Return to Transcripts main page

Laura Coates Live

Trump Taps Scott Bessent As Treasury Secretary; Tulsi Gabbard Placed On TSA Watch List; Decision To Overturn The Conviction Of Actor Jusse Smollett For Allegedly Staging A Hate Crime Continues To Reverberate; State School Board Voting To Green Light What They Call Blue Bonnet Learning Curriculum. Aired 11p-12a ET

Aired November 22, 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]

LAURA COATES, CNN ANCHOR: Tonight, a flurry of new picks for Donald Trump's next administration and frankly deepening questions about the ones he's already chosen. Plus, two brothers who say they helped Jesse Smollett stage an alleged MAGA hate crime hoax, speaking out about his conviction being overturned.

What they may say may just surprise you. And Bible-infused curriculum gets the green light in Texas elementary schools. But some are asking, is it even legal? Tonight, on "Laura Coates Live".

All right, everyone, TGIF, it's a Friday night of rapid fire breaking news. We've got some pretty big developments on Donald Trump's cabinet, by the way. And we're also getting an idea of the wrecking ball that he wants to bring to the agency he seems to despise the most -- the Justice Department.

First, Trump is tapping Scott Bessent for his Treasury Secretary. It's the most important post that he had yet to fill. He is a billionaire hedge fund manager who once worked for a long-time GOP bogeyman, George Soros. He is tasked with turning Trump's controversial economic policy promises into a kind of Washington, D.C. reality, including tax cuts and new tariffs.

But will he be able to help ease anxieties of a country deeply concerned about the economy -- stupid? We'll get into all of that along with the slew of other picks that Trump has announced tonight. And surprise, surprise, many spent time in the TV world at Fox News.

And speaking of controversies, right when you thought the Trump transition team put one to bed after Matt Gaetz bowed out, another one pops right up. This time it's scrutiny over Tulsi Gabbard, his pick to lead, of course, the intelligence community. She has been under fire for her history of siding with America's enemies like Russia and Syria.

And now, we're learning she was put on a government watch list earlier this year. It's called Quiet Skies, and it triggers additional screenings before flights. For us to say that she was briefly placed on it because of her overseas travel and her foreign connections. She was removed though, after going public with this message, claiming it was retaliation for criticizing Kamala Harris.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TULSI GABBARD (D) FORMER CONGRESSWOMAN: My own government has placed me on a secret terror watch list, targeting me as a potential domestic terror threat. Why? Political retaliation.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Now, to be clear, the TSA says this is not a terror watch list. And towards his flat leads and I, this is any kind of political retaliation. But it is unprecedented. There is such a high-level nominee to have been put on a government watchlist. Trump's choice of Gabbard as DNI is in line with his intention to shake up the foreign policy establishment, but his sights may be on the Justice Department more than anything or anywhere else.

Tonight, "The Washington Post" is reporting that Trump plans to fire the entire team -- the entire team that work with special counsel Jack Smith. And on top of all that, he wants to put together teams within the DOJ to hunt down evidence in battleground states that fraud tainted the 2020 election. One problem, there is no widespread fraud or evidence of that in the 2020 election.

Joining me now, senior chief law enforcement and intelligence analyst John Miller. He also served as the assistant deputy director for National Intelligence. Also here, former deputy assistant attorney general, Harry Littman. He's also the host of the "Talking Feds" podcast that just launched a "Substack".

Gentlemen, good to have both of you here. John, look, I was a career prosecutor at DOJ. They are talking about firing dozens of career staffers, prosecutors, FBI agents and others. Is this the beginning of the retribution that President-elect Trump, as a candidate, promised?

JOHN MILLER, CNN CHIEF LAW ENFORCEMENT AND INTELLIGENCE ANALYST: Well, it may well be. It certainly sounds like it, but in the end, it may end up hurting them more than it hurts the people who are the target, because as you and Mr. Litman both know, and as I know from my time in the Department of Justice at the FBI, A, it's hard to fire career government employees protected by civil service.

But more importantly, they're putting the cart before the horse. There is a process for this. You go to OPR. I don't need to tell you guys what that is, but for the audience, that's the Office of Professional Responsibility. It's the internal investigators of the Department of Justice. You can't just fire people because you feel like it.

So, OPR would have to do a full investigation. OPR is also made up of career Justice Department people. They would have to find out that individuals, not a group, but specific people, did something wrong and they would have to show that evidence and that would be firing for cause.

This whole idea of I'm just going to fire them because I'm mad about the case, that's not a group but specific people did something wrong, and they would have to show that evidence and that would be firing for cause.

