Return to Transcripts main page
Laura Coates Live
New GOP Opposition Emerges Against Pete Hegseth; Trump Makes Threats on World Stage in Davos Address; Judge Blocks Trump's Bid to End Birthright Citizenship; Trump Orders Release of Unredacted JFK Assassination Files; Is Hollywood Sending a Message to Trump? Aired 11p-12a ET
Aired January 23, 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]
ABBY PHILLIP, CNN ANCHOR AND SENIOR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: Chuck is looking at me like --
ARTHUR AIDALA, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Now you know you made it, right? I mean --
CHUCK ROCHA, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST, FORMER SENIOR ADVISER FOR BERNIE SANDERS'S 2016 AND 2020 PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGNS: It all depends on how much money was on the line, like, if he was going to win a new house, I'd be like, no, ain't no way.
PHILLIP: The good news is it wasn't that much money.
JULIE ROGINSKY, CO-FOUNDER, LIFT OUR VOICES: It also proves my point that if you went to Harvard, you got to jam in that you went to Harvard in possible way. That's a Harvard affliction you guys all have.
VAN LATHAN, PODCAST HOST: That was a humble brag that you were on Jeopardy.
(APPLAUSE)
ROCHA: I'm doing the same thing.
PHILLIP: Everybody except for Van.
(LAUGHTER)
PHILLIP: Thanks for watching "NewsNight." "Laura Coates Live" starts right now.
LAURA COATES, CNN HOST AND SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Tonight, sudden drama around President Trump's pick for defense secretary. There are new cracks that, apparently, are emerging this evening, and what it could actually mean for those who are voting no on Pete Hegseth.
Plus, there's a major roadblock in Trump's push to end birthright citizenship, and it's not just the Constitution, it's a judge who blocked it and is not pulling any punches. And who really killed JFK? President Trump making a move tonight that could maybe get us closer to getting the clearing and clearing the air once and for all. Tonight, once and for all, on "Laura Coates Live."
President Trump is testing the limits of his power during his first week in office for the second time around. And tonight's question, will Republicans keep rank and stick with him as he wields the power? And if not, what is their breaking point?
We now know what that point is for at least two of them. Republican Senators Lisa Murkowski and Susan Collins voting now against Pete Hegseth's nomination for secretary of defense. Now, Hegseth did clear a major hurdle today, clearing a procedural vote that puts him on track to being confirmed. It could happen, frankly, as soon as even tomorrow night. But Murkowski and Collins are giving a thumbs down, and they're citing his character and his lack of experience as the reason why.
And tonight, we're learning Hegseth, apparently, paid $50,000 to the woman who accused him of sexual assault back in 2017. That's according to documents obtained by CNN. Now, Hegseth denies her allegations. He says he reached a settlement with the woman to prevent her from tarnishing his career.
Now, it's unlike this will derail any part of his confirmation, but losing the support of two GOP senators isn't nothing either. As for what the president says about Murkowski and Collins --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: No surprises there. It's too bad. The way -- the way it is, too bad.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: No surprises there. But could there be a surprise for some of Trump's other controversial picks? He can only afford to lose three Republican votes. Now, two have shown they're willing to go their own way.
While Trump's grip in Congress may not actually be as ironclad as he wants, he is trying to flex his strength in other areas, like deciding who gets to keep Secret Service protection. We're learning now that Trump has revoked the security detail for his former secretary of state, Mike Pompeo. It was just yesterday that he took away the former national security advisor, John Bolton, and his security. Both had been getting threats from Iran. And in Trump's telling, protection has a time limit.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: When you have protection, you can't have it for the rest of your life. If you want to have a large detail of people guarding people for the rest of their lives, I mean, there are risks to everything.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Joining me now, former Republican congressman from Alabama, Mo Brooks. Congressman, thank you for joining us this evening. A lot of questions around the why. I mean, first, it was John Bolton's detail. Now, the former secretary of state, Mike Pompeo. Both have been the subject of serious Iranian threats. Is he doing this out of spite or what do you think his motivation is?
MO BROOKS, FORMER ALABAMA REPRESENTATIVE: Well, that's the question that I hope members of Congress and both the House and the Senate will determine. I know Mike Pompeo personally. I've served with him in the House of Representatives. He is one of the most intellectual and honest people I've had the pleasure to work with in Washington, D.C.
