of items that have to be DNA-tested.

There's more to DNA, by the way. There is fingerprint analysis, there is blood splatter pattern analysis, there is trace evidence analysis. But with DNA, if there is successful -- if it successfully done, you may see stains that have a single source, mainly from each of the victims, but you may also see mixtures. And mixtures are very, very important because if there are unknown profiles in a mixture, that is something that needs to be followed up on.

That there are many people, many people have been in the house that are innocent, that have done nothing. They have to be checked out. They are elimination specimens. So, there's a lot of DNA testing to eliminate those people that are not involved and to come down and finally come up with somebody whose name they can actually come up with and recognize, who did this.

COATES: Let me turn to you, Andrew, on this because the idea of, and you can imagine the process of elimination not the most comforting to people trying to solve, but in many ways the vehicle in which you do try to investigate crimes, I wonder how this process would likely fall. I mean, you got the vigils happening. You got a whole community. If process of elimination or the idea of figuring out is the way to go, what would be the tactic you think you should be taken here?

ANDREW MCCABE, CNN SENIOR LAW ENFORCEMENT ANALYST: Well, Laura, of course, as with any crime scene, you want the initial phase of your investigation, hopefully, to be driven by the evidence you recover from the crime scene. So, like we're talking about DNA evidence, we are talking about finger prints, any physical evidence you can recover from the crime scene.

There are also other elements of evidence you can collect in that area. So, in other words, cellphone tower dumps can -- you can triangulate between local cellphone towers to develop list of devices that were hitting off those towers in that area at that time of day.

[23:35:04]

We're talking about between -- I think three and four in the morning is when they think the murders took place. So, you really want to work with that evidence first, then you branch out and start talking to potential witnesses. That's neighborhood canvases, seeking neighbors or other buildings in the area that might have video coverage, that could give you a look at a vehicle or a person coming in or out of the residents or in or out of the area writ large.

COATES: And frankly, the killer or killers could actually be hiding in plain sight or at the areas where people believe that they are commiserating and sharing in the pain.

MCCABE: So, that's where the vigil last night becomes incredibly important. I hope and I would expect that the police coordinated a substantial surveillance operation to try to understand the extent of folks in that crowd. It's -- I don't want to say it's likely but it's not uncommon for the perpetrator of an event like this to actually show up at memorial services, at vigils --

COATES: Really?

MCCABE: Yeah. So, if you think back to 2017, the murder of a Chinese graduate student at the University of Illinois, Yingying Zhang, by Brendt Christensen, who we now know is the perpetrator, Christensen attended the search. There was like a memorial march and a search for Zhang in just few days after the murder took place.

So, it is just one example of what perpetrators of these sorts of violent events typically try to stay connected to the investigation in some way or form.

COATES: Finally, do you think, Andrew, that we just don't know what's happening and that they're withholding information strategically because part of the investigation is not the tip of someone or to try to intentionally (INAUDIBLE) someone into a false sense of security, or do you have concerns about the way this is being conducted?

MCCABE: I have concerns. I hope that what you said is the case, that they know much more than they're sharing with us and that the investigation is moving on swiftly. There are some signs, I think, that are troubling.

The fact that they've so quickly turned to canvassing, just requesting tips from the public, and then following down on those very many, they said, thousand leads they received from the public so far, you got to be really careful about asking for that sort of input because you end up chasing a lot of leads that go nowhere.

So, if you're at that point in the investigation already where they're just looking at any time the phone rings, hoping that's the one that's going to solve the case, that will tell you that they're really running short on substantive investigative leads.

COATES: Well, I hope that it's a matter of strategy and that these families are able to get justice and the answers they desperately need.

MCCABE: For sure.

COATES: Larry, Casey, Andrew, thank you so much. Important to have all of you on. Thank you.

A Black British charity CEO was repeatedly asked where she was really from by a royal household member. We will give all the details in the latest scandal plaguing the royals, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:40:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: A new racially-charged royal scandal overshadowing the prince and princess of Wales' visit to Boston. CNN's Max Foster has the details.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

MAX FOSTER, CNN LONDON CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): A royal visit to the United States overshadowed by accusations of racism back home. A Black charity executive, Ngozi Fulani, told the BBC how she attended an event at Buckingham Palace earlier this week. She was asked again and again where she was really from.

NGOZI FULANI, CHARITY WORKER, SISTAH SPACE: I'm really from here. Yeah, but, okay, so, I can see that this is going to be a bit of a challenge. She said, what's your nationality? And I said, I'm born here, I'm British. I was thinking that would be the end of it. No. Where are you really from? Where your people from?

FOSTER (voice-over): British media identified the palace official as 83-year-old Lady Susan Hussey, the late queen's lady in waiting for more than 60 years and godmother to the prince of Wales. Buckingham Palace responded quickly and unequivocally.

The individual concerned would like to express her profound apologies for the hurt caused and has stepped aside from her honorary role with immediate effect.

William and Kate touched down in Boston on Wednesday ahead of their three-day visit for the second Earthshot Prize awards, a prize they helped set up for advances in climate science.

The fiasco threatens to overshadow any focus on environmentalism. Behind closed doors, the royals would be devastated that the issue of racism within the monarchy has reared up yet again.

Speaking to Oprah Winfrey in 2021, the duchess of Sussex, Meghan, pointed to her own experiences of racism inside palace walls.

MEGHAN MARKLE, DUCHESS OF SUSSEX: Concerns and conversations about how dark his skin might be when he is born.

PRINCE HARRY, DUKE OF SUSSEX: I have to do everything I could to protect my family.

