Return to Transcripts main page
Laura Coates Live
UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson Was Fatally Shot Outside Hilton Hotel; Laura Coates Interviews Gun Instructor Stephen Gutowski; Hegseth Fights To Salvage Nomination; Laura Coates Interviews Veteran Alek Skarlatos. Aired 11p-12a ET
Aired December 04, 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]
JULIE ROGINSKY, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: I have a master's degree, I told you how to figure it out, but I also know how to speak to people like they are normal and not like I'm sitting there focus grouping, talking to you in one way because you're a Latino guy from Texas --
ABEL MALDONADO, FORMER CALIFORNIA LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR, TRUMP SUPPORTER: Chuck, you should be the chairman --
ROGINSKY: -- and talking to you in a different way.
MALDONADO: I mean, she raised 1.3 billion --
CHUCK ROCHA, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST, FORMER SENIOR ADVISER FOR BERNIE SANDERS'S 2016 AND 2020 PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGNS: If it was up to the general public, it would be there.
MALDONADO: She raised 1.3 billion in a hundred days.
ABBY PHILLIP, CNN ANCHOR AND SENIOR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: Let me -- let me give you -- let you get in here.
COLEMAN HUGHES, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST, CONTRIBUTOR AT THE FREE PRESS, PODCAST HOST: The hard truth is that Democrats need to marginalize the people on their fringe, the people that don't know how to talk, the people that -- the people that are the reason why that they -- them ad that Trump did -- did so well. They have to -- they have to make those people feel extreme and politically homeless --
MALDONADO: They don't have a message, Coleman.
HUGHES: -- and win back the center.
PHILLIP: All right, guys, great show. Thank you very much for being here. And thank you for watching "NewsNight." "Laura Coates Live" starts right now.
LAURA COATES, CNN HOST AND SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: A manhunt is underway for the assassin who took out one of the most powerful business leaders in this country. UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson shot in cold blood this morning in what police say was a targeted attack. That happened in one of the busiest places on earth, Midtown Manhattan. This was more than 16 hours ago. The suspect caught on this very video could now be anywhere. Police are scrambling to analyze everything from shell casings to a water bottle, trying to figure out who he is, where he is, and why he did it. In a moment, you'll hear from our team of experts and law enforcement analysts who are covering every angle of this story.
But first, the brand-new timeline we've put together this evening, starting with this: Within the last hour, we have learned the suspect appeared to leave the 57th Street subway about a half hour before the attack. "The Washington Post" obtained this image from that station with a time stamp of 6.15 a.m. Two minutes later, he was at a Starbucks just two blocks away from the shooting. We know that because law enforcement released these images showing him at the counter of the coffee shop. His face was mostly covered and he was carrying a backpack.
Now fast forward to shortly before the shooting. Police say the gunman was lying in wait for several minutes outside the Hilton Hotel. "The New York Times" obtained this footage showing the suspect arriving in the area at least 10 minutes beforehand. He appears to be making a phone call. And then at 6:44, Thompson left his own hotel across the street and walked toward the Hilton. He was going there to prepare for the company's investor conference set to begin at 8:00. Seconds later, the gunman comes from behind and opens fire. You can see the moments before Thompson got shot in this surveillance video. He is in the blue jacket. The gunman walks up. He's calm. He raises his gun and fires. Now if you look closely, you'll notice the gunman appears to be using some kind of a silencer. Thompson was initially shot in the back, and then this happened.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOSEPH KENNY, CHIEF OF DETECTIVES, NYPD: The shooter then walks toward the victim and continues to shoot. It appears that the gun malfunctions as he clears the jam and begins to fire again.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Immediately after, the suspect took off. You can see him running across the street. We're learning that he may have dropped some vital clues, including a cellphone and water bottle. Now police say he fled through an alleyway between 54th and 55th streets. And at some point, shortly after, he got on an electric bike. Now this was the image released by the police. Sources tell us authorities have video of the suspect in Upper Manhattan before the shooting that appears to show him carrying an e-bike battery. The gunman then rode up 6th Avenue and was last seen riding into Central Park at 6:48 a.m.
We begin tonight with John Miller, CNN's chief law enforcement and intelligence analyst. He was also formerly the deputy commissioner for the NYPD. Also here, Ed Davis, a former Boston police commissioner known for overseeing that manhunt after the Boston Marathon bombing. Glad to have both of your expertise. I'll begin with you, John, on this because you have some new reporting tonight on this incredible investigation. What are you learning? JOHN MILLER, CNN CHIEF LAW ENFORCEMENT AND INTELLIGENCE ANALYST: They've really been focused on the video canvas. What they're trying to do is figure out -- can they, through video, pick up where the suspect went after, where the suspect came out of the park, and maybe follow the suspect to home or somewhere that could be the origin, and then can they go further back in that timeline and find his way back. They don't know who they're looking for. They don't know who the man behind the mask is.
