Return to Transcripts main page
Laura Coates Live
Trump Demands Garland Block Release Of Jack Smith Final Report; January 6 Committee At Odds Over Potential Preemptive Pardons; Harris Certifies Her Election Loss To Donald Trump; Golden Globes Avoids Political Talk. Aired 11p-12a ET
Aired January 06, 2025 - 23:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
S.E. CUPP, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Yeah.
ASHLEY ALLISON, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: A decision yet to be made, yeah.
CUPP: Yeah.
ABBY PHILLIP, CNN HOST: Yeah.
CUPP: You can admit some stuff without saying, well, we're just a bunch of liars. I mean, you could say, list -- we saw him have good days. We saw him have bad days. We were promised that he was in good condition, and we wanted him to win. We understand that.
VAN JONES, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: I think the tell was not putting him out there very much. You know, so it's like when he wasn't being put out there very much, that was -- that was the tell.
CUPP: It was more than the debate.
JONES: Yeah.
CUPP: There were a number of moments that were -- that were --
PHILLIP: Everyone, thank you very much. And thank you for watching "NewsNight." "Laura Coates Live" starts right now.
LAURA COATES, CNN HOST: We start tonight with breaking news. Donald Trump is trying to block the release of the final report from Special Counsel Jack Smith. His lawyer is sending a letter to Attorney General Merrick Garland after they were able to review Smith's draft report on the two dismissed federal cases against the president-elect.
You remember, Smith had dropped both the classified documents case and election subversion case, but he was still planning to release a report on his findings. Well, now, Trump's legal team is urging Garland to stop its release, calling it a politically-motivated attack. They also argue it would cause prejudice against the two Trump co-defendants who are still facing charges in the classified documents case.
Those co-defendants also have made a filing of their own, trying to get Judge Aileen Cannon to block the DOJ from releasing any report. They argue Smith does not have the authority to release it since Cannon previously ruled his appointment to special counsel was unlawful. Trump's lawyers are demanding that Garland actually fire Smith as well, and they want a decision before they leave the administration.
Let me just break down a little bit more since it's really hot off the press, all 40 or so pages of it. And your themes you ultimately will get is that, number one, they fear that this will be released immediately, as has been the case in two other special counsel reports that have been filed.
Now, one of the reasons they say so is because they believe that it will unduly prejudice the remaining defendants. It will be a kind of huge media frenzy, which likely it will be, and the public will consume it in a way that will give them a difficult time of trying to get a jury pool that is not in some way now well-versed in the accusations that have been given.
They're also claiming, of course, that, look, Special Counsel Jack Smith can't do any of this. If you were not qualified to actually be appointed, then you cannot use what you learned while you were actually the special counsel to then put it out into the public square as if you had every right to put it out there in the first instance.
Finally, they're arguing that this actually would undermine the ability to have a peaceful transition or an easy time for Donald Trump to be able to govern over the country. Why? Because they believe it will cause a program. They believe it will cause a stigma. They believe that he will have this weight of the allegations contained in the special counsel report used against him in a way that it's a distraction to otherwise being able to govern the country.
So, it all kind of flows together. The arguments of Todd Blanche on behalf of Donald Trump, president-elect, and, of course, counsel for the two remaining co-defendants, who argue that because of their title as a co-conspirator, they cannot be somehow taken away and apart from Donald Trump. He's a controversial figure in a way that would give them a fair trial.
And they believe, finally, the special counsel report is only to be issued once there's the conclusion of the work of the special counsel. And because they're still appealing the matter, it can't possibly be noted as concluding. So, they think that he's trying to work around that and get it out nonetheless.
Joining me now, chief investigative legal office counsel for January 6 Committee, Tim Heaphy. He is also the author of the new book, "Harbingers: What January 6 and Charlottesville Reveal About Rising Threats to American Democracy." Tim, so glad to have you here.
First of all, I mean, this report, we knew, was going to be forthcoming when it came from Special Counsel Jack Smith. Probably should have expected to have a decision to try to not let it get released. But what do you make of their attempt to say, Merrick Garland, this should never go out? He cannot use any aspect of what he learned while he was, they say, an inappropriate special counsel. TIMOTHY HEAPHY, FORMER LEAD INVESTIGATOR, JANUARY 6TH SELECT COMMITTEE: Yeah, Laura, thanks for having me. Look, it's just the logical extension of what the strategy has been all along, which is to try to prevent the airing of, or even worse, adjudication of these facts. It ignores decades of precedent that special councils, and this is even in the code of federal regulations, are duty-bound to explain their decisions, their decisions to proceed or not proceed in criminal cases, by filing reports.
