Return to Transcripts main page

Laura Coates Live

Musk Moves to Eliminate Key Federal Agency; El Salvador Agrees to House Deported U.S. Criminals; FBI Prepares for Major Trump Purge; Red Flags Raised After CBS Hands Over Harris Transcript; Judge Warns Lively and Baldoni Lawyers. Aired 11p-12a ET

Aired February 03, 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: -- day for the Trump administration. Two cabinet nominations face a critical hurdle. Will the finance committee give a thumbs up or a thumbs down to RFK Jr. as the next Health and Human Services secretary? While the agency -- the Intelligence Committee will determine the fate of Tulsi Gabbard to lead the intelligence agencies.

Now, both of them are far from sure things. And even if both nominations do successfully make it out of committee, a full Senate floor vote is another test of Trump's early power.

Thank you very much for watching "NewsNight." "Laura Coates Live" starts right now.

LAURA COATES, CNN HOST AND SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Well, tonight, Elon Musk makes his presence felt as he moves to terminate an entire federal agency with President Trump sharing him on. Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett is standing by to respond.

Plus, breaking immigration news tonight. El Salvador's president now offering to put America's deported immigrants in its prisons. That includes U.S. citizens convicted of violent crimes.

Fear and defiance also inside the J. Edgar Hoover Building as the FBI gets ready for a major Trump purge. So just how far are they planning to go? And will anyone stand in their way? Tonight on "Laura Coates Live."

Well, it's day 15 of Donald Trump's second term, and we almost got into two trade wars while also watching Elon Musk press control, alt, delete on an entire federal agency. Yes, the world's richest man and DOGE leader, he is working to end the program responsible for delivering humanitarian aid all across the globe. Now, he claims that USAID is a criminal organization, and it's -- quote -- "time for it to die" -- unquote.

Now, advocates argue that USAID saves lives around the globe. It treats diseases, it fights poverty, it responds to famines and natural disasters, it creates goodwill and promotes America's image abroad. Now that's the point the Democratic lawmakers and protesters were trying to make outside the agency's headquarters. They say what Trump and Musk are doing is not even legal, because only Congress can decide what happens to that agency.

But that's not actually stopping the president or Elon Musk. Trump says he doesn't need Congress to scrap the agency, and the White House claims it's wastefully spending on projects like these.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KAROLINE LEAVITT, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: $1.5 million to advance DEI in Serbia's workplaces, 70,000 for a production of a DEI musical in Ireland, 47,000 for a transgender opera in Colombia, 32,000 for a transgender comic book in Peru. I don't know about you, but as an American taxpayer, I don't want my dollars going towards this crap, and I know the American people don't either, and that's exactly what Elon Musk has been tasked by President Trump to do.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Now, CNN can't verify all that. But we are learning more about what Trump has tasked Musk to do and how much power, well, he really has. Now, he is what's known as a special government employee. And that means he's not just a simple volunteer or an outside advisor. But it also means he's not a full-time federal employee either. He has a top-secret security clearance. He's got an office on the White House campus as well.

Now "The New York Times" is reporting that he has even moved beds into offices a few blocks down, down the road. Why? So, he and his staff can work late into the night. That's a lot, a lot of acts of someone who's not actually confirmed by the Senate. He has even got control over the Treasury's federal payment system. Call it, if you will, America's checkbook. So, who's checking his work? The man who hired him.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNKNOWN (voice-over): Mr. President, why is it important for Elon Musk to have access to the payment systems at Treasury?

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Well, he's got access only to letting people go, that he thinks are no good, if we agree with him, and it's only if we agree with him. He's a very talented guy from the standpoint of management and costs. And we put him in charge of seeing what he can do with certain groups and certain numbers.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: I want to bring in a Democratic congresswoman from Texas, Jasmine Crockett. She serves as the vice ranking member of the House Oversight Committee. She's also part of a congressional subcommittee that will work with Musk's DOGE. Congresswoman, thank you so much for joining me this evening.

There is a lot to unpack, especially the title he has. Now, as a special government employee, would that give him the right to be able to access the Treasury Department's payment system or even USAID? REP. JASMINE CROCKETT (D-TX): No, absolutely not. I like that you laid out the description of the type of employee he is. This is the first that I'm actually hearing of it.

[23:05:00]

We thought that this may have been a classification. With this classification, you normally are not allowed to run anything. Absolutely not. So that's already exceeding the scope of what you're allowed to do with this type of classification. That's number one.

Number two, with this type of classification, you're looking at maybe about 120 days. This isn't somebody that is supposed to be on full time forever. So maybe that's why he wants to sleep on the job because he knows that it's supposed to expire. But right now, we have an administration that could care less about what the courts say that they can do, that could care less about what the law says, that could care less about the Constitution.

