Return to Transcripts main page

Laura Coates Live

Special Counsel Jack Smith Drops Federal Cases Against Trump; Trump Threatens Canada, Mexico, and China with Tariffs; Harris Eyes Potential 2028 Comeback; Elon Musk and Neil DeGrasse Tyson Spar Over Mars. Aired 11p-12a ET

Aired November 25, 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]

ASHLEY ALLISON, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Okay, now, I -- I also think, as a redeeming factor, that canned cranberries are better than homemade.

UNKNOWN: Absolutely do.

UNKNOWN: -- best.

ALLISON: Okay, I will also receive --

UNKNOWN: I agree.

ALLISON: -- anyone who wants to do an act of kindness and give me some good cornbread stuffing. I will, too, take that --

(LAUGHTER)

ALLISON: Happy Thanksgiving.

AUDIE CORNISH, CNN HOST AND CORRESPONDENT, PODCAST HOST: Hey, those were, in fact, hot takes. Everyone, thank you so much for spending time with us. Thank you for watching "NewsNight." And you can catch more conversation with me in my podcast, "The Assignment." Check us out wherever you download your podcast. "Laura Coates Live" starts right now.

LAURA COATES, CNN HOST AND SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Well, tonight, Jack Smith throws in the towel, ending the historic federal cases against Donald Trump as a new post-election blame game gets underway. But is everything as it seems? Plus, Trump fires the first shot in what could be a major trade war. The day-one promise he just made that has three, count them, three countries and maybe your pocketbook on high alert. Plus, Kamala Harris for 2028? The V.P. tells allies she's keeping her options open. So, why haven't we seen much of her since the election? Is that what the Democrats want? Andrew Yang weighs in tonight on "Laura Coates Live."

So, Donald Trump is looking in that old rearview mirror and saying, so long to Jack Smith. The special counsel read the writing on the wall. I mean, it wasn't that hard to read. These cases weren't going to survive under a Trump DOJ. So, I guess in a way, he beat him to the punch. He officially dropped the two federal cases against Trump today. That's a grand total of what? Forty-four criminal charges from the January 6th and classified documents cases. Now, all gone.

Look, one way or another, this was inevitable under a Trump DOJ after he won the election and appointed his own attorney general. Social Council, obviously, serves at the pleasure of the A.G. Did anyone really think that the incoming A.G., whoever it ends up being, maybe Pam Bondi, was going to ask Jack Smith to stay on? Surely, they remember Jeff Sessions, right? And several others.

And yes, Trump did threaten to fire Jack Smith, but today's decision was actually Smith's and Smith's alone. He says he is following longstanding DOJ policy that says the DOJ cannot prosecute a sitting president. Of course, he's not a sitting, he's a president-elect, but that's a detail. You get the idea.

But he is leaving behind one very clear message. Smith writes in his filing on the January 6th case, "This outcome is not based on the merits or strength of the case against the defendant." In other words, he is standing by everything that he has already brought forward. He also asked both cases to be dismissed without prejudice, meaning that it's possible they could actually bring them again when Trump is out of office.

We're also learning that he plans to file a final report now the investigations are officially over. And the A.G., Merrick Garland actually plans to receive and also publicly release that report. But in the meantime, get ready for another version of the 2024 blame game because people want to know when they -- who saw Trump go to trial are asking themselves, what went wrong here?

So, a long point of the finger at this man, the attorney general himself, Merrick Garland. They argue that he dragged his feet by not appointing Jack Smith until nearly two years after January 6. Now others, they say, look no farther than this man, Mitch McConnell. He could have rallied Republicans to convict Trump in his second impeachment trial, and that would have barred him from running for president again.

But the blame game is not done because there is the judicial nine and the Supreme Court it is. It closed the door on a trial before election day by granting Trump partial immunity, at least some of them did. That's, of course, after it slow walked that very decision, fueling Trump's tried and true and, frankly, prudent strategy of delay, delay, delay. Started to feel like the Scarecrow and the Wizard of Oz doing all this, pointing at different directions.

Well, now, the president-elect has taken a bit of a victory lap, and he is telling the cases should have never ever been brought. And he says he persevered against all odds and won. Elections do have consequences. They do also have celebrations.

Well, here to discuss, the lead investigator for the House Select January 6th Committee and former federal prosecutor, Tim Heaphy. Good evening to you, Tim. Let's talk about this because Trump, he is, of course, declaring victory. Was justice served by this decision to dismiss these cases?

