Return to Transcripts main page

Laura Coates Live

Trump Attacks Judges As John Roberts Issues Warning; Putin Lays Out Demands For Broader Peace In Ukraine; Trump Releases New JFK Assassination Files; New Twist In Case Of Missing Student As Witness Seeks To Leave; Astronauts Butch And Suni Arrive Home. Aired 11p-12a ET

Aired March 18, 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]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

LAURA COATES, CNN HOST AND SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: President Trump rages against judges as Chief Justice John Roberts tells him to cut it out. But tonight, new signs that Trump isn't listening. Plus, the Trump- Putin phone call and the tough demands from the Kremlin to end the war in Ukraine. Is Putin actually serious, though? And they're finally out. We're going through the newly-released JFK assassination files. Tonight on "Laura Coates Live."

Well, President Trump is in full-on attack mode against federal judges who rule against him. Now, he's running into some pushback from the highest judge in the land. I'm talking about chief justice of the Supreme Court, John Roberts. But tonight, the warning isn't seeming to slow him down at all because he's still going after the judge who threw a wrench into his deportation plans.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: I don't know who the judge is. But he's radical left, he was Obama-appointed, and he actually said we shouldn't be able to take criminals, killers, murderers, horrible -- the worst people, gang members, gang leaders, that we shouldn't be allowed to take them out of our country. Well, that's a presidential job. That's not for a local judge to be making that determination.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Well, it's a federal judge, not necessarily local. But now, Judge James Boasberg, he also didn't say any of that. But President Trump's own words echoed a post that he made earlier today. He called for Judge Boasberg to be impeached. And that got the attention of Chief Justice John Roberts. He rarely puts out any public stand. It was easy to understand.

But today, he dropped a pretty big one, clearly intended for one person, writing this: "For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision. The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose."

Two sentences, short, and to the point. Trump's response tonight, even shorter.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: Well, he didn't mention my name in the statement. I just saw it quickly. He didn't mention my name.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Now, the call to impeach Judge Boasberg, it didn't fall on deaf ears. As if on cue, one House Republican introduced articles of impeachment against him today.

Now, let's be very clear. The chances of any judges being removed right now are virtually nil. It requires a majority vote in the House to even get to that Senate to have a two-thirds of their Senate who have to vote to convict, which makes this push maybe dead in the water.

Even conservative attorneys are saying it's a nonstarter. Take Jonathan Turley, for example, over at Fox News, who testified as a Republican witness during Trump's first impeachment. He says GOP members are making a mistake in engaging in an impeachment craze, and trying to remove judges is unwarranted and unlikely.

Look, Trump should know removing a judge isn't going to happen, not for reasons like this, of course. And on the same token, so should Chief Justice John Roberts. The math ain't mathing. So, what's the end game here? Is it all just performative? A battle to influence the court of public opinion? Maybe.

If Trump's goal is to change what Americans think about the justice system, it was a full court press today, wasn't it? Because Boasberg wasn't the only judge he attacked. He also went after a federal judge in Maryland who ruled Elon Musk's dismantling of USAID was likely unconstitutional.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: We have a judge from a very liberal state who ruled like that. We have a guy that wants to make a name for himself. You know, in many cases, they're just grandstanders. They want to make a name for themselves. So, we'll appeal it. And hopefully, we will meet with reasonable appeals. You know, I've won great cases on appeals.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: It is true he had big victories on appeal. Getting partial immunity from the Supreme Court in the January 6 case, that was a big one. But it's also a huge gamble to think the Supreme Court will side with him on everything. It's already ruled against him this term, in decision over the freezing of USAID contracts.

[23:05:01] And guess who joined the liberal justices? Justice Amy Coney Barrett and none other than Chief Justice John Roberts.

Joining me now, CNN political commentator Van Jones, former state attorney for Palm Beach County, Florida, Dave Aronberg, CNN political analyst Zolan Kanno-Youngs, and Republican strategist Lance Trover. Lance, I'll begin with you because President Trump tonight, he is denying that he is defying any judge's order. Listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LAURA INGRAHAM, FOX NEWS HOST: But going forward, would you --

TRUMP: I had judges --

INGRAHAM: -- would you defy a court order? Is that -- we all know that. That was outrageous.

TRUMP: I never did defy a court order.

INGRAHAM: And you wouldn't in the future?

TRUMP: No. You can't do that. However, we have bad judges. We have very bad judges. And these are judges that shouldn't be allowed. I think they -- I think at a certain point, you have to start looking at what do you do when you have a rogue judge.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: I mean, he's intimating that this indeed is a rogue judge because (INAUDIBLE) actually held in this particular case at this juncture. Is he making a mistake in response to what the chief justice has already said?