[23:04:59]
But they're trying to reconstruct his movements while they wait for the kind of testing that they'll get from the water bottle and from the phone, which may take some time.
COATES: In fact, time is of the essence, right, Ed, because the manhunt that you oversaw for the Boston Marathon bombers, that took five days. We are really in the infancy hours from the shooting. What should the NYPD be doing right now in this now, what, 17th hour of this manhunt?
ED DAVIS, FORMER BOSTON POLICE COMMISSIONER: Well, I've worked closely with the NYPD over the years, including John Miller, and they know exactly what they should be doing, which is looking at all the video. Unfortunately, that's a labor-intensive job and it takes days to put that timeline that John spoke about together. Right now, people are pouring over thousands of video inputs from all over Midtown, and then as they follow that suspect further away, that net gets wider and requires more personnel. It takes a few days because it's a very manual process.
COATES: I mean, you mentioned, John, that cellphone, that water bottle. It's believed to be the suspect's, although we're not entirely sure, obviously, in this just 17th hour of the investigation. They were found in the alley where he fled from the scene. This is going to be labor intensive, to try to identify and -- maybe prints or any DNA. It would have to be from someone who's already in a system of sorts. How intensive will it be, even having those two objects, to try to figure out the man behind the mask?
MILLER: Well, this is a lot more evidence than they have in some cases. For every shot he fired at the victim, there's a shell casing. They can run that against other shell casings that were found at other crime scenes and see if they get a ballistic DNA match. Has this gun been used in another crime that is in the annals of the NYPD where they can say, we have a suspect in that case, maybe it's the same guy?
At the same time, every time the gun jammed, he ejected a live round which has not been fired, so he may have touched those. He may have left skin cell DNA, he may have left a partial print, and those contain other kinds of evidence, the bottle, maybe DNA in the phone if it's a burner, maybe we'll find out in that video where he's walking with the phone to his ear who was he talking to at that hour of the morning. Was it about this? And if it's not a burner, it may have his whole life story in it. So, these are the things we're waiting for. But you know this, Laura, from your work in the Justice Department. You know, you try to break into a phone. If you do it the wrong way, you can have the phone wipe everything. So, they're being very cautious about their approach. They have people who do this, and they're pretty good.
COATES: And, of course, this is, you know, something that they know. If they don't get it right, in this instance, in these early hours of an investigation, they could go down rabbit holes that could lead them to dead ends. And the suspect fled from the scene on an electric bike. Then the trail goes cold in Central Park, which people who've been there know it's quite the maze in and of itself. And although it's early in the morning, this is the city that never sleeps. So how far do you think he could have gotten? Do you expect that he might still be in this city?
MILLER: I would say, you know, he appears to be very familiar with these areas and how to move around them and how to exploit these things. It's entirely likely that wherever he's running, it's right here.
COATES: Ed, when you look at that and think about how to oversee and work with that -- I mean, you've got the electric bike, you've got a battery, you've got him seen in other places, for example, a coffee shop, Starbucks, and then you know that this is tourist season in New York and, of course, somebody with a mask on post-COVID is not going to stick out like a sore thumb. And when you look at this, what are the pitfalls to avoid?
DAVIS: Well, when I think back to the marathon investigation, we thought those individuals had fled, attempting to make a getaway. There's an urgent parallel investigation going on right now on motive. And one of the things we can't forget is, like the Marathon bombers, these guys were not finished. They continued on their rampage, built more bombs, attempted to do more attacks and commit more carnage. I think that creates urgency in this situation. You have to look at the means of the grass and try to find out where they went, but you also have to look at what drove this attack and hopefully head off anything else that might happen.
COATES: Oh, goodness, God forbid. Ed Davis, John Miller, thank you both. We will be following, just like you all, this incredible story this morning as it continues to unfold. Who is the man behind that mask? Where is he? Why did he do it?
[23:10:00]
Was anyone else involved? Now you might be asking, of course, who is Brian Thompson? The victim in this case, he had been at UnitedHealthcare, the nation's largest health insurer since 2004. He actually rose to the ranks and was appointed CEO in 2021. He helped boost his company profits and his total compensation package last year was just over $10 million.