[23:05:05]

This whole idea of I'm just going to fire them because I'm mad about the case, that's not going to work and it might make them rich.

COATES: And of course, there's the morale issue. I can't imagine being a member of the DOJ right now hearing this, thinking this might be coming in because news flash everyone, there are other cases and matters that DOJ works on. They don't have anything to do with Donald Trump or anyone else.

But Harry, "The Washington Post" is also reporting that Trump wants "to assemble investigative teams within the DOJ to hunt for evidence in battleground states that fraud tainted the 2020 election."

Now, by the way, Harry, this has been investigated. It also has been debunked. His own A.G., Bill Barr, called it BS. "The Post" notes it's not a fully-baked idea, but how would all this play out?

HARRY LITMAN, FORMER DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL: Poorly, because what essentially we're talking about is ordering DOJ career folks to go into court and make these representations that are false. And you have obligations to the court, and the courts here are going to absolutely slap DOJ lawyers around.

And just to John's point on this reprisal stuff, it is both sinister and stupid. Sinister because it's sort of the core kind of feature of an authoritarian government that you put your prosecutorial apparatus at the behest of a president for making trouble for no reason, stupid, because as he said, this is going to cost them millions of dollars.

Just look at Andrew McCabe. There, if they can make their lives miserable. But if they try to fire them, they've got to go through hoops. They'll never be able to do it. And they'll wind up as they wound up owing Andrew McCabe nearly a million dollars. That's what it'll be for each of the folks.

But make no mistake. You've been there. We've all been there. It's going to make the place just completely miserable. It's going to tear it down just in terms of morale. People are already heading for the hills. There's a kind of resume search all over D.C.

COATES: I wonder, of course, the evidence that they have produced and, of course, the report we're waiting to possibly see from the likes of Jack Smith, hands it over to Merrick Garland, and what will happen in this interim period.

But John, CNN reporting is that Trump's DNI pick, Tulsi Gabbard, was briefly placed on a government watch list, not a secret terror watch list, as she claims. But what exactly is Quiet Skies? And is it concerning to you that she was flagged and placed on it?

MILLER: Well, it's not the no-fly list but it is an indicator that is developed by computer algorithms and intelligence information that's shared where you basically reach a score. But if a particular traveler is traveling in the travel patterns of terrorist groups that have been documented by intelligence in cases, that passenger can get flagged as someone where they would do enhanced screening before they got on the plane.

A key to this is they would notify the air marshals on the flight. We have someone with a suspicious travel pattern. This is the seat they're in. You know, keep an eye on them. Have some awareness of that. And on the back end of that flight, there might be some questions about their trip as they came back in.

But as you said, once they found out the purpose of her travel and that she was a former member of Congress, that went away quickly. So, it's one of those things where the mechanics of the process work but the intent, missed.

COATES: I'll be curious to see how the intelligence community views all of this. And of course, the confirmation hearings to come. John, Harry, thank you both so much.

LITMAN: Thanks. Thanks, John.

COATES: Now, on to President-elect Trump's flurry of new cabinet picks tonight. I want to bring in White House economics reporter for "The Washington Post", Jeff Stein. Jeff, good to see you. Look, the economy, everyone said, was the number one issue for voters. So, tell me, what does this Treasury secretary pick mean and bring to the table?

JEFF STEIN, "WASHINGTON POST" WHITE HOUSE ECONOMICS REPORTER: Donald Trump has really struggled to pick this most crucial of cabinet positions really because he wants two things that are in direct conflict. He wants massive tariffs on all U.S. trading partners as high as 10 or 20 percent.

And he simultaneously wants someone who has the respect of "Wall Street", who the stock market can grow under and who can manage capital markets' difficult situations that could arise in the bond market and do that with respectability and prestige. That seems to fit both criteria as well as possible, but long term, it will be very, very difficult for him to impose these tests out leaving the stock market to suffer serious shocks.

COATES: Speaking of tariffs, by the way, Trump has called that, I think, the most beautiful word -- tariffs. But economists, as you've pointed out in the past, they worry that they are inflationary. So, if you were Bessent, how do you balance those two objectives and thoughts?

[23:10:01]

STEIN: Trump's first Treasury Secretary, Stephen Mnuchin was famous for taking Trump's sort of expansive trade proposals, looking at them very closely and then putting them in a file cabinet where no one would see them for years. And that was an approach that the markets really liked and that helps sort of mitigate Trump did many things to crack down on trade with China. But it kept a lid on the extent of those actions and so, Bessent will have this difficult role trying to navigate the trade hawks, the people who want to go more and more aggressive on China and other countries.