LANCE TROVER, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: Well, to the chief justice, I mean, for a guy who has spent the last 10 or so years claiming he wants to keep the court out of politics, I'm not sure why he just felt the need to insert himself into the middle of a political discussion today. That's number one. Number two --

COATES: It was about a judge, he was referring to.

TROVER: You know, he has no jurisdiction over that judge. If he's impeached, that's nothing -- he is not -- I'm saying he had no need to inject himself. This is the guy who has spent the last 10 years saying, I want to keep the court out of these political discussions. That's what exactly what he inserted himself into today.

Setting that aside, I actually think the Trump folks have a pretty good argument. Pam Bondi made the court case in court today. He is operating under the American -- it's the Alien -- Alien --

COATES: Aliens Act.

TROVER: Aliens Act, yes. Thank you. And he has every right to do that. It, by statute, can have these people deported, and say they're a threat to national security. This judge cannot interfere. This is their argument. And I think it's a very good one. This judge cannot interfere the same way the judge couldn't come in and say he can't fire drone attacks onto the Houthis. So, I actually think they have a very good argument and case to make in court.

COATES: Well, Dave, let me go to you because you actually, you know, were in support of the attorney general even during confirmation hearings. I know you know her quite well. But the whole purpose of this particular judge's order was not that it was the final say, but that it was the initial ruling for the judge to then have an opportunity to decide the full extent of what was feasible, constitutional, and beyond here.

So, is this -- with what President Trump is saying, is he essentially saying that he hasn't listened even at this juncture to a federal judge?

DAVE ARONBERG, FORMER STATE ATTORNEY, PALM BEACH COUNTY: Well, Laura, I'm pleased that they're appealing because that's the proper way to go about it, not to just --

COATES: Of course.

ARONBERG: -- walk away from the court. And they are saying we are not ignoring the court order, we just feel that we're not covered by this court order for the same reasons as was just said, and that the court order came too late, and we're abiding by the written order but not the verbal order. They're playing games --

COATES: Uh-hmm.

ARONBERG: -- because it's clear that -- look, a court has the jurisdiction to make decisions on all sorts of matters. That's called checks and balances. And I don't think we're in a constitutional crisis yet because I do believe that the Trump administration actually believes what they're saying. They think that they're on the right here. But the court could strike back with contempt. And then it could become a constitutional crisis.

But I think that what's curious is that Trump is now in a brawl with Chief Justice Roberts. And Trump is very transactional. Trump knows that Chief Justice Roberts is a really important figure for everything that Trump wants to do. After all, after the State of the Union, he said, I will never forget this.

So, I think he's going to be reluctant, perhaps, to go any further with any criticism against the chief justice, although I don't think it's going to stop him from criticizing other judges.

COATES: In fact, Van, he has. He has called Judge Boasberg a lunatic tonight. And listen to what New Jersey federal judge Esther Salas -- who I remind people the tragedy. I mean, her son was murdered by a man intending to kill her. She had this to say about judicial threats.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) ESTHER SALAS, U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE, DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY: I know the value of human life because I've lost the most important thing in my life. And once that genie is out of the bottle, there's no putting it back. So, we have to remember that we may not -- you know, sometimes we say things in the heat of advocacy. But I just wish that people would realize that we got to tamp it down a bit because, God forbid, someone is killed.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Now, we know, of course, that there have been threats made on Supreme Court justices' lives. And what happened to her son, distinct from what we're talking about today. But these threats, more broadly, they can have deadly consequences if they fall on the wrong ears. Is Trump's actions, are they intimidating people like Judge Boasberg and potentially leading to a consequence that no one wants to think of?

[23:10:00]

VAN JONES, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, I certainly hope not. I mean, I remember when Justice Kavanaugh, a conservative justice, was --

COATES: Yeah.

JONES: -- being threatened in his home. So, this can -- this can cut in any direction. I think the reason that people are concerned is two things.

Judicial review, the idea that judges get to review what presidents and legislatures do, is a key part of why we have a constitutional democracy. This is -- this is -- this is a miracle in human history, that we have these kinds of checks and balances so that, yes, presidents have their authority, but you have to make sure that you're doing things that are in line with our Constitution because in the heat of the moment, anybody can make a mistake, anybody can -- can go too far.

If you say you don't want judicial review, what you're saying is you want a very different country than the one that we've had for 200 years.

