Return to Transcripts main page

Laura Coates Live

Trump Allies Jockeying for Top Jobs at Mar-a-Lago; Laura Coates Interviews Rep. Dean Phillips; Democrats Face Reckoning After Trump's Decisive Victory; Laura Coates Interviews Lanny Davis; Laura Coates Interviews Allan Lichtman. Aired 11p-12a ET

Aired November 07, 2024 - 23:00   ET

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

[23:00:00]

COLEMAN HUGHES, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST, PODCAST HOST: -- centrists have no problem voting for a woman governor. I think it's something, that the Democratic Party has alienated male voters. The fact that manosphere is an insult is a perfect example, and I think the Democrats have to really look into that.

ABBY PHILLIP, CNN ANCHOR AND SENIOR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: Catherine, sorry to squeeze you in.

CATHERINE RAMPELL, CNN ECONOMICS AND POLITICS COMMENTATOR: Sure. I have something sillier that I wanted to talk about --

(LAUGHTER)

-- which is the list of things that a judge reprimanded Rudy Giuliani today for not handing over as part of his defamation judgment and included his apartment in New York, his Mercedes-Benz, a bunch of sports memorabilia, and 26 watches. Why does this man need 26 watches? That's what I want to know.

PHILLIP: I don't know, but I'll take one of them. Everyone, thank you very much. Thank you for watching "NewsNight." "Laura Coates Live" starts right now.

LAURA COATES, CNN HOST AND SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Well, tonight, Donald Trump taps the one he calls the "ice maiden" to run his White House. The one condition that Susie Wiles reportedly asked for before agreeing to take that job. Plus, Congressman Dean Phillips with me tonight on what went wrong for Democrats and where his party goes from here. Tonight on "Laura Coates Live."

All right, it has been less than 48 hours since the conclusion of a grueling and prolonged fight for the White House. Now, another battle is brewing. Now you can call this one "Game of Thrones Trump Edition." If you thought no one wanted in, well, you'd have lost that bet. People within the Trump team are now jockeying over who will get a spot in his second cabinet. And the maneuvering to climb up to the top, it's unfolding -- where else? Inside Mar-a-Lago.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNKNOWN: Chaos isn't a pit. Chaos is a ladder.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Sorry. I mean, I just remembered that whole season. Tonight, we now know who help sort out that chaos. It's perhaps the key person who helped get him back into the Oval Office. Trump is announcing campaign manager Susie Wiles as his chief of staff. And CNN is learning that she had a big condition before she took the role. A source saying -- quote -- "The clown car can't come into the White House at will. And Trump agrees with her."

Now, the kind of clown car she's hoping to avoid, well, it might look something like this. the ever-changing cast of characters showing up at Trump's Bedminster doorstep in 2016 who, of course, were interviewing for his administration. Only a handful got selected. Even fewer lasted his whole first term. I mean, some didn't even last a single month.

And because of that rapid-fire turnover and vicious infighting, the old hiring playbook might be just out the window. We are learning that Trump is taking it this time around much more seriously. He wants people who are competent. Now, that better be the floor, not the ceiling, right? But also, loyal, loyal enough to carry out his vision, which includes, well, promises like this one.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: On day one, I will launch the largest deportation program in American history to get the criminals out.

(APPLAUSE)

I will rescue every city and town that has been invaded and conquered, and we will put these vicious and bloodthirsty criminals in jail and kick them the hell out of our country as fast as possible.

(APPLAUSE)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Now, he has said what his vision is, right? But it's still unclear as to what that will actually look like or how it's going to be paid for. Trump says there's no price tag on mass deportations. And with GOP majority in the Senate and possibly a majority in the House that is still up for grabs, Republicans are ahead. But there are still, what, 24 races to be called? Well, Trump is looking to have a lot of legislative fire power behind him.

And that's, frankly, not all. An adviser close to Trump says that he's feeling more emboldened over his expected, well, maybe unexpected, popular vote win. It has got a lot of Democrats who are asking, how did it come to this? What went wrong? And those questions, they are sparkling a hell of a battle within the Democratic Party itself. Some are blaming the messaging. Others are blaming President Biden. One Harris campaign official saying Biden's own ego got in the way by not stepping aside sooner.

In just a moment, I'll talk to someone who has something to say about that, Congressman Dean Phillips. He raised the alarm more than a year ago when he became one of the few people who challenged Biden in the Democratic Party. And by the way, it won him no fans back then. But if Biden has any regrets, he didn't reveal them today. Instead, he's promising an orderly transfer of power and is urging Democrats to stay strong.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOE BIDEN, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Setbacks are unavoidable, but giving up is unforgivable.

[23:05:00]

We all get knocked down. But the measure of our character, as my dad would say, is how quickly we get back up. Remember, a defeat does not mean we are defeated. We lost this battle. The America of your dreams is calling for you to get back up.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Joining me now is outgoing Democratic Congressman Dean Phillips of my home state of Minnesota. He, of course, tried to challenge President Biden in a primary before dropping out in March. Congressman Phillips, thank you for being here. There's so much finger-pointing going on, as you can well see. What do you think went wrong?