I think my understanding from sources familiar that he sees himself as likely to play a similar role, effectuating some of Trump's instincts on trade, but preventing things from getting out of control because Trump at some level understands that people want the economy to grow.

They may want tariffs, they may think they sound good, they may want a rebalancing of trade. But if consumers are paying much higher costs for Chinese products, that could be a real downside for Trump's popularity.

COATES: I wonder if he will demand the expedient implementation of his policies now that, of course, he's aware of what you have said and has been about Mnuchin's previous policies, but it might ultimately correct itself. Who knows what to wait and see.

Let me ask you this about Trump though, because he also announced the Project 2025 co-author Russell Vought, who is returning now to the White House Budget Office saying that "Russ knows exactly how to dismantle the deep state and end weaponized government." What do you expect his first order of business to be?

STEIN: Russ Vought has been hard at work since he served in the same position in the first Trump administration, coming up with a series of legal arguments to massively expand the power of the presidency in ways that we haven't seen in a very long time, if ever.

That includes legal justifications for deploying the military to deal with civil unrest in cities, democratic cities, to expand the ability of the president to cut spending unilaterally without congressional approval and other measures to purge the Justice Department and to change federal regulations, again, without congressional oversight.

Mr. Vought has been committed to very conservative causes for decades and has written about how he sees us now as being in what he calls a post-constitutional era and called for what he himself has called radical constitutionalism to wrench the U.S. government out of where it is currently.

And two, a sort of more conservative direction, but one where there's much more power aggregated to the executive branch. And so, I think Russ Vought is a sleeper for one of the most important people in all of government under Trump.

The budget chief is responsible for overseeing not just, you know, spending, but sort of the cross-section of agencies, HUD and HHS and all these different other federal agencies, they work through OMB. And so, his ability to sort of oversee that nexus will be absolutely crucial to executing many of the ideas that the conservative movement and that Trump has wanted for a long time.

COATES: I'd like to see what the true mandate really is for the American people and whether what you described would be in line with any of that. Jeff Stein, thank you so much.

STEIN: My pleasure. Thanks for having me on.

COATES: I want to talk now with Republican strategist, Lance Trover, and also CNN political commentator and democratic strategist, Maria Cardona. Glad to have both of you here.

Thinking about these, I remember the Friday nights of the first Trump administration was always something new happening. Tonight is no exception. I'm beginning with you, Lance. The president-elect denied that there was any ties to Project 2025. And now, we see that we have one other person associated with a co-author of it now putting into the administration.

Listen to this secretly recorded conversation with the Nonprofit Center for Climate Reporting.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RUSSEL VOUGHT, FORMER TRUMP ADMINISTRATION OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET DIRECTOR: Eighty percent of my time is working on the plans of what's necessary to take control of these bureaucracies. I want to be the person that crushes the deep state. I think there's a lot of different ways to do that. It is defunding it. It's impoundment, the ability to not spend money. It's getting rid of their independence.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: I mean, speaking about mandates, is that going to be in line, you think?

LANCE TROVER, FORMER SPOKESPERSON, DOUG BURGUM'S 2024 PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN: Project 2025, this is such an inside the beltway topic to me. I don't know of any voter out there that's really focused on Project 2025. Everybody inside the --and a failed democratic talking point, by the way. They spent millions of dollars throughout that campaign to talk about Project 2025.

Look, they have an administration they need to fill. There's 4000 spots that they need to fill. Some of these people may be associated with that, but not every person is going to be associated with Project 2025. And I would also say that Project 2025 also includes some things like lowering taxes that --things that have been stalwarts for the Republican Party for years.

So, again, this to me is just an inside the belt way talking point that no -- no voter out there is saying, oh gosh, this person is associated with Project 2025. I just don't see that.

[23:15:07]

COATES: Is that what you think?

MARIA CARDONA, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: There are plenty of voters who are very concerned about what Project 2025 meant. Clearly, not enough of them. But then that goes to the mandate. The mandate was not to dismantle government. The mandate was to focus on economic issues.

And what Donald Trump has announced is a cabinet of chaos, not a cabinet of governance, a cabinet of grotesque overreach is what he's focused on. Everything that he's talked about from dismantling the deep state, from going after people who work with Jack Smith is focused on hurting American voters. Let's think about that.

His priority is not to lower costs. His priority is not to bring down inflation. His priority is to hurt American voters, whether that's implementing his own policies, which economists have said will raise prices and will explode inflation.

