Return to Transcripts main page
President Biden Is Surprised To Learn Of Government Records At Old Office; Social Media Companies Sued For Allegedly Harming Students' Mental Health; Police Find Evidence That May Be Linked To Disappearance Of A Massachusetts Mother; VA Mother Could Face Charges After Son Allegedly Shot Teacher; Dr. Dre Threatens Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene With Legal Action. Aired 11p-12a ET
Aired January 10, 2023 - 23:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
JOE BIDEN, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: And they did what they should have done. They immediately called the Archives, immediately called the Archives, turned them over to the Archives.
And I was briefed about this discovery and surprised to learn that there are any government records that were taken there, to that office. But I don't know what's in the documents. My lawyers have not suggested I ask what documents they were.
I've turned over the boxes, they've turned over the boxes to the Archives, and we are cooperating fully, cooperating fully with the review in which I hope will be finished with soon and will be more detailed at that time.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
LAURA COATES, CNN HOST AND SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: This is all coming as the new House Oversight chairman, Republican James Comer, sent letters to White House Counsel's Office and National Archives, trying to get information on Biden's handling of classified documents.
I want to bring in senior political columnist at "Politico," Jonathan Martin, and CNN political commentators Karen Finney and David Urban are with us as well. I'm glad to have you all here.
Let me begin with you, Jonathan, because, look, this is not the news or the way I think President Biden wants to start the new year or a new Congress. I'm sure there is a bit of rebelling and bit of dysfunction --
JONATHAN MARTIN, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST, SENIOR POLITICAL COLUMNIST AT POLITICO: Yes.
COATES: -- what is happening with the Republicans last week with the speaker vote. But the fact of the matter is he has got to contend with this.
COATES: What do you take out of it?
MARTIN: Well, two things. One is the circumstances are different. Obviously, his folks called when they realized they had classified documents there which is, as pointed out, the right thing to do, but also that Biden is not his best defender.
You watched that clip there. It is somewhat circuitous. And obviously, this is going to create a challenge for him if for no other reason and just because the Republicans in Congress are going to use this to muddy the old waters.
Look, that is what partisans do. They like to try this to undermine the other person's case by muddying the waters, and this gives people like Comer a chance to do just that.
COATES: There is ammunition and also in the fact that, look, Karen --
KAREN FINNEY, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Yeah.
COATES: -- he knew about it in November. Why didn't he come sooner?
FINNEY: Well, remember, the only reason that we know about the documents that were found at Mar-a-Lago is because Donald Trump himself couldn't keep his mouth shut, and he made the announcement thinking that he was politicizing, politicizing it, because remember, it is DOJ protocol and to protect the individuals who are under investigation, to protect those -- that investigation until it has been completed.
So, again, following the appropriate channels, there is no reason actually that we should know. I mean, apparently, I don't --
COATES: Should know about Trump?
FINNEY: Should know about Trump or that we should know about any Department of Justice investigation at this point. But I do want to say, of course, Republicans are going to try to muddy the waters and they're going to, you know, make as much -- I can't wait to hear what David has to say about it. However --
COATES: He's already giggling. I will note that.
FINNEY: Oh, I know.
DAVID URBAN, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, FORMER TRUMP CAMPAIGN SENIOR ADVISER: I wasn't.
FINNEY: He's already giggling.
COATES: I will note that.
FINNEY: But I will say --
URBAN: This is going to be easy. This is going to be easy.
(LAUGHTER) FINNEY: But I will say, for those of us who do live in the fact-based universe, the Republicans, many of whom have had nothing to say when it was Donald Trump and hundreds of documents, who are now falling all over themselves when we're talking about 10 documents with regard to President Biden, the farther they go out on this, the question becomes, okay, so if that is how we're going to treat President Biden, is that how we are going to treat Donald Trump?
COATES: Double standard.
URBAN: I think it's the reverse, right? If that's how we're going to treat Donald Trump, how do we treat Joe Biden? That's what Republicans are saying. Why does Biden get the presumption of innocence, the presumption of niceness, the presumption of, oh, this has happened?