And so, I think that we have to understand that we are not dealing with normal people. We are dealing with someone who has proven to be a criminal, proven to be disrespectful to us as Americans. And listen, we have to fight him the exact same way. We have to come back with the same type of energy, which means that if you want to play ball, then I'm ready to play ball.

Listen, you guys decided to do this while the House was out. Well, the House is back in as of tomorrow. And I can guarantee you, there will be some spicy things that I will be up to tomorrow because I am a duly elected member of the U.S. House. And we will have some things that we are trying to do. As of today, we know that --

COATES: Well, like what, for example?

CROCKETT: So, Rancor Meeks, who is the rancor for foreign affairs, he filed a privileged motion as relates to this trade war which, of course, Trump has, allegedly, resolved that very quickly. But he was exceeding his emergency powers. He was misusing his emergency powers to try to engage in this anyway.

So, at this point in time, if we've got to file privileged motions, if we've got to do amicus briefs, if we've got to physically show up some places and ask some questions -- because you can't keep us out. You may be able to say to whomever is running security somewhere that you're going to keep employees out. But as a sitting member of Congress, especially one that serves on oversight, and I've got oversight over the entire federal government, you're not going to keep me out of anything.

COATES: One of the things that's been happening in terms of playing ball has been federal unions have been suing to block Musk's ability to actually access the sensitive data for the Treasury.

CROCKETT: Yeah.

COATES: Congress, obviously, in a different position than a litigant, an average litigant. What could the Democrats do specifically, as oppose to being in the majority, to actually try to combat this? It doesn't sound like there is the largest of appetites among Republicans to say that the mandate may have been for you to serve in office, but not to have this wide scope of authority for a non-elected official.

CROCKETT: Well, I'm definitely going to say that the mandate wasn't there at all. The numbers are really small, kind of like his crowds. So, I'm not going to say that there was a mandate. But what I will say is that it is time for us to stand shoulder to shoulder with those that are going to file those lawsuits. We've got to make sure that they know that we are giving them access to our constituents, making sure that they know these are the stories of our constituents. These are the ones that are willing to testify about the fear that they are living through.

I get emails consistently about people saying, what the heck is going on? And here's the reality. The reason that you have to have a certain level of clearance before you can engage in these types of actions or you may even have to be confirmed in some way is because, really, you can cause a lot of harm.

COATES: Hmm.

CROCKETT: And no one has explained, listen, if your whole job is to figure out where we can cut money, then sit down and look at the budget and say, line by line, listen, Mr. President, what you should do is in your proposed budget that you send over to the Congress, you should cut this, you should cut that, the same way that he decided during his first term that he was going to zero out money for HBCUs and Dr. Adams had to come and fight to get that money for HBCUs back.

COATES: I will note that if you are a special government employee, there are limitations for when you have to file disclosure or ethics. If you exceed a certain amount of time, it triggers even more oversight over --

CROCKETT: Yeah.

COATES: -- who you are for the reasons you're talking about. But I want to get to a new appointment that seems to be happening. President Trump is appointing Darren Beattie to a top State Department role. I know many will remember who Darren Beattie is. He was fired in 2018 for being a speechwriter. He was speaking at a conference attended by white nationalists.

And then a few months ago, he posted this, congresswoman. Competent white men must be in charge if you want things to work. Unfortunately, our entire national ideology is predicated on coddling the feelings of women and minorities, and demoralizing competent white men. Your reaction to his appointment?

CROCKETT: He needs to go. I mean, this is very simple. We right now have a white supremacist that is sitting in the White House. He is backed up by other white supremacists. And if you really want to know who the criminals are in this country, you can Google it.

[23:10:02]

You don't have to trust me. But the people that commit 80% of the most violent crimes in this country are white supremacists. Yet, for whatever reason, they sit and they serve at the pleasure of the president. They are the ones that were there on January 6th tearing our democracy down physically. And now, we have them tearing us down right here from within. Here is the problem --

COATES: Of course, congresswoman, I'm going to interrupt you, but President Trump, of course, has denied any allegations of the white supremacists, and that's why he --

CROCKETT: I don't care what he says. I don't care what he says.

COATES: I know your point, but he did fire Darren Beattie in reaction, they believe, in part to his attendance at that conference. Does that change your opinion anyway?

CROCKETT: No, it doesn't change my opinion because we saw what he literally recently just posted. And the coddling is for the white boys. That's what's happening right now. I am tired of the white tears. Listen, if you are competent, you are not concerned.

When I walk into Congress every single day, you know why I don't feel away and why you can't make me doubt who I am is because I know that I had to work 10 times as hard as they did just to get into the seat. When you look and you compare me to Marjorie Taylor Greene or me to Lauren Boebert, there is no comparison. And that is the life that we have always lived.