Many people who work with him, well, they are singing his praises. One former UnitedHealthcare executive says he was a whip-smart and affable guy who didn't forget those he worked with in the trenches. That's the same way another former colleague who worked with him during COVID describes him.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
STEPHEN PARENTE, WORKED WITH UNITEDHEALTHCARE CEO: He was everybody's huckleberry. He came through when we needed someone at most. I mean, if nothing else, I don't know if his sons ever heard the story of what we did, but he helped so many people. I mean, there's family that know him and talked about him just wonderfully.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Now Thompson and his company had run into some legal trouble recently. Apparently, he was sued back in May of this year for alleged fraud and insider trading. The lawsuit claims that Thompson and other UnitedHealth group executives schemed to inflate the company's stock. How? By failing to disclose a Justice Department anti-trust investigation into the company. It alleges that Thompson knew about the investigation and sold 31% of his company shares for a $15 million profit. Now 11 days later, the investigation, it was made public. A UnitedHealth stock sank 5%. Now, even today, that lawsuit remains active.
Thompson leaves behind two sons. His wife telling NBC News today that her husband had been receiving some threats, but didn't actually know the details around them. But it all raises the question, who would be motivated to carry a crime like this out and in this way?
Joining me now is Candice DeLong. She's a former FBI profiler who is the host of the podcast "Killer Psyche." I'm glad that you're here. Candice, thank you so much for joining. This story has captivated the nation and with good reason. I mean, how, who, when, where, why? The big question, of course, what kind of person would you think, as a profiler and investigating this, might want to kill a CEO brazenly in really broad daylight in the middle of New York City?
CANDICE DELONG, FORMER FBI PROFILER: Well, clearly, and this is obvious, someone wanted him dead. Without question, dead. So, for me, as a profiler, motivation helps point the investigation. If we know motivation, then that'll help weed out certain people. And for me, what I'm seeing here is anger, possibly as much as hatred, and revenge as probable motivators.
The three most common motivators of murder are jealousy, revenge, and personal gain, money. I think we can, on the surface, rule out personal gain, jealousy, while we don't know about this guy's personal life. But it seems to me, because of his position as the head of a healthcare agency and a lot of people in this country are suffering health issues and medical bills and ridiculously high premiums, they might be angry at someone running a healthcare insurance agency.
COATES: And yet --
DELONG: A lot of potential. Right. COATES: I think -- absolutely. Just as you pointed out, I was thinking to myself, you know, there are a lot of CEOs in this country who are very well known, their face is perhaps covering the news for a variety of reasons. He might be known as, compared to some, relatively obscure. The idea that officers believe that this was targeted really has people wondering if, in fact, what you're saying is absolutely the way and the reason for doing so.
But it's also what happened, the manner in which this was done, Candice. It doesn't seem like, we don't have audio of that, but it doesn't seem like the gunman even said anything, maybe even came face to face before he shot him in the back. Does the manner in which this was carried out and the positioning of the shots, does that tell you anything about the shooter or their relationship?
DELONG: Well, what it tells me, uh, not necessarily about the relationship.
[23:15:01]
I frankly would be surprised if it turned out that they had a previous, uh, relationship where they actually knew each other face to face or spoke with each other that would kind of surprise me.
COATES: Why?
DELONG: It -- well, he snuck up behind him, he wanted him dead, he accomplished his mission, and then he fades into the early morning hours. It's just -- it's hard to explain, but it doesn't seem that way to me. What it seems that way -- you know, you're right, the average American probably would not recognize this name, but UnitedHealth employees, it is my understanding, a hundred thousand people and ensures a hundred million Americans. That's one-third of the people in America are insured by UnitedHealth. The potential there for lots of people that would be very unhappy clients, if you want to call them that, subscribers, customers, very unhappy with UnitedHealth, probably tens of thousands of people. So, the pool is big.
COATES: That makes it very hard as an investigation, right? That pool can be that big, trying to narrow down all of that information. And also, we're noticing about the potential of a silencer on this weapon as well, and the proximity, lying in wait. There are a lot of unanswered questions, but the biggest one perhaps tonight, where is this person and who is it? Maybe even the motive parallels all those conversations.
Candice DeLong, we will continue to lean on you for your expertise. Thank you.
DELONG: You're welcome.
COATES: Still ahead, a closer look at that murder weapon and the silencer that was used. A firearms expert will join me and has a very interesting frame by frame analysis for us all. And later, Pete Hegseth on the Hill, on Megyn Kelly, his mom on Fox, all to try and save his nomination. Did it get him anywhere? (COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:20:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: So, what about the gun and that silencer that seems to have been used by the shooter who took out the CEO? For specifics on that, I want to bring in Stephen Gutowski. He's a CNN contributor and gun safety instructor and firearms reporter for TheReload.com. Stephen, I have been looking into this story all day and you see almost clearly that he's using some kind of a silencer. What else can you tell by examining the video?