TIMOTHY HEAPHY, FORMER LEAD INVESTIGATOR, JANUARY 6TH SELECT COMMITTEE: No, Laura, absolutely not.

[23:05:00]

It is an escape of accountability without precedent. You know, the committee for which I worked found even then, when we stopped our investigation, very strong evidence of the violations of federal criminal statutes. I think Jack Smith only got additional evidence and had more meat on the bones of the story that the committee told.

So, the evidence in this case, as the special counsel said his motion today, was quite strong, that there was specific intent to disrupt an interview with an official proceeding. The fact that there will be no legal accountability for at least the next four years is a loss for the rule of law, not a victory.

COATES: Well, you know, I wonder about the timing, because that was really the real big talking point and, frankly, topic for a lot of people. It did take more than two years to charge Trump. They had charged other people, by the way. But those charges came after -- eight months after your committee recommended those charges. So, what happened, in your view? I mean, did they slow walk it for a significant or good reason, or is this just the way that it unfolded?

HEAPHY: Hard to say, Laura, without having been in the room within the Department of Justice when these discussions were had. It was clear to us, the Select Committee, that we were getting to some really important witnesses with direct personal knowledge of these criminal offenses before they had been contacted by the Department of Justice.

It seems clear that it wasn't until the Select Committee revealed some of that evidence that the Department of Justice really started to focus on not just people rioting at the Capitol, but all of the context and the crucial fake electors and attempts to pressure state officials and Vice President Pence, all the things that we reveal.

So, yeah, if you look at that timeline, arguably, if that investigation had started sooner, it could have proceeded more quickly and there could have been accountability sooner.

COATES: Do you see the election of Donald Trump in spite of these cases as a kind of mandate from the voters that they did not want these cases to go forward?

HEAPHY: No, absolutely not. I think the election results can be explained by other underlying conditions going on in this country, not a direct reflection on the merits of the criminal case. Perhaps it was a factor for some. But I don't believe that you can interpret the results of the election in the middle of the economic issues that we've had, in the middle of all of the other serious issues facing this country discussed by the candidates as any kind of referendum by the public on the merits of these charges.

COATES: I mean, everyone seems to know or at least tell people they know what the exact mandate is. It is shifting, I think, as the sands, to think about the one who's actually saying it. Let me ask you. Do you think that Merrick -- not Merrick Garland but Jack Smith should have waited to be fired? What were the risks of that? I suppose, if he waited to be fired by Trump as promised, then the report that was going to be due would ultimately be in the hands of the new A.G. appointee.

HEAPHY: Yeah, Laura, I think Jack Smith has always played by the book, and the book here is really clear, that the Department of Justice cannot proceed with criminal charges against the sitting president. And given that there was no trial date scheduled, there was still a lot of pretrial litigation to go, he did what the department policy dictates that he does, and that is to step away from the prosecution. He made clear that it's not a reflection of the merits of the case.

But he's a by-the-book person. Merrick Garland is by-the-book person. And this decision is by the book. Elections do have consequences. Regardless of whether they are a mandate from people about this case, they have consequences. And this is the outcome that is dictated by a longstanding Department of Justice policy.

COATES: You know, Trump and his inner circle have repeatedly said they're going to investigate the people who investigated Trump. I mean, listen to Trump's pick for attorney general, Pam Bondi.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PAM BONDI, FORMER FLORIDA ATTORNEY GENERAL: The Department of Justice, the prosecutors, will be prosecuted, the bad ones. The investigators will be investigated because the deep state, last term for President Trump, they were hiding in the shadows. But now they have a spotlight on them, and they can all be investigated. And the House needs to be cleaned out.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Are you concerned that you might be a target of their investigation, having been a part of at least one?

HEAPHY: No, no, candidly. Look, they can investigate and ask questions and seek information, but it takes facts and evidence to actually have a legal consequence. The rule of law really does still, at bottom, stand for something. It would have to go to regular people, regular Americans, in a criminal justice process. And, you know, everything that the committee did was under the authority of the House of Representatives, and the information that was found was the product of a lawful process.

The same with Jack Smith and his investigators.

[23:10:00]

You could question the decision to pursue it, but you certainly can't question the under color of law operation that both the committee and the investigators took. So, no, I'm not concerned about any potential long-term legal consequence.

COATES: Let's hope you're right. Tim Heaphy, thank you so much for joining.

HEAPHY: Thanks, Laura.