He did the bidding of Donald Trump in Donald Trump's first term as his secretary of state. As a consequence, Mike Pompeo and perhaps his family has been the subject of various threats, some terrorist, some you got to take seriously, and I hope the president is not making a mistake by hanging Mike Pompeo out there, a man who served honorably on behalf of Donald Trump as the secretary of state from 2017 to 2020.
COATES: As far as we know, he has been supported, at least publicly, of him to this day. But John Bolton, in stark contrast, has been very critical of the now president of the United States. But you haven't heard a lot from Republicans. They have been conspicuously silent on this.
[23:05:01]
Is there a Republican, you think, that's willing to go out and criticize Trump on Capitol Hill now for doing just this?
BROOKS: Well, the vast majority of Republicans and Democrats in the House of Representatives and the United States Senate would have difficulty finding as good a job elsewhere, and they're going to do everything they can to make sure that they maximize their chances of getting re-elected.
And what you're looking at right now is this calculation. Where am I more at risk, in a republican primary or a general election? If they're more at risk in a republican primary, Donald Trump has shown that he's pretty good at taking out conservative Republicans. But if their danger is in a republican primary, then they better go with Donald Trump no matter what he says or they're very much at risk of not being reelected.
Those who are in battleground Senate seats or House seats, the equation is a little bit different. It's not the republican primary that is of greatest concern, it's the general election, and so they have a different calculus they have to go through.
COATES: I have to say, that is very discouraging, to think about that calculus, because nowhere in that equation was there -- on behalf of the people of the United States or their actual jurisdiction. I understand that politics has that particular aspect of it, of trying to remain in power. But that quest for power means they're going to be compromised in other ways and trying to do what maybe they think is right. In fact, including maybe protecting those who have been doing their jobs and now have it rescinded.
BROOKS: You know, I have a difference of opinion with Democrats. So, when they disagree with me, I get that, because they have an entirely different philosophy of government.
COATES: Uh-hmm.
BROOKS: What really got me upset in Washington, D.C., in the 12 years I served in the House is these Republicans who would say one thing in elections in order to win those elections, and then just totally disregard what they had advocated while they're in Washington, D.C.
And the reason they do that, the primary reason, is the game in Washington, D.C. is about cash. For example, you probably already know this, but if you want to be considered for a major committee in the House of Representatives, generally, the initial bid price is over a million dollars. And you can't get that from Joe and Jane citizen. You got to get that from special interests. And the quid pro quo involved there corrupts the public policy debate on both sides of the aisle.
COATES: Money, unfortunately, does make the world go around. But many would like it to be out of politics completely. I know you have concerns there as well, congressman. You were actually at The Ellipse on January 6th, and you were urging the crowd to stop at the Capitol. Trump just pardoned more than 600 rioters who assaulted or resisted police officers at the Capitol. What is your opinion? Given I know that you have had a changed relationship with the now president of the United States, Donald Trump, but what's your take on the fact that he has pardoned those people?
BROOKS: I got two reactions. One is kudos to Donald Trump in that he promised during the campaign that he's going to pardon all these people, and he kept his promise. There aren't enough politicians in Washington that do that.
If it had been me, there is no way in the world I would have pardoned anyone who violently attacked law enforcement officers, and that's because I believe in law and order. I don't believe in going after people as Republicans when there are Democrats, like Black Lives Matter and whatnot in the arsons and riots of 2020, much like I don't believe Democrats going after and seeking enhanced punishment against Republicans in 2021 and thereafter.
Justice is supposed to be fair. We should treat everybody the same. But that's clearly not the case over the last four or five years.
COATES: We'll see how the incoming A.G. will view all this and the idea of the accusations of a weaponized Department of Justice. Former Congressman Mo Brooks, thank you for joining this evening.
BROOKS: My pleasure.
COATES: I want to continue our conversation with senior politics reporter for Axios, Marc Caputo, former communications director for Vice President Kamala Harris, Ashley Etienne, and Republican strategist Liam Donovan here as well. Good to have you all here.
Liam, let me start with you here, because there has been an evolution from some Republicans as it relates to President Trump. They once had a cozy, and now they have a more strained relationship. You hear Congressman Brooks talking about Trump. What do you make of the evolution towards him?
LIAM DONOVAN, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST, FORMER NATIONAL REPUBLICAN SENATORIAL COMMITTEE AIDE: Well, I think it is a striking shift from 2017 to 2025 here, especially as it relates to these nominees. I mean, you had similar situations with people like Andrew Puzder, who has lost the history of this when actually, I think, he has been nominated for an ambassadorial post, but he was in a similar situation and his nomination was scuttled because of some of the allegations.