STEPHEN GUTOWSKI, CNN CONTRIBUTOR, GUN SAFETY INSTRUCTOR, FIREARMS REPORTER FOR THERELOAD.COM: Yeah, there's a few big takeaways you can get from looking at this video. It's obviously a bit blurry and granulated, but there are a couple of key things, and one of them is the type of gun that he's using, which you can see from the immediate after the shot is taken. One key piece of information that we get is that this is a semi-automatic pistol, and you can tell that because -- I believe we're going to have a --
COATES: Here we go.
GUTOWSKI: -- side by side here. On the left is before the shot is taken. On the right is immediately after. You can see on the right, I suppose it's on the left of your screen, my apologies, but you can see that the slide has moved back a little bit, it's obscuring the white of his hand a little bit. So, you can tell that there is a slide, it's a semi-automatic firearm. He takes the shot.
It's -- and the next interesting bit of information we get from the video about the firearm he's using that may give us some insight into the kind of person behind the trigger here is that this gun is not set up properly.
COATES: Oh yeah, he's tapping something. Is it appearing to malfunction here?
GUTOWSKI: Yes, it's malfunctioning. And the interesting bit is that he seems to know that it's going to malfunction, meaning that he must have shot this gun beforehand, this setup that he's using, and understood that it isn't cycling the gun properly.
COATES: What does that mean?
GUTOWSKI: On a semi-automatic pistol like this, every time you take a shot, as long as you have ammunition in the magazine, it should eject the spent round and load a new round in on its own without your assistance. And in this case, it's not doing that. And he knows it because he immediately goes to manually load a new round in. And he's not surprised by the fact that it's not functioning properly, which so that tells me that he understands that this gun is not set up to work the way it's supposed to work.
COATES: The way that he tapped it, does that tell you something about his proficiency level?
GUTOWSKI: Yeah. You know, he clearly has maybe an intermediate level of proficiency with firearms. He understands how to clear a malfunction to some degree. The reason he's tapping the slide at one point that you see is -- it's after a couple of times where the gun doesn't fire when he pulls the trigger because he tries to take about five shots and he only gets off three shots. And the reason you would tap the back of the slide on semi-automatic is because you want it to go fully into what's called battery, meaning a semi-automatic firearm, any modern one, won't fire unless the slide is all the way forward. It's a safety mechanism. And so, if you're having trouble, that's one thing that you could do.
Although most people are trained to do what's called tap and rack, which is where you tap the magazine to make sure it's fully seated, and then you rack the slide to get a new round and to clear whatever malfunction you have and then you continue shooting, he doesn't -- he's not quite doing that. But he has some level of proficiency, clearly. He's not a beginner but also, I'd say he's not an expert. He doesn't even seem to know how to set up this gun to operate the way that he wanted to, and he just kind of went with it, anyway. It was very strange to me.
COATES: And yet, he knew the process and the mechanics.
[23:25:00]
He knew what it would take to clear. He knew what it would take to correct a malfunction. But he also used it in spite of it and knew what to do. But what about the silencer aspect of it? I mean, somebody was, according to the video we have, was near the victim. He wasn't from far away. When do you use a silencer and was it tell you that he used one here?
GUTOWSKI: Yeah, that's another oddity to this. To me, it kind of gives off the vibe of somebody who maybe watched a lot of movies about how an assassination is supposed to play out because you use a silencer -- really, the industry likes to call them suppressors because silencer is kind of a misnomer or a marketing term, really. It doesn't actually make the gun sound. It's not like in a movie or a video game. When you shoot, in this case a 9-mm, through a silencer, you're still going to hear a pretty loud sound. It's still going to be decibel level of something like a jackhammer or plane taking off. So, it's certainly less loud than unsuppressed.
But it's -- I think for people at home, a good analogy is a muffler on a car. It's literally the exact same technology invented by the same person and it performs the same function, which is that if you -- if you ever heard a car without a muffler on it, it's much louder, but if you put a muffler on it, it doesn't mean that the car is silent. Similar with firearms.
COATES: They're illegal in New York state. So, the idea that it's being used, does it look like a silencer that you have seen before or one that's constructed? GUTOWSKI: It's hard to tell. The video is very blurry. But it could be a homemade silencer. You know, a cobbled together suppressor maybe from an oil -- oil filter is one way of doing that. It's not as good as a commercial one, but it could work in a pinch. And that could be why it didn't function properly, why the gun wouldn't operate the way it's supposed to. It could also just be that he has a commercial suppressor silencer that he bought and didn't know how to set up on the gun properly. It's hard to say.