REP. DEAN PHILLIPS (D-MN): Well, Laura, I tried to do some of that finger-pointing, of course, over a year ago. And, what's going on? You know, unfortunately, a party that somehow continues to fail to understand what's really going on in our country. And I think we've used too much condemnation, not enough invitation, to appeal to American voters.

And I think Democrats have pretty good product, but not good packaging, not good distribution, and sometimes our messengers are not the right ones. And we have to improve that if we hope to win. And that's ultimately what this is about. Got to create product that people want, as evidenced by Florida and Missouri and Alaska, voting for democratic policies, although also voting for Donald Trump, that says that we have the right pulse on policy.

We do not on how we package it, and that's going to be something we have to reckon with. And if we had just had an open competitive primary, Laura, I'm almost convinced that we would have had a better chance to defeat Donald Trump. And I need to inspire competition. That's my mission going forward.

COATES: Do you think had there actually been a primary or Biden had stepped aside sooner and not run for reelection at all, would another candidate, you think, have fared better against Trump?

PHILLIPS: I think it's hard to look at the data and intuition and come to a different conclusion than that. Yes, I do. I think Kamala Harris is a talented and experienced and competent leader. Hard to set up a national campaign in 90 days. I tried during the primary. Not an enviable position. But, you know, the essence of our country is competition, to vet candidates, elevate the one best positioned to win. And I do think we would have been much more competitive had we had that process.

Furthermore, had she become the nominee, she would have been better positioned than she ultimately was. So, the answer is, yes, competition would have been much better. Now all that said, you know, Donald Trump is not an anomaly. He is now a historical political figure in the United States. And he created a movement. And I'm not sure any Democrat, frankly, could have won this year against what Democrats were facing, at least until we reconcile that disconnect between our product and our packaging.

COATES: Of course, Biden once said he was the only one who could beat Donald Trump, and so he was running for reelection on that very premise. Do you think that he bears some responsibility for having chosen that route as opposed to handing over the reins?

PHILLIPS: Well, I have great respect and appreciation for President Biden. He had a very gracious call to me the day that I left the primary race. But the answer is yes. It was a mistake. I think he must acknowledge that. It was a mistake to run when all the data was saying that it would not be successful, and when many of us in the party had started to see his decline, physical decline, communication decline. I will not say he had cognitive decline, but those other two challenges created an image in Americans' minds that he was not up to the task, and that's what mattered.

And ultimately, Laura, you know, parties are quite loyal to their nominees and to those that have been waiting their term and climbing the ladder. But at some point, you know, we have to focus on winning. Republicans are doing a better job of that, and I think that's something we got to reckon with moving forward.

COATES: You talked about the messenger or the packaging, but let's talk about the message itself because some of your colleagues are blaming the far left for the way the party is actually being received. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. RITCHIE TORRES (D-NY): I have a concern that the far left is pressuring the party to take policy positions that are deeply unpopular among most Americans. You know, one example is defund the police.

REP. SETH MOULTON (D-MA): I'm grateful for the advocacy and the ideas that the far left brings to our party. But we can't be branded by that. We can't be defined by the far left.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: And there's a congressman from New York saying that Democrats need to focus on wages and less on being politically correct. How should Democrats be speaking to voters? Do you think that they are, to put it as one, member of Congress suggested that they are more afraid of the far left than what Trump would do?

PHILLIPS: Well, that's -- I think that's a bridge going awfully far. But I do concur with my colleagues that, you know, without listening to Americans, meeting them where they're at, spending time in rural parts of this country, and understanding what really matters, yeah, it is the economy.

[23:10:05]

And by the way, is it any surprise that Americans felt more economically secure during the Trump presidency? Of course not. We mailed checks directly to people. The economy was shut down. They couldn't spend. Tens of millions of Americans probably had more money in their bank accounts during the Trump administration. So, is it a surprise that now they see those numbers lower? No, not at all. But we didn't understand or we should have understood, I should say, what was at play. Same with the border issue.

And the fact of the matter is we have our values and principles as Democrats, and we believe in compassion and leading with love and helping those that are otherwise persecuted. And that doesn't mean we shouldn't care about that, we shouldn't prioritize that, but we cannot lead with some of these issues that we know are turning off the very voters that we need to court and invite if we wish to win.

So, I'm not telling my Democratic colleagues to forego their principles or their priorities, but if we want to win, and I'll say it again, if we want to win, we have got to listen to voters, and boy, did they tell us loud and clear what they thought of us.

COATES: One of the things that Congressman Seth Moulton from Massachusetts had to say was this, I'm speaking about where Democrats may have gone wrong. Quote -- "I have two little girls, I don't want them getting run over on a playing field by a male or formerly male athlete, but as a Democrat I'm supposed to be afraid to say that" -- unquote.

Do Democrats need to change the way they are talking about this particular issue? I would note there were a lot of ads run on this particular issue. It was noted as a kind of a sleeper issue aside from the economy and democracy as a crisis. Should Democrats be thinking about these social and cultural issues quite differently?