This is a situation where this party has consolidated around this president. His prerogatives are being respected. And something that Congressman Brooks mentioned, I think, is the key here, which is the incentives within the republican conference.
[23:10:01]
If you want to think about Collins and Murkowski, what they're doing here, they have a completely different set of incentives than the rest of the conference. That's the reason why Hegseth will be confirmed. He'll be confirmed with 51 votes, and he'll have two votes to spare.
COATES: What do you think their incentives are?
DONOVAN: Well, I think it's entirely a function of it does not make sense to be crosswise with Donald Trump on his nominees. He won, he has the mandate, he has the legitimacy of the popular vote, and it does not make sense to go against him if you value your political future.
COATES: Well, Marc, on that point, I mean, the idea of valuing one's political future, obviously, if you want to be able to implement what you stand for, you've got to be in a position to do so, you want to remain in office. But some of the calculus more and more is remain in office and less and less remain in office to accomplish what you're stated ethical objectives are. Is that where we are right now where there is really no daylight between the White House and Capitol Hill for that reason?
MARC CAPUTO, SENIOR POLITICS REPORTER, AXIOS: I can't speak to motive specifically, but I've never held politicians in the highest of the steep, so I can't tell if they're worse than they used to be.
(LAUGHTER)
What I can say is, to Liam's point, that the president is the clear leader of this party. He was an outsider in 2016. He sorts of fluked, was a fluke of sorts, that he won election, surprised him in 2016. He had problems at first. He then botched it and lost election in 2020, lied about it and the like. And then he had four years to regroup and seize control of his party at every level. And now, the party has submitted to him. He controls it. He has the voters. He has the structure, the organization, the tactics, and the strategy, something he didn't have in 2016.
And politics ultimately is a team sport, and most, if not a majority, of the Republicans in the Senate and in the House realize that. And so, to Liam's point, this is who the president wants, this is who their party is going to give to him. It looks like Hegseth is going to get 51 votes and not the 99 --
COATES: Sure.
CAPUTO: -- that Marco Rubio did.
COATES: Well, Ashley, do Democrats have a response to that? A strategic response?
ASHLEY ETIENNE, FORMER COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR FOR VICE PRESIDENT KAMALA HARRIS: To Hegseth's nomination?
COATES: To the fact that there is Trump trifecta when it comes to his control of the Republican Party and Congress and trying to move forward.
ETIENNE: Yeah, I mean, the reality is Trump will do what he did in his first four years, is he'll overstep his bounds. He -- and that's a pattern. And that's -- you know, and every time, he's -- you know, Democrats have to be there and ready and prepared to take advantage of that opportunity.
But he's going to do it. I mean, none of these things are without risk, even the issue of deportation. "The Wall Street Journal" just had a poll this week that show that the majority of Americans, more than 70% of them, want those who are born in this country to stay in this country, those who've been here a long period of time to stay here in this country. They only want to remove criminals.
So that's really the reality, is he's going to inevitably -- I ran the opposition for Pelosi in the White House in Trump's first term and, inevitably, Trump always sets his own trap and steps right into it.
But the question is, where's the opposition now? If you looked at the National Mall in this last election, it was probably a quarter of the people there that were protesting Trump's inauguration. So, that's really the main concern. You don't have Nancy Pelosi in the House anymore. Our House Democrats and Senate Democrats are going to be able to pull this thing off and mount an opposition to Trump that has a level of precision, that doesn't swing at every one of his outrageous balls.
So, that's really the question, whether or not they can mount a substantial opposition that's inside, outside Washington to win back not just the House but then lay the foundation to win the White House.
COATES: Well, the curious thing, of course, is while that is building, there is a drinking from the fire hose approach that's happening, the flooding of the zone, so to speak, in the first several days, while Democrats are attempting, as you're saying, to get up to speed on that leadership conundrum.
But Liam, I mean, there's also the attempt by the administration to hit the ground running when it comes to their cabinet. And he already has secretary of state. He likely is soon to have confirmed an attorney general. He wants a defense secretary. But Hegseth told the Senate Armed Services Committee that he paid 50,000 bucks to the woman who accused her of sexual assault in 2017. That's not chump change by any such imagination, but will it have any impact before tomorrow's final vote?
DONOVAN: I don't think so. I mean, look, it's really hard to make these sorts of arguments about the cabinet picks when we've already had a referendum among the voters at a national level about this president who's had, you know, sort of mirror images of many of these scandals and these allegations and the American people have clearly not cared enough to, you know, disqualify him.