Or putting in people who have no experience in what they are supposed to be leading, people who have grotesque and disgusting allegations against them, which is just offensive to the country.

And what Russell just said, Russell Vought, I guess it's his name, what he's talking about, is turning the government, not into a government of the people, for the people and by the people, but turning a government into a government for Donald Trump, by Donald Trump, and with Donald Trump.

COATES: Well, you know, Lance --

CARDONA: That's dangerous.

COATES: Well, they vehemently disagree with the character they think, and they have said in different scenarios that they believe this is in line with a less intrusive government. They say that it hearkens back to the idea, what was that phrase, the scariest words, the government's here to help. That's their thought process on it. But what Maria's point, they're not articulating it in that way. And that's very concerning if that, in fact, is how they ultimately feel.

TROVER: I think if you go -- I always say this. Donald Trump came down that escalator eight or nine years ago and there has been one central theme of his. And that is that Washington is not working for you. And that someone needs to go in and take a sledgehammer to it. That was his campaign pledge in 2016. It's what he ran on in 2020. It's what he ran on again in 2024.

So, I do disagree with you. I think voters are very clear-eyed about what Donald Trump and what he stands for and what he wants to do in Washington. And I think they're going to give him a lot of deference in terms of his cabinet picks. That's what voters did. They just decided this election a few weeks ago.

So, he's going to get some time to make his picks. We have a process that we're going to go through with the Senate with advice and consent. And these nominees are going to play out. But I think he's going to get a lot of what he wants here.

COATES: Well, I want -- I go back to this thing, when number anyone seven says, this is a mandate, I remember what the ballot looked like. And people weren't bubbling in like what they thought the mandate was. People are making a lot of assumptions about, oh, if I mean you, then I must mean this, which the winner gets to tell their own story.

But let me ask you on this point, Maria, I mean, you're hearing about one of the cabinet picks, Tulsi Gabbard, getting briefly placed on this TSA watch list. And she was flagged for her foreign travel and her contacts. Just tonight, John Bolton was speaking about and calling her a national security threat. Are you worried if she's confirmed?

CARDONA: I'm terrified if she is confirmed. And I think most Americans should be, and certainly our elected officials should be. And look, this is not Democrats saying it. Like you just said, John Bolton is saying it. Nikki Haley just completely eviscerated Tulsi Gabbard because of her connections to Assad, to Putin.

She came back from visiting with our adversaries and that's fine, right? We should be talking to our adversaries, but she was not doing it in a diplomatic position and she came back parroting Putin's talking points and blaming the United States for the war in Ukraine. I mean, that is dangerous. That is untrue.

It's ridiculous and certainly to put her in charge of the highest position for our intelligence and put all those things aside, she has zero experience in understanding how our intelligence networks work, what the information means, how it is actionable, how it's not actionable. So, to me, that should be terrifying to everyone who's looking at this from the national security standpoint.

COATES: Why is there a trend of people who don't have a great deal of government experience? I mean, obviously she's a member of Congress, right? She has that. I'm not undermining that at all, but I'm saying the idea of overseeing departments of the magnitudes that they have, does that concern you or is that in line with the notion of, look, the government wasn't working for you, as you just said, the sledgehammer, you know, coming in, is that what they want?

TROVER: I think if you're the average voter in middle Illinois or Ohio, you name it, they were looking at the same -- Washington is a disaster. We need a breath of fresh air and we need new people. And that goes back, yes, to the Donald Trump approach. And so again, I think Donald Trump gets a lot of deference on his picks.

And so yes, they don't have tons of experience like some people may have, but they have experience in their own rights. Many of these people are very well-educated and very well-qualified people.

Just because they haven't been in government is not a disqualification. I mean, for a lot of voters out there, they say, yes.

[23:20:01]

Send that guy in there because the government officials aren't working for us right now.

CARDONA: That's intentional because I think that Donald Trump doesn't care that they have experience because what he cares about is fealty to him because they -- these picks are not going in. They are to say I'm working for the American people. They are going in there to say I work for Donald Trump. And that is a huge concern.

COATES: That will be, I think, the continuous thread through all these confirmation hearings about the stated position, the objectives, and what their goals will be. We'll see. Lance, Maria, thank you both so much.

CARDONA: Thanks, Laura.