It slipped into his briefcase by accident, right, these TS/SCI documents or this personal NF file, by the way. Let us just remember what the reporting has said so far, that this file says personal in it, were such closely like really personal material like funeral arrangements for his son, letters of condolences, things that like some staffer wouldn't be slipping around. That's Joe Biden's personal file.
URBAN: In that file -- hold on. In that file is TS/SCI material, right? Clearly mishandled, right? So, listen, when Trump -- when documents were found in Mar-a-Lago, I said, look, that is wrong, right? They should be -- you know, mishandling classified is a big deal, right? So, whether it is President Trump or President Biden, it is a problem.
FINNEY: There is a huge -- you would admit there's a huge difference between (INAUDIBLE) under subpoena and concerns the Department of Justice had, that they were moving or possibly --
URBAN: So, that was -- it was different, okay, and that Trump was instructing -- that was China. That is the case. That is the allegation. Trump is trying to obstruct. Biden says, well, I don't know how they got there, right? Oh shock, gambling in Casablanca, I got classified documents --
FINNEY: Come on. We don't know.
URBAN: Those have been there for months. Why don't we know for months, right?
COATES: Well, let me ask you --
URBAN: One more thing --
COATES: I want to clarify, so I'm clear about what you're saying clear. It sounds like you are (INAUDIBLE) that the fact that it was within a file that was marked personal, that Biden was the one who put them there. Is that what you're saying?
URBAN: Absolutely. Well, I am assuming that the staff is in dealing with Beau Biden's funeral arrangements and letters.
FINNEY: You don't know that.
URBAN: I don't know that, but I'm saying that's the most personal intimate details of his son's death. I would think that the president or the vice president would be dealing with that, not some staff.
The second thing is, look, how do we know that there's not more stuff in his house in Delaware? I don't see the FBI visiting these places. This is what Republicans are going to say.
And then, finally, as you know, as a former prosecutor, the law has to be applied the same across the board, right? So, now, I think that Merrick Garland, a little bit of a pickle, right? A little bit of a pickle here, right?
Because what does he do now? If he goes after Trump and not Biden -- I mean, the Department of Justice will just put a giant partisan sign up on the wall with flashing neon, right? And look, the Republicans now are saying that there is no Hunter Biden investigation, there is no Joe Biden investigation, but yet they come to Mar-a-Lago in the middle of the night, looks a little suspect.
COATES: Let's bring Jonathan into the conversation as well because there is an interesting --
MARTIN: Do I have to?
COATES: Yes, you have to.
COATES: You have to, specifically on this point. There has been the talking point that David is speaking about. I don't mean to be reductive about what you said, but there is a notion about the idea of, look, if Marjorie Taylor Greene spoke about it, Mike Pence, the idea, if the Department of Justice does not treat Donald Trump --
COATES: -- and Joe Biden equivalently, then there is a problem. But there is also the reality that there is a divergent behavior, right? There is one who --
COATES: -- has been fighting, the idea of returning, and there's one who, according to what we know, presently, this obviously can change, wanting to touch, turn it in.
MARTIN: And like I said, the circumstances are very different. I think David would obviously acknowledge that, too. I think Davis is also right that this is a great challenge for the Department of Justice and Merrick Garland, that they do come forward with charges about the former president, you also have to take a look at the current president. I think that that is certainly a fair question that's going to be asked.
I would say this real fast. David mentioned this in passing about there is no Hunter Biden investigation. That was also -- we heard a lot of that after the raid at Mar-a-Lago. I don't understand that because my understanding is that there actually -- there could be a Hunter Biden investigation. The U.S. attorney in Delaware is still looking at this.
So, we might not know about all the details. I think that is still an ongoing question. So, I don't quite get why there's this sort of idea that Hunter Biden is being somehow left alone. He still faces some jeopardy, right?
URBAN: This is what -- if something happens here, not there, right, if there is a prosecution of Donald Trump and not Joe Biden --
URBAN: -- it starts to look a lot worse for Merrick Garland.