The other thing is even more troubling. There is something called the authoritarian playbook. Sometimes, these people get in power, they have the strong man attitude, and one of their goals is to bully and intimidate the courts.

I'm not saying that's what Trump is doing. I'm saying the reason people are so alarmed is because it looks like that kind of activity that you've seen in countries like Turkey and Russia and other places. When democracies start to degrade, one thing is the executive branch starts beating up on the judges.

So, that's why you're seeing this alarm not just across the bar in terms of lawyers like us, but just ordinary Americans. We want to keep our democracy the way that it has been for 200 years. We don't want a strong man type of leader to run over our checks and balances, to run over our judges, and to put us in a different type of country than the one we had just a year ago.

COATES: Zolan, I haven't forgotten about you, baby. It is a dangerous territory. Just whenever you have a judge's order and someone goes, yeah, and, like, who are you to tell me anything? Well, we have the system. And the administration right now, they continue to stonewall Judge Boasberg's request to have details on those planes' whereabouts. So, what's next?

ZOLAN KANNO-YOUNGS, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST, WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT FOR THE NEW YORK TIMES: Right. I think also it's important just to remind everyone that this judge issued a temporary injunction.

COATES: Temporary.

KANNO-YOUNGS: Not even permanent yet. Right? So that hearing yesterday, it was essentially a Zoom hearing to gather information to assess if the Trump administration had violated a court order. That was the hearing in which the Trump administration stonewalled basic questions, timing of the flights, what authority were these people deported under.

And just again, a reminder here, that's important because the Alien Enemies Act basically says you're going to do rapid removals without the normal amount of due process for each of those officials. The White House and the administration say that all roughly 200 of these deportees were affiliated with gangs. We do not have evidence of that. We do not have the IDs of these folks.

And now that they have been basically sent to El Salvador, in one of the more notorious prisons, the process of judicial review is to gather some of that information, not just to see the authority of which these people were deported under, but also whether the administration did violate the court order which, again, there's just a temporary injunction at this point.

This is basically a fact-finding mission that the Trump administration stonewalled up until this point. Tomorrow, they've been directed to file details under seal, and we expect to have a hearing later in the week as well. So -- and we're going to keep reporting to try and find out anything we can on this.

COATES: It's so important, the two points you raise, that it -- there could be a judge who finds that what they've done is reasonable.

TROVER: Right.

COATES: But they had a temporary pin, a status quo holder in this moment in time. And second part, they are articulating there's some reason they can't say everything. They don't have to give all these reasons you articulated, Lance. Why -- why not let this unfold? They were going to be in custody. Why would that a nerd of the benefit of the administration to say, all right, judge, you can go ahead and look into it? At the end of the day, you're going to see it our way because that is how right we are. Why not wait? TROVER: Why not wait to -- to not ship these gang members?

COATES: Well, they're in custody -- in custody right now and waiting for the judge to issue a ruling in some formal permanent fashion.

TROVER: I don't think they -- they feel they didn't have the need to wait. I mean, they feel they're -- I mean, this goes back to what I was saying earlier. They feel, and I think they're probably right, that he has every bit of authority under this -- this piece of legislation that, yes, is 200 years old, but he has the right to do what he's doing.

And by the way, has anybody seen the video of these people? I mean, these people aren't helping grandma with a bake sale over here. I mean, these are bad people that are in this country illegally. I mean, I don't think anybody is looking at these folks saying they need to stay in this country.

COATES: Well, to clarify one thing about the -- the right to do so. The Alien Enemies Act says that you could have a proper deportation if you have an invasion by a foreign nation or if we're in a war with a particular nation.

The argument they're trying to raise is that a cartel or a gang is akin to a foreign nation and, therefore, those who've come illegally constitute an invasion. That's up to the courts to actually lay that out. They may or may not find that notion of it.

[23:15:01]

But to your point, Zolan, we don't know who technically was on that plane. We'll have to see if this is a political hill that Democrats also want to die on.

Thank you, everyone.

Up next, the reviews of the Trump-Putin phone call, they're in. And critics are skeptical. One expert declaring Putin's demand so bold that it's hard to believe he's actually serious. So, what exactly was said? And will Trump actually agree to any of it? And later, we just got our hands on those newly-released JFK assassination files. Will we find anything new? Two experts join us with their assessments straight ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:20:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: Tonight, what's in a deal? President Trump says there's a ceasefire on the horizon between Russia and Ukraine. But when you parse what Russian President Vladimir Putin says about their call, the art of the deal, it didn't look so clear.