[23:05:05]
We've seen special councils file reports most recently with Special Counsel Mueller in the Russia investigation, Special Counsel Hur --
COATES: Uh-hmm.
HEAPHY: -- in the Biden investigation. So, it's just very routine and, frankly, contemplated by federal law that special councils will explain their prosecuted decisions in reports. So, not a surprise that the president's team would try to delay that because they have continued to try to delay and forestall and have these facts aired to the public.
COATES: You know, interestingly enough, when you talk about delay, that was strategy and continues to be. They fear that Merrick Garland will not be delayed in any way of releasing the reports, that he will release it immediately, making any attempt, they believe, to silence the issue, completely moot. I wonder, if Merrick Garland were to release this, say, tomorrow, has the report in hand, they've already reviewed it, would they be able to do anything about it?
HEAPHY: No. Once it's out, it's out. Unless they have a judge telling the attorney general that the report cannot be released and then would be a contemptuous for him to do so, then he immediately, Laura, could hit send or could print that report. Those reports, I think there are actually two or at least two volumes of the special counsel's final report about each of the two criminal cases that were brought.
The co-defendants in the Florida case have actually asked a judge, Judge Cannon, to step in and essentially do that, order that the portion of the report dealing with the Mar-a-Lago classified documents matter not be released. There is no case pending in the District of Columbia any longer and, therefore, no logical place for that motion to be filed. I don't think this is going to be successful.
COATES: But where --
HEAPHY: I think Garland is going to release the report before January 20th.
COATES: Yeah. I was going to say, where would be the authority for Cannon to tell Garland that he cannot release a report?
HEAPHY: I'm not sure. I don't know that it exists. The arguments -- I haven't read the Florida pleading. I've only seen the letter that Trump's lawyer sent -- COATES: Uh-hmm.
HEAPHY: -- to Merrick Garland. But I think they're alleging that since Judge Cannon has found, and again, anomalously from every other federal judge that has considered this question, she found that the special counsel was sort of inappropriately appointed, that he doesn't have appropriate jurisdiction, very different from what every other judge in D.C. and elsewhere has always found, that because of that, he has no authority to issue this report, that this is essentially the act of a private citizen.
So, I'm not really sure what basis she could then use to grant that motion and to prevent the attorney general from exercising his discretion to comply with the law and release the report.
COATES: They use that argument. They say he's essentially gone rogue and just trying to pretend to be a special counsel to have the authority to release a report and give it to Garland. What I find so ironic, I wonder if you feel the same way, is that Garland has been criticized for being too slow, to almost the point of paralysis when it comes to prosecuting Trump.
One former DOJ official telling our own CNN's Evan Perez, they wasted time, they were not strategic, it was a whole year of nothing. Now, of course, you've got this filing saying he will be too hasty in trying to release the information. Who's right?
HEAPHY: Yeah, the allegation that Merrick Garland is a partisan bent on politicization or weaponization of the department is just ludicrous. He arguably, as some of his own internal DOJ lawyers have said, was arguably very resistant to even pursuing this case in the first place given its political nature.
Merrick Garland is a very cautious, by the book, lawyer, and since here, the book, the federal statute, which authorizes special counsel, calls for a report, I don't see him varying from adherence to that very clear standard of law.
COATES: Don't forget, he was also an appellate judge. So, certainly he has his eye towards the appellate issues they're trying to raise and has contemplated at least that. Tim --
HEAPHY: That's right.
COATES: -- thank you and stand by. We'll talk about some pardon news and your new book just a little later on in the show. As well, I want to bring in Jeremy Saland. He's a former Manhattan prosecutor and a criminal defense attorney as well. Jeremy, look, Trump does not want this out. He wants the report never released, but he also wants Garland to remove him from his job.
I just want to read for people just one line from what the letter that Todd Blanche sent to Merrick Garland. I think it's very telling as to what he wants. He says that no report should be prepared or released and Smith should be removed, including for even suggesting that course of action, given his obvious political motivations and desire to lawlessly undermine the transition.
They're clear they don't want this out, and they have a reason. What's the actual right decision to make?
JEREMY SALAND, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY, FORMER MANHATTAN PROSECUTOR: The right decision is to allow Smith to do his job, which was to compile this report.
[23:10:00]
It went from -- part of it was January 6 Committee up in Washington, but down in Florida as well to proceed. And Judge Cannon, as Tim just noted, sort of as an anomaly, not sort of in fact an anomaly, to dismiss that case. But yes, right and should release this report. And whether or not it causes stigma or there's an issue about my ability to govern after the fact or when he becomes president, that's neither here nor there.