FINNEY: There is a difference between the law and politics. So, legally, one of the things that we know is that in both instances, a process in a procedure has been followed whereby the documents are being reviewed to determine the level of secrecy and potential harm to national security. Then also we know that Merrick Garland has referred the Biden case to a --
FINNEY: -- Trump-appointed, right. Similarly, the Trump documents have also been moved to a particular process. So, again, we can play politics and muddy the waters, and yes, it does put Merrick Garland in an already tough position, in a tougher position, but again, I think that it's fair to say that he's not going to take any action until both of those processes have been completed, and we know what the results are.
COATES: It also seems though that with all that you're describing, the idea of, in a word or two or three, tit-for-tat, it is a perpetual cycle at that point because you're saying that in order for this to happen, this reaction and reaction happening, is there an end game ultimately if you are the Republicans and you have the majority in the House and you've got, of course, committee chair? What is the angle? Is it to frustrate?
URBAN: The oversight. This is what we heard. This is what we heard going into this Congress, right? There's going to be aggressive oversight, the weaponization of the Department of Justice. That is the view of the Republican --
COATES: That is just one committee.
URBAN: No, but that's the view of the Republican side of the aisle, right? Jim Jordan and many others feel that there is -- the Department of Justice has been weaponized, and they're going to investigate it, right? It's all going to get flushed out. If you're Merrick Garland today, you are saying, this is not another great fact pattern for me to go up to the Hill and try to explain.
MARTIN: Really fast here, one thing that all of us can agree on is that Merrick Garland's future is looking very different than it appeared five years ago when he was supposed to be on the Supreme Court.
MARTIN: Justice Garland would be having a much more scholarly life surrounded by clerks and the law, the sort of the political hothouse, that he is going to find himself in for the next two years.
COATES: They're under microscope, too. (INAUDIBLE) water at all. But I do take your point. Karen, I'll give you the last word.
FINNEY: No, I agree, but again, I think that we have every indication that Merrick Garland is going to follow the law, to the letter of the law.
COATES: Well, that's a lot for last word.
URBAN: She is very optimistic.
COATES: We'll see. I like the glass half full, but it is not a good start (ph). Of course, the American people, national security is an issue, the idea that classified documents are out there. I'm still wondering about who the custodian of records is that will be responsible for figuring out what is out, what's outstanding, and how to get it back.
That's all part of the conversation. That's the next story. We've got some good reporters at the table. More in a minute and more on that very important point that I have just said.
Also, do you worry about the impact that social media is having on our society? Yes, that's rhetorical. Well, so this one school district, and tonight, they are pointing the finger at big tech. They're filing a lawsuit against one of the most popular social media platforms, claiming that they have a negative impact on their students' mental health. We're going to talk about what tech companies are and are not responsible for, next.
COATES: Well, it's unusual and might be unprecedented. The Seattle Public School District is suing some of the biggest names in social media: the owners of Facebook and Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat and YouTube.
The district claims that those platforms have a negative impact on students' mental health, getting in the way of schools being able to fulfill their educational mission.
Meta, which owns Facebook as well as Instagram, tells CNN in the statement that it continues to pour resources into ensuring its young users are safe online with more than 30 tools to support teens and families. Other companies did not immediately respond to CNN's request for comment.
Dean Kawamoto is an attorney representing Seattle public schools along with the school district in the neighboring city of Kent, Washington which joined the complaint, and he joins me now.
Dean, good to have you tonight. A lot of people are talking about this lawsuit, especially about the idea of these platforms impeding the school's ability to -- quote -- "fulfill its educational mission." Tell me about this particular avenue as a way to go at these companies.
DEAN KAWAMOTO, ATTORNEY REPRESENTING SEATTLE PUBLIC SCHOOLS AND KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT: Well, good evening, Laura. Thank you so much for having me on your show. I really appreciate it. You know, if you want to summarize this lawsuit, there is a mental health crisis among kids caused by social media companies. And this lawsuit in the four social media companies is to stop preying on kids and help schools pay for the mental health services that students now need because of the actions of the social media companies.
So, the technical legal claim is the public nuisance lawsuit, but the goal is abatement and it's two-fold. It's number one, to change the behavior of the defendants. And it's also to get the resources you need to abate the nuisance. In this case, you know, the mental health issues that are confronting both the Seattle public schools and the Kent School District.