COATES: Well, joining me now here at the table, Devlin Barrett, who is a justice and FBI reporter for "The New York Times," Karen Finney, a CNN political commentator, and Shermichael Singleton, a CNN political commentator and Republican strategist.

Let begin with you, Devlin. You and I sat in many courtrooms --

(LAUGHTER)

-- following the --

DEVLIN BARRETT, JUSTICE AND FBI REPORTER, THE NEW YORK TIMES: Two years, Laura. Two years.

COATES: Has it only been two years? I feel like it has been 17 decades.

BARRETT: Feels like it.

COATES: Okay, great. Well, let us talk about this because Jack Smith, according to source, is going to release the report after the investigation is over. The rule says he creates the report. He provides this to attorney general. If there is discrepancy, he has to go to Congress over this. Are we going to learn the facts even if these cases are dismissed?

BARRETT: So, I think we need to think of this report differently than, say, the Mueller report where there were significant declinations, decisions not to charge. And this case where there were significant decisions to charge, the indictments are his most important documents, Jack Smith's most important documents, and I think the indictments will still carry the weight of what he wants to say about these cases.

I do think there are some things to be said in this report as to why he chose, for example, not to charge Rudy Giuliani or not to charge some of these other alleged co-conspirators in the January 6th case. But I don't expect a big, thick book the way Mueller produced one and even the way some of the other special counsels have produced lengthy, lengthy things because he filed indictments.

COATES: And I have some of those books in my office as we speak. Thank you very much. Karen, look, it's different from the Mueller report in another way as well. I mean, Trump has won the election. Voters were well aware of these indictments, to Devlin's point. Are Democrats served by wanting to even see this report and how much of a focus should they have on it once it comes out?

KAREN FINNEY, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: You know, look, I think Democrats have accepted Trump won and, unfortunately, the justice system failed the American people, because we deserve to know the results of these indictments, these reports, before we went to the polls. And unfortunately, for a whole host of reasons, that didn't happen. And frankly, Trump is right, he did win. This is the strategy that he has used for decades. And he made a bet that he could do it again, and he was right.

I think for Democrats who recognize -- look, the report will come out. I'm sure there will be some things that are, um, you know, very troubling. But Democrats also failed when these cases were going forward because there was not -- there should have been one narrative about what these things, cases mean together, for the American people because, remember, people accepted certain things about Trump but they thought, well, but the economy was good under him.

And so, we didn't, you know, have a strong enough message to say, yeah, but if he's busy focused on retribution or if he's busy figuring out how he can make money, he's not focused on you, instead of just trying to tell people more facts, it's a mistake we made in the 2016 campaign, in fact.

So, I think my advice to Democrats is it is time to up your game because you're losing, you're failing, and trying to use the same tactics and strategies of just telling the American people pieces of information about him. It ain't working.

COATES: What do you think, Shermichael? I mean, the idea that, you know, the pearl clutching about existential threats or that this person has all these legal issues that surround him. I mean, the absence of them could work the same way that Karen is talking about. He says, well, I don't have those issues any longer, therefore, I can focus on the American people and the mandates that we have. How do you see it?

SHERMICHAEL SINGLETON, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: It didn't work. I mean, for months and months, even on this network, we talked about this stuff over and over and over ad nauseam, and it didn't move the needle. Joe Biden tried. It didn't work. The vice president tried. It didn't work. And if you believe Harry Enten's commentary earlier today on our network, Donald Trump's approval right now is up 18 points, I believe, despite all of these things.

I remember data and a litany of articles from "The Washington Post" and "The New York Times" about how these matters and all the polling data that suggested voters are so concerned about all of these issues, and yet Donald Trump improved his margins from 2020, including among demographics, that not a single Republican has done well since Richard Nixon.

And I don't think you can dismiss any of those things. I mean, if I'm being, I guess, blunt, Laura, I don't think the average American person cares about these things when compared to other issues that really impact their day-to-day lives.

COATES: Let me ask you on this point because, obviously, as a prosecutor, I cared not about an election where I was talking about somebody who I believed had committed a crime. Do you think that voters are the only audience for a criminal proceeding? I mean, that would be disingenuous if you only focused on it because of politics.

[23:15:00]

Voters are one thing. But jurors and the courts are very another different topic.

SINGLETON: Well, jurors are voters. And I think we have the verdict. The jury is out, right? And the American people decided that they wanted to give the former president another four years --

COATES: Uh-hmm.