So, the only people that are crying are the mediocre white boys that have been beaten out by people that historically have had to work so much harder. This is why they don't want us to have education. This is why they are trying to literally say we won't fund the HBCUs, because they know that if they've already gone after affirmative action and they're saying, you know what, don't allow them to come in to say these PWIs, as we call them, don't allow them to come into these institutions.

We know why they created the HBCUs in the first place. It was because they wouldn't allow us into the white institutions. And so now they're not allowing us in. And now they're saying, you know what, we're also going to defund the HBCUs. You know why? Because they don't want any more Kamala Harris's. They don't want any more Jasmine Crockett's.

But I got news for them. I don't care what they do. We will fight to the end to make sure that we get our due because, again, if you want to talk about the people that shouldn't be in this country, you probably need to look in the mirror, because the last time I checked, the Native Americans who summer ICE have been rounding up or the Puerto Ricans who are absolutely Americans, listen, the only people that came and colonized this place are your ancestors, Trump.

COATES: I'll note that the Beattie position is for the acting undersecretary for public diplomacy and public affairs, a key role in helping to shape U.S. messaging abroad related to counterterrorism and violent extremism. Thank you, congresswoman, for your words tonight and for your insight.

We are just minutes away from entering into what could very well be a new and costly trade war with China. At the stroke of midnight, just about 45 minutes away, a 10% tariff on all imported goods from China will take effect. It's what Trump today called an opening salvo, meaning he could escalate tariffs if he thinks China isn't doing enough to stop fentanyl from entering this country. And what that means for you at home is the potential for higher costs.

And if you're wondering, well, what about Mexico? What about Canada? Well, those tariffs happen to be on ice tonight because Trump agreed to pause those for 30 days. Some modest concessions from the two countries he was able to receive. And Mexico said that it would deploy 10,000 troops to the border, which I should note, it has done before. And Canada said it would keep its promise to enact a previously announced billion-dollar border security plan, along with appointing a fentanyl czar and labeling cartels as terrorists.

Joining me now, senior columnist for Yahoo Finance, Rick Newman. Rick, thank you for joining. Trump says that he's going to talk to President Xi in the next, I think, 24 hours. But assuming there's no deal, how worried should people be at home about the impact of these tariffs on China?

RICK NEWMAN, SENIOR COLUMNIST, YAHOO FINANCE: They are going to raise prices here. For people who are confused about this, I mean, there's really no way around it. This is straightforward. A tariff is a tax that the American importer pays to the U.S. Treasury and then the importer typically tries to pass along that higher cost to everybody who purchases those products, whether it's happening in the supply chain, for components of other finished goods or finished products like clothing or toasters or appliances or things like that.

So, this is just going to be basically a 10% increase in the cost of virtually all imports from China for as long as this stays in effect.

[23:14:54]

Now, to put this in perspective, it would have been a lot worse if Trump left those tariffs on Mexico and Canada in place because we import a lot more from Mexico and Canada combined than we do from China, and Trump was talking about a 25% tariff there, not just a 10% tariff.

That's why we saw a big sell-off at the beginning of the day in the stock market today, and then stocks regained some ground once this all worked its way out and it turns out we're not going to get Canada and Mexico. But markets are going to have to grapple with imports from China and prices are going to go up by a little bit.

COATES: You know, the markets did flinch. As you say, they could recover after the pause was announced with Mexico and Canada. But I wonder if the fear is actually over now, especially if you're one of the business owners who rely on goods out of Canada and Mexico. Is that flinch at all comforting?

(LAUGHTER)

NEWMAN: It's a momentary reprieve but -- I mean, Wall Street and the business community are basically trying to figure out every day what's coming next, what is Trump going to do next, how much of this does he really mean, and how much of it is theater? So, you know, what a lot of the Wall Street analysts think is going to happen is kind of what we saw today. So, they guessed right on this first round, and their guess all along has been that Trump is going to threaten fairly severe tariffs, but there are going to be these last-minute negotiations where we're going to wriggle out from under them.

Now, it's just unknown if Trump is -- maybe he will impose tariffs on Mexico and Canada one month from today. What we do know, however, especially from Trump's first turn, is that he is sensitive to what happens in financial markets and especially the stock market today. So, we got the stock market down about 1.5 percent before we heard that there was going to be a delay in the Mexico tariffs. So maybe that's Trump's red line. Maybe a stock sell-off of 1.5% or 2% is enough to make Trump be the one who plays.

COATES: We'll see. Rick Newman, thank you so much. The markets we are watching as are the American consumers. Let's talk about this now and continue the conversation with CNN political analyst and White House correspondent for PBS NewsHour, Laura Barron-Lopez, Also former senior advisor to the Trump-Vance 2024 presidential campaign, Bryan Lanza, and CNN political commentator and former senior spokesperson for Hillary Clinton's 2016 presidential campaign, Karen Finney.

