Return to Transcripts main page

Laura Coates Live

Trump Revokes Security Clearances For Biden, Harris, Clinton And Others; Boxing Legend George Foreman Dies; Trump Orders A.G. To Review Conduct Of Lawyers And Firms; Jake Tapper Interviews Anita Hill For "United States Of Scandal." Aired 11p-12a ET

Aired March 21, 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]

LAURA COATES, CNN HOST AND SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: This is CNN breaking news. Good evening. I'm Laura Coates. We've got some major breaking news on multiple fronts on this Friday night, including the death of two-time heavyweight boxing champion and Olympic gold medalist, George Foreman. He was known for his rivalry with Muhammad Ali as well as using his colorful personality to help fuel a multimillion dollar grilling business. Foreman was 76. We'll have more on his death and his life in just a moment and speak with broadcast legend Bob Costas about his legacy.

But first, we're learning President Trump has revoked the security clearances of more than a dozen officials. Many of them worked under the former president, Joe Biden.

Now, here is just part of the memo from the White House this evening. Quote -- "I have determined that it is no longer in the national interest for the following individuals to access classified information: Antony Blinken, Jacob Sullivan, Lisa Monaco, Mark Zaid, Norman Eisen, Letitia James, Alvin Bragg, Andrew Weissman, Hillary Clinton, Elizabeth Cheney, Kamala Harris, Adam Kinzinger, Fiona Hill, Alexander Vindman, Joseph R. Biden, Jr., and any other member of Joseph R. Biden, Jr.'s family."

I think you see a theme. Right? As you can tell, most of those names are people President Trump has publicly attacked before because he thinks they have attacked or even persecuted him.

Now, it's not clear if all of them had their security clearances still intact tonight, even before this memo, but now.

I want to bring in CNN political and national security analyst David Sanger, CNN legal analyst Elliot Williams, and former Democratic congressman from New Jersey, Tom Malinowski. We also have senior political commentator here at CNN, Scott Jennings.

David, let me begin with you because the president -- what was the phrase? There is -- no longer in the national interest for these top- level former officials to access classified information. What are the implications of having that clearance revoked and this list of people -- those who have? DAVID SANGER, CNN POLITICAL AND NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST, WHITE HOUSE AND NATIOANAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT FOR THE NEW YORK TIMES: Well, my first reaction when I saw the list was, didn't we see a lot of these people on a list last week or the week before? And we did. Secretary of State Blinken, the national security adviser, Jake Sullivan. So, many of those are being revoked for the second time in recent weeks. Doing it to the former president is, you know, somewhat performative.

They would only really need access to classified information if they were doing one of a couple of things. One would be they were asked to come in and provide some advice on something that they had worked on before.

COATES: Which has happened in the past.

SANGER: Certainly has. Doesn't seem likely given the atmosphere in Washington --

COATES: No.

SANGER: -- today. Right? Second, if they were working on some project and they were asking for access to their old notes and so forth. But by and large, they wouldn't need it. And so, you know, most of this is sort of trying to declare, as the president has tried so many times before, that these people did such damage that they couldn't be trusted with the secrets of the United States.

And, a little bit of this is retribution. You may remember that President Biden cut off President Trump's --

COATES: Yeah.

SANGER: -- national security briefings.

COATES: So, Scott, on that point, is this retribution? What is the point of this if it, in some ways, is performative?

SCOTT JENNINGS, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, FORMER SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO PRESIDNET TO PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: Well, I think when it comes to the Bidens, I mean, given the family's long history of influence peddling and dealings with shady people overseas, I think cutting them off from national security information is, frankly, a pretty good idea. That's number one.

Number two, some of these people and their affiliates and the people they're associated with at the upper reaches of the Democratic Party have proven time and again that they are willing to abuse their adjacency to national security information for political purposes. We all remember the 51 Intelligence people who signed the Hunter Biden laptop letter, for instance.

And so, I think what Donald Trump is doing is sending a strong message. No longer are people like these who float in and out of government going to be able to abuse their national security access for political purposes. And let me just tell you something. What goes around comes around because, as David just said, they cut off Donald Trump in 2021. You want to play the game? Now, you got to play it when you're on the other side of the field.