He's also using, from the pictures that we have, full metal jacket rounds. The bullets he's using are bullets that you would use for target practice on the range, not in an encounter where you're shooting at somebody. Generally, you're using hollow points in that situation. So, these details kind of tell you --
COATES: Why is that?
GUTOWSKI: Because hollow points will expand on impact and they're more likely to stop someone with a full metal jacket go straight through. So, it's a lot of signs that point to maybe this guy wasn't an expert. He knew something about guns. Maybe not an expert.
COATES: Stephen Gutowski, there's a lot of questions. Thank you for your expertise tonight. Still ahead, the high stakes Daniel Penny trial. Did the jury just give us clues about what they're stuck on, heading now into day three? Plus, a full court press by Pete Hegseth on Capitol Hill. Even his mother is calling senators to try and keep his bid for defense secretary alive. And there was one senator he really needed to impress. Did he? The eight-word response from Senator Joni Ernst and what it might mean for his chances, next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:30:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PETE HEGSETH, FORMER FOX AND FRIENDS WEEKEND HOST: I can't wait for an FBI investigation. Can't wait. How soon can they start?
MEGYN KELLY, SIRIUSXM TALK SHOW HOST: Really?
HEGSETH: Yes, because that gives me an opportunity for them to do a real investigation. So, what the media is doing right now is a witch hunt. It's trial by false accusation and lies. The FBI is going to look through what? And if they do their job properly, which I fully expect they will, they'll talk to everybody and get the full story and a full understanding. That's a report I welcome.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: A defiant Pete Hegseth vowing to fight like hell for the defense secretary nomination. This as Trump is reportedly considering a plan B, floating Governor Ron DeSantis, Senator Joni Ernst as potential replacements.
I want to bring in politics reporter for Semafor, Shelby Talcott, Republican strategist Lance Trover, and Democratic strategist Ameshia Cross. Glad to have you all here. Let me just begin with you, Lance, on this, because Hegseth is saying that Trump is still very much behind him, and Hegseth is promising to stop drinking if he's confirmed. Is that enough for the skeptical senators?
LANCE TROVER, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST, FORMER SPOKESPERSON FOR DOUG BURGUM'S 2024 PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN: We were talking about this backstage. It is interesting. I mean, the Trump people are going all in for him. They're very committed to him, it would seem at this point. I know there are other names that are leaked out there.
I think what bothers me most about this are the anonymous sources that keep popping up. I just think, from a journalistic standpoint, I saw that NBC story today that was just littered with a bunch of anonymous sources. And I would think, you're talking about a decorated veteran who's up for one of the biggest jobs in this country, if you are that concerned about this guy and the job that he's going to do, put your name on it, put it out there.
And I'm actually kind of surprised that (INAUDIBLE) NBC, that it would be all just anonymous sources. That's what really bothers me. And I think that's a lot of what he's referring to right here, a lot of these people aren't putting their names in terms of if -- these concerns that they have about him.
COATES: Well, take away the anonymity factor. Is it so relevant to have the claims investigated? If there was no NDA, would you welcome that person to come forward and say their piece?
TROVER: Well, these are very serious allegations. Of course, they're relevant. But that's why we have a process in place. I say this all the time, we have a process. That's why he says himself, he wants an FBI investigation. He wants to go through the process. I think we should let that play out.
I'm just saying, I don't think it's helpful to have a bunch of anonymous sources and stories out there. I don't think it serves the voters very well. I don't think it serves him very well. I don't think it serves the Senate very well. And it just creates a lot of confusion, especially when the following day, as in this morning, you have many of his coworkers coming out saying, none of this is true.
COATES: But Trump doesn't seem to be bothered so much by the anonymity factor that you're describing.
[23:35:02]
I mean, there's a reporting from New York Times's Maggie Haberman, reporting that Trump is telling people close to him that he might like the idea of Governor Ron DeSantis replacing him and resurrecting from the job. Is it a matter of time then if Trump has not been very vocal yet in defense of him? AMESHIA CROSS, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: I think it is definitely a matter of time. Um, Trump does not like to have his picks over be overshadowing themselves. And I think that this has carried in much longer in a news cycle than he would have hoped. He just got out of seeing this happen with another one of his picks that had to step aside. I don't think he wants to see it happen this time.
None of this would have happened, to be honest, if he had to have the FBI background checks in the beginning because there are things that have come out about Hegseth that probably would have been known --
COATES: Before announcing him.