COATES: They admitted to helping Jussie Smollett stage an alleged hate crime hoax. Of course, Jusse Smollett maintains his innocence, but the Osindario brothers are here with their reaction to his conviction now being overturned. And ahead, the Bible-infused curriculum for public elementary schools approved in Texas today. We'll tell you what's in the lessons, and if they're even constitutional.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:25:23]

COATES: The decision to overturn the conviction of actor Jusse Smollett for allegedly staging a hate crime, it continues to reverberate, especially among those connected to the case. Two of those people are the Osundairo brothers. Police arrested them and held them for two days, believing them to be suspects. But the brothers say they actually helped Smollett stage the alleged attack.

Surveillance video captured them purchasing supplies beforehand. They say Smollett wrote them a check for $3500 after it all happened. And once police realized they took part, the duo then cooperated with the investigation.

Both ended up testifying against him at the 2021 trial. And that of course led to Smollett's conviction on disorderly conduct charges. Now, they themselves were never charged with the crime, but both have apologized for their role in what they say was a made up hoax.

And Bola and Ola Osundairo join me now. Thank you both for being here. I'll begin with you, Ola. You and your brother say that you actually agree with the court's decision from yesterday that says, look, this plea agreement between the D.A. and Smollett should have been the end of the story. He had his benefit of the bargain. He made up his own end. That should be the end of it. You agree. Why?

OLABINJO OSUNDAIRO, SAYS HE WAS PAID TO STAGE SMOLLETT ATTACK: We agree with that decision because there's laws in this country and the law is you cannot be tried twice on a crime you have committed. The real injustice and disservice was done by Kim Foxx's office who allowed Smollett to get away scot-free without admitting guilt of what he has done.

ABIMBOLA OSUNDAIRO, SAYS HE WAS PAID TO STAGE SMOLLETT ATTACK: Gave him a sweetheart deal.

O. OSUNDAIRO: Yes.

COATES: Yes, I hear -- I've heard you say that and I wonder some people would look at this scenario and say, well, neither of you had been charged with a crime and that you had been involved, you say, with concocting this scheme, why is what happened to you not a sweetheart deal?

A. OSUNDAIRO: So, what happened with us was we didn't concoct it. Jussie concocted the whole thing. We just participated by fake beating him up. So, the crime was testifying --not testifying but calling the police and lying to them. We never called the police, and we never knew he was going to call the police. So, we never committed a crime. So, we did not get a sweetheart deal. The police could not charge us if they wanted to.

COATES: So, when you look at that initial agreement that was reached between -- I interviewed Kim Foxx yesterday and she was talking about this particular investigation and the deal that was reached. Why do you think that what should have happened that the same, you know, $10,000 forfeiture of his bond community service, if he had to admit guilt, would that have been enough?

O. OSUNDAIRO: Yes, I would say that would have been enough if he -- if they made him admit guilt, but he was able to go on scot-free and actually go around and say that he was innocent and tell people that he would not be his mother's son if he committed this crime.

A. OSUNDAIRO: Yes, look, it seems like there's a two-tier system in America. There's two types of citizens, one with money, one without money. And those with money have more of a privilege than ones without because if it was somebody else that was not in that position, they would probably have to admit guilt and maybe do some other type of service that the state wanted.

COATES: I certainly -- I've been a prosecutor. I know that there are inequity issues in our justice system. Believe me, you don't have to convince me of that. But one thing that people often look at, and I -- this is something very close to my heart in terms of exoneration cases, your participation in this could have very well led them to arrest individuals who did not commit a crime, if you say it was a hoax.

And they could be, you know, being in trial, they could have been arrested, they could have been convicted on what was said, as well. Do you ever carry any guilt for your participation in what you say was concocted by someone else, but you carried it out? Do you ever think about what could have happened to somebody who was wrongly accused?

A. OSUNDAIRO: Yes, we actually do think about that. However, if that would have gotten to that point, we would have come out and say that, hey, this is not that. That this was actually concocted. This is a hoax. And you saw that when the police first got us from the airport. We told them what happened. We never lied to them, and we testified. We were always truthful.

[23:30:00]

And the book that we're releasing, "Bigger Than Justice", it's newly released. It does talk about that. It goes deeper into that on how we felt and what we're doing to move forward.

COATES: I will be curious to see and read that part. I think a lot of people were wondering about that very notion. And you know, I spoke with the Cook County and State Attorney Kim Foxx yesterday. And I want to play for you guys what she told me in response to these claims. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KIM FOXX, STATE'S ATTORNEY FOR COOK COUNTRY ILLINOIS: So, what was offered to him was similar to what we would offer someone else but he was allowed to do his community service in advance. He forfeited his bond and that is in line with someone charged with this level of offense. That's what he got.

