Return to Transcripts main page
Laura Coates Live
TikTok To Go Dark Unless Biden Intervenes, Kevin O'Leary Offers To Buy TikTok; Large-Scale Deportation Starts Tuesday; Judge Cannon Blocks Release Of Jack Smith' Report To Congress; Schumer Convinced Biden To Drop Out Of The Race; Woman Duped Of $850,000 Using AI Brad Pitt; Stephen King Wants The Academy Awards 2025 Cancelled. Aired 11p- 12a ET
Aired January 17, 2025 - 23:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[23:00:00]
UNKNOWN: The Galapagos is still wild and wonderful, and I was honoured I got to go there. Let's take care of our (inaudible) spaces.
ABBY PHILLIP, CNN ANCHOR AND SENIOR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: All right everybody. Go outside. Thank you very much. Thank you for watching "NewsNight." We'll see you tomorrow -- tomorrow morning, 10:00 a.m. Eastern Time with the conversation show right here at "Table For Five." Don't miss it. Thanks for watching. Have a great weekend. "Laura Coates Live" starts right now.
LAURA COATES, CNN HOST AND SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Breaking news tonight. TikTok's ultimatum. The company says it will now go dark this Sunday unless President Biden intervenes immediately. The shark trying to buy the company, Kevin O'Leary, will be my guest tonight.
Plus, deportations as early as Tuesday morning. The new report on how and where they'll be carried out.
And the private conversations to get Joe Biden to drop out now revealed in a stunning new book. The authors will be here tonight on "Laura Coates Live."
T-minus 25 hours until the social media app used by 170 million Americans alone is set to go away. And tonight, TikTok is threatening to go completely dark. That is, unless the Biden administration gives it total assurance it won't enforce the ban that is set to go effect on Sunday. Now, the Biden White House has signaled that it will not impose the ban, but TikTok, they want something more definitive. It's a final Hail Mary for the Chinese-owned company after the Supreme Court hit it with a potential death blow.
All nine justices -- let me repeat that, all nine justices today back the law that bans it unless it sells itself to an American buyer by Sunday's deadline. But hold your horses here because Donald Trump, he wants to save it even though he first suggested banning it four and a half years ago. The president-elect will take office the day after that ban takes effect and the big question is, can he even keep it alive? Let's run through his options, shall we? First, he could try to persuade TikTok's Chinese owner to sell it.
He's already (inaudible) executive order to get more time to find a suitable buyer. And in just a moment, I'll speak with the man who says he's the guy to be that buyer. "Mr. Wonderful," Kevin O'Leary, he's offering 20 billion in cash. Will TikTok take him up on that offer? Well, the company has given no indication that it's actually for sale. And it's almost certain China won't allow it to just hand over what makes TikTok so powerful.
It's the algorithm. It almost sounds like China's taking a page maybe out of "Mr. Wonderful's" book.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KEVIN O'LEARY, CHAIRMAN, O'LEARY VENTURES: You have not embraced the no. Steve, this thing is wah, wah, wah, wah, wah.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: But there is this. Trump says today that he spoke with China's president about TikTok, and now the company's CEO is doling out the praise in a currency that Trump understands. It's called flattery.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SHOU ZI CHEW, CEO TIKTOK: I want to thank President Trump for his commitment to work with us to find a solution that keeps TikTok available in the United States. We are grateful and pleased to have the support of a president who truly understands our platform. One who has used TikTok to express his own thoughts and perspectives, connecting with the world and generating more than 60 billion views of his content in the process.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Another important piece of the puzzle, TikTok's CEO is set to be at Trump's inauguration. Is there a deal to be made, maybe in person? All right, that was option one. Now here's option two. Trump could tell his incoming attorney general to not enforce the ban, but that's a risk for app stores and companies that host TikTok's content because they'd still technically be in violation of the law and wondering if they're going to be prosecuted for it.
Option number three, Trump could try to get Congress to repeal or change the law. But remember, it had huge bipartisan support, 360 to 58 were in favor. Lawmakers are seriously concerned about China being able to manipulate content or get data from American users. That gets us to what's behind door number four, the fourth scenario. We'll call it the wildcard. Trump could say that TikTok is complying with the law, whether it's true or not. That has its own legal risks.
Now look, those are just Trump's options. We don't know what TikTok will actually do. If it does decide to totally pull the plug come Sunday, what will that mean for the Americans who use it? Especially the creators, the small businesses that really rely on it for their livelihood and incomes. [23:05:01]
Well, with the clock ticking on TikTok, we may find out in just about a day. Okay, "The Shark Tank's" Kevin O'Leary. He is a chairman of O'Leary Ventures. Good to see you. The clock is ticking. You have made one heck of an offer, $20 billion in cash for TikTok. Have they said they want to accept your offer at all?