COATES: And in terms of abatement, if this is a successful lawsuit, is that where the money would go to if you were to win this claim?
KAWAMOTO: Yes, that is certainly the goal.
COATES: When you're looking at this and, of course, the word that comes to mind and as part of the criticism, obviously, and more broadly when it's directed towards social media companies, the retort is often about on whom the onus falls. Whose responsibility is it to monitor the use by a particular person of these particular platforms?
And they have said in a statement that they have developed more than 30 tools to support teens and families, including supervision tools that let parents limit the amount of time their teen spent on Instagram and age verification technology that helps teens have age- appropriate experiences. And other platforms, of course, have also put out safeguards to children. I wonder, with this lawsuit, based on that statement, why are those tools insufficient?
KAWAMOTO: Well, I think what the Seattle public schools and the Kent School District would say is that based on the results and the experience in their schools, these tools are not adequate. They are not doing enough. You know, this lawsuit is targeting the algorithms and essentially how the social media platforms design and operate and market their platforms, particularly to children.
And these algorithms that are used by the social media companies push harmful content to children and are designed to hook kids and keep them on the platforms. These are the allegations and their complaints and that is a focus of this lawsuit.
And I understand that companies like to say it's up to parents to protect kids from social media. But parents do not control the algorithms that are pushing the harmful material to kids, and it's these algorithms and how the social media companies have designed and operated their platforms that is causing these problems.
COATES: I can't help but draw an analogy in my mind of the idea of Big Tobacco as it sometimes thought of as it relates to what's pushed upon a child. Not necessarily an algorithm, but at one point, it was the advertising, the targeted campaigns to try to envelop a new consumer base.
And I wonder, even with the issue of what a parent's responsibility is to control their child's access either on their phones, what they're searching, et cetera, it almost sounds like even with the best intentions and best oversight of a parent, the lawsuit seems to suggest that the algorithms or the influence that these platforms wield really overpowers that.
COATES: Is that part of the premise?
KAWAMOTO: I think that's absolutely right. I think that it is unfair and problematic to put the onus on parents and families that are out there, quite frankly, trying to put out as many grassfires (ph) as they can and avoid liability and responsibility for the companies that are making these products that are causing -- quite frankly causing this fire.
COATES: So, why wouldn't this --
KAWAMOTO: So, I would agree with you.
COATES: So, why is this coming then from if it's the idea of a parent being overwhelmed, why is this coming from the schools as opposed to, say, a class action suit by a conglomerate of parents? Why is the school and the one in the district being the one pursuing this?
KAWAMOTO: Because the impacts of social media and the adverse consequences that are being, you know, caused or inflicted on children are directly impacting the school's ability to educate their kids.
Schools are constantly dealing with mental health issues. They're one of the primary providers of mental health services to youth. And the demand is so vast and it is outstripping existing resources, and that means that schools have to divert resources away to address this problem.
So, money that would go to libraries, science labs, math teachers and sports teams has to go instead to dealing and providing support to these kids that are in crisis.
COATES: Are the rules in the school could possibly an act to try to abate even without this lawsuit or is that the part of the conversations ahead?
KAWAMOTO: I think that's part of the conversations ahead, but, you know, it is -- I mean, schools are doing what they can, but it -- you know, you mentioned sort of being overwhelmed. I think that that is certainly an analogy that applies to schools. And so, you know, schools don't control the algorithm, they don't control the platforms, they don't control the programs, and that is -- that's the problem.
COATES: Really fascinating. We're going to follow this litigation. Thank you for joining and helping to better explain the premise of this. Really important. Thank you.
KAWAMOTO: Thank you, Laura. I really appreciated being on your show.
COATES: Thank you, Dean. Well, up next, more about what's happening because you may recall Donald Trump's longtime moneyman. Well, Allen Weisselberg is heading to jail for five months. He was sentenced today for his role in a decade-long tax fraud scheme.
Allen Weisselberg turned state witness against the Trump Organization, but the judge said that had he not already promised a five-month sentence, he would've issued a stiffer one. This after hearing the evidence that came in at trial.