Russia did not agree to an unconditional temporary ceasefire like Ukraine did last week. Instead, Putin agreeing to halt strikes on energy infrastructure for 30 days. Now, that's different from the White House statement. It says Russia would halt attacks on energy and infrastructure.

The Kremlin also insisting that Ukraine receive no more foreign military aid. What does Trump say about it?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: We didn't -- we didn't talk about aid, actually. We didn't talk about aid at all. We talked about a lot of things, but aid was never discussed.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: And there's one person missing from those talks, Ukraine's President, Volodymyr Zelenskyy. Now, he supports halting attacks on energy sites, but does not think Russia is ready to end the war. And he is pointing to this Russian drone strike on a hospital east of Kyiv right after the Trump-Putin call.

With me now, former CIA official and State Department spokesman during the Biden administration, Ned Price. Ned, good to see you. Look, two very different readouts, it seems, on this call. What did the U.S. and Ukraine actually get out of this deal? And is Russia giving up anything?

NED PRICE, FORMER SENIOR OFFICIAL AT CIA: Well, Laura, I think you put it well, these are very divergent readouts. And oftentimes, in my old job, I would encourage audiences at home and around the world to really focus on what the State Department or, in this case, the White House would put out. The United States, at least in terms of our administration, would speak -- would speak the truth, would speak clearly, would speak straightforwardly.

In this case, however, there are some very revealing details that are in the Kremlin's readout that are not in the White House's readout, including the duration of this stand down against attacks against energy infrastructure. The distinction, the discrepancy between these two readouts that you pointed out between energy and energy infrastructure, between the two, wildly divergent.

Laura, I think in the case of this frenetic back and forth diplomacy, it's always helpful to go back to first principles to remind ourselves where we started and ultimately where the Trump administration seeks to go with this. And if you do that, you remember that President Trump put on the table a very simple proposition, that both parties, President Zelenskyy and President Putin, commit to an immediate unconditional ceasefire.

COATES: Uh-hmm.

PRICE: President Zelenskyy, as you said, did that last week. His delegation did that last -- last week with Secretary of State Rubio. President Putin of Russia made very clear today that Russia is not going to do that. And so, Russia has said no, Ukraine has said yes. That doesn't mean it's necessarily the end of the story. I think if anything is to come out of this call, hopefully, it will be clarifying for those, including in our own administration, who were under the misimpression or purported to believe that it was Ukraine and not Russia that was the obstacle to peace.

COATES: Hmm.

PRICE: Russia is making very clear, including in its response to today's call, that they are the obstacle to peace. Now, one could hope that American --

COATES: Hold on, Ned. On that point, excuse me, if there are these divergent readouts, if there is this impression of who actually was an obstacle, then how are we to understand what the actual outcome can be? Are we to believe that Russia's readout somehow was more inclusive and all-encompassing and the White House missed something, or are we to trust less of what Russia had to say because the White House did not include that?

PRICE: Well, Laura, I -- look, I don't want to be in the business of telling people to -- to look to what the Kremlin puts out. That would be anathema to my previous role into what I believe.

COATES: Uh-hmm.

PRICE: But I think there are reasons to think that the Kremlin was in some ways more forthcoming than the White House was. The White House made very clear that, in its own words, Russia didn't commit to this immediate unconditional ceasefire. But the Kremlin made very clear in its own readout that it would not commit to that type of ceasefire until and unless very specific conditions were met.

COATES: But one, in fact, thing is a foreign aid halting --

PRICE: That's exactly right.

COATES: Putin wants to stop aid. So, what is the end game here? Obviously, if a ceasefire is to happen, then military aid would not necessarily be necessary. However, that's not the end of this story.

PRICE: It's not the end of this story, and it wasn't the end of the story in 2014 when President Putin first invaded Ukraine. And I raise that because it's very relevant here. What I fear President Putin is trying to do is trying to create another frozen conflict.

[23:25:01]

And frozen conflicts are context in which he has always thrived. He has done so in places like Moldova and Georgia, where they used fragile ceasefires to continue to gain ground, to continue to take on territory. And notably, they've done that in Ukraine, where the conflict was frozen for some time until it wasn't, when Russian forces went in full scale in 2022 after invading for the first time in 2014.

And so, I think the fear is that by calling for an end to all foreign security assistance to Ukraine, the end of all intelligence sharing with Ukraine. President Putin is trying to make it easier for his forces to continue to do that.

COATES: It'll be very telling whether United States is an obstacle to that or not. Ned Price, thank you so much.