SHERRILL: -- regardless of what their views were on what he may or may not have done. And we have, again, a lot of day on what people's opinions are about the former president and his behavior. And despite all of those facts, they still said, I don't care, because I believe he's better on the economy, I believe he's better on cost of living, I believe he's better on economic dislocation, I believe he's better on immigration, I believe he's better on foreign policy than the person he's running against.

COATES: Hmm.

SINGLETON: The jury is in, we know what the verdict is, and the American people spoke.

COATES: Well, Devlin, let me ask you. Why didn't Jack Smith wait to be officially fired? I mean, he -- certainly, he has been proactive, but should he have been? Why?

BARRETT: I think someone made the point that he is a good soldier and he does follow -- want to follow the rule book. I think there's another more practical consideration, which is if you wait to be fired and you're putting your whatever your report is going to say in the hands of the Trump administration to decide because you stick around that long, in theory, you might be waiting ultimately for a republican administration to decide whether that report comes public, what parts of that report become public. This way, he is still a little bit in control of his own destiny and the work product that he has worked on all this time.

COATES: Really quick, Karen, should Biden pardon Trump?

FINNEY: No, absolutely not, because, again, as Jack Smith said, it was not about the merits of the case, it was about the fact that he was elected. And, you know, look, when I say that justice failed, there are a lot of Americans who see this as a failure. We talk a lot about how Republicans feel about this. A lot of Democrats and independents who say, see, the justice system doesn't work.

COATES: It's unfortunately true, a conversation that people believe it does not. Certainly, there are more cases that don't involve Donald Trump and the justice system has to work in those capacities as well. Devlin, thank you so much. Karen, Shermichael, please stand by. I do love you. Call me later.

(LAUGHTER)

Donald Trump tonight, though, putting Canada, Mexico, and China on notice with a threat of massive tariffs. Is a new trade war on the horizon? Plus, Vice President Kamala Harris reportedly tells her team to keep her political options open. What might that look like? And would voters go for it? That conversation straight ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:20:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT-ELECT: I'm going to put a 100, 200, 2,000 percent tariff. They're not going to sell one car into the United States.

(APPLAUSE)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: A promise we grew accustomed to hearing from President-elect Donald Trump on the campaign trail. And tonight, Trump upping the ante, filing 25% tariffs on Canada and Mexico. Also, an additional 10% tariff on China on his very first day in office. The Chinese embassy saying tonight, no one will win a trade war.

But how will that order sit with Treasury secretary nominee, Scott Bessent? Well, here's what Besant said the day after Trump won the election.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SCOTT BESSENT, NOMINEE FOR TREASURY SECRETARY: I would recommend that tariffs be layered in gradually which would -- the price adjustment would be over a period of time.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Well, back with me, Karen Finney and Shermichael Singleton. Also joining us, CNN political and national security analyst David Sanger. I'll begin with you. You have said that Scott Bessent would lead the Calm the Markets team, and I wonder, do you think that his presence is strong enough to quell any market concerns?

DAVID SANGER, CNN POLITICAL AND NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST, WHITE HOUSE AND NATIOANAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT FOR THE NEW YORK TIMES: We're about to find out --

COATES: Uh-hmm.

SANGER: -- with late-night tweets like this. So, what do we remember from the first Trump term? In this first week, he turned out a threat just like this about Canada and Mexico. And there was a lot of scurrying around it did not happen. Now, maybe it'll happen this time. Conditions are different.

But he has created, Laura, the sort of three distinct teams within his cabinet. Each of which have missions that come in some conflict with the other. So, the Calm the Markets team, obviously, gets in the way of Trump's commitments here on tariffs, which could be anything but calming.

There's also a team that is clearly out to disrupt the Justice Department. You were just discussing that in the first segment. That is led by the attorney general nominee, but hardly the only one. You've seen a number of other members of that.

And then you have Elon Musk running around talking about shrinking the government by $2 trillion a year out of a sort of $6.75 trillion budget. You could wipe out the entire Defense Department and not get to $1 trillion. You could fire everybody who works for the federal government and not get to $1 trillion.

So, there's a lot of statements that don't line up with the reality yet.

COATES: Yeah. I have to wonder, I mean, we're like 56 days away, who's counting, from the inauguration. Why is he making this announcement now?

SINGLETON: I mean, look, I think if you look at the statements from the president of the E.U. maybe two months ago, she stated maybe we should reconsider purchasing liquid gas, I believe, from Russia and the United States out of concern or fear of potential tariffs from Trump.