Weisselberg was the former president's chief financial officer, and he admitted that he shouldn't pay taxes on off the book compensations, totaling roughly $200 in one year -- $1,000 in one year. That included a luxury of Manhattan apartment to Mercedes-Benz leases and private school tuition for his grandchildren.
And five months is obviously by no means the longest sentence handed down to a member of Trump's universe. But unlike several Trump associates, tenants over the past few years, Weisselberg has no chance of a pardon from the former president. It is worth nothing that Weisselberg will be sent to the notorious Rikers Island jail in New York, not exactly (INAUDIBLE).
Just ahead, everyone, police in Massachusetts find evidence at a trash processing facility that they think might be linked to the disappearance of a mother of three. We'll have the very latest on that case after the break.
[23:25:00] (COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: Tonight, police are still looking for the missing Massachusetts mother, Ana Walshe. They turned up evidence that they think may be linked to her disappearance. Sources are saying investigators found a hacksaw, a torn-up cloth material, and what maybe bloodstains while searching through trash at a garbage transfer station.
Coworkers reported Walshe, a mother of three young kids, missing on January 4th. Now, her husband, Brian, told police that he last saw her on the New Year's Day. He's being held in the charge of misleading a police investigation.
Sources alleged investigators also discovered that he searched the internet for information on dismemberment and -- quote -- "how to dispose a 115-pound woman's body" -- unquote.
Let's talk about it now with Chris Swecker, former FBI assistant director for the criminal investigation division, and CNN legal analyst Joey Jackson. Gentlemen, it's good to see, but what a case this is becoming. Unbelievable, really.
I want to begin here with you, Chris, because as I just told everybody, the investigators have found a trash facility. They found a hacksaw, torn-up cloth material, what appears to be bloodstains. What is the significance of having these searches be completed and where they have been completed?
CHRIS SWECKER, FORMER FBI ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIVE DIVISION: Yes, I mean, tracking this guy is like tracking the bleeding elephant in the snow. I mean, he's leaving tools, clues and signs everywhere.
SWECKER: I mean, he gave a very obvious false story to the police about when his wife supposedly went to Washington really in order to delay the investigation and delay reporting her missing. He goes to Home Depot which is some place that he said -- during a time period where he said he never left the house. And he buys $400 worth of -- over $400 worth of cleaning equipment. And then yet he leaves a bloody knife in the basement and a huge blood spot in the basement.
Obviously, the investigators are tracking some of his cell phone activities. They are tracking -- may well have been tracking his car. For all we know, he may have been wearing a monitor. He was awaiting sentencing as he had an art fraud case --
SWECKER: -- a federal case pending and was awaiting sentencing there and wasn't supposed to even leave the house. So, the police and investigators are obviously following some very reliable information because they let him directly to some very damning evidence.
COATES: Yeah. And, Joey, on that point, about the ankle bracelet, of course, being monitored, but also the behavior. I mean, you are a defense attorney in part and a tremendous lawyer, and thinking about this suspicious behavior. This does not look good for the accused even when there is a presumption of innocence. I wonder how you evaluate all that has come out in the press already.
JOEY JACKSON, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Yes, Laura, good evening to you. It is really a challenge, I believe, for what ultimately, I think, they are building up to be. And I certainly hope not. And people holding out hope that potentially she is still alive. Certainly, she is loved and has these precious little boys ages two, four and six.
But they are, that is investigators and prosecutors, building this up to be a murder case in the event that comes to that, and we could see that through what they are tracking and the challenges are many.
Number one, as you know, Laura, we constantly advise the defense attorney's client not to speak. That upsets a lot of people. In this instance, you heard in court his defense attorney saying that he was speaking. However, the things he was telling investigators were misleading.
Why is that relevant? Because it goes to the issue of consciousness of guilt. If you're going to cooperate with authorities, right, you're going to cooperate, the hope would be that you'd give credible information.
When you give information, which is untrue, with respect to my wife leaving for a ride share when they do a cellphone triangulation to the home which shows that she did not leave, when you give the indication, right, and otherwise, it was to the police that, you know, you know that your wife was leaving for Washington, et cetera, and that proves not to be the case, there are really significant challenges and issues.