O'LEARY: Difficult situation because you've really detailed it well. The reason it goes dark is the servers, the American servers. Those companies, Oracle and others, have to abide by the law. So at 11:59 on the 19th, they will shut it down or they're going to be fined $5,000 per user every 12 hours, $1.7 billion. So they're not going to do that.
What we need to have happen here is the company should sign Frank McCourt's and Kevin O'Leary's LOI. The only one I know to be valid right now. The company has it, and ask Biden, President Biden, who has this right now, to give us a 90-day extension, which he's allowed to by the order of Congress from the original situation, it's built into the order. And then it becomes Trump's deal on 12:05. We need to work with both administrations.
I've got -- all my companies, 60 percent of their digital spend is on TikTok. Six and a half million American families make a living off this. We can't let this go dark. The path is clear. Unless someone else has an LOI they can sign so that Biden can actually grant the 90 days tomorrow, it's gonna go dark because no American service provider is gonna risk a billion seven fees, fines a day.
COATES: Sure. It's hurting for them to not risk it.
O'LEARY: But it's clear it has to happen.
COATES: Hold on, Kevin.
O'LEARY: I love the drop.
COATES: Hold on. I wanted to say one thing, though. LOI, just for our audience, letter of intent, I'm assuming. I remember going to break it down for everyone who doesn't have 20 billion in cash to offer to buy TikTok, right, number one. But the idea of why they've said, is it actually for sale? You may have a great offer, but are they saying that they -- are you having any indication that they want to even sell it? Or are they going to essentially go dark and say, look, based on what you've said, all the people who need it, all the Americans who rely on it for their livelihood, you guys figure it out because we know how valuable our asset might be.
O'LEARY: Ball is not in our court. The ball tonight for the next 20 hours is with Xi. He decides. He will give the decision as to whether or not the company can sell the assets excluding the algorithm which clearly today on a 9-0 decision by the Supreme Court said and if you look at paragraph on the bottom of page five and six of the actual opinion, we cannot buy the algorithm. That's clear. So, our offer --
COATES: Do you still want it without the algorithm?
O'LEARY: No, we don't. We can't buy it. It's clear. The Supreme Court has decided we cannot own the algorithm. McCourt and I have --
COATES: Is it still valuable for you though?
O'LEARY: -- said we will not buy it.
COATES: Is it still valuable without it to you?
O'LEARY: We think it's worth 20 billion. We're willing to talk about it. We don't know with certainty. We haven't seen the assets of the company. But the whole point is, everybody involved in this, Xi, Trump, six and a half million American businesses, we got to keep it lit up. We don't want to turn it off. So let's -- the path is clear. It's indicated in the original order of Congress.
Sign the LOI. The only LOI I know of is the McCourt-O'Leary LOI. Sign it, get the 90 day extension from Biden and let Trump administer it past 1205 on the 20th. This is the craziest situation you've ever seen. But all my companies are on this. Sixty percent of our digital spin. We can't let this go dark. And here's the thing that you really have to think about, because it really matters. It's not in our court. Xi and Trump, the two of them.
I suggest that if Xi lets this go dark, I think he's gonna make Trump unhappy. Not a good outcome for these two men who have a very, very difficult road ahead together. The right thing to do is to allow our syndicate to enter into an LOI to extend it. I don't think it's a good idea to piss Trump off. That's all I'm saying.
COATES: Well, one person you haven't mentioned is the TikTok CEO, who's going to be at the inauguration. We just heard him play a video. Some people say there's nothing like an in-person, eye-contact discussion to get a deal signed. Are you going to try to talk to him at the inauguration? That's where he's going to be.
[23:09:57]
O'LEARY: Listen, I will talk to anybody. Frank and I have been working on this. We stay awake 22 hours a night on this thing. We'll meet anybody. I'm going to meet -- I'm flying up to Washington in the morning, I think I'm meeting 20 senators and lawmakers, but it's really in Xi's court right now. It really is. And I would say to keep our two nations aligned, think about what you're doing here.
I mean, I know there's a lot of issues, I get all that, but when you think about the average American family, seven -- six and a half -- seven million of them making a living off this. I don't know. You really, really got to think about the future. And I think Trump and Xi have a special relationship. It's adversarial in some ways, cooperative in others. Trump and Xi are gonna decide this. It's Trump's deal at 12:05. Frank and I are going to work with Trump on this thing and the entire -- I mean, this is a Waltz thing. It's everybody's thing.
COATES: We'll see. It's not all --
O'LEARY: It's not good. It's not good.
COATES: Well, certainly I've heard from a number of content creators --
O'LEARY: It's not good to shut down small companies in America.
COATES: I hear your position.
O'LEARY: It's not good to shutdown small --
COATES: We'll see if they believe 20 billion is enough to be persuaded or if they want to sell. I want to turn -- Thank you, Kevin O'Leary.
O'LEARY: I didn't say it was.
COATES: I didn't say -- you said -- I said --
O'LEARY: We put it on the table.