PHILLIPS: Well, I think we have to find space in place for all of us to be able to speak our truths and not be thrown out of the party or condemned. And look, I ran against the sitting president because I saw as clear as the sky is blue that he was not up to the task for another term, and that most importantly, he would not win. And I think everybody watching saw what happened to me.

I think Seth is spot on. I'm a father of two daughters, too. I can understand why Americans are struggling with this. I like Spencer Cox in Utah, the Republican governor, who says at the end of the day, we have to lead with love on these issues. But I do understand.

And, yes, our Democratic Party has eliminated, in many cases, the opportunity for those of us who might see things differently, who are trying to elevate issues of importance or perhaps trying to repackage those to make them more appealing to more Americans, are not being heard and, if anything, being disenfranchised and suppressed.

And that's ultimately the question for all of my colleagues. Do we want to be invitational to our own, not let alone the country, or are we going to try to be purists and continue to face defeat like we did this year? That's the fundamental question.

And Seth is right on. Most Americans, even of great compassion, feel the same way about some of these things. Doesn't mean we have to forego our principles, but we certainly have to understand the cost, the electoral cost, of headlining with those, and time will tell if we're up to the task.

COATES: Well, congressman, who is the leader of the Democratic Party now? Who should Democrats be looking to?

PHILLIPS: I got to tell you, Laura, that's something I've spoken with a number of colleagues. And this might surprise everybody watching, we don't really know. And I'll say it again, we don't really know, despite being members of Congress. We have silos, the DCCC, the DSCC, the DNC, the Governors Association. We have Super PACs and independent organizations. None of us really know who's sitting at the table, who's making the decisions.

Of course, President Biden would be the leader of our party, but that is part of the problem. We don't have an organizational structure that we, even members of Congress, understand. We don't have a reporting structure. We don't have a strategy of which we're aware. And despite some of our very best efforts to elevate those issues, we haven't done so yet.

And I'm going to continue. Even as a former member of Congress, I intend to at least expose and tell the truth about what I've seen and what we must do to improve without condemning individuals. I am going to condemn the system because it's not working. We have two political parties that are private corporations, that are not doing a good job of serving the American public. Over 50% of Americans now do not affiliate with either party.

And I think competition is really important. I hope my party wakes up, listens, better understands why we have failed. And if we don't, then I think we need more competition for both parties because our needs are not being served. And I really empathize with a lot of Americans, particularly those that feel left out, unheard and unappreciated.

COATES: Congressman Dean Phillips, thank you so much for joining.

PHILLIPS: Thank you, Laura.

COATES: Let's dig into what he had to say with Marc Caputo, national political reporter for "The Bulwark," Lance Trover, Republican strategist and former spokesperson for North Dakota Governor Doug Burgum's presidential campaign, and Chuck Rocha, the man with the hat, Democratic strategist and former senior advisor of the Bernie Sanders presidential campaigns.

[23:15:08]

Let me begin with you on this, Chuck, because, look, he is number one saying that they don't know who the leader of the Democratic Party is. Obviously, President Biden is still in office, but there seems to be no clear direction that he was aware of. Do you think that was translated to voters?

CHUCK ROCHA, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST, FORMER SENIOR ADVISER FOR BERNIE SANDERS'S 2016 AND 2020 PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGNS: I think so. And I think you heard that loud and clear on election night. Like, there's something about bad for all of us Democrats who lost. There's something also very good. We get to reset now, and we get to elect a new DNC leader for just one example in just a couple months. That'll be the next big thing of who do we want to lead our party, what vision do we want.

There's a lot of people in our party from every sector. I'm from the blue-collar union, backwoods, Mexican redneck sector. There's a place for me. But there's a place for lots of people.

We're going to have that argument. We're going to have that debate that Dean Phillips was talking about in the DNC to see who do we want to run that because we don't have somebody right now that is that leader. Barack Obama is not coming back to save us. We got to make our own way. And we were taught some really hard lessons this week in this election.

COATES: I mean, it just strikes me as odd. We're two days after a campaign. We're hearing the Democrats don't think that they had a leader or a straight message. That's shocking to me.

LANCE TROVER, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST, FORMER SPOKESPERSON FOR DOUG BURGUM'S 2024 PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN: Well, let's take a step back. This blame game, though, of blaming and saying Joe Biden should have got out, that is the most ridiculous scapegoating I have ever heard in my life politically, and that is saying something. The Harris campaign had over $1 billion in the courts that they were able to spend over a hundred days. This is 2024. It's not 1824. It is not like a voter walked into the voting booth and said, oh, gee, who's Kamala Harris and what does she stand for? No. Voters were very clear eyed about who Donald Trump was and what he stood for. They were also very clear eyed about who Kamala Harris was and what she stood for.

COATES: But they did make a lot of stink about not knowing who is she. That was the -- that was the statement all the time. That was the narrative. I don't know her.