[23:25:00]

So, if the argument is made that it can be utilized as, I guess, a bargaining tool, if you will, to lower or level the playing field, perhaps there's some evidence to suggest that. If the argument is that, as Trump has said, in some inartful ways, that NAFTA didn't necessarily benefit blue collar workers, there is a significant amount of economic evidence to back and support that claim.

So, I want to see where the president-elect goes with this, along with his economic team of advisors, Laura. But I do think there are some areas of focus that they could potentially hone in on that, could benefit working class people.

COATES: Well, Karen, speaking about this, I've been interested in seeing just the overall, you know, landscape of his picks, and I know that you've been looking at it in conjunction with not just isolated people, but what it looks like overall. And some of his picks seem to straddle both sides of the ideological aisle to the point you're raising. You've got Bessent, who raised money for Gore in 2000. You've got also the Labor pick, Congresswoman Lori Chavez-DeRemer, who is more union- friendly than most Republicans would be. Are you surprised by these picks?

FINNEY: Not at all, and I think we're having the exact conversation that Trump wants us to be having, right? Because ultimately --

COATES: Which is what, though?

FINNEY: Which is trying to give him credit like, oh, RFK Jr., abortion policies. Oh, this one was for the pro-act. You know, look, the bottom line is each of these individuals has made a commitment to follow the policies of Donald Trump. So, whatever their personal feelings are, their other policies that they may have previously pursued, they are now in a pact with Donald Trump.

And most of the policy is really going to be run out of the White House. Certainly, Stephen Miller, we know, is going to have a really strong hand, one of the architects of Project 2025, I will add. So, it's not surprising. But, actually, I would love to count up how many of them are millionaires or billionaires because they seem to be adding millionaires every day.

But more importantly, no, look, he wants it to seem like perhaps there is some conflict here or some tension there. But, you know, RFK Jr. is not going to be setting policy with regard to abortion, for example. He's more focused on, you know, these vaccine mandates and some of the other things that he has talked about.

COATES: Well, why do you think he's leaving room for these more, I guess, centrist ideas? Is it because he wants to have the image of, you know, having a landscape of ideologies that will benefit a wider swath of Americans or is it something else?

SANGER: Well, I think it could be a combination of things. First of all, he has always liked this sort of ferment because it keeps all the different factions a little bit uneasy and leaves him as the one decider. Right? And while I agree they all have deep loyalty and they would line up, that doesn't mean that there weren't policy fights inside the first term.

FINNEY: Sure.

SANGER: Trump administration. And so, we're going to be trying to figure out what those are going to be. But the deepest reason, in many ways, is he is not somebody who spends a lot of time thinking about cohesive policy. He's very transactional. So, if he thinks threatening a tariff, as you suggested, might help him in a short-term negotiation with Mexico or Canada, he's perfectly willing to go do that.

He thought that by building some hotels or suggesting that they could be built on the coast of North Korea, he could get Kim Jong-un to give up his nuclear weapons. He's coming back into office with more North Korean nuclear weapons than they've ever had before.

So, it's not -- if we're looking for consistency here or even deep policy process, it's probably not the presidency for that.

FINNEY: But, you know, really quickly, the rubber is going to hit the road with regard to prices. People expect that he is going to be lowering their costs, whether they understand how tariffs work or not. And so, all of this sort of machinations, if prices don't start to come down, if people don't feel like he's actually making their lives better, that's where, in the court of public opinion, he'll have a lot of trouble.

COATES: Voters are very result-oriented and increasingly impatient with good reason. Thank you so much, everyone.

Up next, Harris 2026 or Harris 2028 or maybe neither. The vice president now weighing her future and keeping her political options open. Could she pull off a political comeback? Well, Andrew Yang joins with his thoughts on that and much more, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:30:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: Vice President Kamala Harris is weighing her options for the future. Politico reporting today that she has been keeping a low profile, spending time in Hawaii with family and senior aides, but in private. She's reportedly telling those aides and other advisors that she wants to keep her options open, eyeing even a possible run for governor in her home state of California in just two years, or taking another crack at the White House in 2028. And no one knows for sure what she'll do.

But day by day, Democrats are growing pretty antsy about figuring out a way forward after losing this election. It's why the race to lead the DNC is getting a lot of attention this time around. We learned today the party is going to vote in February on who should be DNC chair. So far, it's former Maryland governor, Martin O'Malley, and Ken Martin, who's a chairman of the Minnesota Democratic Farmer Labor Party, that are in the running.

[23:35:00]

And frankly, plenty of other names being floated.