COATES: I'm not the one you have to convince. I would take the 20 billion honey. I'm saying the people who need to actually make the decision about it, who are going to look at it and say, I didn't say it was up for sale. I know how powerful it is. You've already agreed that we don't have -- we don't have the leverage. The nature of the deal means that who has leverage will be able to make the best decision. I guess we'll see what happens. Thank you, Kevin.
O'LEARY: I'll give you 21 billion. Ready to go?
COATES: Now I'm making 30. (Inaudible) you like to talk. Thank you so much, Kevin. We'll talk again. I'm curious if he'll take your offer. I want to bring in Jamil Jaffer. He is the former associate counsel to President Bush on national security and he filed an amicus brief to the Supreme Court warning about the national security dangers of TikTok. Let me begin at this point with you, Jamil. The idea of Xi fearing irritating Trump, is that anywhere in his priority list?
JAMIL JAFFER, FORMER ASSOCIATE WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL TO GEORGE W. BUSH: Well, you know, I'm not sure if it's in his priorities, but what's interesting is exactly Kevin O'Leary, "Mr. Wonderful" just said, that President Xi is gonna make the decision. Zi Chew, the CEO of TikTok, doesn't matter. This is the proof that TikTok isn't controlled by ByteDance or the company. It's really a Chinese-governed asset designed to collect information on Americans, designed to send messages to American audiences from the Chinese Communist Party.
So Kevin O'Leary, he's right. And frankly, if Zi Chew signs the deal, great. Let it be sold to an American company. Let it be sold to Kevin O'Leary, Frank -- and Frank McCourt, and let's get it out of the Chinese Communist Party's hands and let American content creator's rule.
COATES: Let me play the role of the average TikTok user here who would say I'm using it to do dances, to look at content that is what I'm interested in, whether it's food prep or looking at what people do, ASMR, whatever it might be. I'm not looking at it to get actual hard news and content. So why should the average person who uses it believe the way that Congress has suggested? This is a national security. They're trying to manipulate information in order to give you -- and shape the content on the platform.
JAFFER: Two big problems, right? One, they can collect a tremendous amount of data on 175 million Americans. Everything on your phone, all your contacts, all your calendar information, all that stuff, plus --
COATES: Because the app is installed, therefore they have access to everything.
JAFFER: And you consent to all these things. In addition, even when you don't consent to being able to turn on the microphone, we know that TikTok can turn on microphones remotely without even -- even though you said no, right? But then you add on top of that this messaging piece, right? Think about what China can do if it controls the messages that are coming to you through TikTok. We don't see a lot of content about Tiananmen Square. We don't see a lot of content about Tibet. We saw them push that narrative about Osama Bin Laden's letter to America being right after October 7th.
So we know the Chinese Communist Party uses TikTok to message to American audiences. In fact, when the ban was passed in Congress, TikTok sent a message to all 170 million American users, call Congress, try to stop the ban. They're literally lobbying on this platform and that's part of the problem.
COATES: I spoke to a content creator just yesterday and here's what he thinks about this idea of national security concerns. Listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BRIAN FIREBAUGH, TIKTOK CREATOR, SUED TO PREVENT BAN: If it was truly a national security concern let's face it, President Biden, Vice President Kamala Harris and Donald Trump would not be actively campaigning on that app. This is predominantly the federal government wanting to control the narrative. And if they can't control the narrative, they're just simply going to shut it down.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[23:14:58]
COATES: What do you think?
JAFFER: Well look, I respect his view, but the reality is a 9-0 majority in the Supreme Court decided he was wrong, a 3-0 majority on the D.C. Circuit, and over nearly 400 members of Congress. One of the most bipartisan, nearly unanimous decisions across both the House and the Senate. So look, I get his position, I understand the perspective, but at the end of the day, the truth is what Kevin O'Leary said, right?
COATES: Well, Trump -- it's okay, finish your point. JAFFER: Look, the Chinese government is deciding who buys it and who
sells it, because it's a Chinese state asset at the end of the day.
COATES: Trump passing discretion here though he could simply say that it has been divested. He's got a lot of discretion over whether that's actually accomplished or not. He has the sole discretion so he could conceivably suggest oh, I looked at it, it's a divestiture, it's back online. We'll see.
JAFFER: You're right, he could.
COATES: Jamil Jaffer, thank you so much. I'm gonna hold Kevin O'Leary to his $21 billion offer. Up next, the indoor inauguration and the new reporting on what happens the day after, as the city of Chicago gets wind of what could be the very first deportation raids of Donald Trump's second term.