Bad facts and bad truths are prejudicial and hurt. It is what it is. Not to be so flippant, but I can understand why Donald Trump wants to avoid this. But it doesn't change the fact that those co-defendants aren't going to trial and are not going to be prejudiced under Donald Trump's DOJ in a potential possible future case.
COATES: Right, they have referred the matter to a different court in Florida as well. But I would note, it is fascinating to me because you'll hear time and time again that the American public and the voters gave a mandate in spite of what they described as lawfare against Trump. But now, they're arguing that this same continuation of conversations about it would be absolutely detrimental to his ability to govern. It doesn't ring true to me in that phrase.
But also, on this point, they have argued that this case is not done yet. It's not final. Therefore, there's no reason or regulation that would allow, even if he were an appropriate special counsel, him to hand over a final special report. What do you make of that?
SALAND: I make it the same thing I made of many of Donald Trump's filing. It's misinformation, it's dishonest or it's manipulation of the truth. So, this is final. And what I mean by that is there is no more case going on. You just discussed, you just mentioned, it was referred to another court as a possible prosecution. But this is over. It's done. In a matter of days, it is off the books and forever gone.
So, this is final, and it's kind of rich that we had under her, for example, Republicans calling for the release of the audiotapes of (INAUDIBLE) President Biden then, about him being sort of an older guy and having issues. So, this is -- it's really what's good for me is what's good for Donald Trump in that moment.
COATES: Interesting point. That harkens back to another report that was released very quickly by Merrick Garland, and that they wanted to see. Jeremy, there is also another issue on top of the breaking news we're talking about tonight. Earlier today, Judge Merchan in New York denied Trump's request to delay his sentencing for his hush money trial. Do you think he will be sentenced on Friday as planned or are there other opportunities that you might see him trying to delay or stall?
SALAND: So, what they have done is they filed what's called an Article 78. Basically, it's another means, sort of a pre-appeal, not a post- appeal, we'll call it that, to delay this case. And what that big thrust is, should Donald Trump, the president-elect, be treated in the same capacity and have the same right to protection of immunity, among other things, as a current and sitting president?
If this gets delayed which could, again, that's another win by Donald Trump, and potentially in perpetuity, in this case, never gets to a sentence, and that's up in four years from now or we get some finality in the decision prior to the 20th of January. But it could get delayed very easily.
COATES: And, by the way, there's no indication the judge is going to actually have jail time or a fine, and the convictions presently still stand.
SALAND: Right.
COATES: So, the idea of kicking that can down the road is a little bit of head scratching for the average American. Jeremy Saland, thank you so much.
SALAND: My pleasure.
COATES: Still ahead tonight, Donald Trump nears his pardon decision on the January 6th rioters. But who exactly is going to qualify or even get one? Plus, the lingering pardon question for President Biden. Might he be considering pardons for the January 6 Committee? They even want one.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:15:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: So, about those January 6th pardons, we are 14 days away from the first chance that Trump will have to really issue any pardons. He has already showed his hand on the category of people he thinks deserve one. Trump has already committed, of course, to using his power to free the people that he calls hostages.
Got to be more specific, though, right? Who are we talking about? Is it everyone who has a misdemeanor charge like trespass, those accused of violent crimes against officers? Who? Or will he not be going down the blanket pardon route and instead, as he has suggested, figure it out case by case?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT-ELECT: We're looking at it right now. Most likely. Yeah.
KRISTEN WELKER, NBC NEWS WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, you know -- TRUMP: Those people have suffered long and hard. And there may be some exceptions to it. I have to look.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: What about the defendants not necessarily accused of committing violence, but serious crimes nonetheless, like such as conspiracy, as was the case for defendants like Oath Keeper founder Stuart Rhodes, who got 18 years? Or this man, Enrique Tarrio, leader of the Proud Boys, currently serving a 22-year sentence, the longest of all the January 6 defendants, for that charge for his role in organizing the attack?
Now, Tarrio wasn't actually there on January since he had already been arrested days earlier for, apparently, I think, burning a Black Lives Matter banner and an unrelated matter. But prosecutors said that he organized the breach in part, and the judge who sentenced him even called him the ultimate leader.
Well, today, Tarrio's attorney does not want to wait and see what Trump might do in a few weeks. He wanted his request on the record, writing a letter to Trump asking specifically for a pardon and saying -- quote -- "Henry is nothing more than a proud American that believes in true conservative values." So, will Trump do it? We'll have to see, of course. But senator and minority leader, Chuck Schumer, skeptical about all of it.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER (D-NY): It is shamefully, utterly outrageous, that the president is considering pardons for these rioters who broke the law, attacked our police officers on January 6th.