He was actually treated like everyone else. The secondary prosecution where the criminal justice system was upended to go after him again, that was special treatment, and that is beyond what our Constitution allows.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: So, on that point, Bola, I think you've reached out in the past about this. She says that Smollett did not receive any special treatment, especially for the crime that he was accused of. What's your response to that? Knowing that she is making that statement.

A. OSUNDAIRO: Pure poppycock. That is a lie because you do not just drop all charges and then seal it. Leave it in the open. Let everyone be able to go and see what it is, exactly what it is, you know. I think that that's false, that he did get special treatment and that other people would not be afforded that privilege.

COATES: Ola, what's your thought?

O. OSUNDAIRO: And not only because he's a celebrity, I also believe there's people high up there in the food chain that put their hands in this case and has something to do with this.

A. OSUNDAIRO: Yes. So, you don't get the former first lady's -- I'm sorry. You don't get the former first lady's aide to come out and tell the FBI to make sure they investigate this. I know I wouldn't get that. I believe her name was Tina Chen that reached out to the FBI to actually go and look into what happened with Jussie.

COATES: I don't have any reporting to corroborate that. I'm sure you're talking about the former First Lady, Michelle Obama, somehow putting her thumb on the scale. I don't have any support for what you just said.

A. OSUNDAIRO: No, I didn't say her.

COATES: Well, who, Melania Trump? Who was the former first lady you were talking about?

A. OSUNDAIRO: No, I said her aide -- COATES: Her aide, Okay.

A. OSUNDAIRO: Tina Chang.

COATES: Okay, thank you. I wasn't clear. I don't have any reporting on that, but I understand that your position is that. I want to ask you this before we go, both of you, I'd like you to weigh in. He has always maintained his innocence. He has always said that this is not what happened.

The court has now said, look, the trial where you both testified, that should have never been a factor because he should have had that first honored plea agreement. If you could say anything to him right now, what would it be?

O. OSUNDAIRO: Just tell the truth. This is America. People believe in second chances in this country. And I believe if he just came out and told the truth from the beginning, this would have been behind us and people would have forgave him and we could have all gone on with our lives.

COATES: Bola and Ola Osundairo, thank you both for joining me this evening.

A. OSUNDAIRO: Thank you, Laura. We appreciate it.

O. OSUNDAIRO: Thank you.

COATES: Thank you. The Texas School Board approving Bible- infused lessons for public elementary schools --the governor there said it's a step toward providing, he says, the best education in the nation. But my next guest says Texas is preaching, not teaching. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:38:02]

COATES: Well, lessons from the Good Book could be among the lessons millions of kids in Texas learn next school year. Today, the state school board voting to green light what they call Blue Bonnet Learning Curriculum. It infuses the Bible into classes for kids in kindergarten through the fifth grade.

This program has been months in the making. It's optional. Supporters say that it will help teach subjects like reading and language arts while introducing kids to religious history. But critics argue it highlights Christianity more than any other. other religion and some of the lessons possibly undermine the separation of Church and State.

The 15-member board voted eight to seven to approve it with three Republicans joining Democrats and voting against it. The tie breaking vote was cast by new member, Leslie Racine. Texas governor, Greg Abbott, appointed her to temporarily fill a vacancy after the election. Another member who was elected to that seat will take her place at the end of the year. Joining me now, a member of the state board of education who voted

against it, Democrat James Talarico. Thank you so much for joining us. You, you're studying to be a Christian pastor. Why do you believe this curriculum though is preaching, not teaching?

JAMES TALARICO (D) TEXAS STATE HOUSE: Well, before I was a legislator, I was a Texas public school teacher. And as you mentioned, I'm a current seminary student studying to become a Presbyterian minister. And so, I know personally that there is a difference between preaching and teaching.

Under federal law, schools can teach the Bible as an academic text, but not in a devotional way. In other words, public schools are not Sunday schools. Or as Greg Abbott is fond of saying schools are for education, not indoctrination. And you know, Laura, I'm not the only one who thinks that this curriculum is unconstitutional.

The Texas Republicans who crafted this curriculum also think it's unconstitutional because in the bill that created this curriculum, they explicitly grant Republicans who crafted this curriculum also think it's unconstitutional because in the bill that created this curriculum, they explicitly grant immunity for Texas educators who violate the establishment clause of the United States Constitution, otherwise known as the separation of Church and State.

So, this curriculum is unconstitutional, it's un-American, and I also believe it's deeply un-Christian.