PRICE: Thank you, Laura.

COATES: CNN military analyst and retired U.S. Air Force colonel, Cedric Leighton, he joins us now. Colonel, look, Russia is agreeing to stop attacks on energy infrastructure for 30 days. Tell me, where are these facilities and why is this agreement significant, though?

CEDRIC LEIGHTON, CNN MILITARY ANALYST, RETIRED AIR FORCE COLONEL: Well, Laura, it's very important to look at one particular thing here. So, the Ukrainian facility that is of interest to the Russians is this place right here, Zaporizhzhia. This is a nuclear power plant already under Russian occupation. So, the Russians have basically controlled this area almost since the beginning of the invasion, in February 2022.

But on the other hand, what we have here are Russian targets that the Ukrainians have gone after at, Ryazan, (INAUDIBLE) and Engels among others, that have really severely degraded Russia's oil refining capability and their ability to actually take these, the oil that they have as a natural resource, and move it forward through the various pipelines that they have.

So, these are critical areas that really become important for not only the Russians, but for the Ukrainians. And if the Ukrainians stop bombing these areas or the Russians stop using this, then the whole equation of the war will actually change.

COATES: Hmm. I mean, very interesting to think about that. I mean, Trump also on Sunday, colonel, he mentioned -- quote -- "dividing up certain assets." What territory might be discussed and how realistic is this division?

LEIGHTON: So, one of the areas that has come up is this area right here, the Peninsula of Crimea. Crimea is -- has been an area that has been under a lot of contention because, for a long time, it was actually Russian-controlled even going back in the Soviet Union period. It was Khrushchev that gave it to Ukraine, to Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, which was part of the Soviet Union back then. So, this is one area that belonged to Ukraine when it became independent in 1991, but it's probably going to become a part of Russia if Russia gets its way.

The other area that is going to be really important in addition to Crimea is all of this area right here, all of this area in red. All of that is going to basically become part of Russia if the Russians get their way, and that seems one of the most likely things that could happen in this particular case.

COATES: So, for a broader ceasefire agreement, Russia seems to be demanding that all aid and intelligence to Ukraine just be cut off. So, that's going to have a huge impact, obviously, on Ukraine on the battlefield.

LEIGHTON: It sure would. And let's take a look at one of the areas that's right here. So, this is the Kursk area. This is the area that Ukraine actually took a large part of in this area right around Sudzha. Well, the Russians have forced them back. And there are only small pockets of Ukrainian forces right there, basically covered them up, they were in blue, but they're right in this particular area right here.

So, the Russians may very well use this as a jumping off point to go after this place called Sumy, which is right across -- this is the Ukrainian part -- that's right across from the Russian region of Kursk. That's one particular area that could happen.

And another one is this area in the south. This is around Kherson. Ukraine was able to take over from the Russians -- the Russians had occupied all of this area in yellow. The Ukrainians were able to take that over in addition to some of the other areas that they had right up here.

But the big fighting is basically going to be, and it's already happening in places like Pokrovsk and in this part of the Donetsk region, all through this area. That is going to be the critical part. This is where the war can hinge, whether it's in the east, the south, or up north.

COATES: Colonel, that was so informative. Thank you as always.

LEIGHTON: You bet, Laura.

COATES: Up next, what could unite conspiracy theorists and historians and internet sleuths alike? Three letters. JFK. Saying we're pouring over the release of thousands of pages of files into his assassination. Could this put an end to the theories once and for all, or will it fuel even more?

[23:30:00]

And later, he is the last person to have seen Sudiksha Konanki. And now, he may be about to leave the country. The dramatic day in court all ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: Thousands of pages from the JFK assassination files released tonight at the behest of President Trump.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: We have a tremendous amount of paper.

[23:35:02]

You've got a lot of reading. I don't believe we're going to redact anything. I said, just don't redact, you can't redact.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: That was him yesterday at the aptly named Kennedy Center. And yes, we all have a lot of reading to do now, 1,123 new files worth of reading, all posted by the National Archives. And no, we have not gone through each and every page yet, but you bet we've tried.

Here's just some pages we found. There are documents labeled "secret" or "classified." Those labels are now crossed out. Some of the documents are hard to decipher. There are the faded ones and ones with handwritten notes scribbled across the page. And some still do have redactions despite what you heard from President Trump just moments ago.

Joining me now is Larry Sabato. He is the director of the Center for Politics at University of Virginia and the author of the book, "The Kennedy Half Century." Also here, Brad Meltzer, who coauthored the new book, "The JFK Conspiracy." Larry, I'll begin with you. Your team has been pouring through this document and all of them tonight. Have you found anything new?