[23:20:04]
It would send a message to the country and to the world that those who use force to get their way will not be punished.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Now, again, Tarrio never actually attacked any officer. He himself was not there. But many were. And many did. According to a "The Washington Post" tally, at least 379 people have been charged with assaulting police or members of the press. And at least 287 people have been charged with less violent or nonviolent felonies. Overall, more than half of the 1,500 people charged in total have faced misdemeanor counts like trespassing or disorderly conduct.
So, where do Republicans generally stand on all of this? Would they be okay with Trump pardoning all or some or even those accused of violence or even those not accused of violence but still breaching the Capitol nonetheless? Well, here's Senate Majority Leader John Thune.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. JOHN THUNE (R-SD): Well, again, the pardon authority is one that the president exercises, and we've seen President Biden, obviously, use it more broadly than any president in history. So, it's going to be a call of the president to make. My assumption is that they'll look at these on a case-by-case basis.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: He did a lot of work answering that question. One, he punted, of course, at Trump's discretion which, of course, is his discretion. He's the one who got the pardon power. Two, he appeared to lay the groundwork -- did you catch this? For what the inevitable political argument might very well be from some Republicans. And that is that Biden's broad pardons, including of his son, Hunter, gives Trump the cover he needs. Whether you buy that or not, it's up to you.
But as much as the focus is on what Trump will do on his first day with those pardons, there's also a question of what Biden might still do in his final days in office, since some have suggested he pardon members of the January 6th Committee. But, you know, not everyone, including those -- some of them who were on the actual committee, are on board.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ADAM KINZINGER, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, FORMER ILLINOIS REPRESENTATIVE: The second you take a pardon, it looks like you're guilty of something. I'm guilty of nothing besides bringing the truth to the American people, and in the process, embarrassing Donald Trump, because for 187 minutes, he sat there and did absolutely nothing, and showed how weak and scared he truly was. So, no, I don't want it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Hmm. The committee chairman, Bennie Thompson, telling our own Wolf Blitzer today, it might be worth considering under this scenario.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. BENNIE THOMPSON (D-MS): If Donald Trump is hell bent on extracting retribution because members of Congress, staff, and to some degree, witnesses told the truth, did their work, then I think if that pardon availability was there, it should be considered.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: So, what's it going to be? To pardon or not to pardon four years later? And that is still the question.
Chief legal counsel for the January 6th Committee, Tim Heaphy, is back with me now. Tim, Trump has threatened retribution, even jail time, for those who served on that committee. You said that you're not concerned. But would you accept a preemptive pardon from President Biden?
HEAPHY: Look, I'm in the Kinzinger camp on this, Laura, really clearly. It takes facts and evidence of culpability to actually have a legal consequence. And there may be questions asked by congressional committees or by the new Department of Justice about the investigation that will require people like me or members of the committee to provide information. But I'm not worried at all about the possible actual culpability because, again, in this country, it takes facts in order for there to be real exposure.
So, he can create a lot of expense, a lot of distraction that is, I think, meant to intimidate or meant to be, frankly, a political saber rattle, sort of consistent with the rhetoric that he has put forth about January 6th in general. But, ultimately, a legal consequence is going to require facts that just aren't present.
COATES: Well, the prior private practice attorney in me heard the word "expense" and that's one way that a pardon could be something useful to avoid having to control out what will it will take to try to defend oneself even against that which will not result in culpability but except everyone in particular.
In your book, "Harbingers," you write the prosecutions of more than fifteen hundred Capitol rioters -- quote -- "have a deterrent effect, as they dissuade future rioters, fake electors. or other conspirators from engaging in similar conduct." But Tim, if there -- if there is some kind of a mass pardon of rioters, what is the message that might send?
[23:24:55]
HEAPHY: If you accept the premise that I put forth in the book, Laura, that criminal consequences actually deter conduct, then the removal of the criminal consequences also motivates conduct, might make it more likely for people to engage in similar conduct in the future.
I want to make one point really clearly here about who has been charged with respect to crimes on January 6. Every single one of them crossed the line from speech to conduct. No one has been prosecuted simply for believing that the election was stolen, simply for exercising their First Amendment rights. Every single person who has been charged went beyond speech into conduct, conduct that a judge or a jury or they themselves, through guilty pleas, admitted was criminal.
And there's a range of culpability. The least culpable are those that stepped over broken glass and through broken windows and over the bloody steps on the front of the Capitol to go inside knowing that they were unauthorized. That's trespass or disorderly conduct. To the more serious, egregious other end of the spectrum, which is the seditious conspirators who actually conspired to use force to overthrow the functioning of government. That is the Enrique Terrio and Stuart Rhodes end of the spectrum.