COATES: You know, one of the lessons, lesson plans, I should say, for kindergartners emphasizes teaching the book of Genesis from the Bible and helping kids understand the phrase, "And God said, let there be light and there was light. Tell me about a lesson specifically like this. Is that appropriate for a-- elementary school student in light of what you've described as that separation, of course, of church and state?

TALARICO: You know, Christian nationalists are so focused on pushing Christianity in school that they've forgotten the Christianity we learned in church. Jesus taught us to love our neighbors as ourselves. In the parable of the Good Samaritan, Jesus specifically defines neighbor as someone different from us, religiously, racially, culturally. And this new Texas curriculum elevates Christianity over the other major world religions.

I consider the Hindu student, the Jewish student, the Muslim student, the Buddhist student, the atheist student who sits in a classroom in a Texas public school to be my neighbor. And as a Christian, I am called to love them as myself.

And forcing my religion down their throats is not love. I think if Jesus read this new curriculum, he would weep for those students. And then I think he would overturn our desks in the Texas legislature.

COATES: But there are those who will say, this is optional. This is not mandated. Is that disingenuous? Does that change the calculus as you describe? TALARICO: I think it's misleading. You've got to know the context here

in Texas. We rank 43rd in the nation in per student education funding. Texas teachers are making less than they did 10 years ago when you adjust for inflation. So, Greg Abbott has created a school funding emergency in this state.

And there are heavy financial incentives tied to this new optional curriculum. So, it's not optional when you're starving schools of desperately needed funding and then dangling financial incentives to use an unconstitutional curriculum.

COATES: Do you anticipate, has already been talked about, there being legal challenges, and by the way, given that the person who was a tie- breaking vote has a short tenure until the person actually supposed to be in that seat ultimately will be there, will this hold through the duration of the next academic school year?

TALARICO: You know, we'll see, but I think we should also mention that there was bipartisan opposition to this new curriculum on the State Board of Education. It wasn't just Democrats who voted against it. It was also conservative Republicans who are Christians themselves.

I think conservatives should be really concerned about the state usurping the role of the Church. The separation of Church and State is not only for the benefit of our democracy, it's also for the benefit of the Church. And I, for one, don't feel comfortable with government employees teaching our faith. We have places where we can do that and they're called churches.

COATES: So, Representative James Talarico, we've all been fascinated by what's happened and we'll continue to follow this story. Thank you.

TALARICO: Thank you.

COATES: Up next, Matt Gaetz's new job, charging more than 500 bucks for a personal video on Cameo.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:48:25]

COATES: Well, he's not going to be attorney general and turns out he's not going to return to Congress. So, what's Matt Gaetz up to now? He's on Cameo. And the former congressman is charging more than $500 a pop for all sorts of videos, from a simple happy birthday greeting all the way to a personalized pep talk.

Gaetz writing this about himself on the site, "I served in Congress. Trump nominated me to be U.S. attorney general. That didn't work out. Once, I fired the House Speaker" Well, he didn't personally, of course, fired the former House Speaker, but I guess that's not really the point, is it?

With me now, comedian Pete Dominick and former Bachelorette lawyer, journalist and a whole lot more, Rachel Lindsay here, as well. Good to see both of you on this Friday night. Pete, I am dying to know, okay, are you going to pay 500 bucks for a custom Matt Gaetz video and what would you have him give you a pep talk about?

PETE DOMINICK, COMEDIAN: Oh gosh, I don't think I could ever do it. He is a terrible person. And I actually thought about this. I was like, people want to humiliate him to pay him to say something humiliating. I mean, I'd be entertained by that. But I also think that anybody that sends this guy any money should have their credit card hacked and stolen.

It's a terrible thing to do to give this guy any money. What are you going to ask him to do? I mean, he had the worst week ever. He got so disgraced and embarrassed. He was up for the top job of attorney general in the Department of Justice.

[23:50:00]

And now he's on cameo law, Rachel. Come on, worst week ever.

COATES: I mean, Rachel, I feel like though the number one person who might be trying to do what Pete described might be a man named former speaker Kevin McCarthy, who might have a whole list of things he'd like him to say, maybe a $500 apology or otherwise. I don't know. Rachel, what do you make of this? What's the trajectory for this?

RACHEL LINDSAY, FORMER CONTESTANT, "THE BACHELORETTE": I don't know where you go from here. I didn't even think about Kevin McCarthy. That's actually really, really good. And you can decline to do someone's video on cameo. That's a thing.

So, I would imagine that he would do that, or he might be a little bit desperate. I mean, who would have known? You start the week off as possibly being the attorney general, and now you're filming 30-second birthday videos like you're a digital Hallmark card.