You match that with all the other evidence, seemingly the blood, et cetera, the fact would be, you know, indications are that he went to Home Depot and it just really tells a story.
Now, last point, is this. This is all circumstantial evidence to be clear. But, as you know, from the outstanding prosecution you are, circumstantial evidence is evidence, right? People don't generally commit crimes in the light of day where everyone can see them.
And so, ultimately, go before a jury. And if it comes to that, you lay out all the pieces of the puzzle, and boy, does it look damning at this point with respect to the defense having to defend him, which will, from a misleading case, right, which he's tried with now $500,000 bail to eventually, I think, a murder case.
COATES: Well, gentlemen, stick around because we still have more to talk about with you tonight. And also, both of you mentioned this, she is a mother, and so she -- they have three children ages two, four and six. They apparently are currently in the custody of the Massachusetts Department of Children and Families. So, what will happen to these children? We will follow as well.
Chris, Joey, stay with me because up next, Virginia police say that the mother of a six-year-old boy could face charges after her son allegedly shot a teacher at school. Yes, a six-year-old. The firearm was purchased by his mom.
COATES: The police chief in Newport News, Virginia says that it is certainly a possibility that the mother of a six-year-old could face charges after that child allegedly shot a teacher at school on Friday.
Investigators alleged the boy took the firearm from home and brought it in school in his backpack, then allegedly opened fire on the teacher who was shot in the chest through her hand. She is in stable condition.
Back with us, Chris Swecker and Joey Jackson. I mean, it's hard to wrap your mind around this, gentlemen. Chris, a six-year-old having engaged in this behavior. Allegedly, he was able to get the gun from home, put it in a backpack, apparently conceal and carry at some point throughout the day, and then shoot his teacher, allegedly.
I wonder, the idea of a six-year-old being capable of a premeditated shooting and killing, what is your thought?
SWECKER: Yeah, my background was a state prosecutor before I went into the FBI, and I see a lot of difficulties in any type of prosecution here. I think that it is a pretty foregone conclusion that won't happen. Too young, unable to participate or meet the definition of incompetent or competency, he can't participate in his defense, he wouldn't understand the nature and extent of the charges against him. I think there are other remedies here.
SWECKER: I think that that will be pursued. But the parents, I think the parents are going to face the bar of justice. They are gathering the facts now. I think there's a misdemeanor charge in Virginia that can be used to safeguard a gun. And I think there may even be some sort of criminal gross negligence-type charge that might be applied here.
So, you know, there is still some investigating going on, but I expect to see charges here. I think the parents stand a pretty good chance of having charges to file. Let's put it that.
COATES: Before I get to you, Joey, I want to follow up with you on, Chris. What do you think the other avenues of accountability would be for a child like this?
SWECKER: I think it would be more around some sort of counseling environment, some sort of treatment environment, whether the child would stay with the parent or with the mother. I think it was a mother, not a set of parents. I just don't see any possibility of any type of criminal accountability here.
There is no place to hold the child in the Virginia system. I think, really, it's hard to imagine that a child would form that type of intent that they can be held criminally culpable.
COATES: It's sad to think about the fact that this is where we are right now. Joey, as to the mother in particular, Joey, the idea that there is the very real possibility, paraphrasing law enforcement on the point, what potentially might she be held to account for and what could those charges be?
JACKSON: You know, Laura, as we know, there's a law in Virginia that speaks to the issue of not recklessly leaving a weapon available so that it could be used or otherwise possessed by someone 14 or under. But, as Chris noted, it's simply a misdemeanor.
What does that mean? It means that it's only punishable by a year. It's classified in Virginia, apparently, class 1, 2, 3, 4. And so, I think what prosecutors will do here, Laura, is they will not only look to utilize that statute but to look for other creative ways to hold, right, the mother accountable.
They will examine, of course, how reckless was she, how did the gun get into the hands of the child, how did it get outside of the home, how did it get to the child's backpack, how was it transported to the school and how is that permitted.