Plus, Merrick Garland's plan to get the classified documents report out to Congress. But the big question now is, will Judge Eileen Cannon go for it? That's ahead.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:20:00]
COATES: New tonight, the "Wall Street Journal" reporting the incoming Trump administration is set to carry out mass deportations as early as Tuesday in Chicago. The targets will be undocumented migrants, immigrants with criminal backgrounds, they're saying. Donald Trump, of course, promises this during the campaign. And tonight, his borders are, is making sure that everyone is on notice of that fulfillment.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TOM HOMAN, TRUMP'S PICK FOR BORDER CZAR: It's going to be a big raid all across the country. Chicago is just one of many places. On Tuesday, you're going to expect ICE. ICE is finally going to go out and do their job. We're going to take the handcuffs off ICE and let them go arrest criminal aliens.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Joining me now is CNN senior political commentator and former senior spokesperson for Hillary Clinton's 2016 presidential campaign, Karen Finney. And CNN senior political commentator and former special assistant to President George W. Bush, Scott Jennings, fresh off the Bluegrass Ball tux and all, everyone. Although, I appreciate you dressed up for the show today. Thank you.
SCOTT JENNINGS, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: If (inaudible) doesn't work out, I'll be waiting tables at a nearby fancy restaurant. I'll take your orders. It'll be fine.
COATES: Tip your waitresses. Order the fish. I'm glad that you're here. Let's ask you this question first, Scott, because the "Wall Street Journal" reports that, you know, essentially if you were to throw out the net that wide, you're going to understandably catch people who are not criminals, who have not committed a crime. Is this the right tactic on day one, given that he has stated the priorities of focusing on a select demographic?
JENNINGS: Well, first of all, if you came into the country illegally, by definition you are a criminal of some kind, A. B, it's been made pretty clear the priority is to find people who are here who have otherwise, criminal records on top of that, have committed violent crimes. And see, this is what the American people voted for. They want this situation controlled. It's out of control.
You've got millions of people flow into the country, including a lot of violent people. If they succeed right out of the gate in catching those folks, yes, this is what the bureaucracy is for though, is to help sort this out. But you can't let, in my opinion, the perfect be the enemy of the good. And the good right here is to get immigration crisis under control in this country.
COATES: Bureaucracy, though, often takes coordination at the state and federal level. And I'm not hearing any reporting that there has been that coordination quite yet at the local level. Do you have concerns about what that will look like? And Democrats will be pretty tested about what they're prepared to do to say no.
KAREN FINNEY, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, look, I mean, we've been hearing, frankly, since the election, teachers are concerned about children who may go home and a parent isn't there, or are they going to come into houses of worship? Are they going to -- like the questions about just the logistics of how this is going to work is certainly both terrifying a lot of communities across this country? But yeah, there's a huge logistical concern, and we're not really hearing details about, are they at least in contact with local law enforcement?
Obviously in some of the blue, you know, I know they've said there's not going to be any sanctuary cities. Well, okay, but there's still a police force in that city that needs to be made aware of what it is you're going to try to do. And so that would be my concern. And I would say that I think -- I hope the president's team is really giving this thoughtful consideration because it could be a debacle on day one. It could be a mess. It could be -- it could go smoothly. It could be -- I don't think it will, but I think how -- what does it look like and what does it feel like in communities across the country?
Yes, people voted because they wanted -- in part, because they wanted to get this situation, you know, dealt with the way that Trump has talked about it. But what that looks like and how that goes down will matter a great deal.
JENNINGS: I think, look, we've had deportations in this country before. I mean, President Obama deported millions upon millions of people from the country. It can be done. It's just that it hasn't been a priority for the last four years. But it is a priority now. And the fact that they're going to get started on their priority on the first day ought to be a signal to the American people and to localities. As you all pointed out, that this administration is serious. This is not lip service. This is not campaign rhetoric. This is serious and the people ask for it and they're going to deliver it.
And yeah, look, I mean, when you're doing something this big, could you have, you know, speed bumps out there or, or problems? Of course, anytime the government's doing anything, you could have a problem.
[23:24:57]
But by and large, I think they have the capacity to do what they said they were going to do, start with the violent criminals who were out roaming the streets, start there, and I think people will be happy with that.
COATES: That's part of the concern in terms of the first question I asked you. If you're prioritizing violent criminals and you say that everyone is a criminal, but they have articulated a list and an order of who they think should be prioritized. I'm not a fan of the arbitrary, the first 100 days, and let's study it to exhaustion. It's kind of an arbitrary notion, but I am interested in if the campaign rhetoric said day one and you're not prepared for day one, are you just trying to fulfill a campaign promise when you could do it more effectively with more thought, with more planning?
FINNEY: It has become performative. I mean, just for the scenes of people being pulled out of buildings for the cameras without having -- without saying, you know what, let's take three days and make sure we are briefing people so they know this is how it's gonna go, this is what's gonna happen, so that there is some level of coordination. I think that's what --
COATES: Does it risk it?
JENNINGS: Look, I think that you know who the violent people are. And look, there's also like 1.6 million people that already have deportation orders from the courts. You know who those people are. So there's obviously a large pool to start with. I'm not sure what we'd be waiting for. I do agree that you need good local coordination. I am concerned that some people in some localities, some local officials have already said they won't cooperate or that they'll try to stop what's happening. That would be a huge, huge mistake because this is a top priority for the American people.
