Return to Transcripts main page
Laura Coates Live
Trump Fires Opening Salvos On Immigration And Trade; Walmart Rolls Back DEI Programs Amid Conservative Backlash; Harris Camp Speaks Out On What Went Wrong; Trump Critics Fear Of Retribution As Second Term Nears. Aired 11p-12a ET
Aired November 26, 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]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
AUDIE CORNISH, CNN HOST AND CORRESPONDENT, PODCAST HOST: Breaking news, just a short while ago, a ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah is going into effect. The deal presses pause on a year plus of fighting between the IDF and the militant group inside Lebanon. Under the terms of the agreement, Israel will have 60 days to draw down its troops inside Lebanon. Israel's war cabinet greenlit the U.S. backpack.
We want to thank you for watching "NewsNight." "Laura Coates Live" starts right now.
LAURA COATES, CNN HOST AND SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Well, tonight, Donald Trump gets an early start on his second term and fires the opening salvos on two of his big priorities, immigration and trade. Plus, Walmart enters the culture wars or maybe exits stage left and rolls back its diversity, equity, and inclusion programs. Does it mark a shift in corporate America? And top Harris campaign staffers speak out for the very first time since the election without Kamala Harris, I might add. What they're saying went so wrong and how Democrats can try to fix it. Tonight on "Laura Coates Live."
We still got what, like 53 days until inauguration day, but who's counting? That's not stopping Donald Trump, though, from getting quite the head start on his very top priorities, and with it, warnings to those who may try to stand in his way. Take immigration, for example. His incoming border czar, Tom Homan, taking a trip to the Texas border today with Governor Greg Abbott. This was his message.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TOM HOMAN, INCOMING U.S. BORDER CZAR: Let me be clear. There is going to be a mass deportation because we just finished a mass illegal immigration crisis on the border. It is a felony to knowingly harbor and conceal illegal immigrants from immigration authorities. Don't test us.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: That last part, about it being a felony to harbor immigrants here illegally, well, that was meant for people like perhaps the Denver mayor, Mike Johnson. He has vowed to resist Trump's mass deportation plans, saying this: More than us having the Denver Police Department stationed at the county line to keep them out, you would have 50,000 Denverites there. It's like the Tiananmen Square moment with the rose and the gun.
Perhaps not analogous, but Homan has threatened to throw Mayor Johnson in jail if he tries to step in. And tonight, Mayor Johnson, well, he's responding right here on CNN.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MAYOR MIKE JOHNSON, DENVER, COLORADO: If they want to focus on violent criminals, we would be happy to help support pursuing, arresting, and deporting them. If they are going to send the U.S. Army or the Navy SEALs into Denver to pursue folks to pull them off the job at hotels or restaurants where they're working or pull kids off the soccer field, I think we will see Denverites and folks around the country who will not violently resist that.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Now, to be clear, the mayor backtracked from his original suggestion about sending in cops. He is now just talking about citizens non-violently, non-violently resisting. He's also making a distinction between criminals and people who are here illegally but are contributing to society.
Now, this looming shutdown over deportations, well, it all comes as Trump puts another ball in the air with a similar goal. His day one promise for tariffs on Mexico and Canada and China, they're all part of his plan to crack down on illegal immigration and fentanyl coming into the United States. But, you know, already, Mexico says that they may retaliate. A transition official says the tariff threat is a negotiating tactic. But if it backfires, if it backfires and they don't budge, well, then perhaps your pocketbook could take quite a hit. Everything from sneakers to avocados to cars, it could cost a whole hell of a lot more.
Joining me now, former Obama White House senior director, Nayyera Haq, former director of press communications for the Trump 2020 campaign, Erin Perrine, and senior political correspondent for Puck, Tara Palmeri. Good to have all you, ladies, here.
I'll begin with you, Erin. Look, the Denver mayor says that he's going to cooperate with deporting criminals, but using strong arm tactics -- strong arm tactics and to raid workplaces and round up migrants and kids will be met with resistance. How will this all go down?
ERIN PERRINE, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST, FORMER DIRECTOR OF PRESS COMMUNICATIONS FOR TRUMP 2020 CAMPAIGN: I think he's being a bit hyperbolic when he's talking about children being pulled off of soccer fields and people out of restaurants and their jobs.
As of this point, the Trump administration has been clear their plan is to go after those who have already had their process adjudicated in the United States and have been ordered to be deported. At this point, those people should be forced out of the United States because they've had their process done.
Those who have violent felonies or violent convictions here in the United States, I think everybody can agree those are people, if they're here illegally in the United States, they've broken the laws or they've been adjudicated through our process, can be put out.