COATES: Oh, governance by karma. Congressman, I have a lot to say, but I -- you're champing at the bit. Tell me what's your reaction.

TOM MALINOWSKI, FORMER NEW JERSEY REPRESENTATIVE: You know who I wish had access to classified information? Donald Trump. Because the president of the United States is out there talking about, for example, the war in Ukraine and telling us what's happening on the battlefield based on what Putin tells him and not based on what our Intelligence Community tells him, not based on the classified information that he's supposed to have access to.

[23:04:59] So, this is a stupid game. It's -- it's silly. It's dumb. But there are important issues that the president should be focused on right now around the world, including the war in Ukraine, including the situation with China and Taiwan.

And every single day, it's we're going to invade Greenland, we're going to make Canada the 51st state, we're going to take away people's security clearances for the second or third time, because that's the drama that I want to talk about on Friday rather than closing Social Security offices or inflation going up.

I mean, why are we even talking about this trivial, silly, stupid stuff that the entertainer in chief wants us to be talking?

COATES: And yet, I have to say, the timing is everything because what we're not talking about when we're talking about who should have access to classified material or who should have access to top secret information, frankly, within the last 24 or 48 hours -- there has been a lot of conversation about Elon Musk having access to information. I know he has said that the reporting in "The New York Times" was wrong. Even "The Wall Street Journal" confirmed it, and he said that that was wrong as well. But this comes at a time when Trump has been in some hot water about having Elon Musk maybe having access.

Is this the big, bright, shiny object we're all supposed to look at and go, forget about that?

ELLIOT WILLIAMS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: I don't -- I don't know if it's the big, bright, shiny object. And as David had mentioned, there's a performative aspect to this. Imagine for a moment what's just thought exercise. Imagine there was a rational basis for taking away Joe Biden's and/or Kamala Harris's security clearance. Okay. Fine. Let's just pretend.

Lisa Monaco, the former deputy attorney general of the United States, former head Of National Security Division at the United States, longtime federal prosecutor. There is simply no basis for removing this individual's security clearance unless it's being done in a vindictive manner. And it is to put on a show that the president, you know, is going after his, you know, his former opponents and sort of members of what he believed to be the top brass of the Democratic Party.

But -- but this is -- I -- I think it's a -- it's a sign, whether it's a dog whistle or a vuvuzela, to the people that support him, and -- and I think it works.

COATES: Well, Scott, you know, there -- this is also coming in a week, really week or two, where we've seen the threats about security clearances possibly being revoked for private law firm, associates and partners, and beyond. But if -- if to take your point about what goes around, comes around, is there a logical end to the tit for political tat? Is this where it ends or is more coming? Should more be coming?

JENNINGS: Well, look, it will come to an end when Democrats who go in and out of government stop abusing their access to and adjacency to national security information for political purposes. I mean, there is no doubt that the top reaches of the Democratic Party have used their adjacency and access to this information.

And then the fact that people know they have that access, they use that as credibility to then make political arguments against people they don't like such as Donald Trump. They use that credibility to try to get the news media to report things that they say such as the Hunter Biden laptop letter.

There is a rational basis, Elliot, for doing this, and it's to put a stop to people using this kind of imprimatur for political reasons. So, it will come to an end when people stop abusing this kind of access.

And one more issue, I just think far too many people in Washington have this kind of clearance, anyway. And I -- many people in both parties have acknowledged there's too many people with security clearances. Maybe this will start a conversation about ratcheting down the number of people who have access to this kind of information.

COATES: I mean, David, on that very point and what -- and what he was describing, I thought to myself, a place where people use their access or proximity to power for leverage and consultation. I think you described the Washington D.C. --

SANGER: Yeah.

COATES: -- District. All lobbyists. Frankly, many people have been consultants. Many members who are hoping to get the -- and bend the ear of a person. So, is that -- is that really the issue here or something else?

SANGER: Well, certainly, that has happened with both parties.

COATES: Of course.

SANGER: People leave power. They become consultants to major companies. They go work for defense companies. They use their security clearances in order to help get them the job and to do their jobs. So, there's nothing --

COATES: Or as lawyers to review information when a client is charged with some sort of a crime. Go ahead.