COATES: Speaking of numbers, by the way, we're going to see less people at the inauguration because it's going to be moving indoors. We remember he was very concerned about the size of the crowd and he wants to confirm that people know about the mandate he believes he has. Is it a mistake to move it indoors at the risk of not having everyone who is traveling to be here able to be there?
JENNINGS: Yeah, it's a huge disappointment for a lot of people who wanted to see this, but it's not a mistake because it is going to be super cold. It's dangerous to human beings, dangerous to, you know, like the horses and stuff that they'll have out there. It's the right call even though it's a huge disappointment. Millions upon millions of people will watch it around the world. And if I had to give them any advice it would be maybe in March or April when it gets a little warmer around here, schedule something on the mall and bring all your people back and give them the celebration that they want.
COATES: I'm from Minnesota. I'm rolling my eyes of a cold. Okay. I mean, it's cold.
JENNINGS: The president is from Florida now.
COATES: It is cold.
COATES: Used to be in New Yorker. (Inaudible). It's cold. Whatever.
FINNEY: We don't want anybody freezing.
COATES: We do not. We do not.
FINNEY: We don't want that.
COATES: Everyone should be safe. So why don't you stay home and watch CNN. We'll be covering it all day long.
FINNEY: Oh, there you go.
JENNINGS: You'll be here?
COATES: We begin Saturday morning to see how that goes. See all you there. Karen Finney, Scott Jennings, thank you both so much. Up next, will she, or won't she? Judge Eileen Cannon facing new pressure to release the classified documents report before Trump takes office. The major clue we just got from a hearing today.
And later, a new book spilling the tea on what it was like to get Joe Biden to step down, revealing never before heard conversations between top Democrats and the president himself. The book's authors will join me tonight.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:30:00]
COATES: With about 60 hours or so left in the Biden presidency, time is ticking for the DOJ to send to Congress the special counsel's report into Donald Trump's classified documents case. But Judge Eileen Cannon doesn't seem to be in a rush to release it at all. She argues the case is still very much alive. Yes, she dismissed the charges against Trump and his aides, Walt Nauta and Carlos de Oliveira, but the DOJ is appealing that, remember? They're trying to revive the case against at least the two aides for now.
And Cannon argues releasing the report could actually prejudice them and their presumption of innocence. As she put it, quote, "At the end of the day, what's the urgency of doing this right now?" However, Democrats argue there's plenty of urgency. They fear Trump's DOJ will end the case and, and stop the report from ever seeing the light of day once he takes office on Monday. The AG, Merrick Garland, has proposed sharing it with the leaders of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees and swearing them to secrecy. But Cannon doesn't seem to buy that pinky swear guarantee either. With
me now, CNN legal analyst, Elliot Williams. Elliot, good to see you here. Okay. There is responsibility for the special counsel to provide a report. Then the AG hands it over to Congress. That's supposed to be the way it goes. Cannon is saying no. Does she have any right to do so?
ELLIOT WILLIAMS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: You know, for the first time, I think Judge Eileen Cannon, who's overseeing this case, is onto something. And I think she's right here. And I say this after having watched her sort of mismanage a lot of aspects of the case. It's hard to plausibly make an argument for releasing a report that contains investigative materials and all kinds of things that can hurt the reputations of criminal defendants while they have cases pending. And if there is a chance that these people are going to be prosecuted, it's just not -- it's not the right time to release the report.
COATES: And the thought is people are saying, well, it's, it's kind of an exercise. And so they're not going to stay being prosecuted because they'll have a new DOJ head. Trump won't allow this to happen. But that speculation is not convincing to her because it could go a different way as well.
WILLIAMS: It could absolutely. And this idea, and you see this in a lot of contexts where Congress can say, well, just trust us. We can keep a secret. You know, and the law requires, that members of Congress can see these reports. And by the way, you know, this isn't a release to the public and we'll watch it at the Justice Department. We won't have our phones on us. Come on. It's a release to people who are not investigators and it's not entirely proper to do so.
[23:34:57]
COATES: So follow this thread. Say you've got a new attorney general, likely Pam Bondi, and she has a report and doesn't want to hand it over, even after the case has been dismissed against these two, presumably. Can Congress then subpoena it?
WILLIAMS: Oh, that's an interesting question, if Congress can subpoena it. Now the law says that the attorney general, I believe, shall turn it over to Congress, but what's to stop the attorney general from not doing so? Quite frankly, what's to stop Merrick Garland or anybody else in the Justice Department from just reading it publicly right now? Now, they might be held in contempt of Congress because they're breaking the law. Get a president to pardon you.