TROVER: Now, that's my whole point. That's absurd. They had a billion dollars in between that and social media. Who couldn't walk in and know who Kamala Harris is in this election? That's why I'm saying this scapegoating is absolutely ludicrous. And here's the reason. They -- the public was not buying what she was selling. Seventy percent of this country thinks we're going on the wrong track. The one question, the one central question that voters had was, how are you different than Joe Biden? What will you do different over the next four years? And she couldn't name one thing. So, it has nothing to do with when Joe Biden got out of the race or should have gotten out of the race. It has everything to do with voters just not picking up what she was putting down.

COATES: So that's -- oh, my God. My father says it all the time.

(LAUGHTER)

Sorry. He says it all the time. Marc, can we go to you for a second on this, on that point that Phillips is talking about, the idea of not knowing the leader or the idea of scapegoating, according to our colleague here, Joe Biden? Do you see this in the same way in terms of had there been an open primary? Is this a could a, should a, would a land or are Democrats missing the mark by not focusing on what voters wanted?

MARC CAPUTO, NATIONAL POLITICAL REPORTER, THE BULWARK: You know, I think there's a proverb that iron sharpens on stone and man sharpens on man. Very often, you do find that primaries, while they can be bloody, they sharpen a candidate, and they help them drive their message home and just become better at it. So, yeah, Kamala Harris had less time.

But it's very difficult to parse out all of these alternative scenarios. There's a possibility, a strong possibility, that this election ultimately came down to groceries were expensive, things were too expensive, and this happened throughout the globe where incumbent governments and political leaders wound up getting ousted because of inflation. People didn't like it. That's not nothing to take away from Donald Trump, and that's not to minimize any problems that the Democrats, Kamala Harris or Joe Biden might have made.

But there are these larger macro issues. And what the Democrats are experiencing now is what parties usually experience, like, oh, my God, we thought we would win, we lost, what do we do? Well, first, let's stab each other in the face, chest, neck, and head, and that's what they're engaged in right now.

COATES: Well, I told you, it was "Game of Thrones." We led with that example. Okay? There we know. Stand by, everyone. We have a lot more to talk about on this very front.

Still ahead, Donald Trump makes the first major decision of his presidency, picking Susie Wiles AKA, his term, the "ice maiden," as his chief of staff. And who is she? And what does the pick say about his intentions the second time around?

And later, the historian who confidently and boldly predicted a Kamala Harris win. Well, how did Allan Lichtman miss it? We'll ask him live tonight.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNKNOWN: Shit. Shit.

ALLAN LICHTMAN, DISTINGUISHED PROFESSOR OF HISTORY, AMERICAN UNIVERSITY: I just don't see it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:20:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: We're following breaking news tonight. The biggest shakeup yet in the tumultuous Trump White House. The White House chief of staff, Reince Priebus, forced out and replaced now by the current Homeland Security secretary, retired Marine Corps General John Kelly.

FREDRICKA WHITFIELD, CNN ANCHOR: We begin with this breaking news. A major shakeup coming to the White House. President Trump, last hour, confirming that Chief of Staff John Kelly will leave his post at the White House at the end of the year.

JIM SCIUTTO, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: Let's get quickly back to Jim Acosta.

JIM ACOSTA, CNN ANCHOR AND CHIEF DOMESTIC CORRESPONDENT: Yeah.

SCIUTTO: Mick Mulvaney is gone.

ACOSTA: He's gone. He was an acting chief of staff, never became a permanent chief of staff over here at the White House.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Four years, four chiefs of staff for Donald Trump. Now, as he gets ready to take over the White House again, Trump is making history with his next pick to be chief of staff. Susie Wiles, his campaign manager, will become the first woman in that position. Many called her the architect of Trump's triumphant return to the White House, convincing him to be slightly more disciplined than before, avoiding the limelight, content to stay in the background. I'm talking about her, not him. And also, leading Trump's campaign for the entirety of the race.

My panel is back with me. Marc, why does, do you think, why does Susie Wiles work so well with Donald Trump?

CAPUTO: She knows what she can do, and she knows what she can't do. And the Trump campaign this time, out of the three campaigns he has ever run, sort of used the serenity prayer. You know, God grant me the serenity to accept the things I can't change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference.

[23:24:55]

And the thing that Susie Wiles and no one can change is the fundamental nature of Donald Trump. But only Susie Wiles, of all the other leaders of his various, you know, executive branch government agencies or his campaigns, she had figured out that she had the wisdom to know this is something I can't change, and I'm going to try to change everything else.

She has a reputation, well-earned, of respecting other people, of not letting her ego get in the way, and of appointing competent people and giving the latitude to make those decisions. And it paid off in this Trump campaign. That's not to say that it was without hiccups or problems.

COATES: Uh-hmm.

CAPUTO: But Trump recognized that this campaign was different from others, and that she was the best person to be there because she's not a toxic personality, and she keeps as many toxic personalities away from Donald Trump as she can. But in the end, Donald Trump happens to seek them out at times, and sometimes they seek back in.

COATES: I mean, he's a bit of a magnet for -- for people who are looking to make a name for themselves and not always in the best conditions. Lance, let me go to you on this because "The Atlantic" had reported that Wiles confronted Trump after the debate with Harris, the one and only debate they had, of course, about his comments about Haitian migrants who, of course, were lawfully in the country, and the reference points about them eating pets.