[23:04:57]
Anything beyond that would involve congressional oversight and legislation in order to be able to figure out how you would be able to more fully deport those who would be here illegally in the United States. So, take it piece by piece.
And also, to be very clear, that mayor was way over his skis on this. We can all take a deep breath. We've lived through a Trump administration before. We don't need to fearmonger to people to try and make the point. You can say you believe in allowing those who contribute to your society and your city to stay there, but you don't need to threaten people that grandmothers and children are going to be taken from their families.
COATES: Well, people have lived through a Trump administration. Some are holding their breath because they believe he will keep his word that there will be certain rounds of deportations. We could start with the those who have had adjudication and criminality. Then what's next to four-year presidency?
NAYYERA HAQ, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST, FORMER OBAMA WHITE HOUSE SENIOR DIRECTOR: Well, one of the challenges remaining from Trump one was the child separation policy, which the border czar was one of the people responsible for the creation of it. We still have 900 children who are forcibly separated from their parents, who are lost in the federal system right now, who will not be reunited with their families. That's a reality of having policies that are big and bold, but have not been thought through for implementation.
I will say this: Trump two, given the team in place, there has been a lot of thought about the implementation, even beyond what we talked about with Project 2025. And part of that, what Stephen Miller and what he has talked about is the gathering of people and detaining them prior to deportation. That's going to be a very, very expensive proposition, but it's going to benefit the private prison complex industry. Right? They're going to be doing that in Texas. So, people do benefit from this.
Forty percent of our agriculture workforce are undocumented folks. These are the jobs that American citizens have not wanted for years. Farmers are constantly asking members of Congress to make the quotas higher, give us more visas for seasonal workers. That has not been done. So, Congress is not part of the equation right now, but you're going to suddenly lose a significant part of the workforce for things that Americans don't want to pay more money for.
PERRINE: But with all due respect, of that 40%, how many of those falls within the violent criminal portion, right? Like we're not saying that 40% of the agri -- like of the workforce in the agriculture community is going to be taken out of the United States. This, again, like we need to just take it down a bit.
HAQ: I think that's a nuance that you are giving that Trump has not.
COATES: Let me bring in Tara to this conversation because Democratic Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett saying if Homan is going to wield such enormous power, that he should have to go through Senate confirmation. Remember, as a border czar, he need not do so with that title. Listen to what she had to say.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. JASMINE CROCKETT (D-TX): The job of that particular role is not to incarcerate people. If this man wants to be the one that is going to enforce our laws, then maybe we should look for him to be the attorney general of the United States. I do think that if they are trying to implore him with the type of power that he believes that he's going to have, then he should absolutely be confirmed by the Senate.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: There's a history of the so-called czars not having to go through that confirmation process. We're not talking about Kristi Noem --
TARA PALMERI, SENIOR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT, PUCK: Yeah.
COATES: -- by the way, for DHS. We're talking about Homan. Is that by design?
PALMERI: I'm sure it is, and it's very unlikely that they would ever put anyone through a confirmation process that they didn't have to -- I mean, Donald Trump is already talking about recess appointments and is considering pushing Matt Gaetz through that when he picked him as attorney general. Just to get back to the prior point as well.
COATES: Uh-hmm.
PALMERI: There was a point during the first administration when they did try to come up with a mass deportation, Bill Barr wrote about it in his book, and they were stopped because of COVID. So, they really did try to execute this.
And I think the one thing about Donald Trump we should know is that we should take him at his word, that he will try to do what he wants to do. I mean, day one, they did enact a Muslim ban. That completely like stopped airport traffic. People couldn't move. I mean, there are people stranded in airports because they didn't have any -- they hadn't actually landed.
And, you know, child separation, I don't think we can just assume that everything is going to go smoothly and that this time around it's going to be different. I think that would be -- COATES: What about -- what about -- sorry, I'm going to point at Tara. I don't want to cut you off. What about, Tara, I mean, Erin's earlier point, though, about the idea of forethought being hyperbolic, I know I'm paraphrasing now, but the idea of going down the line and thinking about non-criminals as a part of being this -- mass deportation? Are people jumping the gun?
PALMERI: I -- I don't think that they're thinking that. I think when it comes down to it, if it's going to be a mass deportation, a show of force, there are going to be people that get caught up in this -- in this, and there'll be families that are broken up.
I think it's impossible, especially if these people are undocumented. It's really difficult to prove. They might just be caught up in the system, in detention, trying to prove that they don't have, you know, criminal record. It's just a huge process. And Bill Barr wrote about it. He was like, this is impossible, we tried to do it, and then COVID actually stopped them from going ahead with it.
[23:10:00]
But we'll see if they are able to execute it, but I don't think for a second that it won't be messy.