SANGER: Right. So, there's nothing -- nothing new there. You raised the Elon Musk meeting. This was a really interesting example here. Elon Musk has a security clearance. We don't know what kind. He may or may not have a waiver for his conflicts of interest.

The president said today he wouldn't want Elon Musk to have the most sensitive data about, say, war plans for China and so forth because he's a business executive with business in China and didn't want him to be subject to being manipulated that way.

[23:10:02]

It's pretty clear to me from watching the events of the past 24 hours that that's exactly what Musk was headed in to go do. I'm not sure the president knew about it. And that when the "Times" reported it and "The Wall Street Journal" and others confirmed it along the way, they changed the nature of the meeting.

COATES: You agree with that?

MALINOWSKI: Well, I do, and one tell is that Musk said today that this was a leak and the people who leaked it will be prosecuted.

COATES: Hmm.

MALINOWSKI: Now, you don't -- you don't get prosecuted for leaking a made-up story. You might get, you know, criticized for it. But a leak is something that is true that you're not supposed to tell members of the news media.

SANGER: And the chief of staff of the Pentagon put out a memo saying there was going to be a leak investigation.

COATES: What do you say about the point of the -- the -- the sheer number of people who have this level of clearance or have security? I mean, my great, great grandmother always say, everybody's business is nobody's business.

MALINOWSKI: Yeah, I -- I think that's a fair point. But anyone who believes that this is Donald Trump instituting a good government reform --

COATES: Hmmm.

MALINOWSKI: -- to limit the number of people with security clearances, I mean, seriously.

WILLIAMS: Yeah. I think, you know, both things can absolutely be true. And we've talked about this idea of reforming the clearance system. And too many people have had clearances before, quite frankly, on this program, I think. And it can be true that a lot of people have -- have clearances. But this is not Donald Trump attempting to tighten the security apparatus in the United States. He's punishing his opponents, which he has done successfully over -- over his time in the presidency and will continue to.

COATES: Let's talk about Norm Eisen and Mark Zaid, who are both attorneys, colleagues of -- of ours as well. They are among the attorneys who are on this list, those who have their accesses -- access revoked. They have been prominent critics of the president. Any surprise there that both have been targeted?

WILLIAMS: No. I -- not -- not at all. And it's -- it's --

COATES: To be clear, not surprised that it has happened or that it should have happened, but that it is.

WILLIAMS: Look, that's up to the president to decide what -- what ought to happen. But these are vocal critics of the president and vocal critics of this president get punished. That just seems to be how these --

JENNINGS: Can I -- can I --

WILLIAMS: -- last 30 days have played out, and it's how they're continuing, too.

COATES: Scott, I hear you talking.

JENNINGS: They're -- they're -- they're more -- they're more than just vocal critics. These are not people who just occasionally pop up and exercise their free speech rights. I mean, Norm is one of the most detestable people I've ever met in this business, and he is, like, one of the principal architects of the lawfare against Donald Trump.

So, if I were the president of the United States, you're damn right, I'm not going to let somebody run around with a national security clearance who is out there doing everything in his power to derail my presidency after I was duly elected not once, but twice.

So, you know what? Long overdue, and I'm glad he did it.

COATES: Well, I don't find Norm Eisen detestable. But, Elliot, I'll ask you on this point because, if I'm not mistaken, Norm Eisen has also been counsel to Donald Trump at one point in time, so he didn't find him detestable at that point, but he did help to lead the impeachment, the first impeachment of Donald Trump.

And Mark Zaid has been outspoken in protecting whistleblowers and those of the government who believe that they are being wronged simply by trying to tell what they perceive as the truth within their ranks.

What is your reaction to what Scott has said?

WILLIAMS: Look, I -- Scott is making me want to dust off my "Black Eyed Peas" CDs because, you know, it sounds like it's 2016 again. I think we are relitigating these fights over the last several years. Donald Trump won. He is the president. He is punishing his -- his opponents. It's that simple. It's, you know, we can bring back and rehash all of the greatest hits over the last several years, but this really is coming down to a question of Donald Trump going after the people who've opposed him over the years. Full stop.

COATES: Gentlemen, the conversation is not going to end here, as you can imagine. I don't know how much longer this list is going to be, but that was quite a mouthful.