23:15:00]
So, it's -- it would be an odd thing for members of the Senate to suddenly turn that -- turn that around. I don't think it's going to matter. It's going to be 51 votes and Hegseth will be the next secretary of defense.
COATES: We'll see what happens. I, of course, take issue, as you guys know, because nobody ever asked after I voted why or because or explain here. So, this idea of a mandate still escapes me a little bit. But we'll see what everyone thinks. I say the same thing for Democrats, too. Thank you, everyone.
Next, Trump on the world stage for the first time since retaking the presidency, dialing into Davos to tout his win and tell the audience they better get on board.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: What the world has witnessed in the past 72 hours is nothing less than a revolution of common sense.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Okay. And ahead, what's in the CIA's files about the assassination of JFK? We might be able to find out.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:20:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: President Trump today is zooming onto the world stage with an appearance at the World Economic Forum. He started off by telling the crowd of business and political leaders that America is back before issuing this warning.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) TRUMP: My message to every business in the world is very simple. Come make your product in America, and we will give you among the lowest taxes of any nation on earth. But if you don't make your product in America, which is your prerogative, then very simply, you will have to pay a tariff.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: I want to bring in CNN political and national security analyst David Sanger. David, good to see you. I know the philosophy of if you build it, they will come. If you threaten, will they make them here?
DAVID SANGER, CNN POLITICAL AND NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: Well, we're about to discover that, Laura. And what we did see in the presentation to the Davos group was the most nationalistic approach to both trade and diplomacy that we've seen in some time, even more so than the first term that President Trump had.
He made the argument that you had to come to the United States. He made the argument that he and he alone would go negotiate an end to the Ukraine war. He made the argument that basically nothing mattered other than the direct negotiation between other countries in the United States. So, in other words, the whole structure to avoid trade wars, to have groups of allies together that the U.S. built after World War II, he's basically walking away from. And then he said every European country had to go donate, contribute 5% of their GDP to defense, which might make perfect sense, except the United States does 3.5%.
COATES: Well, let me ask you on this issue about Ukraine in particular because Trump has been calling for the end of Russia's war in Ukraine. He even on the campaign trail talked about being able to solve this within 24 hours. And before he was inaugurated, obviously, that has not happened. But when he was asked if the war will be over in a year's time, Trump said this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: Well, you're going to have to ask Russia. Ukraine is ready to make a deal.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: So, it seems to suggest that it's Russia that is stalling in trying to end all of this. How is the Kremlin going to receive that statement?
SANGER: You know, he's doing something here that's I think pretty smart. He came into office with the accusation hanging over him that he was basically Vladimir Putin's friend and would never criticize Putin. You may remember that when the war broke out nearly three years ago, he said the invasion was very smart before he pulled that back. I think what he's doing right now is trying to build up a little bit of both credibility and some leverage for the negotiations. He is threatening Putin with tariffs and further sanctions. I'm not sure there's much of a threat there, Laura, because there have been so many sanctions put on the Russian economy that there's not a whole lot left to do and very few imports left to tariff. But I suspect that in the next couple of days, you'll probably see the first conversation between Putin and Trump, and I think he's trying to soften them up for that moment.
COATES: Well, the economy is something that has been top of mind for voters here, and something that he didn't want to discuss, it seemed, as much with Sean Hannity yesterday on Fox News when he was asked repeatedly about it. But the economy still has to go there because the cost of living is, obviously, something that Trump has promised to deal with. But listen to what he said about interest rates today, David.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: With oil prices going down, I'll demand that interest rates drop immediately, and likewise, they should be dropping all over the world.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Well, I mean, he can demand it, but that's not how it works, right?
SANGER: No. It's not within his purview. Supposed to be the role of the Federal Reserve to set interest rates. They're supposed to be independent. Some presidents have tried to jawbone the Federal Reserve a bit.
[23:25:00]
He's the first one to get out and demand it. Now, he has not fired the Fed chief who, of course, he appointed, but it is interesting that he no longer sees a need to separate himself from the Fed and making demands there, just as he no longer sees it necessary to separate the president from the decisions made by the Justice Department.
COATES: David Sanger, we'll see what happens. Thank you so much. He'll continue in his endeavor, won't he? Thanks, David.
SANGER: Thank you. He certainly will. Thanks so much.