Glad to have all of you here. Okay, let's start with these tariffs because, of course, I did see that I think shoes are going to be impacted by this. So, I'm particularly interested, Bryan, in all this. The White House press secretary saying that Canada is bending the knee just like Mexico. But, by the way, that deal was on the table back in December. So, why engage the allies in this way?

BRYAN LANZA, FORMER DEPUTY COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR FOR TRUMP 2016 CAMPAIGN, FORMER SENIOR ADVISER FOR TRUMP-VANCE 2024 PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN: Yeah, listen, I think it's important to understand that next year, USMCA, the sort of the trade agreement between the North American countries, is up for another renegotiation.

And the reason it's up for renegotiation is when it was first negotiated during Trump, renegotiated during Trump, there were components that none of the countries could agree on. Specifically, Mexico and Canada said no to the U.S. on some key enforcement components. And so, we went forward without -- we went with the new USMCA without the key components of enforcement.

We're now coming to that window where we can renegotiate and Trump is trying to soften them up, whether they're allies or not. They're trying to soften them up, the Canadians and the Mexicans, so that when we get to this USMCA, we can actually trigger the component conversation that was avoided in 2018.

So, I think it's important. You know, obviously, we renegotiated USMCA. We all want it, that we have huge benefits from it. But there are key components that allow the Chinese to cheat. They allow the Chinese to subsidize manufacturing facilities built in Mexico and those cars or those manufacturing products get brought in the United States. We didn't settle it last time. We want to settle it this time.

COATES: Hmm.

LANZA: And the way to show the Canadians that we're serious and the way to show the Mexicans we are serious is say, listen, this is what's going to happen. We're not going to tolerate you, guys, piling up against us to make sure the enforcement components of trades are not going to take place. We're going to play hardball from the very beginning.

COATES: Karen is not buying it, I got to tell you.

(LAUGHTER)

KAREN FINNEY, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, can we start with the fact that he basically got things that are already in play. So, Joe Biden got 15,000 troops to the U.S. border, like, with a phone call. We didn't have to have all this market chaos to make that happen.

And similarly, think about what's -- I mean, I hear, if I buy your argument, you could also say, okay, but Trump is going to be negotiating with a different leader in Mexico this time than he did last time. How about a phone call before you go threatening everybody and make, you know, creating fear and chaos?

And similarly, in Canada, Justin Trudeau is gone. So, he just kind of deal with a guy who ain't even going to be there. What is the impetus for the new person to not have feel like they have to flex to Trump?

But here's the bottom line. This is just chaos and pain. That is what we have seen in the two weeks -- the two and a half weeks that Trump has been in office. And yet, not a damn thing done to lower Americans' costs. Not one thing.

[23:19:55]

In fact, we're talking about adding to our costs with these tariffs and by repealing the decisions that Joe Biden made to lower the cost, for example, of prescription drugs, he has actually already increased people's costs.

COATES: You know, the person who's charged with, in part, government inefficiency. Obviously, DOGE. Can't help but think about Elon Musk because I keep wondering about his level of influence in the White House right now. Obviously, USAID, Laura, he had said, we're shutting it down. Just this morning, he said that. People getting notifications don't even show up to headquarters today as well.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio now says that he is the acting director of USAID. So, what does this tell you about the influence of Musk? He's not elected, we know. He's a special government employee. Is his role far deeper than anyone even knows? LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST, WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT FOR PBS NEWSHOUR: Yes, I believe it is just based on all of the sources that I've talked to across the government. I mean, Elon Musk in the span of what, a few weeks, and especially in the span of the last few days, has been able to access Office of Personnel Management, which is the government's HR.

He has been able to access, I reported today, the small business administration systems, asking DOGE to get access to the payment systems there. And then there's also the access to the treasury payment systems, which has personal information on millions of Americans. DOGE has access to that.

And then you get to USAID, which is -- they access classified CIS areas over the last few days, multiple sources have said. And yes, there's a lot of turmoil. I mean, federal workers and USAID sources that I've talked to say that they're really concerned about what this means abroad. They're currently fighting an Ebola outbreak.

COATES: Uh-hmm.

BARRON-LOPEZ: And in addition to that, they have some stationed in Ukraine and in Somalia. And they're worried that as the U.S. pulls back and doesn't provide food or doesn't provide aid to these countries and communities in need, that leaves an opening for China and Russia.

COATES: You know, there is news as well, speaking of Secretary of State Marco Rubio that just came in. I want to alert everyone. He is now announcing tonight that El Salvador is set to not only accept U.S. deportees of any nationality, but also convicted U.S. citizens for a fee at their mega prison. CNN's David Culver was granted an exclusive access, only major outlet at the time, by the way, to even see inside. That's unprecedented, of course.