Thank you, everyone, for sharing your insight for this conversation.

A lot more breaking news ahead. George Foreman's family announcing that he has passed away at the age of 76. Mike Tyson posting this to X: Condolences to George Foreman's family. His contribution to boxing and beyond will never be forgotten. Bob Costas and more are here to talk about it after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:15:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: Tonight, Olympian and two-time heavyweight champion George Foreman has passed away. He was 76 years old. The boxing legend had a remarkable career, first bursting on to the scene during the 1968 Summer Olympics in Mexico City, winning the gold medal, then going on to clinch his first heavyweight championship in his 20s, and then two decades later, defied the odds. Heavy skepticism was there, but he clinched the title again when he was 45, beating a competitor who was in his mid-20s.

Foreman's famous rivalry with Muhammad Ali culminated in the famous "Rumble in the Jungle" title bout that was controversially held in what is now the Democratic Republic of Congo. It was his first knockout defeat.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEORGE FOREMAN, PROFESSIONAL BOXER AND ENTREPRENEUR: I felt like he threw maybe 150.

(LAUGHTER)

Still feel those punches. I just underestimated one of the greatest fighters of all time.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Foreman's family announced his death, writing -- quote -- "He was deeply respected, a force for good, a man of discipline, conviction, and a protector of his legacy, fighting tirelessly to preserve his good name for his family."

[23:20:04]

And after retiring from boxing, he had a remarkable second act as an entrepreneur, coining his own signature grills.

Joining me now is sports commentator Bob Costas. Bob, what a night to think and remember the legacy that is George Foreman's. Starting with you, he was a legend. What are your reflections on his death?

BOB COSTAS, CNN CONTRIBUTOR (via telephone): Well, there were so many chapters in his life. Some of them complete flip sides of the first one. He acknowledged that as a kid, he was a bully and a petty thief, and then he got into a youth boxing program with -- which led him toward the Olympics.

In '68, he not only won the gold medal in Mexico City, beating a Soviet boxer in the gold medal match, but it came only days after Tommy Smith and John Carlos had raised their black-gloved fists in a salute or protest, which was very profound and still resonates a civil rights protest, which had great meaning.

Foreman, after winning the fight, took a small American flag and walked around the ring waving that flag. To a lot of people who resented what Smith and Carlos did, that made him a patriot, and they embraced him.

When he turned pro, he was a glowering presence, sort of like a forerunner to Mike Tyson. Everybody was afraid of him. And I think he won something like 37 straight fights before he lost to Muhammad Ali. And the most memorable of those fights before the Ali fight was he took out Joe Frazier in two rounds, knocked him down six times. Frazier was the defending and undefeated heavyweight champion. And so, everyone thought Foreman then was unbeatable and that Ali was over the hill.

But Ali used that rope a dope strategy, leaning against the ropes, hoping that Foreman would punch himself out and get tired because Foreman had knocked everybody else out so early in every fight, he'd never had to go deep into fights. And sure enough, Ali was right, and Ali knocked Foreman out.

So then eventually, Foreman kind of disappears. But then, as you said in your setup piece, by this time, he has become very affable. He's completely different than the young street punk or the glowering first time around heavyweight champion. He's now affable as can be. He's great in interviews. And he makes hundreds of millions of dollars with that George Foreman grill. Actually, I think made more money as a pitchman for his own product than he ever made in the ring.

And as you noted, he comes back at age 45 and wins the heavyweight championship. So, he actually fought professionally in the 60s, 70s, 80s, and 90s. And somewhere else along the line, that self-professed street criminal became a preacher. He turned his whole life around. And then as just a side note, you may know this, Laura, it's just kind of an interesting little parenthetical thing, he had five sons, and he named all of them George.

COATES: Well, with the legacy and the career that you have described, I don't know, I think a mirror image of your own name is the least you want to give to society, with his legacy there. (LAUGHTER)

I mean -- and just thinking about this, that rivalry. I mean, that moment. First of all, to knock down Joe Frazier, let alone to have that Mexico City moment

you name. But then if you're going to get knocked down, it's got to be from Muhammad Ali. And that rivalry was historic. But walk us through the significance of that "Rumble in the Jungle."