COATES: So, Trump tries to change the Constitution by executive order only to come up against a Reagan-appointed judge with over four decades of experience. How do you think that went? One hint, not well. Judge's response is next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:30:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK) COATES: Well, as predicted, President Trump's push to end birthright citizenship, it hit a major roadblock today. A federal judge temporarily blocked it. But Trump is vowing to appeal that decision.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: Obviously, we'll appeal it. They put it before a certain judge in Seattle, I guess, right? And there's no surprises with that judge.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: That judge he's talking about blasted the president's executive order as -- quote -- "blatantly unconstitutional." And he went even further, saying, I have been on the bench for over four decades. I can't remember another case where the question presented was as clear."
Here to discuss, Raul Reyes, CNN opinion columnist, attorney and immigration analyst, and retired New York City judge, George Grasso. Good to have both of you on. Let me begin with you, your honor. George Grasso, I mean, the judge did not pull any punches in criticizing Trump and the DOJ for even trying this order. As a fellow judge, what did you make of what he said?
GEORGE GRASSO, RETIRED QUEENS COUNTY SUPREME COURT JUDGE: He was right on the money. I mean, there's plain language right up front in the 14th Amendment. Furthermore, there's actually Supreme Court case law on this very subject that goes all the way back to 1898 --
COATES: Uh-hmm.
GRASSO: -- the case of United States versus Wong Kim Ark. This is clear. I read president's executive order on this. If that had been submitted in law school for review, it would have gotten an F-minus.
(LAUGHTER)
It doesn't pass the smell test. But I guess, you know, if you've got two judges, say Alito and Thomas, who basically are going to go along with anything you give them, I guess you think even an F-minus term paper might get you over.
But if we look at it objectively by reading the face of the executive order in the context of the existing Supreme Court case law and most importantly in the plain reading of the first sentence of the 14th Amendment of the United States, this is a joke.
COATES: Well, Raul, you and I are both laughing at the idea of a law school professor asking a hypothetical about what if you just ignored the language of the 14th Amendment and said, nah, forget about it.
But the first sentence is one thing. But there's also this section about subject to the jurisdiction thereof. There seems to be an argument being made that those who are children of undocumented migrants or migrants themselves are not subject to the laws of this country. That's just not true. RAUL REYES, CNN OPINION WRITER: Right. And look, there are two easy examples to think about. Number one, if we're going to say that undocumented people are not subject to their children, are not subject to the laws of this country, the test is if they're going 100 miles an hour speeding, can a policeman pull them over, give them a ticket? If the answer is yes, then yes, they are subject to the laws of this country.
And the second, you know, this is the legal argument that Trump administration is going to put forward hinges on this particular clause, arguing that the children of undocumented people are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States laws. If they're not, then the Trump administration and our government has no authority to detain them and deport them because by their thinking, they're not subject to our laws.
But for me, aside from these obvious constitutional legal issues, there's something about even the fact that we are discussing this issue, which has been settled law for so long, and now people are reconsidering or thinking about now what it means to be an American and looking at themselves and others and potentially looking at what they are entitled to. And for me, it's disturbing because this is the administration of the most powerful men in the world basically going after newborns and children who would otherwise be Americans.
COATES: Well, there is a process, judge, of trying to change the Constitution. I mean, it wasn't written on a Post-It note. It is the 14th Amendment, and it's quite clear. And yet you've got this temporary relief for injunctive relief. If another court should look at this issue, they might, they could conceivably rule differently, which means it could end up before the Supreme Court, if not sooner. How do you see the justices possibly entertaining this issue?
And you've mentioned Alito, you've mentioned Thomas. I know there has been the overturning of precedent in recent times, but the premise of why they've done so, they have said, is because there was an historical context that would support having something stay as precedent.
[23:35:08]
This goes back to the 14th Amendment to Civil War times.
GRASSO: Right. The only -- the only honest way to do this would be to try and amend the Constitution --
COATES: Right.
GRASSO: -- because anything other than that, you're going against the plain language, the plain meaning of the language, and case law, Supreme Court case law, right on point, that goes back to 1898.
But, you know, sad to say -- I mean, I think that the decision in the presidential immunity case, to me, that goes down. You know, as a matter of fact, the Dred Scott case is one of the reasons why the 14th Amendment came into being. COATES: Uh-hmm.
GRASSO: I think that the Supreme Court, you've got to go back pretty much to the Dred Scott case and Plessy v. Ferguson to get a Supreme Court ruling that says a president is essentially immune from any criminal prosecution for anything he does while president, regardless of the act and regardless of the intent.