COATES: Well, Erin, let me go to the other major issue that we've heard from Trump about this week alone. I mean, obviously, we're more than 50 days away from the inauguration, but he's talking about tariffs, and this is something that he has been talking about, frankly, for more than a decade, actually.
And these tariff threats against Mexico, against Canada and China, some say it's a negotiation tactic, that they're just trying to see what kind of leverage people have when he does take office. Trump has hyped this up, though. Does he have to go through with it now if they don't budge, if they don't look at this as an invitation to negotiate?
PERRINE: One, it looks like they are taking this as an invitation to negotiate. You saw Justin Trudeau come out today and say that he had a very good call with President Trump. So, you're seeing that these countries are already starting to make move. And Mexico is starting to engage. They might be engaging a bit more adversarial than I think Donald Trump would like, but they're entering the conversation.
So, at this point, he is using that as a negotiation tactic. But if I was a foreign nation anywhere talking to Donald Trump, I wouldn't think that he's going to blink and back down on a fight, especially when it comes to something as critical to his total campaign this time as the tariffs were.
COATES: Let's talk about what Mexico has responded as well, Nayyera, on this because the president of Mexico is saying that neither threats nor tariffs will solve the issue of migration or drug consumption. She goes on to say that it could trigger a trade war. Could these tariffs backfire?
HAQ: Yes, because it'll put the idea of immigration, and that being a huge policy that Trump campaigned on, right up against American prices and what we're paying not only at the gas pump, but what we're paying for inflation and groceries.
The reality is that tariffs are paid for by the companies that are bringing the goods in and they pass that on to the American consumer. The last round of tariffs, you saw about $100 in price increases in appliances. That a 25% tariff is so significant for the fact that 80% of our goods are coming in through those two borders.
It's going -- I mean, it's a real squeeze on these two countries, but it's connecting something that they don't fully have control over, which is the immigration crisis, with something that typically, you know, you argue economics with trade and you keep that all in one bucket. So, this will be revolutionary, globally, if Trump pursues this.
COATES: We'll see if he does. Tara, let me bring you into this because this might be surprising to people given the pacing of the cabinet picks that we're talking about, the identification of who would be in these very important positions. You've got some reporting on what's going on in the transition process, even more chaotic, you say, than last time. What did you learn?
PALMERI: Yeah, I mean, you would think that it was deliberate because it's happening so quickly.
COATES: Uh-hmm.
PALMERI: But, in fact, there was just as much inciting, just as much, you know, lobbying. And at one point, I'm sure you saw this in "The Washington Post," that it actually got physical between Howard Lutnick, who ended up with the Commerce chair, and Boris Epshteyn, who was investigated by the Trump team for trying to charge for access and for recommendations to appointments.
But, you know, back in 2016, you know, it was fights between the establishment and the anti-globalists under Bannon and against Reince Priebus. But now, you've got people like Elon Musk outwardly tweeting out his recommendations for, you know, Treasury secretary, saying that Scott Bessent, who ended up being chosen, would be business as usual, and Trump obviously didn't take this.
And you've got Don Jr. out there, and they're using the grassroots to try to make arguments for their players. And it's just so much more overt, whereas I felt like when I was covering Trump in 2016, you saw more of his play out in the press through background quotes. But now, you're just seeing full on, you know, lobbying, fights, all these type A personalities and the same type of silos and infighting. And it is just part of the Trump game. And he likes it personally. He likes to see it happen.
COATES: A type A personality in Washington, D.C. in politics? This is striking. Thank you so much, everyone. I appreciate it.
PERRINE: Happy Thanksgiving.
COATES: Happy Thanksgiving.
Next, another big company pulling back from diversity, equity, and inclusion, otherwise known as DEI. Well, this time, it's Walmart. What do the workers really think about DEI? Harry Enten is here to run the numbers. Plus, top Harris campaign staffer speaking out about her election loss and what they think went wrong.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DAVID PLOUFFE, HARRIS CAMPAIGN SENIOR ADVISER: This political environment sucked. Okay? We were dealing with ferocious headwinds.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:15:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: Well, tonight, Walmart, an iconic symbol of capitalism and, frankly, Americana, now the symbol of the great retreat from DEI. The big box retailer says it's rolling back diversity, equity, and inclusion policies. It will stop even using the term DEI, no longer consider race or gender when choosing suppliers, close its center for racial equity, which started, by the way, after the murder of George Floyd in 2020, monitor and removing any sexual or transgender products marketed towards children, reviewing funding for pride events, and end racial equity staff training.
Instead, Walmart says it will focus on making sure employees and customers feel a sense of belonging. Conservative activists have pressured it and other companies to pull the plug on diversity programs.