The idea of this happening, Bryan, what is behind this agreement, that the Americans would send even their own citizens to one of these mega prisons?

LANZA: Well, it appears to be cost. You know, first of all, the El Salvador president knew exactly how to appeal to President Trump. You know, there's a reason he's offering this outreach, because he knows what President Trump wants to prioritize, and that's mass deportations. You know, they have economic needs that they need, they have economic and political priorities that El Salvador needs, and they want to wrap themselves with President Trump to sort of offer that shield to help achieve their goals.

So, what do they do? What all diplomacy does. They reach out to the new president and see where they can align and see where they can offer help.

COATES: Can they say, I'll take your own for a fee?

(LAUGHTER)

That's for you unprecedented.

LANZA: No, it's supremely unprecedented, but that's clearly going to stand out. President Trump is going to say, here's an ally who's willing to help the United States at this difficult time and offer a cost saving measures. Taxpayers, they're going to weigh in. I suspect taxpayers want the money saved. Now, the difference is, you know, you know, there's going to be prison advocates who say you can't really move them from the United States, they need access to all these other --

FINNEY: It's called the law.

COATES: Those are called constitutional advocates.

LANZA: Absolutely.

FINNEY: That's what I'm going to say. That's the law and the Constitution.

COATES: What's your reaction to this? I mean, obviously, last weekend, we heard about people turning away planes and Trump leaning in and forcing the idea of persuading them. No, they will land, they will land on your soil. You will have repatriation of your own citizens. Now, it's the idea of U.S. citizens as well. And not for nothing. We have a problem with the private industrial complex of prisons where people --

FINNEY: Correct.

COATES: -- certainly have a wallet at stake for all these things, unfortunately.

FINNEY: Yeah.

COATES: What's your reaction tonight to this?

FINNEY: Well, I think the lobbyists in that big prison industrial complex, I don't think they're going to let it happen. But it's a smart political play by the government of El Salvador to get a nice little -- I mean, we're talking about it on cable.

LANZA: That's a lot --

FINNEY: We weren't going to be talking about El Salvador, right? If this hadn't happened. But again, I think -- let's go back to the big picture. You know, this is about chaos and pain. And I don't -- I don't think that's going to end any time soon. And a lot -- a lot of people are very anxious. And so far, Trump has shown he's not able to govern efficiently and effectively when you've got El Salvador saying, well, give me your tired, your poor, your huddled criminals.

COATES: Well, I think Trump would have the opposite response, that this is, in his mind, working. We'll see what actually indeed does. Thank you, everyone. Up next, the makings of a dramatic new purge at the FBI. Thousands of agents on edge after being asked to fill out a controversial survey that some fear could be seen as a loyalty test. [23:25:03]

The questions they were asked and why some worried the answers could very well cost them their job.

Plus, new tonight, a major win for President Trump as CBS News gives the FCC the transcript behind that infamous "60 Minutes" Kamala Harris interview. New reporting tonight on what happens next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: The FBI bracing for a purge of employees President Trump's administration might deem disloyal to him. Less than 24 hours remain before FBI leaders must turn over questionnaires about its agents' actions in January 6 investigations. Questions like, were you a supervisor? What division were you in? And what was your role?

You know, some agents, they're pushing back. A group representing thousands of agents imploring Congress and President Trump to -- quote -- "prevent acting officials from taking personnel actions that undermine our shared goal of keeping the FBI out of politics."

One top member of the FBI New York field office refusing to cave to pressure, writing -- quote -- "Today, we find ourselves in the middle of a battle of our own. Time for me to dig in."

[23:30:05]

And some lawyers now representing federal agents are warning that they'll take the DOJ to court if mass firings happen. But Trump, he's vowing to push forward with the DOJ makeover.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: Well, I think the FBI was a very corrupt institution. I'm a victim of it in a true sense. I was able to beat it. But other people have been treated horribly. I think the FBI has a great reputation -- had a great reputation. I think its reputation was really damaged badly as is DOJ.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: So, there is no evidence of widespread corruption within the bureau. And agents, they do not have a choice on what cases they are assigned. With me now, justice and FBI reporter for "The New York Times," Devlin Barrett, and retired FBI special agent, Pete Lapp. Let me begin with you, Pete. What does this feel like, hearing about this and this forthcoming purge?

PETE LAPP, RETIRED FBI SPECIAL AGENT: Yeah, my heart breaks for my fellow colleagues, my former fellow colleagues. Five years ago, I retired. If I were there, I wonder what I would be doing and how I would be feeling. You know, wondering if I'm about to be walked out for doing my job. You know, for opening lawfully predicated investigations, for responding to the largest investigation in FBI history. I do wonder if I would be a part of that group that is sleeping tonight wondering if I'm going to be walked out tomorrow by the executive branch that I've worked for and the oath that I've taken to support, defend the United States. It would be a question I'd be wondering myself.