Well, if I sound a little cynical about the current makeup of the Supreme Court, it's cases like that drive my concern and probably drive current president's exuberance to submit a document that, as I said, would get an F-minus a law school class.
COATES: Well, we'll see, obviously, that immunity decision about official acts of Congress. But interestingly enough, even a court that had decided Plessy versus Ferguson and separate but equal, even they could not muster up a straight face argument to say the 14th Amendment did not actually apply or should not be looked at as people born here, then American.
GRASSO: Right.
COATES: Raul, let me ask you this question because it's pretty new tonight. The mayor of Newark says that there was an immigration raid at a business and undocumented people and citizens were detained. CNN hasn't been able to verify all the details of this. But ICE says that while it may encounter citizens during targeted enforcement, they cannot discuss ongoing investigations. This was the very concern about a raid, that it would be casting such a wide net as to envelop people who ought not to even be under the jurisdiction of ICE.
REYES: Exactly. You know, this is, you know, breaking news, this story. So, I don't want to speak to this story in too much specificity.
COATES: Ten thousand foot view.
REYES: But this is the problem with this type of enforcement that the administration has pledged to do. It infringes on the civil rights of Latinos, of lawful residents, of Asian-Americans, of anyone who potentially -- quote, unquote -- "looks like they might be an immigrant or an undocumented person."
So, we have potential violations of the Fourth Amendment guarantee against search and seizure, the violation of the Equal Protection Clause, which says all people need to be treated equally.
And as the Trump administration carries out these mass raids, what they're trying to do by making everyone, in a sense, potentially eligible for deportation, they are deprioritizing actual dangerous criminals, traffickers, smugglers and the like. So, it's very unfortunate, very disturbing.
COATES: Well, we'll see. This trend will continue. Paul -- Raul Reyes, excuse me, Judge George Grasso, thank you. I gave you a new name. Thank you so much. Ahead, will the unredacted files on JFK's assassination reveal something that we don't already know or think we know? President Trump signs an order for their release and offers a memento to JFK's nephew.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: (INAUDIBLE).
UNKNOWN: (INAUDIBLE).
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:40:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNKNOWN: Lastly sir, we have an executive order ordering the declassification of files relating to the assassinations of President John F. Kennedy, Senator Robert F. Kennedy, and Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
TRUMP: That's a big one, huh? A lot of people are waiting for this for a long -- for years, for decades, and everything will be revealed.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: All right. So, are we going to find out what they say happened or what? Because the question now is whether these remaining top-secret files, if they get out, will do anything to change the official story which, according to the government, says that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone when he assassinated President Kennedy in Dealey Plaza on November 22nd, 1963.
The commission that investigated never found a motive, but the closest conclusion they came to was that Oswald was moved by an overriding hostility to his environment. Not conspiracy theorists. You know they never bought it. They have thought that it had everything to do with, what, it was Cuba, to it was the CIA, to there were multiple shooters. And Hollywood has been running with it for decades.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNKNOWN: And who killed the president?
UNKNOWN: Oh, man, why don't you (bleep) stop it? (bleep). This is too big for you. You know that? This is -- who did the president? Who killed (bleep)? Man, it's a mystery! It's a mystery wrapped in a riddle inside an enigma!
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[23:44:57] COATES: Well, the mystery got even more suspect after the Intelligence Community lobbied Trump not to release all the files during his first term. Remember that? Why? Well, then they cited national security concerns. But this is Trump 2.0 now. And yes, he does have JFK's nephew in his orbit and potentially his cabinet.
Joining me now, Larry Sabato, director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia. He's also the author of "The Kennedy Half Century: The Presidency, Assassination, and Lasting Legacy of John F. Kennedy."
Larry, before we even get into the substance of what the documents may have, do you first have any confidence they're actually going to get released?
LARRY SABATO, DIRECTOR OF THE CENTER FOR POLITICS AT UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA, AUTHOR: I think some things will. I don't know how much of it will. I'm a little bit cynical, Laura, because we've been through so many promises with so many presidents over so many decades, and the CIA was going to do this, and the FBI was going to do that.
And the truth is, knowledge is power. These secrets are powerful for these groups, and they're undoubtedly are people there who don't want their agencies embarrassed. Even if there's no conspiracy, which happens to be pretty much my belief, even if there's no conspiracy, what you do have are agencies that didn't communicate with one another, and their incompetence and their refusal to share resulted in the death of an outstanding president.