CROSS: -- before announcing him, and I think that that would have been a very important step for him. But I also think the media is latching on to the wrong things here, because the anonymous sources don't -- I don't think really matter as much as the fact that this is someone who is not qualified for the position he has been appointed to.
And moreover, the one source that is not anonymous is the woman who went through the process of actually going to get a rape kit. And there's information about the allegations that she has against him that I think are very severe. Things at which not only question his character, who -- I could care less whether this man cheated on his wife. That's his -- that's his wife's issue, that's a family issue.
When it comes to actually attacking a woman, that's something which you care about. When it comes to managing one of the largest forces this nation has ever seen, we're talking millions of people, millions of people, he has never managed over 15 people, a budget that is the size of the one that he would have there. Like, these are things that come to question in terms of him being able to even achieve the basic tenets of this job. He's just not qualified.
COATES: And that's why I think part of that though is wrapped into these allegations, for at least some senators, to wonder the veracity of them and how it might impact morale and leading the Defense Department. One person in particular, Senator Joni Ernst, who has led the charge on sexual assault allegations and rooting it out in the military in particular, there's a huge meeting today they had. It was 45 minutes long. In response, here is what she had to say.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. JONI ERNST (R-IA): It was a frank and thorough conversation.
HEGSETH: We had an engaging and constructive conversation.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Hmm. I would want more. I want to know what else happened. This is a very important meeting. Obviously, he's close to the vest. But what do you make of that statement?
SHELBY TALCOTT, POLITICS REPORTER, SEMAFOR: Yeah, I mean, it seems clear that Joni Ernst has not been convinced to back Pete Hegseth. And I'm not surprised, quite frankly, because, again, she does have these personal experiences with allegations that are similar to what Pete Hegseth has faced.
I also think it's interesting. You know, she is not the only one who is skeptical of Pete Hegseth right now. And I think it's notable that Pete has gone and done this media tour --
COATES: Uh-hmm.
TALCOTT: -- because no other cabinet nominee of Donald Trump's has been on the media. That's notable, right? Because a lot of them are good in front of the camera. And there's been a concern --
COATES: He picked him in many ways for that reason.
TALCOTT: Exactly. And so, I think it sort of indicates that this is a last-ditch effort for Pete and these next few days have to go really well. When I talk to people inside Trump's orbit, they're hoping that he can sort of last through the week, and then hopefully, you'll get through the weekend, and the Senate will be out, and it'll sort of calm down.
At the same time, you know, I think that there's skepticism that he is going to make it all the way through. But again, you hear Pete saying he's in it, he's going to stay, he's going to fight. That's always what we hear. We hear that up until the moment that they drop out.
COATES: Well, Megyn Kelly asked Hegseth flat out about the allegations. And, by the way, some senators had their day. They didn't talk to him about these allegations and why he actually paid the woman who accused him. Listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KELLY: Did you rape a woman in a hotel in Monterey?
HEGSETH: Absolutely not. Absolutely not. I paid her because I had to. I thought I did at the time. I was newly married. I was up for potential jobs in the administration, so my profile was higher. We were in the middle of a MeToo movement. I had a great job at Fox and a wonderful marriage. And I did it out of -- I mean, it's not what I should have done, but I did it to protect that.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Is that going to be enough to cure some skepticism or the interest in this for the senators who are key to deciding if he'll be confirmed?
TROVER: I mean, I think that's a question for the senators. You know, he has denied it time and again. There were no charges brought. I think it's always important that we get that out there every time. And he has vehemently denied these charges. And so, I think, look, he's got to go out and make his case like he's doing now. I mean, I think he has no other choice but to go out and step out in front of the media and do some of these and continue talking to senators. I know he has more meetings lined up next week. That's what he has to do to continue to try to win.
COATES: Well, the NDA impact the ability to hit this one side of the story. There's an NDA in that particular case.
CROSS: Oh, absolutely. I think that it does harm.
[23:40:00]
It does more harm on the other side because she cannot speak out as a victim. But I also think that there's enough there in terms of -- we've seen some of -- some of the allegations from the report itself. We have seen some things that were said by the visiting nurse who actually went through the process when she was going through the rape kit. I think that at this point, there are people who are saying, hey, this is a legitimate thing, whether you believe in his guilt or not. We have somebody in Donald Trump who was also accused multiple times of sexual abuse and sexual assault. At the end of the day, how many people do you want in his administration to have these same types of charges?
COATES: I will say, to reiterate, there has not been any charges filed against him. These remain allegations. And his mother has come out to talk to you about her email and saying that dear female senators listen to him. So, we'll see how all of this plays out. Thank you, everyone.