[23:19:56]
And according to Axios, mentions of DEI and corporate earnings calls fell from more than 300 in 2021 to 74 at the start of this year. And that was before Trump won the election.
Joining me now, CNN senior data reporter Harry Enten. So good to see you, my friend. Let me ask you, how do employees feel about DEI in the workplace? What are you finding?
HARRY ENTEN, CNN SENIOR DATA REPORTER: Yeah, what are we finding? Well, we're kind of finding a slim majority who think that focusing on DEI at work is a good thing. Now, these are workers at companies with at least 10 plus employees.
Look at where we are right now, in late 2024. It's 52%. Now, what I should note is there has been some decrease in this number from where we were in early 2023 when it was 56%.
So, the way I would sort of describe these numbers, Laura, is if before, back in early 2023, it was a clear majority, now we're kind of teetering on a plurality here, but certainly not the vast opposition you might expect given how some on the right feel about DEI.
COATES: I mean, companies, they also have to focus on the court of public opinion, as you well know. People, you know, they vote, say, day to day with their wallets and pocketbooks. How do people feel about companies taking even a stand on the issue?
ENTEN: Now, this is where it gets very interesting because here, we have a real-time trend. So, let's take a look at it, all right? Businesses' DEI public stance. Important to know, back in 2021, so we can go all the way back then, right? Just after the summer of George Floyd which, of course, was back in 2020, how important did folks think it was to know the DEI stances of businesses? It was 68%. Look at where we are now in 2024. A real decrease. Just 53% of Americans want to know a business's DEI stance.
So, what we've seen here is back, you know, right after the summer of George Floyd, there was a lot of interest in DEI, a lot of interest in folks knowing businesses' stances towards DEI. Now, considerably less so in 2024, this is a drop of 15 points. That's a considerable drop. You know, I like looking at poll questions. You oftentimes don't see this type of drop unless there's a real change in public opinion.
COATES: That's striking, those numbers. I remember 2021 very well and how important it was to people in the community. And, frankly, voters overall, I mean, it has become this issue of DEI in concept, a political lightning rod, especially among conservatives. Harry, how do Republicans and Democrats view it?
ENTEN: Yeah, this -- what is driving this decline? It's Republicans. Okay, important to want to know a business's DEI stance. You go back to 2021. Look, there was a partisan divide between Democrats and Republicans, Democrats coming in at 86%, Republicans coming in at 50%. Democrats have basically stayed pretty steady on this issue, right? In 2024, it's 79%, a slight drop, but not so far off from that 86%.
Look at Republicans. Look at this drop off in this number. Fifty percent back in 2021 said it was important to know a business's stance on DEI. Now, it's just 22%. That is a drop of more than half, of more than half from 2021 to 2024. And that, of course, is mirroring what we're seeing from politicians, from Republicans, folks like Donald Trump.
The bottom line is the Republican base on DEI three years ago kind of lukewarm, now in vast opposition to it. They don't want to hear anything from businesses on DEI. And I think that's why you're seeing a lot of businesses differentiating themselves out, saying, you know what? We are taking a step back.
COATES: And now, with the Republican trifecta, I wonder how that might continue to change over time. Harry Enten, these numbers speak volumes. So good to see you. Happy Thanksgiving week, my friend.
ENTEN: You as well, Laura.
COATES: We're here to debate the merits of DEI. Celeste Headlee, award-winning journalist, author, and president and CEO of the racial justice nonprofit, Headway. And Coleman Hughes, CNN political analyst, contributor at "The Free Press," and host of the "Conversations with Coleman" podcast. Good to have you both on.
Celeste, listen, you've advised corporations on diversity initiatives, and Walmart made most of these proclamations after the death of George Floyd. Now, we've listed the ways in which they've rolled it back. Did they go too far in the past?
CELESTE HEADLEE, PRESIDENT AND CEO, HEADWAY DEI TRAINING: No. There was a lot of corporations that made, frankly, long overdue efforts to try to bring equity, which is just another word for fairness, to the workplace, and diversity, which is just another word for bringing in the best talent that you can get and making sure you don't have an echo chamber, and they started rolling them back before it even became a real political football to a certain extent.
So, you know, there hasn't always been an American corporate investment in the type of changes that need to happen in order to bring about equity and justice. So, it didn't surprise me at all that they began to roll them back. But did they go too far? No.
[23:24:58]
COATES: Coleman, did they give it a fair shot or was this as far as they were prepared to go based on the pressure they were having already to do away with it?