Let's get right to Andrew Yang. He's the founder of the Forward Party and was himself a 2020 presidential candidate for the Democrats. Andrew, good to see you. Thanks for joining. First of all, on Vice President Harris, do you think that if she runs for president again, she would be a viable candidate.

ANDREW YANG, FOUNDER OF FORWARD PARTY, FORMER PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: She'd start out with name recognition and a set of donors that's at the envy of many other candidates. But we're talking about two plus years from now that people would be throwing their hat in the ring for the Democratic nomination. And that's an eternity in political terms.

I do think that that's going to be a very crowded field. You're going to have half a dozen governors, many of which that we already know are preparing for that campaign. And a lot is going to change over the next two years. But it's certainly there for her if she wants it.

And it is, as we all know, a deeply personal decision because it's very high commitment to run in a presidential nomination process that's going to consume months and months.

COATES: It's there for her if she wants it, meaning it's her nomination to lose or the opportunity to try again is there for her?

YANG: It's there for her to contend. But I do think, again, we're talking about a long time in political circles, and that is going to be quite a crowded nomination field.

COATES: Sure. I see. Well, let me ask you this. I want you to listen for a second to some of what voters told "The New York Times" Astead Herndon about the kind of Democrat that they would want to support in 2028. And, by the way, they insisted they want someone who is best suited to win, not necessarily their ideal candidate. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNKNOWN (voice-over): Best suited to win. This is only about winning.

UNKNOWN (voice-over): Gender matters in America, unfortunately. It is mind-boggling to me. It is disturbing. But I think it matters.

ASTEAD HERNDON, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST (voice-over): So, the only thing that defeats a Trump-like figure, or this version of Republican Party, is a white man.

UNKNOWN (voice-over): It's a white male who's on fire.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Well, what do you make of that assessment, a white male as the best shot for Democrats in 2028?

YANG: Well, you don't think it's going to be Trump on the other side. It might be a J.D. Vance type. But in 2008, if you had said what we're going to need is an inspirational Black candidate, the democratic field, everyone would have said, what? You know, I think that's one reason why this primary is going to be so interesting and important, because new people are going to emerge, maybe not even some of the folks that are already top of mind in terms of that field. Who knows? I mean, no one knew about Andrew Yang circa 2019. So, there could be a surprise in store.

But one of the best things about this process is that you can't predict what sort of figure the nation is going to embrace in terms of demographics. I mean, it's one reason, I think, that many folks want the Democratic Party to be a little bit less identity-focused.

COATES: Hmm. Well, that's totally part of the conversation. Let me ask you, though. Are you considering running again?

YANG: Oh, I am very young in political terms, Laura, and I get asked every day if I'm going to run again in one race or another, which is something I'm very grateful for. I'm trying to have a positive impact in ways being in small. In this cycle, it was trying to get Joe Biden to pass the torch because I thought that he was going to lose to Trump. And I endorsed Kamala because I thought -- yeah. And, you know, I endorsed Kamala because I certainly think she would -- she would be my choice over Donald Trump. But here we are. Trump is the president- elect. And now, I'll find ways to contribute.

COATES: Well, I didn't hear a yes or a no, so stay tuned for everyone out there. Listen, Andrew, the race for DNC chair is in February, we understand, and there are some folks pushing for former Obama chief of staff and former Chicago mayor, Rahm Emanuel, who has some, well, some sharp political elbows, to say the least. Do you think that he would make sense for that role to lead Democrats forward?

YANG: No. I met Martin O'Malley back in the day when I think he was in a presidential primary. I like him. I like Ken Martin. I think Rahm Emanuel has a real edge to him and a name and some presence and gravitas. I think all of these are really positive qualities. I personally nominated my guy, Dean Phillips, because he's the only person who stood up and said there should be a primary back in January.

And I think whoever the Democrats select as the DNC chair, it has to be someone who has absolutely no relationship with a decision not to have a primary in January because there are a lot of people who are very frustrated by the protection of Joe Biden during that time. And I think Rahm Emanuel, as far as I know, was over in Japan, so he could definitely fit that bill.

[23:40:01]

He's like, look, I had nothing to do with it, I was, you know, in Tokyo having sushi.

COATES: Well, you have to wonder, I mean, Dean Phillips was actually politically vilified by some for having the audacity, they thought, to question Biden's standing until everyone had a different change of heart. That'd be an interesting conversation to have.