America bracing for a verdict in the Daniel Penny trial as jurors get set to enter day three of deliberations. So, what is the jury weighing exactly? Well, we've got some clues tonight from the three requests they made today. That's next. Plus, the veteran who once stopped a terror attack on a Paris-bound train, he joins me live with his unique perspective on the case against his fellow veteran, Daniel Penny.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:45:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: A second day of deliberation is done and still no verdict. I'm talking about the jury who is right now deciding the fate of Daniel Penny. That's the former Marine on trial for the subway chokehold death of Jordan Neely. It's a case that, frankly, has divided New York City. It has sparked nationwide debates about public safety and mental illness and homelessness and how race and self-defense play into all of that. Penny is charged with second degree manslaughter and criminally negligent homicide. Jurors today seeking a second look at evidence and testimony given during the trial.
I want to bring in former Manhattan prosecutor, Jeremy Saland. Jeremy, good to see you here. Look, anytime a jury asks for information, prosecutors and defense want to know why. They've asked now to review bystander and police video at the heart of this case, including Penny's interview with detectives and the video that mostly shows most of the nearly six-minute restraint. What does this tell you about their deliberations? JEREMY SALAND, FORMER MANHATTAN PROSECUTOR: The jury at first wanted to know the charges and they were going to say, well, you know, let's bypass that. You get to see whether or not these crimes were committed. But now hearing these questions, we know they're looking at two other relevant and important elements, which is the causation factor and the justification factor, because causation, you have to get that to get to the next stage of justification. But if you think there is that, I did it, I did something wrong, you can skip to the part where you go right to the charges. So, they're getting to the meat of it, which sends something to both prosecution and defense. I don't know what they're thinking. It could be one juror or it could be all of them.
COATES: And, of course, unanimity is required here. And the jury also asked for part of a city medical examiner's testimony. That was the final witness for the prosecution, by the way, who concluded that the chokehold that was used by Penny was what killed Neely. Now, keep in mind, both sides called up different forensic experts during the trial, and they disagreed whether the chokehold was the cause of death or something else. Why do you think the jury wanted a refresher of that specific testimony?
SALAND: You know, that's an interesting question. And again, that's a causation issue. Was that death cause -- as the M.E. or the medical examiner said, I don't need to know whether or not there was a drug test for fentanyl or whatever it may be in his system, I know that compression ultimately is what killed Mr. Neely. Whereas on the other side, the defense said, well, it could have been something else, it could have been that there was K2 in his system, it could have been the mental health issues. There are many factors.
So, they're now going straight to this M.E. and does that mean, again, does it one person who thinks that there's an issue or there are multiple people who say, was it a direct causation because of the choking that is alleged to have occurred?
COATES: And, of course, what did he know at the time? Not the sort of hindsight being 2020. What did this defendant know and what did he actually do at the time? Look, if he is convicted, he could face up to, I think, 15 years in prison on that top charge or face no jail time at all. That's up to the judge, of course. The prosecution actually specifically brought that up in court yesterday, making note to the jurors, and the defense was all over it. How detrimental -- I mean, I can't imagine as a prosecutor having raised something like that, but could the mention of a sentence during closing arguments, how could that impact the outcome of this case if convicted or not?
SALAND: I would blow a gasket on the file of the defense in this case. That is really wholly inappropriate. It's a no-fly zone. It's verboten. You can think of a lot of words. But one of the words I'm not going to use is a sentencing and anywhere at this stage in the process. That's if and only if there's a conviction.
Is that something ground to challenge it later on? I don't know, but it's certainly ground to make a stink as a defense and say, that is not up for the jury to decide, that's not at all. Is that because that you want to try to infiltrate or penetrate that, maybe we'll call that ethical barrier, and try to get them to think, you know what, you can still convict? If you're worried about them going to prison or jail, don't worry about that, you can still convict. And if that is why it was done, that's wholly inappropriate.
COATES: Yeah, I mean, look at that. You could look at that and say, I wanted the jurors to look as only fact finders. Your job is not to think about sentencing at all. But the wording of it and how you conveyed that is what is going to be looked at by the judge, who ultimately will decide any sentence if there's a conviction.
[23:50:03]
So, they're going to parse through how that was stated, whether it was inappropriate, unethical or otherwise. But if he is convicted, and there's still an if --
SALAND: Right.
COATES: -- do you think that Penny will get jail time?