COLEMAN HUGHES, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST, CONTRIBUTOR AT THE FREE PRESS, PODCAST HOST: The pressure to do away with it is coming from a totally understandable and justified place. Corporations spend $8 billion a year on so-called diversity trainings.
And to give one example, Coca-Cola had a so-called diversity expert come in and tell employees to try to be less white, whatever exactly that means. These diversity trainings have become a way of injecting really divisive and, frankly, racist rhetoric into the workplace. And that's where the backlash is coming from. People are sick of it. They're right to be sick of it.
If DEI were just as benign as Celeste were describing, very few people would have a problem with it. Very few people would have a problem with simply acknowledging that we've got to cast a wider net when we're looking for executives in the C-suite and look in places. You know, don't just call your best friends and do more to, you know, include historically disadvantaged groups. But it has become much more toxic than that.
COATES: Celeste, what's your reaction?
HEADLEE: Yeah, it has become more toxic because it's a talking point in politics. It's true that a lot of the traditional DEI training actually doesn't work. I think Cole and I could agree on this here. In fact, there's often a backlash. But we have -- there's evidence-based training that helps people to become -- to help -- to help them to learn, to embrace all kinds of differences. You know, there's not just racial differences. There's LGBTQ plus differences, there's disability differences, there's neurodiversity, there's age, there's weight. There's a lot of differences. And the best evidence-based training is just helping people learn how to respect one another and work well in collaboration, regardless of what those differences are. That's the basis of belonging and the only reason we talk about belonging, inclusion, is because belonging is so important to our species.
So, you know, this isn't -- this has become toxic because of the way that politicians talk about it, but the essence of DEI initiatives is just getting people to bring in a diversity of opinions, which is how human beings work best together and learn how to work well with one another.
COATES: Coleman, what's your reaction to that? Do you think that, speaking of what's the toxicity of the political talking point, has political rhetoric contributed to a misunderstanding of the difference between the core reason and the implementation?
HUGHES: I think the story is exactly backwards there. Politics is reacting to a genuine phenomenon that has been going on for years. The reason DEI became toxic is because it went from a very early, kind of more benign, softer version. After 2020, the worst and most racist ideologues became the most popular DEI proponents.
For instance, Robin DiAngelo, Coca-Cola got the try to be less white thing from her. She was not some marginal figure. She was a bestselling author whose book, "White Fragility," was on "The New York Times" bestsellers list for like half of a year. Okay, so those were the most popular people. They brought in and popularized their brand of DEI, which is toxic and divisive, and that's where people are -- that's where the backlash comes from.
COATES: Coleman, on this point, I mean, you've mentioned Coca-Cola twice in this instance. Obviously, that's the one anecdote among many Fortune 500, one hundred companies and beyond, and broader. What do you say to the concept, though, to Celeste's point about the idea of inclusivity across a broader spectrum? Is that idea in and of itself counterproductive to the economy?
HUGHES: No. Inclusivity is a good thing. I don't think that employees need to be lectured to the tune of $8 billion a year to be nice to each other. I think that can be done in a much more streamlined way, in a way that doesn't make -- doesn't frankly condescend to people, and in a way that keeps any toxic, racial, divisive ideology completely out of it.
COATES: Celeste, is there a way to eliminate any toxicity or racism from the universe?
HEADLEE: No, and to say that Robin D'Angelo is one of the worst racial ideologues, when we have white supremacists marching in Ohio and people repeating Nazi language in our politics, I think it's a little rare to call Robin DiAngelo --
HUGHES: But they're not being hired to give diversity seminars.
HEADLEE: So, I'm going to be finished with what I'm saying. Not all diversity seminars are that way. You're picking out something that you disagree with, which is fine, but you're making a generalization based on one example. I mean, the point of any DEI initiative is to bring diversity into a company, which is great for the bottom line. The companies that rank the lowest for DEI, for diversity in their ranks, underperform other companies by a staggering 30%.
So, this is good economics, it is good business, and to fight it when this is where the younger generations are going seems to me to be pretty wrongheaded.
[23:30:00]
COATES: So, Coleman, is your point -- I know we have to go, but is part of your argument that the manner in which it's implemented is problematic, but the concept a good idea?
HUGHES: I think there's nothing wrong with a corporation having a policy about inclusivity. But the ideas themselves can't be divisive. The idea can't be to shame people, to make people feel guilty. The idea just has to be quite simply, in this workplace, we talk to each other with respect, and here's what that means, here's some examples of people crossing the line. That's it. That's all it has to be.
Just like any other workplace diligence thing that you would do when you're onboarding new employees, it doesn't have to be this kind of struggle session that it became after 2020, where you're trying to make your white employees feel like you know they're racist, essentially. That's the crux of it. That's what people don't like.