COATES: Devlin, what is -- the question I have is, what will it be like tomorrow when that deadline hits?

DEVLIN BARRETT, JUSTICE AND FBI REPORTER, THE NEW YORK TIMES: So, I think the indication, so far, is that the bureau leadership is going to turn over the list of employees that the DOJ has asked for. They've called it a lawful order, which suggests they feel they have to go through with it.

I think the real question becomes, there have been some discussions about after they get the list, will DOJ then demand the firing of hundreds of FBI employees? And I think that's the part where you may see a real intense conflict between the FBI and the Justice Department if the Justice Department leadership currently goes through with that idea.

COATES: Is there concerns that you might have about even that list going out? I mean, what happens about it being publicized further?

LAPP: Well, we've already seen agents in other investigations involving the former president, now president. They've been doxed. Their names have been released and not by the government, by the other side. And they've been subject to a significant amount of harassment. Their families have been threatened as a result of that. There are real concerns about their safety if their names come out publicly as part of the January 6th investigation.

So, I absolutely would have concerns about that if I was the agent's professional support, especially their families, just doing their job.

COATES: Well, again, they're not going to choose. Yeah, I'll take that case. Eh, not for me. They have their assigned matters. But on this point, there's got to be a chilling effect. There's got to be the point that there's a fear if you have done something that goes against this president or perceived as such. Be careful.

BARRETT: Yes, and there's tremendous anxiety within the FBI right now. People don't know what's going to happen. There are -- over the weekend, certainly, there are all sorts of rumors flying around. The other thing I think is really important to remember is Donald Trump's criticism and his supporters' criticism of the FBI has long been that the leadership of the FBI is the problem. That if we could get the right leaders in the top of the bureau, it would not do the bad things we don't like anymore.

But what they're talking about right now is not -- I mean, they've definitely gone after the leadership. But what they're talking about right now is going after brick agents. What they're talking about right now is going after people who were given an order, they did what they were supposed to do, and no one has made an allegation of misconduct against any of these people. And so, it does have a chilling effect potentially. I think it already has had a chilling effect. It's only a question, I think, how much more of a chilling effect might there be?

COATES: Gosh, I'm old enough to remember when they didn't want fishing expeditions. Devlin Barrett, Pete Lapp, thank you both so much. Up next tonight, a major development in transcript gate. "60 Minutes" giving the FCC the transcript of their campaign interview with Vice President Kamala Harris on the campaign trail. So why did CBS comply? And what does this mean for the lawsuit that the president filed against them? Brian Stelter is standing by with his reporting next.

And later, the Blake Lively-Justin Baldoni P.R. war turns into a courtroom drama, with the judge now making a very serious threat to both sides.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:35:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: New tonight, CBS has given the FCC the transcript and tapes from last October's "60 Minutes" interview with then-presidential candidate Kamala Harris. CBS saying it was -- quote -- "legally compelled to comply with the FCC's demand." The FCC says it's only acting upon a complaint from a conservative group who accused the network of distorting her answer.

The gripe is similar to the core of Trump's $10 billion lawsuit against CBS, which alleges that "60 Minutes" -- quote -- "doctored the interview to put Harris in a more favorable light and help her win the presidential election." The moment in question comes when Harris was asked why Israel's prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, was -- quote -- "not listening to the United States." The lawsuit alleges CBS released a clip of the interview to CBS "Face the Nation" that was different than what aired on "60 Minutes." Here's that clip.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BILL WHITAKER, CBS NEWS CORRESPONDENT: It seems that Prime Minister Netanyahu is not listening.

[23:40:00]

KAMALA HARRIS, FORMER VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, FORMER U.S. PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Well, Bill, the work that we have done has resulted in a number of movements in that region by Israel that were very much prompted by or a result of many things, including our advocacy for what needs to happen in the region.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: And here's what actually aired on "60 Minutes."

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

WHITAKER: It seems that Prime Minister Netanyahu is not listening.

HARRIS: We are not going to stop pursuing what is necessary for the United States, to be clear about where we stand on the need for this war to end.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: The Trump campaign alleges the edit was done to help Harris. CBS responded, saying both clips were from the same answer and the lawsuit is meritless. I want to bring in CNN's chief media analyst Brian Stelter, who spoke to Trump's new FCC chair today. Brian, you spoke with Chairman Brendan Carr about his request for the transcripts and also videos of Kamala Harris's interview and, of course, the free speech concerns. What did he tell you?

BRIAN STELTER, CNN CHIEF MEDIA ANALYST, AUTHOR, SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT FOR VANITY FAIR: Yeah, he said this was a rare case, a case of a complaint against CBS for -- quote-unquote -- "news distortion," which is something the FCC is allowed to investigate. He said he has to see the tapes in order to know if CBS is telling the truth here.