SALAND: You know, if he's convicted of manslaughter in the second degree and this recklessness, I don't see how he doesn't get jail time. And by jail, meaning prison, whether that's one to three years, whether that's something more than that up to 15 years, as you noted, there's a dead man. Doesn't mean that it was an intentional malicious act, but there's a dead man and there's consequences for that. It doesn't mean that you can't stand up for people all around you, protect others when you're justified to do so, but there's a limit and there's consequences when you breach that limit. So, yes, I would expect and would not be shocked that they would ask for some sort of incarceration.
COATES: I mean, a judge and a sentence, it's also about deterrence for others, but also the penalty for the person who has committed it. I think that's the balance that has to be struck. We'll see what happens in this case after day three. Coming soon. Jeremy Saland, thank you so much.
SALAND: My pleasure.
COATES: My next guest, he had his own harrowing experience on public transportation. He was one of three good Samaritans, you might remember, who helped to avert a massacre aboard a high-speed train that was en route to Paris from Amsterdam back in 2015. At the sight of danger, they bravely charged, they tackled, and they subdued an armed terrorist.
Oregon's Representative-Elect Alek Skarlatos joins me now. Alec, thank you. I remember what happened so well. I'm sure you certainly do. And when you look at the facts, as they have been presented in this case, how do you see his actions?
ALEK SKARLATOS, HELPED STOP TERROR ATTACK IN 2015: Well, I'm a little biased having kind of survived something vaguely similar, but I think he's absolutely justified in what he did. I mean, he handled the situation that was presented to him. He wasn't going out looking to choke someone to death. He just reacted to a situation that Jordan Neely caused in that subway car, and he reacted in a way that he thought was appropriate. And frankly, if he had waited until police arrived, police probably would have reacted the same way.
COATES: You think so? I mean, that's really, I think, really the heart of the matter and deliberations behind closed doors, if I had to speculate as to what jurors were thinking about. How about that part of deterrence? There are a lot of people debating this very issue about what a potential guilty verdict might signal to good Samaritans or somebody who sought to intervene in something. What signal would that send to you and to other Americans if he were found guilty?
SKARLATOS: Well, it makes me think that if we stopped our terrorist attack in New York, we probably would have been charged. I mean, I tried to use the terrorist handgun against him to try to shoot him in the back of the head when we nearly had him restrained. Um, that doesn't comfort me to want to go to New York and risk running into the same situation that Daniel Penny is running into.
I think good Samaritans across this country are going to be thinking twice, especially if they live in a blue state, as to whether they want to intervene and try to help someone when there's a pretty significant chance that a D.A. decides to charge them with some sort of a crime due to some extenuating circumstance.
COATES: You know, some would look and think about the two circumstances, what you grappled with and what this particular defendant grappled with, quite distinct, albeit there are the obvious parallels drawn. But what you went through and what happened on the train in New York, I mean, Jordan Neely wasn't armed, was not a terrorist as the one that you confronted. Does that change the calculus for you at all?
SKARLATOS: No, absolutely. I mean, Daniel Penny didn't pull out a gun and try to shoot Jordan Neely in the head either. I mean, his response was exactly proportionate to the threat. That's something that they discuss on law enforcement quite frequently. And I think that, again, if law enforcement had arrived on scene, they would have used the same kind of restraint method or tase him, which might have ended up worse. I just don't think that anyone could have realistically put themselves in that position and expected them or anyone else to act any different than Daniel Penny did, and I think that's why he's going to be acquitted or at least should.
COATES: The prosecution agrees in part with what you've said, that they believed he was a kind of good Samaritan, but that he went too far. He was perhaps justified in applying the chokehold, but it continued to the point of death. Is there a line, blurry at best, where it goes from somebody justified in what they're doing to going too far where accountability should be expected?
[23:55:03]
SKARLATOS: No, absolutely. I mean, I don't disagree with you there. The question is if that happened in this case. And frankly, I don't think it did. I mean, this was far from malicious. Um, I don't think, again, Daniel Penny went out looking for something like this. Um, this was just a good Samaritan trying to do something good and it unfortunately played out the way it did. I mean, it's -- it is a sad situation but, again, I don't know how Daniel Penny could have handled it any other way while still trying to keep himself and those around him safe.
COATES: To be a fly on the wall in that jury room. I wonder if they're making the same analogies about what would it look like if it was law enforcement involved instead of him. Alek Skarlatos, thank you for joining.
SKARLATOS: Thank you.
COATES: And hey, everyone, thank you for watching. Before we go, there may be a manhunt underway, but New York isn't shutting down. The tree lighting at Rockefeller Center going off without a hitch tonight. Clearly, it pretends to be a happy holiday to all. "Anderson Cooper 360" is next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[00:00:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