LARRY SABATO, DIRECTOR OF THE CENTER FOR POLITICS AT UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA, AUTHOR: Yes, we have found some -- some good nuggets. I'm glad you pointed out the fact that there are still redactions. We've come across quite a few redactions. The president said there wouldn't be any or at least that's how I interpreted what he said. And also, Laura, the number of documents is now up to 2,183. They dumped another thousand or so in the last hour. So, we got a lot of work to do over a long time.

But there are some interesting nuggets in there, and it's in the unredacted part that were previously redacted. It tells us a good deal, for example, of the activities of the CIA. For example, in checking foreign mail, particularly mail from the Soviet Union to the U.S. and the U.S. to the Soviet Union. Details we've never had before. And it was during the period when Lee Harvey Oswald was defecting and living in the Soviet Union, which is significant.

COATES: It is. I mean, is there a theme that you have found so far about what is still redacted? Is it sources and method or something else that you're finding, you're missing?

SABATO: Well, it's impossible to tell because --

COATES: Yeah.

SABATO: -- they -- they -- they leave it all out. But from the redactions that I have seen unredacted, it's -- it's some hardcore stuff. There may be some sources and methods covered up in documents we haven't gotten to yet. But what we have found is some of the toughest and even nastiest pieces of these memos are what was redacted. And they have been now unredacted. And that's a plus. That's a plus. I'm glad they did it.

COATES: Very significant. I mean, Brad, what is it about JFK specifically that has so many Americans trying to understand his death? Obviously, the significance of an assassination of beloved American president. But all of the evidence so far has been pointing to Lee Harvey Oswald for a long time now. But people have not been satisfied by that evidence.

BRAD MELTZER, CO-AUTHOR OF "THE JFK CONSPIRACY": You know, the reason we're obsessed with JFK is he's our first celebrity president. I don't mean famous. I mean that way of, you know, that Hollywood Celebrity. He's got it all. He's got the perfect wife and the perfect life. And we've been chasing that fame for decades now.

And the thing is Camelot never really existed. It was a myth. And we had people like -- some people think the Reagans have achieved that. Some people think it's the Obamas. Others think, of course, it's the Trumps. But it's -- it's a hollow pursuit because Camelot was so shiny on the outside, but obviously so broken on the inside.

But what JFK did better than anyone is gave us hope. Hope is a country standing together again. And I think JFK, for all of us, has always meant that ideal that America could be -- even if we weren't that, it was the hope that we could be that.

And when you have his death and you have Lee Harvey Oswald gone, we lose that one person who could have actually told us what happened. And as Larry said, I've -- you know, all of us. This is catnip for, you know, historians right now to go through and try and find everything we haven't seen.

And I've been reading as fast as Larry, has been reading as fast as everyone. What you're really seeing so far is amazing CIA techniques and, you know, things that we did in Cuba, things that we did in Russia. All these things, you're going, oh, that's interesting.

But if you're looking for the smoking gun, listen, I hope we find it by next hour or by tomorrow morning. But I still feel like -- you know, I fear it's going to feel like Al Capone's vault with -- except unless you're a historian in which you'll say, this is really interesting, this tells us a lot about what we were doing back then.

COATES: Let me ask both of you very quickly. Do you think these records should be released?

SABATO: Absolutely. I think every word of every one of them should be because they keep saying, well, we need to protect the people who are our sources. Hey, I got news for you. They're all dead. They've been dead for many, many years.

[23:40:01]

And they say, well, they have children, they have grandchildren. Let's get real. There is no reason, over 61 years after the assassination of a popular president, why we shouldn't see every word of these documents that our money as taxpayers produced.

COATES: Brad?

MELTZER: Yeah, I agree -- I agree with Larry. And let me also say this. My fear is that no matter what's released, we still don't believe it. Right? People are going right now saying, look, the CIA did, look who did it.

Let me tell you who killed JFK. If you look in the 60s, we thought it was the Cubans, it was the Russians, it was our enemies at the height of the Cold War. If you look in the 70s as Watergate broke, when distrust in the government grew, we said it was our own government that did it, the CIA did it, and LBJ did it. If you look in the 80s, "The Godfather" movie's peak. Who killed JFK then? It was the mob.

So, decade by decade, if you want to know who killed JFK, it's whoever America's most afraid of at that moment in time. We don't want to believe anything. But JFK always reveals like a mirror for America what we're afraid of.