Now, where the president, if at all, draws lines on that scale of relative culpability, like you said before, Laura, we'll have to see. But to be clear, everybody, regardless of where the line is drawn, engaged in conduct has not been prosecuted simply for political beliefs. That narrative that I've heard is just false.
COATES: Well, it's probably going to be category by category versus case by case. Tim Heaphy, good book. Thanks for joining us.
HEAPHY: Thanks, Laura.
COATES: Up next, it only took 30 minutes this time compared to what the nearly 15 hours it took back in 2021, Congress certifies Trump's victory with no drama as Vice President Harris oversees it all. One of our close allies in Congress live with me in studio on that and more next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:30:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: Some would say it was a good day for democracy. Vice President Kamala Harris overseeing the certification of Donald Trump's election victory. Today's peaceful proceeding, a far cry from the violence and chaos from just four years ago.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KAMALA HARRIS, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, U.S. PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: It was about what should be the norm and what the American people should be able to take for granted, which is that one of the most important pillars of our democracy is that there will be a peaceful transfer of power. America's democracy is only as strong as our willingness to fight for it. And today, America's democracy stood.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Well, joining me now, Democratic congresswoman from California and close ally of Vice President Harris, Sydney Kamlager-Dove. So good to have you here, congresswoman. What a far cry it was from four years ago. But yet it had to be a challenging day to watch as a member of Congress but also, specifically, Vice President Harris presiding over the certification of her own loss. How do you think she handled that moment?
REP. SYDNEY KAMLAGER-DOVE (D-CA): She was dignified, professional, um, brilliant, uh, stoic, and she did what she was supposed to do. It was, ultimately, an expensive, quick, and uneventful peaceful transfer of power, just like it should be, without costing taxpayers a million dollars, which is what those 35 minutes cost us.
COATES: Tell me about what it was like in the room. What are the emotions? It must be, as one of your colleagues described, a bitter pill to swallow. In fact, this was Congressman Jim Himes in his own description. I want to hear your response as well. Listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. JIM HIMES (D-CT): That day was traumatic enough that even in those of us who, you know, like to keep calm and carry on, it's causing an upwelling of emotion. I can feel the anger. I can feel the resentment, which I don't, by the way, celebrate. (END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: How did you feel?
KAMLAGER-DOVE: Well, I wasn't there, January 6, 2021, but I can tell you it was both inspiring and heartbreaking to see this poised, qualified vice president, who also happens to be the vice president of the United States, preside over a romper room of Republicans more interested in being chaos agents than in actually governing. That was heartbreaking. But to see her poise and her dignity shine through for those 35 minutes was inspiring.
COATES: Do you feel optimistic about the prospects of working together with Republicans over the next several years, two if not four?
KAMLAGER-DOVE: Well, Democrats have always had our stuff together. We come in and we're ready to work. We don't always agree with them, but we're trying to negotiate for policies that are best for the American people. Why are eggs costing $9? They should be costing $2. Republicans have to figure out how to work with each other, and it is not my job to help them figure out how to do that.
COATES: Republicans, of course, think that they're not the only ones to have internal dissension or chaos within their ranks, but they will require your assistance as a member of the Democratic Party during the next Congress because the margin is so narrow. It's going be a challenge, on the one hand, to not do their job for them and also do the job that you came to office to do.
KAMLAGER-DOVE: Well, they have a responsibility to govern because they have the technical majority. Of course, whenever anything has gotten done over the past two years, it has been because Democrats have stepped up.
[23:35:03]
But this republican conference does not have a plan. Their plan is actually to call Donald Trump and figure out what the bros have been talking about over the weekend at Mar-a-Lago and then figuring out how to decipher these concepts about how they're supposed to govern.
COATES: What is the climate like hearing and believing that it's not really Trump who you think will govern, but that it will be the so- called bros? What are Democrats saying behind the scenes?
KAMLAGER-DOVE: Well, that we are fighting against this country turning into an oligarchy with billionaires controlling Donald Trump. I mean, he was purchased for $270 million, but the American people were not. So, Democrats have to continue to convey this truth to the American people and demand that Republicans step up and listen to the concerns.
What I heard this past election is that the cost of living is too high. People want to be able to afford to buy a house. People need caregiver assistance that they can afford and child care. So, talk about that, not extending tax breaks, Trump tax breaks, that only helped the wealthiest of the wealthy. COATES: So how will you overcome this assumption that the Trump mandate is carte blanche?