I also think that the law itself talks about the misdemeanor simply for children who possess and could endanger others. In this instance, it was far more significant. So, I'm looking to see what other statute prosecutors would apply that are more serious than that, potentially felony level, such that there is an accountability because you could certainly foresee, Laura, if a child gets a gun like this, that terrible things like this could happen. Thank goodness the teacher is alive.
COATES: And you are right to think about the idea of the deterrence aspect of laws and prosecution as not to set an example for the sake of trying to target and condemn one but to prevent what happened and anything else.
And Chris, this could've been far worse. I mean, the idea of a gun at school is a horror that we live to often in this country. And the teacher, thank goodness that she is stable.
Abby Zwerner is being praised really for her response because even after she was shot in the chest through her own hand, presumably through a defensive, trying to stop what was happening, she made sure that all of her students got out of that classroom safely. And I wonder, what your thoughts of in terms of her being hailed at this point a hero.
SWERNER: Absolutely. I mean, her actions were heroic in every sense of the word. She looked to the kids first, got them out, despite the fact that she was greatly wounded. That was her first and only thought.
And to look back to on the gun itself, not only it was the gun in the hands of the child, but it was racked and ready and loaded, fully loaded. Most nine millimeters, you have to rack the gun. It's hard to believe that a six-year-old child would know how to do that, to have that thing ready to go in the backpack.
I didn't mean to deviate from your thought there because I don't want to take away from it. That teacher is an absolute hero. Every parent in that -- parent of every child in that class ought to be very, very grateful towards her for her action.
COATES: Chris, I'm glad you said that, actually raised the point you just did because, Joey, that does add the argument that you were making about what would be considered and thought of about the idea of how would a child be prepared and why the mother may be looked at, criminally, in this particular instance. That adds to those questions that law enforcement would surely be asking.
JACKSON: Yes, there is no question about that, Laura. I think that you really have to look to when you're examining this from a prosecution perspective. You know, as you know, there is a saying in law that the risk perceived is the duty defined. What does that mean in English?
JACKSON: Certainly, it's a risk in the event that you leave a gun, right, that a child can get a hold of. That is the risk. You certainly would perceive a duty to safeguard that weapon. And you know that it would be foreseeable that someone could be significantly injured.
Certainly, it's horrific that we would foresee this, right? This is just really incredible when we talk about a six-year-old who can get a gun into the school and then use it against a teacher.
And so, I think, to your point that you raised in your question, I think prosecutors will be looking at that horrific risk, will be looking at the inability of the parent to safeguard the weapon, and will be looking at the net effect and the result of that, taking a full circle and ending on this, about the deterrence that you noted.
You have to deter other people and other parents and show that you have to be more careful. These things can happen. They shouldn't happen. And I think prosecutors would invest in prosecuting this case really to demonstrate that we're taking it seriously, we're going to look closely at it, and we're going to find a parent accountable who would permit and allow this to occur.
COATES: Chris, Joey, thank you so much. I know that we're all thinking about the impact on the other children in that classroom and how this is impacting them as well. Thank you both.
Up next, rap legend Dr. Dre in a legal spot with controversial Republican Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene. So, what is it all about? We'll take a look or listen, next.
COATES: Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene in a spat with rap legend Dr. Dre after his lawyers center a cease and desist letter for using his beat from the 2001 song, "Still D.R.E.," in her Twitter video. Now, Twitter disabled her post. But for context, just for context, here's a piece.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNKNOWN (voice-over): He held up her phone. And on the phone, it said "DT." There it is right there on the phone.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Well, Marjorie Taylor Greene was celebrating Kevin McCarthy's speakership victory after, of course, 15 rounds of votes. In a response, Dr. Dre said -- quote -- "I don't license my music to politicians, especially someone as divisive and hateful as this one."
And then Greene put out this response. Quote -- "While I appreciate the creative chord progression, I would never play your words of violence against women and police officers, and your glorification of the thug life and drugs."
Jonathan Martin, Karen Finney, and David Urban are back with me. But she did play the music.
URBAN: But she sampled it. She just sampled it. She was an artist. This guy -- everybody samples --
MARTIN: She's an artist.
URBAN: Everybody samples everything.