Laura Loomer was spotted with the campaign after that point. And apparently, she reportedly told Trump, Susie Wiles, "We need to step back and think hard about what we're do because this can't go on." People look at this perhaps as an indication that there might be indeed guardrails in this administration if she is on board. Do you see it that way?

TROVER: I think this is a fantastic pick. And if you look at the course of the campaign, one of the things Democrats and Republicans have long said over the course of the last year, this is the most disciplined, smart, thoughtful campaign operation Donald Trump has ever had, and it's obviously because she was at the helm of this operation. She and Chris LaCivita were a great team putting that together. Yes, I think that is a good sign, and I think that is what is needed in the next administration.

I think Donald Trump has also been very clear that of the mistakes that he has made, and I think he has acknowledged those mistakes. And he knows that he has only got four more years left and wants to hit the ground running. And the only way he can do that is with smart, competent people, and he clearly sees that in her. I think this is a terrific pick.

COATES: And, yeah, if it's just me -- I mean, I know you're saying it's the most disciplined he has been, but it's disciplined for Trump. Compared to many other candidates, he was not a disciplined -- he certainly was successful in this venture. You know, he handily defeated Kamala Harris, according to the numbers as well. When you hear this, Chuck, and think about the prospects for the administration, and this is the first person to be named, what's your assessment of what the trajectory of this personality of the administration will be?

ROCHA: I think that they learned a lot from the first time. I think they walked in the first time and had no idea even where the bathrooms were.

COATES: Hmm.

ROCHA: And so now they want somebody, and they've got some ideas of folks that they have been around who they trust. You just went through excellent point about all the different folks who've come and gone in the first four years. I think you said there was four people in four years, and they want some continuity.

At least this woman has been with him in this campaign through all the ups and downs. We've sat on this program and talked about a lot of crazy things that Donald Trump has said that I thought would end his campaign, and she was there not knowing her, not knowing the thing. She didn't get run out of there. That's one thing that I know. I think their whole group now, though, is going to be the group that caught the car, like the dog caught the car, because they promised the American people a lot.

COATES: Hmm.

ROCHA: And now they have to deliver on that. And I think it starts with somebody like Susie who got to be there to protect. When she said that she's coming with conditions and she wants to keep the clown car out, that was a positive sign to me.

TROVER: I would also say first woman chief of staff, and I think that's a strong message.

ROCHA: I was shocked today when I heard that.

TROVER: First woman chief of staff.

COATES: I was surprised that that history had been made in that way. I think, sometimes, people assume that women have broken a number of glass ceilings only to find out they still have not. This is one moment of that.

Let me turn to you, Marc, on an issue I care a lot about as a former prosecutor, who's going to be the attorney general? And we've got some new reporting about who that person could be. Among those under consideration, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton who, as you know, has faced corruption allegations. You have the Missouri A.G., Andrew Bailey, who has come under fire for allowing the execution of a man despite questions about his guilt. What does this short list say about how Trump views this particular job? CAPUTO: Donald Trump, his biggest regret was what happened with his attorney general, specifically Jeff Sessions.

COATES: Hmm.

CAPUTO: He doesn't want a repeat of that. He doesn't want someone who's going to wind up stepping back and appointing a special counsel or whatever. And here, loyalty and maybe even blind loyalty is of the utmost importance. There have been other names that have been whispered around, but they don't necessarily meet that bar or clear that bar.

One thing that's clear with a Wiles pick and you're going to see elsewhere is that Donald Trump has been here before. He has been in the White House, and he knows what it takes to make appointments and how important it is.

[23:30:03]

And this time, he's going to do a lot more stuff on his gut and take less advice from other people. He has a much better idea of what he wants. And the attorney general is the most important pick for him.

COATES: It really is, gentlemen, the table as well because there has been threats about the statement, retribution. The idea of -- Congressman Jim Jordan leads committee about weaponization of the government as it relates to -- they call it the lawfare and all things that are going on. I think Trump's pick for who is the attorney general will be one of the biggest indications of whether he intends to govern by retribution or by the campaign itself and what he has promised. How do you see it?

ROCHA: I see it the same way if he picks somebody like Ken Paxton, who has actually been under investigation in my -- in my home state of Texas, who has been impeached. He didn't get convicted in the Senate. Does that sound familiar? Or if you pick somebody else who's not that Ken Paxton, who has some kind of a -- I don't want to say moderate, but like you're saying, the law enforcement agent for your country is a big signal and affects a lot of things. I think that's why Marc Caputo made such a good point of that's his biggest regret because he couldn't get the retribution.

COATES: And by the way, I mean, not only has Ken Paxton been in that -- as you're talking about, he has been very litigious. I mean, he has been a thorn in the side of the Obama administration at one point in time. The Biden administration as well. Thinking about his roles in trying to litigate and advocate the things that he believed were appropriate, putting the thumb on the scope for the Supreme Court, I mean, this is somebody who has been in the news a great deal. I wonder if Trump wants somebody that proactive.