KAMLAGER-DOVE: Well, it might be a trifecta, but it was not a landslide. And we saw with the drama in just electing a speaker when they had no other option, that they really can't get it together. So, we are going to continue to talk about, you know, do you want this reconciliation bill that's supposed to be this omnibus of all things when you all can't even get your act together to decide about what tax cuts you want to support, or how you're going to help veterans, or how you're going to support seniors, or if you're going to cut Social Security and Medicaid or Medicare? I mean, talk about those things that the American people care about.
COATES: Is there any prospect that Trump gets his way for the passage of his entire agenda, frankly, in that one massive bill?
KAMLAGER-DOVE: No. Energy, permitting, tax cuts, border, Republicans can't agree on those things. So -- and they have to work it out if they're going to try and do it without any support from Democrats, and they're not going to get any support from Democrats if they're putting in crazy poison pills.
COATES: Congresswoman Sydney Kamlager-Dove, always a pleasure to have you on set. Thank you so much.
KAMLAGER-DOVE: Thank you.
COATES: Let's continue our conversation with former communications aide to Senator Lindsey Graham, T.W. Arrighi, also CNN political commentator and former senior spokesperson for Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign, Karen Finney, with us as well. Good to see you two.
T.W., let me begin with you. Former Vice President Mike Pence welcoming and saying this: Quote -- "The return of order and civility while calling V.P. Harris admirable for certifying her own loss." Is that how Republicans at large see it?
T.W. ARRIGHI, VICE PRESIDENT OF PUSH DIGITAL GROUP, FORMER COMMUNICATIONS AIDE TO SENATOR LINDSEY GRAHAM: Yeah. Well, I think the election results spoke for themselves. I saw David Weigel actually tweet out something fascinating today, which is, this is the first time an election was certified without a Republican, with a Republican winning without one Democrat dissenting since 1988. That's kind of wild. And I think it's because we got that trifecta.
So yes, I think it's a good thing that today went smoothly. I hope that continues.
COATES: So, Karen, how do you see the absence of objections? Is that an indication one way, the other because of the trifecta or because of, as Leader Jeffries once said, there's no election deniers on their side of the aisle?
(LAUGHTER) KAREN FINNEY, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: I'm with Leader Jeffries on that. I mean, look, you know, again, as Sydney was saying, you know, Vice President Harris was graceful, gracious, did her job, and I think it's important for the American people that we have this demarcation. But I also agree with President Biden that we should never forget what happened four years ago. And we owe it to the people who lost their lives. We owe it to the people who were injured on that day, who were harmed, who are still traumatized and for what it meant for our country.
And I think in that context, we really need to see the final report that Jack Smith submits to Merrick Garland, the attorney general, and we need it for the full accounting of history so that everyone can have the same set of facts and the same set of information. An election is not the same thing as, you know, as a jury verdict. And so --
COATES: Uh-hmm.
FINNEY: -- we need to see it. We paid for it as the American people, as taxpayers. We deserve to see it.
COATES: T.W., should we see that report?
ARRIGHI: Look, I think January 6th, which was a tragic day in our nation's history, I knew so many friends who were on the Hill, staff members, former bosses, members of the press, I was worried sick watching from South Carolina. But look, let's make no mistake, January 6th was litigated to the hilt.
[23:40:00]
You had the January 6th committee. You had an impeachment trial. Everyone saw this with their own two eyes. And if you want a jury of your peers, you had tens of millions, 70-some-odd million voted for Donald Trump. Many of them very much were disgusted with what they saw on January 6th, but they still voted for Donald Trump.
I think this has been litigated heavily in the court of public opinion and in Congress and a politically-charged committee. My old boss, Jim Banks, refused to be seated on that committee. So, I think the people are pretty well aware of what happened on January 6th. They're well aware of what was at stake in this election. They voted for Donald Trump.
COATES: Well, there's something to raise on that point, T.W. If that's the case, then releasing the report would just be something that would just be par for the course and not problematic. You know, that way, which begs the question as to why.
Let me ask you on this other point, Karen. I do want to get your response to this as well. But T.W., to stick with you, one thing that Congresswoman Sydney Kamlager-Dove mentioned was the idea of the role and influence of so-called billionaires. I shouldn't say so-called billionaires, like West and beyond. And New York Times's Maggie Haberman reported that Trump has privately complained about Musk being around a lot. This says the incoming White House chief of staff, Susie Wiles, telling Axios, I don't welcome people who want to work solo or be a star. How do you interpret this role of so-called kind of first buddy?