COATES: She's an artist?
URBAN: She's a creator. She's on social media.
FINNEY: No, no.
URBAN: She sampled as artist.
MARTIN: It's all about politics today, by the way. It's perfect, right, because the beef, if you will, about folks like Marjorie Taylor Greene is that they are more performance artists than politicians. They are not rolling their sleeves up in community work. They are trying to bring back the bacon for their districts.
MARTIN: They are trying to create identity, a brand for themselves. And so, David stumbled upon a great insight here.
COATES: What is the brand?
MARTIN: When you're close to midnight, that is what happens. She's an artist.
COATES: Karen, what is the brand she is trying to promote, though?
FINNEY: That, I cannot speak to. I believe that is to David. Actually, I would imagine that it is probably a staffer who has an excellent taste in music, I have to really say, to use that.
But, you know, when we talk about branding, this happens all the time. People get in trouble. We use music and rallies that were not supposed to used, that were supposed to get permission. In this instance, though, for the musicians, as you saw in Dre's statement because, you know --
MARTIN: He's Dre.
FINNEY: He's Dre, yeah.
COATES: His still -- well, his "Still D.R.E."
FINNEY: His "Still D.R.E."
COATES: See what I did?
FINNEY: Yes, I love it. But, you know, musicians and artist don't want to be associated with certain brands. And as you said, I don't do politicians, so --
URBAN: To MTG's point, it was just the chords. It was the piano. There are no words. There is no --
FINNEY: But it was a loop --
URBAN: Loop, yeah.
FINNEY: -- that they should have gotten --
MARTIN: But this is a longstanding story, though, in American politics because there is always this --
URBAN: It happens everywhere.
MARTIN: Everywhere. Every campaign, invariably, there will be a cease and desist letter and/or statement from somebody --
URBAN: Whether it's Republican or Democrat.
MARTIN: -- to a candidate who uses --
COATES: -- great deal.
MARTIN: A lot, yes. Obviously, they're controversial. But this happens in every campaign. This is not totally new. What is new here is the fact that this is not even overplayed. It's over just the sample on a --
FINNEY: Social media.
MARTIN: -- social media, exactly, right.
FINNEY: That's where I think it becomes more problematic. Trump actually, interesting enough, I believe that that is a record number of artists from across the spectrum that he got himself in trouble with.
URBAN: I have heard most of the songs, by the way.
COATES: That's the keyword here, spectrum, because look at just the list of people that we're talking about. If you're promoting the music, all of these people, you're talking about someone with either a very eclectic playlist or you are trying to reach a very broad audience and hoping to associate that with the favorability of that musician which is why they don't want it.
URBAN: And if you've ever been to a Trump rally and heard the playlist, eclectic is exactly the right word.
MARTIN: Well, Trump saw himself as an artist of some sort. One of my favorite stories from the Trump era, we actually have this in our book, is Trump and Elton John. So, when Trump was going to campaign in North Dakota for Kevin Cramer, now senator, in 2018, on the way there, he asked then Congressman Cramer, he said, what did Elton draw (INAUDIBLE)?
MARTIN: Because Trump, as David knows, was to turn and outdraw Sir Elton --
URBAN: Every venue.
MARTIN: -- every midsized venue. He wanted to know what Sir Elton's (INAUDIBLE) was because he wanted to get more. Trump is not a politician in that sense. He was more of a performer and artist.
URBAN: If you've been to rally, that is what it was.
COATES: Yeah. I tell you what, if that was the question that Marjorie Taylor Greene asked, I think that the answer is only, well, a Super Bowl. So, I'm just saying, you're not going to be able to easily match --
URBAN": Last yeah, yeah.
COATES: Last year's Super Bowl, everyone. And, of course, we're just a couple of weeks away from the next one.
Thank you, everyone. Thank you to our panel sticking with me. I'm amazed by all of the Dr. Dre knowledge of this panel. I'm in favor of it.
COATES: Listen --
MARTIN: (INAUDIBLE) rock now, to be honest.
URBAN: -- generation.
COATES: -- we're ending that. It's not classic rock. Thank you, everyone, for watching. Our coverage continues.