I think it is fair to say that someone at CBS screwed up back in October. This was a poor editing decision because it stirred up lots of doubts about what Harris said. One part aired on a Sunday, the other part aired on Monday. This was a mess.

But that's all it was. It was editing. It wasn't a conspiracy to help Harris and hurt Trump. And that's what it has been turned into by Trump's team. The fact that his pick for the FCC has decided to investigate this, it shows that everything based on a faulty premise is being taken very seriously by the Trump administration. And as a result, a news network, CBS, is being told to hand over its raw materials, its unedited transcript and tapes. That is a remarkable moment. And there are a lot of people, including some former FCC leaders, who say the government should not be doing this at all. Should just butt out.

COATES: Well, a settlement, if that should come there, it'd be viewed widely pretty much as a capitulation on the part of the CBS and their parent company, Paramount. And there's important context we're having to do with Paramount in particular. What is it?

STELTER: Yes, Paramount Global is in the midst of trying to merge with Skydance. Now, this is the company Paramount -- behind Paramount Plus and Nickelodeon, MTV and CBS. It is trying to get a big deal through. In order to get the deal approved, it has to get approval from the Trump administration, from Brendan Carr and from other Trump administration officials.

So, Paramount is trying to settle, they are trying to settle Trump's lawsuit and they're going ahead and agreeing to this request to hand over the tapes and the transcript. It has the appearance of a payoff where they are doing what the Trump administration wants. And in exchange, they're going to get the deal approved. Is this the price of doing business in the Trump era? It may well be. This is why many people inside CBS News are very uncomfortable right now, because they feel like their parent company is caving in.

COATES: You know, this actually comes on the back of it. ABC News's $15 million settlement with the president. Meta also agreed to a $22 million payout over another Trump lawsuit. The question many are wondering is, will this have a chilling effect on coverage of Trump? Is that the point?

STELTER: And a chilling effect is exactly what some Trump voters want to see. It is certainly what some of these Trump appointees want to see. However, I think, ultimately, it's up to viewers and readers to determine for themselves, are they noticing a change? Are they noticing a difference in the news coverage? Personally, I watched ABC tonight, I watched CBS. I saw some hard-hitting coverage and some scoops about the Trump dysfunction and upheaval in government.

So, there's great journalism being produced, but the readers and the viewers, the viewers of this program have to be on guard right now to watch out for any sign of people losing their backbones and caving in to these government attempts at harassment.

COATES: Well said. It's up to the viewers to be extra vigilant and observant of what they are seeing in their own democracy. Also, News Corp owner, Rupert Murdoch, apparently, he was dropping by the Oval Office today. His company owns, as you know, both Fox News and "The Wall Street Journal," which published an editorial titled, "The Dumbest Trade War in History." Now, Trump was asked that today and asked about it. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNKNOWN (voice-over): In terms of this deal with Mexico this morning, was that partially related to the market reaction and the criticism from Mr. Murdoch's own newspaper? He called it the dumbest trade war on the editorial page on Saturday.

TRUMP: I'm going to have to talk to him. I've been right over "The Wall Street Journal" many times, I will tell you that. I don't agree with him on some things. No, it's -- not only is it not them.

[23:45:00]

You're going to see. You're going to see.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Why was Murdoch even at the White House today?

STELTER: You know, Rupert Murdoch, he wants access to power. He wants to be where the action is. He wants to bend the ear of the president. He got what he wanted today, but so did President Trump, because Trump was able to poke him, rip him, maybe even embarrass him a little bit, talking about "The Wall Street Journal." Murdoch is out with a new editorial tonight. It is titled "Trump Blinks on North American Tariffs," essentially saying that the president is pausing up for only minor concession. So, Rupert Murdoch continues to be against Trump tariffs.

But bigger picture here, Laura, Rupert Murdoch is an example to what has happened to many millions of Republicans in the United States. After January 6th, we know from Rupert Murdoch's emails that were obtained by Dominion in that lawsuit that he was horrified by Trump. He wanted to make Trump a none person. He didn't want to hear the word Donald Trump ever again. And now, four years later, Rupert Murdoch back in the Oval Office trying to repair his relationship with Trump because he wants to be where the power is. He wants to be where the action is. And that's Rupert Murdoch finds himself again today.

COATES: And doing it with a smile. Brian Stelter, thank you so much. Ahead, two Hollywood stars, two very different accusations, and the battle between Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni is getting more heated by the day. The judge's message to their attorneys next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:50:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: A real-life Hollywood drama is playing out in court today. That's right. Lawyers for Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni meeting in court for the very first time, at the first hearing for a lawsuit embroiling the stars of the hit movie, "It Ends with Us." The film centers around a woman in an abusive, intimate relationship with her husband.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNKNOWN: You fell down the stairs. Don't touch. You tripped, and I am trying to catch you.