TROVER: I think what we're going to see over the course of the next several days is exactly this. We're going to -- the Trump -- the way that I -- typically the Trump campaign operates is they have ideas of people. He has ideas. He shops them around --

COATES: Uh-hmm.

TROVER: -- with other folks, and then they get leaked out to the media. We have discussions like this on the show, and these things kind of get worked out. I suspect that's how we -- you have a list of five or six people on screen. There's probably, as Marc noted, even more that's going to come out. That's how they're going to do this and see how does it fare with the Senate, how does it fare in the House. Can you get these people through confirmation? So, I think we're going to continue to hear those kinds of names that are going to be floated out.

ROCHA: Those crazy people make a good Supreme Court court justice. There are big things up on this administration.

COATES: There could very well be. We do have an aging Supreme Court. Let me ask you this, Lance, because the dollar signs are what a lot of voters care about, not just the economy overall and their personal economy, but what will it cost them. Trump has said that mass deportation is one of the first priorities and that --quote -- "there is no price tag when it comes to cost."

The American Immigration Council says that it could very well cost 967 billion bucks over a decade. Will voters who supported Trump be okay with that figure?

TROVER: During the campaign, mass deportation tested at about 54, 55% approval. If you look at it, there were two different polls that came out. That included independents and Democrats. Taking a step back, there's a story on cnn.com today. The first thing the Trump administration is going to do is focus on overall border security. They're going to put back in place the executive orders that Trump had had that Joe Biden undid. That's their first order of business.

Secondly will be then to work on this deportation. If you -- if they're to believe, which I think they are, you start with the criminals and those types of folks who are in this country, which I think we can all agree is a great place to start in getting them out.

As far as like that, I guess the next step really in this whole process is -- and the question will be for Democrats. I think -- are they going to work with the president in terms of a big border security bill like they said they wanted to do during this campaign and work with him to try to get it done? I think that's a larger question. When it comes to this mass deportation, I think that's a long way down the road, but they start with the criminals and go from there.

COATES: What if that border bill is exactly what it was a couple months ago when he was still a candidate?

ROCHA: You know, Donald Trump made gains with the Latino vote. It's painful for me to say that as the person who owns the largest Latino democratic firm in the country. But if you want to see that number snap back, you start deporting their grandmothers or going beyond criminals who should be deported. But when you start talking about people's family members who came here and you're the second generation of that grandmother who may be on some kind of status or not, I think that's where things get really real. We don't know. I assume that he doesn't do that, but I don't know what to assume anymore. So, that's just going to be a big part. I hate to remind everybody this: We just got done with an election, but we're going to have another one in two years whether you all like it or not.

COATES: Okay, well, thanks, everyone.

(LAUGHTER)

Thanks for the reminder, Chuck, about two years from now. We just got one countdown done. Thank you so much. Listen, my next guest played a key role in leading up to the New York case that landed a conviction against Donald Trump, 34 of them. Lanny Davis, the former attorney for star witness Michael Cohen. But does he think Donald Trump should still be sentenced? I'll him that and much more next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:35:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: Well, as the nation prepares for a second Trump presidency, Donald Trump is set to return to the White House as a convicted felon. A sentencing in the New York hush money case is still scheduled for November 26th. The DOJ is in talks to wind down the federal election interference and classified documents cases. And, of course, the Fulton County election interference case, well, now in limbo. Will Trump's victory upend all of these cases?

I want to bring in Michael Cohen's former attorney, Lanny Davis. He's also the author of the forthcoming book, "Finding the Third Way: Lessons in the Politics of Civility from My Journey Through History." Lanny, it's a good title. I'm going to read that one. Thank you for joining. I mean, in your view, what should happen next in this New York hush money case?

LANNY DAVIS, AUTHOR, FORMER ATTORNEY FOR MICHAEL COHEN: Well, just to remind you that when the district attorney, Cy Vance, asked for Michael Cohen to talk to his prosecutors while he was in the Otisville prison, I was there when the prosecutors visited him. So that was the beginning that led ultimately to the conviction. And I think the evidence was overwhelming that a unanimous verdict found him to be guilty. I think it was 34 felonies.

COATES: Uh-hmm.

DAVIS: Having said that, I don't know if I'm going to surprise anyone by saying I don't think he should be put through a sentence while he's a sitting president. Even if he weren't, I don't think he should be imprisoned.

[23:40:00]

So, I think this judge should suspend any decision on a prison sentence when there's an incumbent president.

COATES: So, even though he has been convicted, you don't think he should be sentenced at all, let alone prison?

DAVIS: Not as an incumbent president. I think it would be judicious of the judge to wait until he's no longer president. And then I would recommend that at the time that he not be put into prison. But he has been found guilty by 12 people, two of whom during the voir dire, the interviewing, said they had voted for Trump, and yet it was a unanimous verdict beyond a reasonable doubt. People who talked about New York being a stacked deck --

COATES: Uh-hmm.

DAVIS: -- two of those jurors said they had voted for Trump, yet they voted beyond a reasonable doubt for that verdict. Having said that, no, I do not believe he should be put in prison as an ex-president.