I mean, it's just -- we're at a world now, Laura, where the hypotheticals are of such that, you know, the rules kind of don't apply anymore based on where we are in the pursuit of justice right now on all sides. And so the question is what is to stop the future attorney general from not handing it over to Congress or the public or the current one from just saying, well YOLO I'm just going to -- I want to get this information out there and he could probably do it if he wanted.
COATES: If Merrick Garland says YOLO all of a sudden, I'm going back live for a second. Elliot Williams, thank you so much. Up next, an upcoming new book, it's making a huge splash with an extraordinary account on what it was actually like, actually like to get President Joe Biden to step down. The book revealing what Senator Schumer did, what Obama said, and the one fateful conversation that may have sealed the deal. The book's authors are live with me in studio, next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:40:00]
COATES: Let's turn back the clock to the summer, back to those fateful three weeks when Democrats worried about President Biden's campaign. Well, tonight, the "New York Times" ruling there was much more to the pressure that Biden faced to quit the race than was ever first known. Now, publicly, Senator Chuck Schumer said that he had the president's back.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNKNOWN: Are you confident that President Biden has what it takes to win in November and serve the next four years?
SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER (D-NY): As I've said before, I'm with Joe.
UNKNOWN: There might be a challenge at the convention, and if there is, is there the ability to throw out the virtual nomination?
SCHUMER: As I've said before, I'm with Joe.
UNKNOWN: Senator Murray, who just left, made a statement last night saying that she believes that Biden needs to do more to demonstrate that he's strong enough to defeat Donald Trump. Do you agree with her sentiment?
SCHUMER: As I've said before, I'm with Joe.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: I think he's with Joe. Well, privately, Schumer was not with Joe. In fact, the "Times" report, Schumer told the president, quote, "If I were you, I wouldn't run. And I'm urging you not to run." A week later, the president dropped out of that race. "The New York Times" reporters behind that scoop join me now. Congressional correspondents Annie Carney and Luke Broadwater. Their reporting comes from their brand new upcoming book, "Madhouse: How Donald Trump, MAGA Mean Girls, a Former Used Car Salesman, a Florida Nepo baby, and a Man with Rats in his Walls Broke Congress." I like that title. It's good, it's very catchy, very quick.
Let me start with you, Annie, on this. Take us inside that 45-minute conversation when he technically was with Joe, but he wasn't supporting him.
ANNIE KARNI, CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT, NEW YORK TIMES: No, this was a conversation that came a few weeks after the debate. He had tried to hold off senators for as long as possible from going public, but they were not going to hold any longer. And he requested this private meeting, one-on-one meeting with Biden, at his Rehoboth's beach house. They sit on the porch, a fenced-in porch overlooking a pond.
And this was a conversation, probably the hardest conversation Schumer's had in a four-decade career in politics, when he literally wrote on notecards what he planned to say and practiced it on the drive from Brooklyn to Delaware, and then sat with him and outlined for him everything that senators were worried about and said to him to his face, if you run and you lose to Trump and we lose the House and we lose the Senate, you will go down in history as one of the darkest figures in politics. And here we are.
COATES: It was this four-hour journey. He was practicing the entire time, right?
KARNI: Yes.
COATES: But also, he appealed to the legacy component, which would appeal to somebody like President Biden. But he also gave details about how many people in the caucus, he said, if there was a vote today, you might have five?
LUKE BROADWATER, CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT, NEW YORK TIMES: Yeah, I mean, that's one of the shocking things that really stood out from that conversation is, Chuck Schumer knows his senators better than anybody. And at the time, some people were grumbling about Joe Biden behind the scenes, but the fact that all but five would have been in favor of him dropping out I think is going to be a surprise to most Americans when they read this book, and the fact that he put that directly to Biden I think really drove home the point.
COATES: At one point Biden was quoted as saying you've got bigger balls than anyone I've ever met, but I had to keep wondering when reading it, why was he the messenger? You intimate that President Obama thought he could not be the messenger because he believed that Biden had a chip on his shoulder because he had supported Hillary Clinton.
KARNI: Yeah, so there was like only a small group of people who could go to the president directly and have a conversation like this at all. Pelosi was one of them and we saw what she did. She did it more publicly. But Hakeem Jeffries, Barack Obama, and Chuck Schumer really talking to three of them about how to strategize about what to do. They all thought he needed to leave. But the question was, how do we not get his back up?
And Obama came to Chuck Schumer and said, you know, my relationship with Biden is fragile. There's still a chip of resentment for the fact that Obama backed Hillary Clinton in 2016 and told him not to run then.
[23:45:04]
So he said, you know, me coming again and saying again, like, not you, I might not be the messenger. You might be a better one. So Obama was pushing Schumer to be the one to go to Rehoboth and have this conversation, understanding that like if he heard it from him, it might not have the desired effect and they all agreed that the desired effect, no matter if they said I'm with Joe in public or not, was that Joe would step aside.