ARRIGHI: Yeah, I think those are two sorts of different things. Susie Wiles ran a tremendous campaign. It was a tight-knit, efficient operation. I think she's going to bring that to the White House. She's just simply spelling out her theology on running an organization.
Elon Musk and Donald Trump have their own relationship that they're going to have to work out as they go along. How is DOGE going to interact with the White House? What is -- you know, he has been inviting Elon Musk to talk to world leaders. We've seen reports on it. Is that going to continue or is that going to change? That's all a personal thing between them.
Susie Wiles is worried about the White House. Trump and Elon will have to work out their personal relationship. But, you know, in terms of oligarchy and such stuff, how many DAs in this country have received money from George Soros? A lot. So, it's not as though --
FINNEY: -- But none of them have received $260 million. Come on.
ARRIGHI: How much money has George Soros spent on Democratic politicians over his career? The man is ancient. It's probably a ton.
COATES: Well, let me refocus on the question I was asking, though, and why I think it's important, especially, Karen, on this point, because one of the points that T.W. just raised was it's based on the personal or decision relationship of Trump and Elon Musk. I'm paraphrasing you, of course, here, to decide whether he ought to meet with world leaders.
Am I naive to think that is actually the opposite of what's supposed to happen for non-elected officials from the billionaire perspective? I mean, I'm not a billionaire, but I would assume that a president would have a professional view of who should meet with world leaders in his stead or beside him.
FINNEY: Well, look, it was the best $260 million that Elon Musk has ever spent. He got a president for that money. He now is -- we've seen over the weekend, we see him attacking the U.K. with misinformation and disinformation. We -- you know, we see him deciding that he's going to, you know, support the far-right leader in Germany. That's very dangerous.
As someone who is known to be a buddy of the president, to president- elect, to sort of be trying to, you know, impose himself into the governments of other countries, countries who are our allies, countries with whom, to your point, we have a national interest, we have both whether it is national security interests, whether it is our diplomatic interests, whether it is our economic interests.
And so, those are the things on which President-elect Trump should be trying to make those decisions, not based on -- by the way, the question we should be asking for ourselves is, what's in it for Elon Musk? What are the things that he must as a billionaire, as someone who has government contracts, as someone who does business in a number of these countries, what's in it for him in that he's trying to influence the United States of America to basically continue to line his pockets?
COATES: Well, T.W., Karen, I got to tell you, if I am President-elect Trump, I'm furious to suggest that either I was bought or that I'm not the one running the country. We'll have to see how he views this in the next few weeks. Will we not? Nice to see both of you. Thank you so much.
ARRIGHI: Thank you for having me (ph).
COATES: Still ahead tonight, you notice anything different last night from the Golden Globes? How about a lot less politics and no mention of Donald Trump? Is this the new normal for Hollywood?
[23:45:00]
Well, Brian Stelter and Pete Dominick are live with me on that, next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: Hollywood's award season kicking off last night with the Golden Globes. First-time host, longtime celebrity roaster, Nikki Glaser, at the helm. But missing from the evening? Politics. The Golden Globes is known as the most relaxed award ceremony of the season, with a dinner table set up and drinks flowing. It makes for a looser vibe, but usually comes with not-so-subtle political commentary from the hosts and, of course, from the stars. But Glaser only had one political dig.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
NIKKI GLASER, COMEDIAN: Some of you may know me as a stand-up comedian and from my appearances on "Roast." But I am not here to roast you tonight. I want you to know that. And how could I, really? You're all so famous, so talented, so powerful. I mean, you could really do anything. I mean except tell the country who to vote for.
[23:50:00]
But it's okay. You'll --
(LAUGHTER)
You'll get them next time if there is one. I'm scared. Ariana, hold my finger.
(LAUGHTER)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: And as for the stars, nothing. Zip. Not a no politics whatsoever, which makes for quite a change from the past few years. Like in 2018, Vulture says the Golden Globes were the season two premiere of Hollywood's anti-Trump resistance. Or in 2017, Meryl Streep with this headline from CNN, Meryl Streep attacks Trump in Golden Globes exception speech. Hugh Laurie earning this from Entertainment Weekly, Hugh Laurie mocks Trump during Golden Globes acceptance speech. Or 2020 with this headline from Vanity Fair, Michelle Williams delivers powerful Golden Globes speech about women's rights.
And maybe the lack of politics this year is because this is the first award show following an election that will return Donald Trump to office. The New York Times making the point today, the movies that won awards speak for themselves. Quote -- "'Emelia Perez,' honored with four Globes, is a Spanish-language musical about trans identity. 'The Brutalist,' which received three, is an epic about immigrant struggles. 'Wicked,' which was given a newish award for best blockbuster, is about prejudices and the corruption of power."