FOSTER (voice-over): Incidentally, the duchess of Sussex and her husband, Prince Harry, released the trailer for their upcoming Netflix docuseries on Thursday.

[23:44:58] The pair will shortly receive the Human Rights Award from the Robert F. Kennedy Foundation for the heroic stance against structural racism within the royal family, according to organizers.

Like William and Kate's recent visit to the Caribbean, when they were dogged by questions about the monarchy's colonial past, this royal tour has again felt the effects of history.

(On camera): So, what do the prince and princess think about all of this? Well, I think it's pretty frustrating. But they're doing as royals do. They keep calm, they carry on, they go to the engagements, and are still very much focused on the big event, which is Friday night, the Earthshot Prize, something that Prince William and Kate have been building up to for months, if not years. Laura?

(END VIDEOTAPE)

COATES: Max, thank you so much for your reporting. And stay with us. We have more on the royals, including William and Kate's visit to the United States and, frankly, what it means for the monarchy.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:50:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: President Biden heading to Boston tomorrow where he will meet the prince and princess of Wales as another racially-charged controversy is rocking Buckingham Palace.

Joining me now, CNN contributor Trisha Goddard. Trisha, I'm so glad to see you. When you hear about what has happened to Ngozi Fulani, I mean, the repeated questioning by this woman, doubting really -- and her question alone, that she could not really just have the heritage of somebody from the U.K. or England, but wanting to know, that can't be true, I mean, we've seen this before. I know you and I have talked about this in the past. This feels like deja vu, but the persistence of it. What do you think?

TRISHA GODDARD, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Well, it's something that many of us people of the color in the U.K. were -- you know, commonplace 25 or 30 years ago. I think our mistake has been being lulled into a false sense of security that those days were over. There are some two and a half million people of color who see themselves as British. You only have to look at our soccer teams, for instance, and the stars like Marcus Rashford. Nobody asks him where he's really from when he scores a winning goal.

But, you know, it's still a hangover from those days. And we have to remember, I mean, when we talk about institutional racism, we have to understand that the royal family -- elements of the crown that Camilla may or may not be wearing on her head, from countries in the past, Britain robbed and enslaved their people. So, there still is that.

People can say, oh, that's in their past. I mean, my mother's maiden name was Fortune, a slave name. My great grandparents were born into servitude and what have you. So, it is not that long ago.

So, this whole conversation of where your people from, Ngozi at one state -- I don't know. They don't keep records, which was to touch upon the, you know, the whole thing about slavery. We don't know where we came from. And yet this woman persisted. It's a difficult one to explain because it's also one of privilege. It's like, I'm allowed to ask these questions because I'm a proper British person.

COATES: You know, Trisha, when you're talking, it's striking to think of the parallels of the conversations that are happening stateside, obviously. The ideas of who is entitled to be an American, who is thought of as a real American. The ideas of white supremacy, the replacement theory. So many different areas that we are grappling with. It seems really globally about these issues.

And it's almost a subtlety of the ignorance that is so stunning. The attempted subtlety of it. Because she was there, I understand, for the 16 days for activism. She was there believing she was being asked about the organization she represented, the idea of trying to help to stop abuse of women and girls. And then, in that moment, there is a kind of an abuse that's happening that she felt by being almost brow beaten into trying to say, well, yeah, this is -- I guess I'm not really one of you.

GODDARD: Yeah, there's a class thing as well going on. You know, what is doubly frustrating is that the vast majority of our press -- I've been looking through press reports.

I've seen one in "The Guardian" newspaper that gives me hope, alleluia, because one of the things that are very different about the U.K. and U.S., our newsrooms are almost exclusively white, if you take away the sports desk, and I know many of the few Black reporters there who have struggled with this.

If you look at the comments on some of these newspapers throughout this whole reporting of the story, if you look at the slant of the reporting of the story, and it depends whether that newspaper has been successfully sued by a royal as to how they bought it, but the comments underneath, many of the newspapers actually say that comments here have been moderated.

COATES: Interesting.

GODDARD: When you say the comments have been moderated, you know, some of them, I think, (INAUDIBLE) the KKK.

COATES: We're talking about this at a time when William and Kate are in the United States of America, in Boston, right? We think about Boston as a very critical time of the breaking away from England, the idea of a rejection in this nation of a monarchy.

We also know that here, living today, of course, is his brother and his sister-in-law, Prince Harry and Meghan Markle. I know the titles have changed, et cetera.

[23:54:55] But I just wonder, in this quest to have a new monarchy, this idea of trying to break away from what we're talking about, some of these connotations, the ideas in the criticism, do you think this is something that is a setback that can be attributed to them, or is this part of the breaking of the old guard?

GODDARD: I think it is part of the dismantling of the old guard. It's not just that. I mean, we have to look at Charles and Camilla, a little bit biased here because I may not meet both of them, but they are trying to make steps forward. But it's a very old, cumbersome monster of a vehicle. They're not going to turn it around quickly.

The press in the U.K. is making this very much William versus Harry. They love this idea of the old guard versus the new guard, and who are you, team Harry and Meghan, or are you team William and Kate, which is just puerile, so puerile, but it's clickbait, isn't it? And (INAUDIBLE) is always great clickbait.

COATES: Unfortunately, it persists as clickbait. And sometimes, people believe that it is actually truth and will go down the rabbit hole, and then we see the consequences, for example, as we are talking about as well. Trisha Goddard, so nice to talk to you, not about this, but always getting your insight is so important. Thank you.

GODDARD: Thank you so much.

COATES: And thank you all for watching. Our coverage continues.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)