COATES: Two things interested me in particular, one was that it seemed as though the debate, which of course everyone points to as that turning point, that was almost a convenient excuse for Schumer to convey that he did not want him to run. And also, you know, it's Pelosi who's gotten a lot of the blame or maybe the credit, depending on how you look at this. In fact, it was Dr. Jill Biden who expressed his disappointment in an interview with "The Washington Post" saying something like, "We were friends for 50 years. It was disappointing." It sounds like it was Schumer as well. Why is it just Pelosi who has been identified as the person who did it?
BROADWATER: Well, I think Pelosi was the most public. The comments that she made on television really caught people's attention whereas Schumer and Jeffries and some of these other Democrats worked more behind the scenes. And the fact that Jeffries going into the meeting said -- had concluded it was irretrievable that Democrats could be successful in the election with Biden at the top of the ticket, I think is another revealing thing from this article.
KARNI: I also think they all have different roles. First of all, Hakeem Jeffries and Chuck Schumer at the time were in leadership. Pelosi is in an emeritus role. It gives her a little more freedom to go on TV and say the things she said. That would have different meaning if she had still been the minority leader or the Speaker of the House. She couldn't do it with that much freedom. She's also a peer to Biden. Same age, they've been friends for 50 years.
Jeffries is young enough to be his grandson and Chuck Schumer is like still in Biden's eyes a junior senator to him. Like, you know, so there's different levels of power here that we're talking about. And I think that Pelosi going public and being like really the peer and the longtime friend was the most maybe personally hurtful to the Bidens. I think the other ones, they -- less of a personal connection there.
COATES: Well, what about the Vice President, Kamala Harris, who obviously went on to become the one to secure the nomination? There was a moment when Biden was asking -- asked two questions during the course of the conversation, whether he thought Kamala Harris could really win. Tell me about that.
BROADWATER: Yeah, it's the only thing Biden says to Schumer during this whole 45-minute speech Schumer is giving. He's thinking about the election, and I think there's some doubt in his mind whether Kamala Harris can pull it off. And Schumer's response is, I don't know, but she has a better chance than you. And, you know, that was the kind of -- it's kind of damning praise, but its -- they were really in a tough situation. And now I think looking back, they all think they should have done this months ahead of time to try to have a better campaign.
COATES: Well, what was behind that question? I mean, if you can sort of take us in to what you know about the room. Was it that he doubted that she could win or wondered if she could win? Because she's the vice president --
KARNI: Right.
COATES: -- but it sounds like, and I don't know how to read his statements, did he not believe in her ability or he thought that he was questioning whether others thought she could do it?
KARNI: I think he questioned whether she could beat -- her ability to beat Trump. And I think he -- still, I mean, we saw his interview with "USA Today."
COATES: Yeah.
KARNI: He said, I believe like today, he thinks he could have beaten Trump. So, he was questioning her ability to have a better chance than he did. He still thought, I'm the guy who beat Trump, I'm the guy who can beat Trump. And, you know, Schumer had to tell him, like, I don't know, but basically, she has a better chance than you. You haven't talked to your pollsters, I have. They are saying you have a 5 percent chance of winning.
So it was a blunt -- a very bluntly delivered message. And one thing that struck me on the human level is that, you know, Chuck Schumer's been in a lot of high stakes political situations, but when he left that meeting and got back in the car and called his aides to tell them what happened, he just broke out in tears.
And like, it was -- it's a really hard thing to do, to sit with the president of your own party, who's again, a senior to you, and tell him, I urge you to not run. I mean, that -- it's unprecedented in ways. You don't think about these people always as humans. And it was a tough human moment there.
COATES: Especially when you knew what you had said in front of the cameras. We'll see.
KARNI: Right.
COATES: More about this. This is a really fascinating book and read. Thank you both so much. Annie Karni, Luke Broadwater. Still ahead, the catfishing -- I'm gonna call it the scheme of the century in that realm. Scammers using AI photos of Brad Pitt to dupe one woman out of nearly a million bucks.
[23:49:57]
The real Brad Pitt is now weighing in, and my next guests have a lot to say on all of it. They're next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BRAD PITT, ACTOR: So you and I, if we were married -- no, for example, okay? If you and I were married, I'd want to give you what you need. That's all. I'm talking about taking care of each other the best you can. What's wrong with taking care of a woman? She takes care of you.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Well, that was the real Brad Pitt in a fictional love story. And now on your screen, fake AI-generated Brad Pitt photos that duped a real woman into a faux, not real love relationships.
[23:54:57]
Scammers posing as Pitt swindled a 53-year-old woman in France out of, get this, $850,000 in an unbelievable catfishing scheme, a loan, the fake Brad Pitt supposedly needed for cancer treatment. The woman even divorced her own husband. The hoax prompting the real Brad Pitt to issue a statement. "It's awful that scammers take advantage of fans' strong connection with celebrities, but this is an important reminder to not respond to unsolicited online outreach, especially from actors who have no social media presence."