COATES: Celeste, is that -- I know we have to go. I keep saying this, but I'm curious. My understanding is that what Coleman is describing is, in fact, what the goal of most diversity training is about. Not about trying to shame, it's about trying to enlighten. But you've studied this far more than I have.
HEADLEE: Yeah, look, the hard truth here is that every single human being is biased. Every one of us is biased. So, if it makes you feel bad to hear me say that, I apologize, but that's the truth. We all have biases. We haven't elected a president under six feet since the 19th century. There are many biases that -- that we all are prey to. And they -- they determine whether someone has success in their career or they don't, not just for people of color, but for women, for people with disabilities.
And it should be in all of our best interests to make sure it's a fair playing field that is equitable. But even more, the business case is so strong. The fact that 30% of Gen Z identifies as LGBTQ+, this is, you know, fighting against the East Wind. You know, this is where society is going. That's a healthy place, and businesses would be wise to embrace it.
COATES: You know, I'd like to hear you all converse further. Let's have a break and talk privately. Celeste Headlee, Coleman Hughes, thank you both so much for joining. I appreciate it.
Up next, the Harris team breaking its silence on what they think went wrong and answers one of the most commonly-asked questions. Why didn't Harris publicly split from Joe Biden?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
STEPHANIE CUTTER, HARRIS CAMPAIGN SENIOR ADVISER: She felt like she was part of the administration, so why should she look back and pick out, cherry pick some things that she would have done differently when she was part of it?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Former DNC Chair Howard Dean joins me to discuss that and much more, next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:35:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: Well, Democrats are still grappling with their election loss. And tonight, the team that ran the Harris campaign is speaking out for the first time, and they are peeling back the curtains on the challenges they faced and what they say went wrong. Principal deputy campaign manager Quentin Fulks suggesting that Democrats could take a page from how Republicans embraced Trump despite his controversies.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
QUENTIN FULKS, PRINCIPAL DEPUTY CAMPAIGN MANAGER, HARRIZ-WALZ 2024: Republicans don't make Trump apologize. Um, and, as Stephanie said, we don't have to mimic it, but I think that there are a lot of times where if you're in the Democratic Party and you step out of line --
CUTTER: Yeah.
FULKS: -- you get punished for it. Trump is putting these Republicans in the worst possible political or what would seem to be, and they support it, because at the end of the day, they understand that it weakens Trump. And, you know, this may sound like a shot across the bow, but it should be. Democrats are eating our own to a very high degree. And until that stops, we're not going to be able to address a lot of the things that just need to be said.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: I want to bring in 2004 presidential candidate and former chairman of the Democratic National Committee, Howard Dean. Good to see you. I have to ask you, Howard, I mean, Harris's advisors say there was a price to be had for the short campaign. I mean, it was only 107 days, and they couldn't effectively distinguish her from Biden in that amount of time. Are they deflecting blame to Joe Biden, to the DNC? Is there more to it? HOWARD DEAN, FORMER PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE, FORMER CHAIRMAN OF DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE, FORMER VERMONT GOVERNOR: You know, this is all hocus-pocus. The truth is, this has been going on for 20 years. We need to have a grassroots organization. And the Republicans have done this. We need to have somebody running for every legislative seat in the country, no matter how red the state, every city council race, every school board race. And we don't. And you can't expect every four years to come in and put up this billion-dollar edifice, and then you're going to ram somebody through. We did great with Clinton and Obama because they're exceptional people for very different reasons.
But I thought Kamala ran a decent campaign. I think she would have been a terrific president. You can't expect to elect a human being to this office unless you're willing to do the grassroots work. And I see no evidence that the Democrats have been willing to do the grassroots work since I left the DNC in 2008.
COATES: Well, why do you think that is? Is it because they don't believe that that is the vehicle for success or is it that there's not the ground operation to do that?
DEAN: You have to understand, Washington is basically middle school on steroids.
(LAUGHTER)
They work hard, they're very smart, and it's all about them all the time. So, most -- and the D-Trip and the DSCC do very well, electing their members. But in order to elect Democrats in red states, they have to think beyond the name Democrat. And the only way to do that is to knock on the doors. And I do not mean four months or four weeks before the election. I mean running for Congress. I mean -- excuse me, running for the state legislature, running for the city council, get familiar with people.
We don't support that very well in the Democratic Party. We have some mechanisms but they're rarely funded and they're not funded until the presidential campaign. This is not every four-year effort. This is a full four-year effort all the time.
[23:39:59]
If you want to do it right and, as I say, it hasn't really been done right since 2008, and even then, we didn't give enough money to the parties to do this, the state parties.