Look, we've seen this debate, as you mentioned, identity politics. We've seen the debate come up among Democrats, that they might be out of touch on some social issues or, as some crazy call it, they're too woke, so to speak. Here is the former DNC chair, Donna Brazile, disputing that on Bill Maher. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONNA BRAZILE, FORMER CHAIR, DNC: There's no question immigration became an issue. But I'm not going to get into this, oh, the people are too damn woke. That wasn't an issue.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Do you buy that? Do you believe it?

YANG: You know who didn't buy that at all was the Republicans because they put millions into various attack ads that painted a picture of Kamala Harris and the Democrats as too woke. And I think it worked on a lot of voters. I mean, you're very, very data-driven when you're in the midst of a campaign. So, if an ad works, they would pour money on it, and they definitely did. I think they put tens of millions of dollars into it. And it was effective. I think Donna is projecting a little bit in terms of what you want to be the case, but I do think that it hurt the Dems.

COATES: Well seen. By the way, first time I was on Bill Maher, I was next to you. So, that's a little flashback for me for a second. Andrew Yang, nice to see you.

(LAUGHTER)

YANG: You, too. Happy holidays. I remember it well, Laura.

(LAUGHTER)

COATES: Happy Thanksgiving to you. Andrew Yang, thank you.

Well, if there's one thing Elon Musk obsesses over more than anything else, it just might be his long-time goal of colonizing Mars. So, what happens when a famed astrophysicist mocks his idea on T.V.? That's next.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

NEIL DEGRASSE TYSON, ASTROPHYSICIST: Is it safe? No. people will probably die. What's the return on the investment? Nothing. That's a five-minute meeting, and it doesn't happen.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:45:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: Elon Musk's lifelong quest for life on Mars is pretty well- documented. The business mogul told SpaceX employees earlier this year that he anticipates one million humans living on Mars in the next two decades. But there are some skeptics. Take renowned astrophysicist Neil DeGrasse Tyson as an example.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DEGRASSE TYSON: But my read of the history of space exploration is such that we do big expensive things only when it's geopolitically expedient, such as we feel threatened by an enemy. And so, for him to just say, let's go to Mars because it's the next thing to do, what does that venture capitalist meeting look like? So, Elon, what do you want to do? I want to go to Mars. How much will it cost? A trillion dollars. Is it safe? No. People will probably die. What's the return on the investment? Nothing. That's a five-minute meeting, and it doesn't happen. (END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Well, Musk was quick to reply to that criticism on X, saying, wow, they really don't get it. Mars is critical to the long-term survival of consciousness. Also, I'm not going to ask any venture capitalist for money. I realize that it makes no sense as an investment. That's why I'm gathering resources.

Joining me now, someone who was well-versed in Musk's ambitious aspirations, a founding team member of SpaceX, and CEO and founder of Phantom Space, Jim Cantrell. Welcome, Jim. I have to know. Do you believe Musk's vision for colonizing Mars is an impossible feat?

JIM CANTRELL, CEO AND CO-FOUNDER, PHANTOM SPACE: I don't think it's impossible at all. I think if we left it to the hands of a government, as Neil says, says, you know, there would have to be a geopolitical imperative. But for Elon, he thinks it's existential, and I think he'll do it.

The biggest issue all along was just having launch capacity. It was big enough and often enough to make it happen. And that has happened with this very large rocket that we see launching out of Texas that he calls Starship.

COATES: Was that the most pressing concern to get this done or are there others?

CANTRELL: Well, you know, I think Elon lives in a world that he has defined for himself. And in his world, getting to Mars is the most important aspect of our survival as a species.

You may be right. You know, it's inarguable that eventually this Earth gets swallowed up by the sun as it ends its own life, but that's millions of years, probably longer, away. You know, there's a lot of other, you know, sort of self-harming things that we could do to ourselves like nuclear war that could possibly exterminate life on Earth, albeit vanishingly small in probability.

It's not entirely crazy what he's saying and, frankly, I think he's right.

COATES: You know, according to the National Institutes of Health, some of the most lethal dangers that humans could possibly face on Mars include the exposure to radiation, to extreme temperatures, not enough oxygen to breathe. How does one overcome those possibilities?

CANTRELL: Yeah, it's a pretty hostile environment. It's very cold. The atmosphere is carbon dioxide, so there's no oxygen to breathe. You'll have to manufacture your own oxygen. To the question of radiation, you don't have an atmosphere to absorb it. So yeah, clearly, you'd have to live a different life than you would here. There's no going out into the forest and sitting by the pond. The Boring Company that he started is really all about boring underground in Mars and creating underground cities.