I don't know what the trajectory is from here. I would say it's a fall from grace, but how high was he really? I would think that he would be humbled after this, but then he's also charging $500 a pop, so maybe not. I mean, I guess from here, you just start -- you just press play, right?

COATES: I mean, there's a whole range of prices, too. I mean, it might be different levels. I'm surprised about all the people who are on Cameo, but maybe, I don't know, Trump said he has a wonderful future ahead of him. Maybe it's just part of it. We're not seeing the rest of it.

But next topic, everyone, Ellen DeGeneres and her wife spotted out in England after sources telling them that they wrapped -- that they moved there full-time after the election. They look pretty happy. Pete?

DOMINICK: I mean, good for them, I guess. They're so unbelievably rich. They're selling their house for like $63 million.

COATES: Wow. Really?

LINDSAY: Yes. DOMINICK: Yes, yes. It's on sale for $63 million, Laura, if you're in the market and I just --

COATES: Thank you so much. You guys take a couple -- a lot of zeros off of that price for me to even be able to go to the open house. But go ahead.

DOMINICK: I mean, what kind of a privilege, what kind of a fortunate situation do you have to be in that you can not like the situation in the country and just move? Like a lot of people have been talking about this. Where are you going and why? I say stay and fight, but I would like to know Laura, where you would go if you had to, if you had to live in another country, which country would Laura Coates pick?

COATES: Oh my God. The one that where carbs were free and calories didn't count and everyone just gave me gelato. Is that Italy? That's -- that's right. That's the one you go to right? Rachel, what about you?

LINDSAY: That's --

COATES: All right. Let's talk "Glicked" everyone. Not glicked -- "Glicked". So, if you're, oh Blake Boomer is reading, it's "Glicked", "Gladiator two" and "Wicked" are both out today and according to "Deadline", "Wicked" is expected to take it $120 million with Gladiator taking in possibly a $61 million haul.

So, what do you guys think? Is this the new Barbenheimer? And for the record, I saw them on the same day. Barbenheimer, I was one of those people, and I started out with "Oppenheimer" and ended with "Barbie" because that reversal did not make sense otherwise. Pete, how about you?

DOMINICK: I mean, of course you did because you're a big, wealthy superstar now. You can afford such a thing.

COATES: Okay, okay.

DOMINICK: Who are these people? No, who can afford one movie? It's "Glicked", first of all, sounds like a sex act, but second of all, who can afford two movies? It's like $700 night out. I mean, I think "Glicked" is basically that.

COATES: Popcorn -- I brought my own. I am that person. I will sneak in some snacks. Don't even look.

LINDSAY: You brought your own? A big bag?

COATES: First of all, first of all, I will bring my own because I am not going to spend $25 for whatever. Wait, now I just told on myself. If you see me at the theater, don't check my bag. I swear, it's just, it just got tissues in there. Oops.

DOMINICK: I think, the real phenomenon of "Glicked" is people just staying home and watching Netflix, really, come on. And why did no one pick Wackyator? That was right there for the taking. COATES: Because if you thought "Glicked" sounded a little bit suspect,

I'm assuming the others sounded even worse. Okay, Rachel, how about you? Are you going to actually go watch it? Or both of them?

LINDSAY: I'm going to see both. I am very excited. I have been inundated with social media. videos of both Ariana Grande, Cynthia Erivo, and I'm just going to pause for Denzel. I mean, the moment that we got the trailer of Denzel in "Gladiator two", it went viral. That's enough to get me out of my seat to pay whatever price, to not bring my own bag of popcorn, to buy some more and just sit there and watch it.

So, I'm just objectifying him. I'm also excited. I think this is fun, too, because both of these franchises have solid fan bases. I mean, remember when it was going viral about men --asking men the question about the Roman Empire, well, we're going to get to watch it here in "Gladiator two". So, I'm excited about that. I'm excited about "Wicked". I'm a big fan of Broadway musicals. So, people, come with me. You come with me, come on.

DOMINICK: Who watches all these movies?

[23:55:00]

There's such different movies. By the way, a lot of people tell me, I remind them of Denzel.

LINDSAY: What? What?

COATES: Wait, I'll let her, I'll let her -- with Denzel, and I think I blacked out for the rest of your statement just now. Pete Dominick, Rachel Lindsay, thank you both so much.

LINDSAY: We have to move on to the next topic.

COATES: I got to move on. You know what? We got to be done with that because I don't even know where he's going. Thank you everyone. Thank you all for watching, as well. "Anderson Cooper 360" is next.