COATES: Interestingly enough, I mean, some of the criticism is also -- I think this actually buttresses the point you're making, that Harris's team has acknowledged that Republicans have a -- quote -- "well-invested echo chamber," giving them an edge ahead of Democrats in particular. Listen to this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
FULKS: There is a cultural dynamic that's at play in politics today where it is converging like we've never seen. UNKNOWN: And we're losing the culture war.
FULKS: And we're losing the culture war. And whatever it is, woke, whatever words you want to use, I'm not -- you know, I leave that to anybody to define on whatever value, but we are not aligned on where we can be within that.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: So, Joe Rogan's podcast might be a very good example of the kind of eco-chamber that Quentin Fulks is talking about. I mean, the campaign acknowledged that they missed out on that, saying that it was a scheduling issue and Trump was actually taping with Rogan on the day that Harris was in town, the one day she was in town. It's one thing to acknowledge they're losing the culture war, but is there a solution?
DEAN: Yeah, the culture -- the culture -- it's not we're not losing the culture war, we're losing the message. There's -- you know, Trump -- look, Republicans basically -- most of them run campaigns based on two things, hate and anger. And that's what picking on trans people is. That's all it is. Trans people have nothing to do with anybody's taxes or inflation or how much eggs cost. It's a way of singling out. Hitler did this. It's those people's fault. This is exactly what Trump was doing.
So, this party is not about that. We're about the future, they're about the past. And so, we can't stoop to that stuff. I don't think we need to lead with trans rights, but I don't think you can give up people's rights. Where would the Democrats be if Lyndon Johnson hadn't come along and decided Martin Luther King was right? And as a Southern Democrat, rammed the Civil Rights Bill through the very nervous Congress.
So that's what Democrats are. We're about the future. The Republicans are just about getting control any way that you can. So, there's a culture war to be had. We may not want to fight it on the grounds, we just fought it, and let them set the agenda. But we have to stand for something, and what we have to stand for is the future.
COATES: You know, it sounds like that old phrase, it's the economy, stupid. That was the most important driving factor for voters. I see you nodding.
DEAN: Right.
COATES: You certainly must agree. But the way you framed it, if the Democrats are about the future and Republicans are about the past, then why did viewers and voters focus on the present? Who were they going for then?
DEAN: Well, I mean, what I believe is that they convinced -- well, first of all, they're the Trump people who are sort of cult figures, right? So that was his base. But it was effective enough so that Trump could whip all the people who had what little conscience was left in the Republican Party. There are some Republicans who have a conscience. They just don't have a backbone. So, that was problem number one.
Problem number two is we don't operate like that. I never want to operate like that. This is a democracy and everybody is supposed to have their say. So, you know, we can't have a strong leader who everybody goes, yes, sir, to. That's not the way a democracy works and that's not the way the Democratic Party works, and I don't want to see that. I do want to see us talking to people every day for four years, not talking to people every day for four months.
COATES: That's a huge critique of politicians more broadly, that you come around when it's time to get my vote --
DEAN: Exactly.
COATES: -- and then I don't see you for four more years. But who's going to run the Democratic Party? I mean, the race to lead the party has begun. You've got Martin O'Malley and Ken Martin, have thrown their hat into the ring. Rahm Emanuel, Mitch Landrieu, and Ben Wikler are also considering. Who do you think should be at the helm of the DNC next?
DEAN: Somebody who understands grassroots politics and is willing to invest in it. I haven't chosen a candidate. But I want somebody who is from outside Washington who understands grassroots politics and as well -- and understand that it's a four-year proposal, not a four- month proposal.
COATES: What do you believe Vice President Kamala Harris's future will be in the party?
DEAN: Well, I don't know. It's obviously up to her. I think she'd be a great governor of California. And, of course, I'm incredibly biased towards what governors can get done for their constituencies. So, that's the biggest state in the country, so I hope she runs for governor of California. But --
COATES: How about president again?
DEAN: Well, let's see how -- I mean, this is up to her. That's a hard race. She knows it's a hard race. She has been through it. I'm not going to handicap what she should or shouldn't do in that case. But I would love to see her in a leadership position. And I think the governorship is a lot more fun than senatorship.
COATES: Well, I'll be curious about those Vegas ads, ultimately. Howard Dean, thank you so much.
DEAN: Thank you.
COATES: Well, tonight, Steve Bannon is suggesting more people -- more people that Trump should go after once he takes office.