[23:50:02] So, in a lot of ways, life is going to imitate art, much like some of the sci-fi movies that showed underground Mars settlements in, you know, 30 years ago. It is probably what reality looks like. So, there's a lot of answers to this. It's not an easy existence. It's not -- it's not going to be as easy as settling the new world was 500 years ago.

COATES: I mean, clearly Musk is a visionary, undoubtedly, in his own right. I mean, he's known for Tesla, SpaceX. I wonder why, and some people ask this question, of course, why not redirect all that pioneering and innovative energy to solving issues on this planet?

CANTRELL: Well, my -- I've heard this for the entire 35 years I've been in the space business. You know, there was a time where people would say, why are we going to the moon? Because so many people are starving here on earth. And the reality is, is that this is part of our human DNA, to go out and explore. It's who we are. It's what drove our ancestors, you know, I don't care where you're from, to new places, new places on the continent, to different continents, and it's what keeps us essentially human.

So, I think the distraction are human is really a misunderstanding of what this human beauty of wanting to explore the cosmos would be in a scientifically curious species really is.

COATES: I guess a new version of you can walk and chew gum at the same time as you can walk Earth and explore space at the same time, if that is the case there. You know, you've previously described Musk as -- I think the word was a mercurial guy, saying there is a good Elon and a bad Elon. Who are each?

CANTRELL: Well, I mean, anybody that's just driven -- he's clearly a very driven person. I've never known anybody in my life like him. He left an indelible impression on me for the rest of my life. I think they got the good side and the bad side. We all do. I'll admit I do the same.

But, you know, the bad Elon is one that's, you know, in a hurry. He's intolerant of what he considers to be bad ideas. The good Elon, he's charming, he's funny, he's visionary, and he gets it done. So, you get the good with the bad with Elon, and I'd say the good overwhelms the bad, sure.

COATES: You know, following Trump's election win, Musk has been tapped to lead DOGE, this government efficiency initiative. What do you make of Musk's deepening influence on the president-elect and this particular cost-cutting, as it's known to be thought of, task force?

CANTRELL: Yeah, I mean, my first thoughts go to, you know, sort of the constitutionality of such things. But putting that aside, you know, I think any time there's a discussion about how we can make things better, it's a good discussion.

And, you know, what Elon is bringing to the table is this can-do attitude where most people have sort of given up with the idea that the U.S. government spending is out of control. There's no arguing that we're in a deep budget deficit that can't go on forever, even though it seems to.

So, we'll see how they do. But I think -- I think intentions are good. But you never know how that turns out. So, I, for one, I'm very curious to see how the next three to six months pans out.

COATES: You and me, both. Jim Cantrell, thank you so much.

CANTRELL: My pleasure. Thank you.

COATES: Up next, the Drake and Kendrick Lamar feud takes a turn from the studio to the courtroom.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:55:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: In case you missed it, worst employee ever? Macy's is finding one employee, one, is responsible for $154 million that seems to have gone missing. They say the employee hid the millions within delivery expenses over the past three years. And now, there's an investigation. One thing they do know, that employee did not pocket the money.

I'm wondering, well, where is the money then? I'm not sure. Will it impact Thursday's parade? No. What about the flagship store's lights? No. Those traditions are safe this holiday season. But Macy's is delaying their third quarter earnings and it's not good for their stock considering already slumping sales. Maybe Black Friday will turn things around.

Well, now, onto a relationship that probably won't be turned around anytime soon.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

(MUSIC PLAYING)

COATES: Drake and Kendrick Lamar, there's a new beat to their feud tonight. Drake accusing Spotify and Universal Music Group of launching an illegal scheme involving bots, payola, and other methods to artificially inflate one of Lamar's biggest hits, you just heard it, "Not Like Us."

And why would Drake care? Well, the song is a diss track that takes aim right at him, one in a series of songs the two artists have sung each other during their months-long rap beat. And that's not all. "Not Like Us" was nominated for five Grammy Awards.

Lamar was named the halftime performer for the 2025 Super Bowl, and then came the surprise release of his new album this past Friday. So, how did Drake respond? The beginnings of a lawsuit. And it can't be ignored, both artists represented by divisions of UMG, who are responding today, saying -- quote -- "The suggestion that UMG would do anything to undermine any of its artists is offensive and untrue." So, I guess the feud continues. Thank you for watching. "Anderson Cooper 360" is next.

[00:00:01]

(MUSIC PLAYING)