Let's bring in host of "Boston Globe Today," Segun Oduolowu, and host of "Stand Up With Pete Dominick" podcast, Pete Dominick. I know both of you have many thoughts, but I got to tell you, this woman says, quote, "I just wanted to help someone. And yes, I've been scammed. That's why I came forward, because I'm not the only one in this situation." I got to tell you, as crazy as it seems, I feel so badly this woman that it was duped this way. Pete, what do you think?
PETE DOMINICK, COMEDIAN: I mean, I feel bad for other people. She must have some kind of mental illness. If it were me, I wouldn't have told anybody. There's a special place in hell for any of these scammers. But good God, Laura, how could you possibly -- I mean, he doesn't even have the same hairstyle or length of hair in any of these pictures. And is nobody going to ask about her poor husband? The woman left her husband for fake Brad Pitt, Laura. Do you think I could pull this off, by the way?
COATES: I don't know. I knew you were going to ask that question because I think you were looking at the hair and thought, could I do this? But Segun, let me ask you because yes, I think there is special place in hell for people who do this sort of scamming. And she didn't know better, she says. I know people are wondering and they're actually -- they're going in on her online about this, but the idea that someone could actually do this.
SEGUN ODUOLOWU, HOST, BOSTON GLOBE TODAY: And they should, Laura.
COATES: You think so?
DOMINICK: They -- yes, they should. Look, I'm not for harassment, right. But laughter and mockery, I'm here for it on this case because as Pete said, she divorced her husband. Look, Segun Oduolowu is not my stage name. My Nigerian brethren have made a cottage industry out of scamming people. So again, I know this game pretty well, never done it, but I know it. She gave this man money. A Google search would have said Brad Pitt doesn't have cancer. A Google search would have said Brad Pitt's not in the hospital. So if you had the temerity, and I love that word, temerity to divorce
your husband, then come forward and say you were scammed, the husband got scammed, okay? He thought he had married an honest woman who secretly loved him when in fact she was secretly lusting after Brad Pitt. You can't con honest people. There's always some type of nefarious bone in their body. She was looking to trade up from what she was sleeping next to what she wanted to be with and, Laura, I'm sorry.
COATES: Wow.
ODUOLOWU: No, no, no. Look --
COATES: This seems oddly triggering for you Segun. I got to tell you, number one. Number two, I think it's -- I mean, if the criteria for her being mocked in this way and treated is because she, as (inaudible) lusted after Brad Pitt, I think half the country, after "Legends of the Fall" are gonna fall into that category as well.
ODUOLOWU: Well, listen, my wife might be looking at me wishing it was Idris Elba, but if Idris had broken legs, she's not gonna send him money for a cast. That's all I'm saying. You can't give nearly your life savings away off an AI scam and then plead ignorance. She was a professional woman. We should also mention that. She was an interior designer and a simple few keystrokes to find out about Brad Pitt would've stopped all of this. This was a woman who was hoping, hoping to leave the man she was with and they divorced. So salute to him too. He got away clean.
COATES: I feel bad for her, I'll just say. I feel bad for her. I think this is horrible that someone would scam someone this way. I don't know what she's coming to the table with, but it makes me feel bad. I wonder if Brad Pitt will offer to pay. I'm sure he won't. But I want to ask a different question, Pete, because I feel like this was very triggering for both of you. As Hollywood continues to grapple with the devastating wildfires, you got legendary author Stephen King, who is delivering a blunt seven word message for all of Tinseltown. "No glitz with Los Angeles on fire." He's urging the Oscars to cancel ceremony. Should they?
DOMINICK: I mean you're asking me to disagree with the great Stephen King, who is brilliant and an amazing American, but no they shouldn't cancel. I mean this country, this culture, this world needs happiness right now. Award shows aren't my bag watching actors do these, but a lot of people love this stuff and its gonna bring money into Southern California.
And I think those folks themselves could use the joy. I'm never one to say no to joy. I understand why Stephen King is saying this, but I absolutely think they got to have the Academy Awards in Hollywood.
COATES: Okay, Segun, if joy is what's being sought, you had a woman who was trying to find joy in her life. Did it change your mind at all?
[23:59:56] ODUOLOWU: Oh, wait, no, not at all. And I got to disagree with you, Pete, because what this award show could be used for is to raise money, right. Let's do a telethon. Let's do a telecast. Let's have the studios match dollar for dollar if people are going to call in. But when you're looking at thousand dollar gowns and tuxedos on a red carpet when people have lost their homes, let's put a real face on this fire in Los Angeles.
Let's talk about the community in Altadena, not just the past -- the Palisades. So, I don't think the Oscars -- I don't think it's time for that. I agree with Stephen, no glitz when people have lost everything they have.
COATES: Tone deaf wouldn't be the first time in Tinseltown. We'll see. Segun Oduolowu, Pete Dominick, thank you both for all of you said today. Thank you also, everyone out there for watching. "Anderson Cooper 360" is next.