COATES: Is that what you think? That shared incompetence or failure to share is what the national security risk that they have said is the reason it should not be released?
SABATO: I think that's part of it. If you go through these documents, and I have a team here that goes through everything, when you go through them, there are so many things that are redacted. They claim, oh, we can't reveal the methods and the people involved. Hey, the people are dead. They're long dead. This was the 1960s, and most of them were already in their 30s, 40s, 50s, whatever.
They're doing it, as I said, to avoid embarrassment. And a lot of things were destroyed. That's what's really important to know. Between 1963 and 1992, when the JFK Records Act was passed and signed by President George H.W. Bush, that's three decades. They had three decades to destroy things. And a lot of things were destroyed, and we can already pinpoint some of them.
COATES: Well, you know, a lot of people still ask that question, where were you when JFK was shot which, of course, means that they might have some recollection of or there are people who might be intimately involved or know more information. I think that's part of their concern.
But I know you're managing our expectations, and I appreciate that as a lawyer, to manage expectations, but there's also thoughts that the CIA may have had some involvement in some kind, not just an embarrassment, that there is something that would stain the institutions as well or implicate. Is it possible that the files would reveal any evidence of what people have thought about potential involvement of our own government?
SABATO: Well, it's certainly possible. That's what RFK, Jr. believes, and he's the one who motivated Trump to do this. I don't think he has any particular evidence that the rest of us haven't seen or heard about at this point, but maybe I'm wrong. We'll see once the materials come out.
But I doubt you're going to see that again because even if it were true, those documents, that information has been destroyed a long time ago. And would an agency like the CIA write down a list of their co- conspirators to assassinate a president and keep it? Somehow, I don't think that ever happened.
COATES: I love a rhetorical question. I happen to agree with the cynicism in that particular aspect of it. Yet and still, this remains a fascination for the nation. An assassination of a president. The legacy of the Kennedy family. We see it very much now. Somebody being able to possibly be a member of the cabinet of this administration. Is this a symbolic gesture then that is happening or is there anything that you are looking to see that might not be obvious contained in that particular set of documents?
SABATO: Well, because we've been over so many of them, and many have been released, but again, they have redacted pieces that are critical. When you read them and then you see the redacted sign, it's right at a moment when you'd actually learn something.
So, if they're serious about releasing these documents and taking out the redactions and putting in the real words, yes, I think we'll learn some things. It may not be directly about who killed this one and who killed that one, but it may be about how the U.S. conducted foreign policy and domestic policy in those days. And that's critical, too.
COATES: Not just for the former president, but also for the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. as well, Robert F. Kennedy, to name just two more examples of information that we'd like to learn more about.
[23:50:03]
Larry Sabato, thank you so much for joining.
SABATO: Thank you, Laura.
COATES: Ahead, a movie about a cartel leader transitioning from a man to a woman gets the most Oscars nominations. At the same time, the White House is trying to shut the door on gender conversations. This is not a very subtle message coming from Hollywood. Is it?
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: President Trump's return to power feels like a cultural reset of sorts. But Hollywood doesn't seem to be buying the vibe shift if the Oscars nominations are any indication. Among the 10 best picture nominees, Emilia Perez, which centers around a transgender drug cartel leader in Mexico. It was nominated for 13 Oscars, including Best Actress for Karla Sofia Gascon, the first openly transgender actor nominated in the category.
[23:55:03]
It comes days after Trump signed an executive order declaring the U.S. only recognizes two genders. The biopic, "The Apprentice," was also nominated. It chronicles Trump's rise in New York real estate, and it earned Sebastian Stan a Best Actor nomination for playing Trump.
Let's talk more about this with host of "Stand Up! with Pete Dominick" podcast, Pete Dominick, and host of Boston Globe Today, Segun Oduolowu. Oh, my God, Oduolowu. Man, I -- damn it, man. I'm like -- what? You know I know you --
SEGUN ODUOLOWU, HOST, BOSTON GLOBE TODAY: Are you going to blame me for my name?
COATES: You know, I'm just telling you. Tell your mom I said sorry. I apologize profusely. It's a beautiful name.
ODUOLOWU: She's watching. She's going to call.
COATES: You know what?
ODUOLOWU: She's going to call you.
COATES: I'll answer the phone. I'm sorry, ma'am. Pete Dominick -- there you go. I'm messing up his name, too, on purpose just now just to make us even. Let me go with you, Pete.