But Hollywood's change of tune can't be explained away that easily. Here with me now, CNN chief media analyst Brian Stelter and comedian Pete Dominick. Good to see you both. Brian, let me start with you. Why -- why the change of tone? Is this a return to the don't upset a potential ticket buyer era of Hollywood?
BRIAN STELTER, CNN CHIEF MEDIA ANALYST, AUTHOR, SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT FOR VANITY FAIR: Well, I know that there are some entertainment critics, there are some media folks out there who are concerned about this, who say there's a chilling effect that has been, you know, influencing Hollywood, that has been hurting Hollywood. For example, the lack of support for the movie, "The Apprentice," which is a fictional portrayal of Trump. That movie in some ways has been shut out in Hollywood. And that is concerning, that maybe some studios were not interested in the film.
But I do think most of what's going on here, Laura, is what you just said. It's about entertainers. Artists thinking about consumers, trying to put the consumers front and center. And because right now we are in sort of the preseason, especially when it comes to the second Trump term, we don't know what's about to happen when he's inaugurated. I think that some of these actresses, some of these actors, some of these stars, they are in a wait and see mode, frankly, just like a lot of Americans. And I think a year from now, if Trump is doing things that are alienating the country, then by all means they probably will speak out. But right now, it's kind of viewed as too soon. Let's wait and see what happens.
COATES: Well, we'll see if that's the case. I mean, Pete, let's bring you in here. We saw Hollywood out in full force for Harris on the campaign trail. So, what's your take on the celebrity political commentary in general? Is this Hollywood in a wait and see mode or are they feeling like it's an exercise in futility and adopting that kind of, was that Michael Jordan mindset? They all buy Nikes? They all buy Jordans?
PETE DOMINICK, COMEDIAN: Yeah. He said, uh, Republicans buy my shoes, too, or something like that. Michael Jordan didn't want to alienate Republican buyers. But, you know, listen, I don't think that we need to take our political cues or activism from actors necessarily because why are they any smarter than anybody else? But, listen, I also think that they have huge platforms. So, I've always been supportive of anybody who spoke out when they had a huge platform like that.
Also, you know, I think a lot of us would do better to live by Dr. King's words when he said in the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies but the silence of our friends. But I think Brian, and you are right, you know, there is this wait and see.
And in March come the Academy Awards when Trump again is our authoritarian president. If families are being destroyed and torn apart, immigrant families, family separation, I think you're going to have a Meryl Streep and plenty of others up there on that stage.
But remember, these new studios, love to know what Brian thinks, we are probably out of time, but Amazon and Apple, those are the new studios and they're cozying up to Trump as are some of the rest. So, I think those are the new kings in town, these tech pros.
COATES: I do wonder what you take, Brian, and the idea of the content of that, which has been awarded, speaking for themselves, trans identity --
STELTER: Yeah, one of the most interesting announcements in the last two -- Amazon just announced their licensing a Melania Trump documentary.
COATES: Uh-hmm.
STELTER: I don't think there's a lot of demand for a Melania Trump documentary. But I think Amazon is trying to send a signal that it doesn't want to produce content for half the country, it wants to appeal to the entire country. That's what a lot of these moves are about right now.
COATES: Well, I'm going to play --
DOMINICK: Yeah, Apple is producing a Peter Navarro cooking show. I'm kidding! I'm kidding!
(LAUGHTER)
But, hey!
(LAUGHTER)
COATES: I kind of want to watch it, though. But let's listen to some of the highlights, by the way, from last night's show for those who may have been watching the Vikings-Detroit Lions game.
[23:55:01]
Listen.
DOMINICK: Yeah. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GLASER: And I, like, did not know much about "Wicked" going into this year because I had friends in high school. But I loved it.
(LAUGHTER)
The bear, the penguin, baby reindeer, these are not just things found in RFK's freezer. These are T.V. shows nominated tonight.
(LAUGHTER)
If you do lose tonight, please just keep in mind that the point of making art is not to win an award. The point of making art is to start a tequila brand so popular --
(LAUGHTER)
-- that you never have to make art again.
(LAUGHTER)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Brian, Pete, will she be back? Real quick, yes or no? Brian?
STELTER: Yes, absolutely. Rains were up from last year and that's an amazing accomplishment.
COATES: Pete, should she come back? Yes or no?
DOMINICK: Nikki is a friend. I've known her my whole career. She was pitch perfect. It'll be hers to turn down.
COATES: I love it. Thanks both of you for being here tonight. And hey, everyone out there, thank you so much for watching. "Anderson Cooper 360" is next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[00:00:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