COATES: Now, there are two different schools of thought. One is the -- what type of sentence, and one is the fact of sentencing. I am surprised that you don't believe that he should be sentenced. There are those conditional things that could be done that don't include incarceration. I wonder if that thought process will give ammunition to those who say, oh, well, now that he's president, you don't want to punish him?

DAVIS: Let me explain because people might be surprised. I put so much work. And Michael Cohen sacrificed so much. He's the hero who sacrificed to tell the truth about what happened. But I think there is a political system and stability that is necessary for our constitutional republic.

And we have to balance. I think the balance of the advantage of applying a standard to a sitting president versus waiting until after he isn't, it's a tough balance for me, it's a close call, but I would rather this judge say he's now president of the United States. I'm going to wait. There's no rush to my deciding on this sentence.

COATES: I have doubts that a judge would wait given the criticism already of how long it took --

DAVIS: Yes.

COATES: -- to bring a hush money criminal trial. It would be over a decade in the making since the allegations even arose following his presidency. But let me ask you about the Atlanta case, the Fulton County case specifically. Do you think that's in limbo because her disqualification hearings are still pending before appellate court? Do you think that case should go forward?

DAVIS: I do because the nature of the crime was seriously to undermine our democratic system, and that's what scares me about. I hope the future President Trump will not do what he said he was going to do to undermine our Constitution, for my children and my grandchildren. But, again, we don't have to administer justice at the moment. We can wait. And in the Fulton County case, I think that case is an important case and should go forward. But if he's convicted, I think there should be a waiting period after he leaves the presidency.

COATES: So, I mean, I'm a bit incredulous at the thought of waiting four years. First of all, we know we talk about the sort of two systems of justice. I don't know of many other people who'd be able to say, well, I've got a good job. Now, I know it's the presidency, not the average job for anyone, but do you think there would even be the appetite to say, all right, let's wait four more years? You have to add that to the Biden administration and go all the way back to what took place following the 2020 election. Would there be an appetite from any prudent prosecutor to say, now, I'll go forward?

DAVIS: Look, we have a dual system because an incumbent president is not allowed to be prosecuted by policy under democratic and republican administrations. When he was not president, he was asking to be treated especially, and I oppose that. But as sitting president under our constitutional system, we have to balance stability in our country versus administering justice. And we have had a dual standard for a sitting president. That has, as I said, been the policy of our Justice Department under Democrats and Republicans.

This is a close call for me, a tough thing for me to say on television for the first time, but I think our country needs stability more than anything. Our system of justice should be administered equally and prosecuted, and I think the trial could go forward, but I don't think that the incumbent president, if it were my call, I would say let's wait.

COATES: You know, to be clear, I have prosecuted many cases that don't always result in the recommendation of incarceration. I do believe that there are non- incarceration-based punishments that should be doled out depending on the cases. This is a novelty for in its own right. But I do wonder about the political backlash of people who might say, well, then, I guess this may have been political in nature if you really didn't want a punishment in the end.

But let me move on to a different point because I did read your op-ed. It was really powerful, Lanny, frankly.

DAVIS: Thank you.

COATES: As Democrats are sitting and digesting --

DAVIS: Could we give the plug to RealClearPolitics that published it?

COATES: It was RealClearPolitics that published --

DAVIS: Thank you.

COATES: It's very, very compelling. There you go.

DAVIS: Thank you.

[23:45:00]

COATES: In it, you say, "We need to self-reflect on the fear we have created within our own ranks of saying and writing what we really think and feel out of fear of political and social ostracism and, honestly, of shaming by the base of our party." So, do you think the party will change in the wake of the defeat?

DAVIS: Let me be clear. I'm a liberal Democrat.

COATES: Uh-hmm.

DAVIS: I'm forced to say I'm a progressive Democrat because somebody decided that liberal was not a good word anymore. If I say he or she, somebody decided that they or it is politically appropriate because I might offend, and I don't want to offend people who are in transition between genders, I'm sensitive to offending anyone, but they should be sensitive to my being forced to say it rather than he or she. So, there's a difficult balance here.

The problem in our party, and I believe the Republicans have the same problem, they made the woke word up, but they've got the same problem of canceling people that disagree with their conservative strain. Both parties have this issue. But for me, there is genuine fear of ostracism and being canceled if I say something that's slightly off kilter to what the base of our party believes should be said.

And we've got to be honest about that fear because in my own family, I have to be careful to say the right words. Somebody might, in my own family, say that's inappropriate. We've got to be talking to the American people as people. And I heard an earlier panel talk about what we're looking at people according to their identity rather than as human beings and authentically. And that's really one of the issues that our party has faced in the past, and we have to address it now.

COATES: This conversation will continue, particularly around the evolution of language and people's agency about how they would like to be identified and recognized.

DAVIS: Thank you, Laura.

COATES: Lanny Davis, thank you so much.

DAVIS: Thanks for having me on.