COATES: Fascinating. Larry Sabato and Brad Meltzer, thank you both so much. Keep us posted. We want to know.

Up next, a major development in the case of that missing student in the Dominican Republic. The man who last saw her and who has been questioned for more than a week now, now speaking out in court for the first time. What he revealed and why he may soon be about to leave the country.

And later, the splashdown everyone has been waiting for. Butch and Suni make it back. We have their must-see return. And the one question we dare to ask, what they want to eat first? Some clues coming up.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:45:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: We've got a huge new development in the case of the missing American student in Dominican Republic. The last person believed to have seen Sudiksha Konanki alive has now been granted his request for freedom.

Joshua Riibe's attorneys argue his rights have been violated, that authorities have inappropriately detained him without charges and that his detainment has been -- quote -- "under irregular conditions."

Riibe, who is a student at Saint Cloud State University of Minnesota, telling the court, I really want to go home and see my family. I understand I'm here to help but it has been 10 days." But it's unclear that he'll be able to go home any time soon because authorities still haven't given him his passport back.

Here's the thing about this case. Riibe has been called a witness by the prosecution, never a suspect. And to Sudiksha Konanki's parents, they've asked authorities to officially declare her dead, saying they believe she drowned.

Joining us now is CNN reporter Mark Morales live in Dominican Republic after a long day in court, and CNN legal analyst and criminal defense attorney, Joey Jackson. Thank you both for being here. Mark, let me ask you to take us inside of that courtroom. What else did Riibe say today?

MARK MORALES, CNN REPORTER: Well, Laura, it was pretty shocking because I don't think anybody in the courtroom was really expecting to hear from -- from him at that moment. But as soon as he walked up, the judge called him up and he swore in.

He started telling his version of events. And he painted this picture of a kid who was in this hotel, who was being monitored 24/7, who was being followed by local police where -- wherever he ate, wherever he went, where he was expected to be in that room. He really sorts of captured this moment of he's stuck in his hotel. And even though everybody is saying he has free rein, it seems like he doesn't.

The most powerful moment of the entire time was when he spoke about actually meeting the victim's parents. He talks about how her mother gave him a hug and thanked him for saving her that first time. And that's when you see these emotional quotes from him about it has been 10 days, and I want to go home.

COATES: Wow. I mean, Riibe's attorney, Joey, says the prosecution has not given him back his passport. She says they've had to request another one now from the embassy. So, is he really free to leave if he hasn't even got his passport back?

JOEY JACKSON, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Yeah, Laura. Good to be with you and Mark. I think so. I think, ultimately, it'll be a Department of State issue wherein the Department of State will either issue a new passport or his passport will be miraculously found.

And so, I think there will come a time that he leaves, and then, of course, it'll be monitored, that court appearance which is upcoming on the 28th, I believe, of March --

COATES: Uh-hmm.

JACKSON: -- and there will be further inquiries. But, you know, I -- certainly, I know he has endured a lot of discomfort. He has been called simply a witness, not a suspect in the case, not a defendant in the case. So, it has been rather unusual.

But at the same time, you have a government that has to get to the bottom of whether there's foul play, whether someone is responsible, whether or not this was untoward, inappropriate, or illegal. So, it's not certainly uncommon for the government to investigate and certainly know where his whereabouts are at all.

COATES: And by the way, Joey, I mean, once he has left the Dominican Republic, I mean, does he even have any intent to continue to be helpful or cooperate in any way? I mean, can he be forced? This is still their jurisdiction. Right?

JACKSON: Yeah. You know, I don't think so.

[23:49:58]

I think a lot of this will depend not even so much on what the criminal law is in the Dominican Republic, but I think the force and might of the United States --

COATES: Hmm.

JACKSON: -- and certainly the State Department and any negotiations that occur. I think if they find any evidence that it was foul play, it will change the narrative. But when the parents, you know, come forward and they say, hey, we want a declaration of death, we really feel that our daughter has drowned, I think that changes the equation also. These are not people who are saying he's guilty, we want him detained. And so, the whole dynamic and narrative certainly shifts in that regard, Laura.

COATES: Mark, as Joey mentioned, there is another hearing in this month. Does Riibe have to be in court for that? What's happening in that one?

MORALES: It doesn't seem like he has to be present at that hearing. That seems more like it's on the procedural side. Like, that's going to be where they hand over the official documents, making this even more official.