(LAUGHTER)
Trump picked three actors as special ambassadors, including Mel Gibson, to bring business back to Hollywood. Is Hollywood sending a bit of a message, though, right now?
PETE DOMINICK, PODCAST HOST: Absolutely. And, by the way, let me -- let's not forget what Mel Gibson said, the N word, like a whole bunch of times. He's a terrible, terrible person spreading conspiracy theories. He's a real bad guy. And let's be clear about that for sure and what he believes and what he supports.
But Hollywood is definitely sending a message. I mean, what we saw at the Golden Globes where there wasn't much politics, that was before Trump retook office, before this got sent into chaos and authoritarianism. You call it a cultural reset. Some people are calling it a vibe shift. This is not -- that's way too tame. This is a billionaire communal grift, not a vibe shift.
What we're seeing right now happening has to be pushed back on by artists, by creative people, by filmmakers. And there's a lot of deep concern that these billionaires that own and now run Amazon and Apple and the movie studios are not going to produce these films because they're scared of this authoritarian. This is a real dangerous period. So creative people have to fight back.
COATES: Well, Segun, these films have already been made. They didn't know who was going to win the election. And yet, it feels like a real moment to have this particular topic, especially with Emilia Perez being the leader of the Oscars nominations at that point.
ODUOLOWU: Yes, it's historic, Laura. And, you know, art has always found its way to be subversive and found a way to kind of, you know, call attention to what's going on in the real world. And this -- when Karla Sofia Gascon walks across that stage, whether she wins, just to have her name mentioned with those other actresses, it says something to where the country hopefully could go with its open-mindedness.
And I think that, you know, look at "The Apprentice," right? Trump fought to make sure that that wouldn't -- you know, he was trying to make sure that it wouldn't get made. And now you have two actors that are nominated for it, one who played him and then Mark Strong, succession, following in succession, and going from Emmy win to possibly an Oscars win. So, it is, again, art is being subversive in its own subtle ways.
And I'm here for it, right? I think messages need to be made and need to be said, whether loudly, subtly, but they have to be said. And I think the Oscars are trying to do that. I mean, 13 nominations for a musical narco movie?
COATES: Hmm.
ODUOLOWU: When have we ever seen that? So, history will be made and statements should be said.
COATES: I mean, speaking of "The Apprentice," by the way, Pete, I mean, here's what one of the producers told me about how difficult it was to even release that film.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DANIEL BEKERMAN, PRODUCER, "THE APPRENTICE": Donald Trump hadn't seen the movie when he made threats against us during the Cannes Film Festival. But what he did do is he deterred -- you know, he threatened any distributor who would dare to put bring the movie to audiences.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: So, if Trump scared off distributors, how do you think he might react if the movie wins an Oscars, Pete?
DOMINICK: Well, he'll probably -- he'll be outraged and he'll make threats. I mean, yesterday he said they should take MSNBC off the air. He's talking about networks, talking about movie studios, newspapers. He wants to control everything and anything that in any way is critical of him. He wants to prevent them from being able to broadcast.
And, I mean -- by the way, this movie, Laura, is so, so good. Everybody should go see "The Apprentice" to see the effect that Roy Cohn -- if you want know why Donald Trump behaves the way he did, it's because his mentor taught him all these terrible behaviors. It's a very good film. You're really worried about those types of art being made now because they need a lot of money to make them.
COATES: Segun, I'll give you the last word because I butchered your beautiful last name. What do you think? Last time we talked, the Oscars, you said they should turn into a fundraiser for the fire victims in and around L.A. They're going to keep calm and carry on in this instance. Should they?
ODUOLOWU: I don't think they should. I've always said that they shouldn't. But it is Hollywood. It's showbusiness and the show must go on. What I do hope with some of these nominations and the fact that there will be no musical acts, which again bothers me, we won't get to see a Three 6 Mafia do his heart out here for a pimp. I was hoping to see some of these musical acts.
[00:00:01]
Maybe they'll take that time, and they'll raise money. They'll draw attention to the people really affected. And even if a, you know, Karla Sofia Gascon can win, I'd love to hear what she has to say when she touches that microphone. I'd love to hear what, if Mark Strong wins or if Sebastian Stan wins, what he has to say when he touches that microphone about the film and the making of the film.
It's time that artists, newscasters, all of us in this business that are in front of the camera start speaking up a little bit louder and a little bit more pointedly on what we see going on in politics.
COATES: Pete, Segun, thank you both so much.
And thank you all for watching. "Anderson Cooper 360" starts now.