COATES: Well, up until this year, Allan Lichtman correctly predicted nine of 10 presidential elections since 1984. But this November, he was wrong. Tonight, he joins me to explain why next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:50:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: Well, he has been called the "Nostradamus of Elections." He has correctly predicted nine of the last 10. That is until the early hours of Wednesday morning when CNN predicted Donald Trump would win the presidency. I'm talking about professor Allan Lichtman. He says his 13 keys are how he makes his predictions for the White House. Here's the moment he realized his prediction was wrong.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNKNOWN: I'm starting to get a little nervous.

LICHTMAN: Yeah.

UNKNOWN: She needs to -- she needs to make up 170,000 votes.

LICHTMAN: I don't see it. The big democratic counties are mostly in.

UNKNOWN: No. They're -- well, yeah. Shit. Shit.

LICHTMAN: I just don't see it. Good thing I have nothing to do tomorrow.

UNKNOWN: Yeah. I took off work tomorrow.

LICHTMAN: And I'm not doing any interviews.

UNKNOWN: Good.

LICHTMAN: I'm done with that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: So, what happens to the keys now? Well, Professor Allan Lichtman is here with us tonight to tell us what he thinks went wrong. Professor, thank you for joining us tonight. I mean, we've talked many times. Were the keys wrong or was your interpretation off this time?

LICHTMAN: I think the fundamental problem was the keys, not my interpretation. No one has convinced me that was wrong. There are unique features. I've always said, you know, some unique features could break the patterns of history, and I think that has happened here. First of all, a unique feature specific to this election.

And you heard me say this before, I was very critical of the Democrats for openly and viciously trashing their sitting president right out in public. I have never seen that before. And I've studied politics since the founding, and we saw Biden's approval rating plummet as they were doing that. I think that extended beyond Biden to weaken any Democratic candidates since they're discrediting their own administration.

Secondly, it rendered problematic one of my keys, the contest key, since we couldn't have a primary. But the Democrats did unite around Harris, and I turned the key in their favor. But we had never seen anything like that before, and that was problematic.

But more importantly, our trends that are long term and affect the long-term future of our democracy and the keys, because the keys depend upon a rational pragmatic electorate deciding based on governance, whether the incumbent party should get four more years, and we've seen the explosion of some trends that have existed before but not to this extent.

Disinformation. You know, Elon Musk is -- I don't know how many hundreds of billions he has. He has been the director of misinformation. Two billion views of his spreading of disinformation not just about the economy, but about immigrants, about minorities. We've never seen disinformation at this scale.

Next, we have never seen to this scale the agitation of three trends that have been very deeply embedded in American history: misogyny, racism, and xenophobia. You know, the first anti-immigrant law was 1798, and Donald Trump wants to revive it. You know, first, it was the French, then the Germans, then the Jews, then the Mexicans, then the Muslims. There's always another.

And, of course, you know, racism, we didn't even begin to dismantle Jim Crow until the 1960s and it still --

COATES: Yeah.

LICHTMAN: -- to some extent, survived. Women didn't vote until 1920. So that calls into question the whole premise behind the keys and behind our democracy.

COATES: Well, if it calls into question the premise of the keys, what about the fact that the pollster, Nate Silver, says that he used your keys to predict a Trump win?

LICHTMAN: You know, Nate Silver has been criticizing the keys since he attacked me for my correct prediction early of Obama's reelection in 2011.

[23:55:00]

He has a vested interest in going against the keys because they put him out of business. And look what he did this year. This is typical Nate Silver. He says, Harris is marginally ahead. So, the election is going to be, you know, so close, 50-50. But it could go either way with the -- swing states going one way to one candidate or the other. And he says my gut favors Trump, but don't listen to my gut.

So, no matter what happens, Nate Silver can't be wrong, and he can't be right because his predictions are meaningless. I admit I was wrong because I go out on a limb and tell you who's going to win or who's going to lose, and I don't try to squirm out of it. And as we're having this discussion, I'm very squarely trying to consider why it went wrong, what it means for the future of our keys, and the future of our democracy.

COATES: Given the fact that you talk about some of the disinformation, which seems to be the trajectory of a lot of things that is done with the democracy, do you intend, Professor Allan Lichtman, to change your keys or adjust to an additional, maybe a 14th one to adjust for that factor? LICHTMAN: I don't -- yeah, I don't intend to change my keys on the fly. That's a recipe for disaster, particularly when these critiques come post hope (ph). You know, it's very easy to say what you should do when you know the answer already. Much more difficult to do it in advance. And the keys go all the way back to 1860 in development and back to 1984, predictably. So, I'm not going to very quickly change the keys based upon some critique that comes after they know what happened.

But I'm very seriously going to reconsider, and I'm also wondering, are we going to have a free and fair election in 2028, which would render the keys irrelevant but much more, you know, threaten our democracy? That's up in the air.

COATES: Well, Monday morning quarterbacks, you're on notice from Allan Lichtman. Thank you so much for joining us today.

(LAUGHTER)

Well --

LICHTMAN: My great pleasure.

COATES: Thank you.

LICHTMAN: Always a pleasure.

COATES: Thank you all for watching. "Anderson Cooper 360" is next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)