[23:45:01]
Who will be on that list and will Trump, in fact, do that? And can history tell us anything about the moment we find ourselves in now? Someone who knows a thing or two about a presidential enemies list, former Nixon White House counsel John Dean is my guest, next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KAMALA HARRIS, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, U.S. PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: It's either Donald Trump in there stewing, stewing over his enemies list or me working for you --
(APPLAUSE)
-- checking off my to-do list.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: How many times did we hear that from Vice President Harris on the campaign trail? Well, now that Trump won, we'll soon find out if she was right about that so-called enemies list. What we do know for sure is that Trump has picked an attorney general who has said that the prosecutors who went after Trump will be prosecuted themselves.
[23:50:00]
But would Pam Bondi actually carry that out? And would anyone tell Trump not to have her do it? Well, here's "The New York Times" Maggie Haberman fielding that very question.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MAGGIE HABERMAN, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST, WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT FOR THE NEW YORK TIMES: If the idea is that there are lots of people around Trump and the White House who are going to try to prevent him from doing this, I think people are sorely mistaken.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Now, the idea of a president having an enemies list, well, frankly, it's not new, is it? Richard Nixon had one. We know this because my next guest revealed its very existence.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOHN DEAN, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: The conversation then moved to the press coverage of the Watergate incident and how the press was really trying to make this into a major campaign issue. At one point in the conversation, I recall the president telling me to keep a good list of the press people giving us trouble because we will make life difficult for them after the election.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: That was former Nixon White House counsel John Dean in 1973 testifying to Congress in the wake of Watergate. John joins me now. He is also a CNN contributor. John, this is interesting times we find ourselves in. You say that Nixon never actually acted upon that list. But people are wondering if Trump will carry out any sort of retribution. What do you think?
DEAN: I don't know. That's a good question. He certainly did campaign on the issue, made it clear he was the retribution candidate, the revenge candidate, and that if people wanted to see somebody take an action, he was their man.
It's very hard to use the machinery of government against individuals and perceived enemies. There's going to be a lot of resistance. There was public resistance when I revealed before the Senate Watergate Committee that Nixon had a list, a list that had been narrowed down by some other staffers to 20 some individuals they want to focus on. There were hundreds of names that were gathered and collected.
And over the years, Laura, I've learned that everybody whose name came up on that list was absolutely proud to be there. The reason nothing happened to them is those names never would be on my desk drawer in the White House, and they just stopped there.
COATES: Well, do you think that there is a John Dean in the incoming administration where that list would stop?
DEAN: I hope so. You know, it is an abuse of power to use the government to attack a perceived enemy. Nothing good can come from it. It is not why taxpayers pay their taxes, to see their president out using the power of the government.
There is one instance where I remember one of my superiors gave me a list of 500 names he wanted me to give to the Treasury Department to start IRS audits. I was confident in giving it, following orders, that nothing would happen, though. I knew that Secretary of Treasury Schultz would kill it. But that's the only active time I know. And apparently, that came from another aide the president was talking directly to about collecting names.
COATES: Well, there are people who, as you said, may consider it a kind of badge of honor, to have done the work to earn their right to be on the enemy's list. But I suspect there are a lot of people who are very worried, very worried that Trump or his team may target them, and there won't be the kind of guardrails to undermine that pursuit. What is your message to those who are afraid?
DEAN: Well, I think vigilance is certainly called for. I know so many people in the kind of work you and I do who've checked their liability policies recently to make sure they're all up-to-date in case some spurious action is taken against them. It's very easy to file a suit against them, particularly if the government were to do that. That would be a total distortion, as you know, Laura, of the Department of Justice.
I'm thinking it more likely that some PACs or something like that, political action committees, could start that kind of litigation in the president's behalf. But it's going to get ugly if that's where they go. It will be very public. It will be very unseemly. Let's hope it doesn't go there.
COATES: Well, as you know, Special Counsel Jack Smith just officially closed down the federal cases against Trump. Some critics are pointing the finger at Attorney General Merrick Garland for being too slow to actually have a special counsel until, I think, two years following January 6th. Do you fault him?
DEAN: Well, we don't know all the evidence. We don't know what Judge Garland really had in mind. We know he was trying to depoliticize the Department of Justice, which is going to become very political in the coming months and years.
[23:55:00]
So, I'd like to hear his side of the story before I cast judgment. I was frankly surprised that he didn't take an action sooner at the higher level. They did in the U.S. Attorney's Office, as you recall, start action immediately against some of the most egregious people. They have prosecuted literally 500 some people for their involvement in the attack on the Capitol. But, obviously, Mr. Trump's delay strategy worked perfectly, and he appears to have escaped everything but history.
COATES: Well, we'll see how history views him and that phrase of being above the law. John Dean, thank you so much for joining. Happy Thanksgiving.
DEAN: Same to you, Laura, thank you.
COATES: And hey, thank all of you for watching. "Anderson Cooper 360" is next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