UNKNOWN: No --

UNKNOWN: You're okay. You're okay.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Lively is suing Baldoni. She claims he sexually harassed her on set, then launched a secret smear campaign to damage reputation. Baldoni denies the allegations. He argues that Lively and her superstar husband, Ryan Reynolds, are trying to defame and extort him with her claims. But during today's hearing, a judge told lawyers on both sides to stop fighting the case in the media and save it for the courtroom.

Joining me now to delve into the drama, Kim Masters, former editor-at- large for The Hollywood Reporter, and now a partner at Puck, and Neama Rahmani, former federal prosecutor and president of West Coast Trial Lawyers.

Kim, let me begin with you. This case has gotten very messy, to say at the very least. On the surface, it sounds similar to a "Me Too" type of case. What's really at the heart of the matter here? KIM MASTERS, PARTNER AT PUCK, FORMER EDITOR-AT-LARGE FOR HOLLYWOOD REPORTER: There are allegations flowing back and forth. It started out with Blake Lively accusing Justin Baldoni in a big article in "The New York Times." Sorry, my dog is unhappy. And he then counter-attack. There were allegations against their publicists. There now a web. He wants to sue "The New York Times." He's trying he's fighting for his professional life.

She, obviously, has that either feels this very sincerely or there is, perhaps, another motive, but going after him, hammer and tong and looking to obliterate him. It's a very dicey thing from a public relations point of view because the allegations are so confusing, so back and forth, so he said, she said. It's not a clear-cut thing where we know exactly he assaulted her. There's no allegation that he did that. So, I think it's not helping anybody's reputation.

COATES: You can't miss a headline. It's all over and people are trying to piece together. But they're using a particular website as well. And Neama, a lot of this has played out in the media. One of the parties, Baldoni, actually has a devoted website to try to keep (INAUDIBLE) exposed, which he thought was cherry picked in "The New York Times" article and beyond. The judge, he could have issued a gag order, but he didn't. Why not?

NEAMA RAHMANI, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR, PRESIDENT OF WEST COAST TRIAL LAWYERS: The judge didn't, Laura, and that was a big win for Baldoni's team. The judge said, this is Judge Liman, that essentially, the parties just have to comply with the local rule, 3.6 there in New York, that says that the lawyer shouldn't make extra judicial statements that may substantially impair the jury pool.

But the damage has already been done on both sides. And obviously, Lively came out first and filed her lawsuit, gave a copy to "The New York Times" with some text messages. But Baldoni has made an extraordinary comeback. And Kim talked about this being a case not just for the courtroom, but the court of public opinion. This is to save Baldoni's career. And he's really made an extraordinary comeback.

If I were to guess, you know, 80, maybe even 90% of people now support Baldoni. This is after he was canceled essentially. He was dropped by William Morris Agency. He had lawyers. You know, a woman's award was rescinded because of these allegations. But now, because of what has been put on this website by Brian Freedman, his lawyer, it has the amended complaint, it has the full text messages. We've seen the video of them dancing on the rooftop, the voice note that he sent Lively. I think folks are now coming to Baldoni's side in this case.

COATES: Well, that's, ironically, Kim, part of what her concerns have been in her suit, that there was a public smear campaign targeted for that very reason to ensure that she would not be looked upon favorably.

[23:55:01]

And she is not fighting alone in this matter, I would say. Her husband, obviously, actor Ryan Reynolds, he is right there with her. How is this impacting reputationally how they're viewed in Hollywood along with Baldoni's?

MASTERS: You know, Ryan Reynolds had the most immaculate reputation. Smart, funny, just perfect. You know, an amazing career. Blake Lively has been seen in less favorable light. And she could say, well, people are unfair to women. But on the other hand, you've seen things, for example, an interview with a Norwegian journalist where she was really quite unpleasant. That started making the rounds immediately when this got underway, an old interview. So, she didn't have that perfect reputation.

I think there's a risk to Ryan Reynolds. He's standing by his wife, which is maybe fine. But if people start to feel, and I'm not so sure that everybody is on team Baldoni now, but if people start to feel like, oh, are these two bullying Baldoni and Ryan Reynolds is such a big star and they got their agency to drop Baldoni, is this fair? It just creates this confusion again, which is not good for anybody. And I'm not so sure that Justin Baldoni comes back for this, from this. I think he's trying his best.

But with this kind of mess, I think people just feel like, in the industry, don't want to necessarily even touch any of this with a 10- foot pole, not including Ryan Reynolds because, of course, he's a huge star.

COATES: We'll see how all that unfolds. The allegations are out there. Who's going to be able to prove their case and best the other in a court of law? We will see. Kim Masters, Neama Rahmani, thank you both so much.

And thank you all for watching. "Anderson Cooper 360" is next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)