But right now, it sorts of points to where we are. In two-fold. Right? It's when is he going to be able to leave the country, right? Which gets us to this passport question of, where is this passport? When will he get his hand on this passport? And then in the other direction, it's what happens to the rest of this case. Are they still looking for this missing girl? Do they actually declare her dead? There's a lot of -- a lot of open questions here that still need to be answered.

COATES: Mark Morales, thank you. Great reporting. I appreciate you being down there to help us through this. Joey Jackson as well. What a nightmare for these families. Thank you so much.

Up next, they're home. Astronauts Butch and Suni splashing down after nine long months in space. I know what you're thinking. What their first meal be back on Earth. CNN's Harry Enten is on the case next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:55:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNKNOWN (voice-over): And splashdown. Crew Nine back on Earth.

(APPLAUSE)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Splashdown. Astronauts Butch Wilmore and Suni Williams are officially back on Earth after their eight-ish day trip to space turned into a nine-month stay aboard the International Space Station. Now, if no one is catching them up on all that they missed, don't fret because CNN's Harry Enten is here to do just that. Harry, there you are. What's the first thing that you would do if you just returned to Earth after what? Nine months?

HARRY ENTEN, CNN SENIOR DATA REPORTER: Yeah, it's a long period of time. I'll tell you the first thing that I would do, and that might be to have some Girl Scout Cookies. Right? Some Thin Mints.

(LAUGHTER)

And this is the whole thing I was interested. What do astronauts have when -- for their first meal when they actually come back home? If you're Bill Shepherd, I think this is pretty good, you get a cheeseburger. Right? How about Anne McClain? Look at this. How about a nice peanut butter and jelly sandwich? But Frank Rubio got a salad. I mean, what -- what -- what is going on? A salad? After all that time away, you're getting a salad? No, no, no.

You got to go mean. You got to go clean. You got to go with Thin Mints. You got to go Girl Scout cookies. That's what I say.

COATES: I got a whole office full of them. What do you want? I've got those. I got everything for you right now. And I think the actual salad is because they've had what? Dehydrated food. They want some sort of like --

ENTEN: I guess.

COATES: -- fresh. Right?

ENTEN: I guess. Whatever. I would have, like, an ice cream sundae if I wasn't having cookies.

(LAUGHTER)

COATES: All right. Well, then catch Butch and Suni up on some things that have changed since what? June of 2024?

ENTEN: Yeah. What are some things that have changed? What have they missed out on? Well, Trump's 2024 win. We got a new president. Right? How about they missed, of course, the Mike Tyson versus Jake Paul fight? Jake Paul, of course, won that battle despite everything that I wanted to occur. And, of course, the end of "Blue Bloods," which had been on for forever. But Tom Selleck will always be in my heart. I tried to get my mother a Tom Selleck pillow. She said, no, you can keep it for yourself.

(LAUGHTER)

COATES: I mean, does it have a mustache on the Tom Selleck pillow?

ENTEN: Of course.

COATES: Okay. Then I understand. Fine. I'm with you. All right. But look, Butch and Suni, they were perfectly happy, it seemed, to stay on the space station. And, of course, to get involved. This is their dream, to be able to stay and for that long. That's amazing. But is this something that's appealing to most people?

ENTEN: No, no, no. I mean, look, space travel. Would you want to travel a space in your lifetime? Get this. Forty-five percent of Americans say yes. But the majority opinion, no, 54%. I am with the 54% who say no, Laura Coates. My question is, would you want to go up to space?

COATES: I want to watch space movies.

ENTEN: Okay.

COATES: Does that count? But then I'm -- I'm good being back on Earth because things go -- first of all, let me tell you something. If my husband were to be gone for almost nine months, he'd come back to a pile of laundry and saying, here, cook dinner for the kids. So, no. No, no, no. No, thank you.

ENTEN: No.

COATES: Harry Enten, no, thank you.

ENTEN: Yes. But yes, thank you to you, Laura Coates, for having me on and talking about someone wonderful Girl Scout Cookies.

COATES: You know, it's calories by the whole sleeve. That's the truth. Harry Enten, thank you, my friend. Good seeing you.

ENTEN: Nice seeing you.

COATES: Hey, everyone, thank you so much for watching. "Anderson Cooper 360" is next.

ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST: Tonight on "360," breaking news. A federal judge blocks the dismantling of USAID, saying Elon Musk's DOGE likely violated the Constitution. What it means for DOGE now?

Also, rare rebuke from Chief Justice John Roberts after the president demands Congress impeach a judge who ruled against him.

{00:00:01]

The latest development in the rapidly developing fight between the administration and federal courts.