COSTAS (via telephone): Well, Ali took boxing global, really, because he was at one time arguably the most famous man on the planet. And so, with the help of promoter Don King, they took heavyweight championships to Manila. They took that one to what was then Zaire. As you said, now the Republic of the Congo, Democratic Republic of Congo. And so, it became a global event. Ali was known to everyone.

And at that point, Ali had become kind of a sentimental favorite. He was old by boxing standards. He had already lost once at that point to Joe Frazier. And Foreman was the overwhelming favorite. And Ali just added to his legend by outsmarting him in the ring.

A lot of people, most people who are experts on boxing said that Ali was not only remarkably gifted. You know, he was a heavyweight who fought like a middleweight, the way he moved around the ring. But he also was so smart. He just had an instinct for it and a plan that even his own trainers and managers couldn't quite understand, but it almost always worked out.

COATES: Well, to watch that fight, we're playing part of it now, but to see, as you described, the way in which George Foreman got back up figuratively, literally became such a humanitarian, the entrepreneur that we all know.

[23:25:03]

I personally had three George Foreman girls. I probably still have one in my house right now, Bob Costas, and I'll be continuing to share his legacy.

(LAUGHTER)

Thank you so much for joining and really just giving such detail about this incredible athlete. Thank you so much.

COSTAS (via telephone): Thank you, Laura. He really was, by the end, a very, very nice guy.

COATES: Yeah. But by the end, he said, well, you don't want to get in the ring with him. Your point was well taken. Thank you so much.

(LAUGHTER)

COSTAS (via telephone): Not for sure. Okay.

COATES: I want to bring in Jeremy Schaap. He is the host of ESPN's "E60" and "Sports Reporters." Jeremy, good to see you. What are your thoughts tonight as we smile through the significance of this man's career?

JEREMY SCHAAP, ESPN HOST: Well, when you think about George Foreman, I mean, you think about, as Bob said, this remarkable transformation. Right?

COATES: Uh-hmm.

SCHAAP: Which occurred right before our eyes. Over the course of more than half a century, there aren't too many figures, right, in American public life who persist for so long and are such a part of our lives for so long.

In Foreman, it goes all the way back to 1968 in Mexico City, winning the championship, waving the American flag, and then those epic fights in the 1970s against Joe Frazier, the six knockdowns in Kingston, Jamaica, and then one of the most spectacular moments in the annals of sport in Kinshasa on October 30th, 1974, when Muhammad Ali comes back and becomes a heavyweight champion of the world again.

And, you know, he is Ali's foil in that story. You know, Ali is the star of the "Rumble in the Jungle." Right? But Foreman is the foil. And Ali, you know, helps perpetuate this image of George Foreman as a villain. That was part of the strategy to sell the fight not only globally, but locally as well in what was then Zaire.

And Foreman, you know, struggles for the next several years, before he retires in 1977 after losing a Jimmy Young, and disappears for a period of time, becomes a preacher, comes back. Nobody thinks anyone at his age and in the kind of shape that he was in physically when he returns to the ring in 1987 can possibly even realistically dream of reclaiming the heavyweight championship, and then to do it, knocking out Michael Moore in 1994 at 45. It's one of the great stories in sports.

And, you know, we talk about F. Scott Fitzgerald. We talk about how there are no second acts in American public life. Well, George Foreman certainly disproved that and in a very powerful way. And it's not just about what he achieved in the ring, but how he transformed himself in terms of his public image and became the ultimate pitchman, affable, as Bob said.

And the other thing that I think is important to bear in mind, you know, we're talking in 2025 when the significance of boxing is diminished, when the significance of the title heavyweight champion of the world is diminished. When George Foreman became the heavyweight champion of the world in 1973, it was still the biggest thing in sports. It was the most coveted title in the world when we're talking about sports.

And he did it at a time when there was a golden age of heavyweight boxing. It wasn't just Frazier. It wasn't just Ali. There were Shavers, and there was Norton, and Larry Holmes was coming up. It was an incredible era. And to achieve what he achieved, winning that championship twice, is just one of the great achievements, accomplishments in all of sports. COATES: It's so profound, what you've said, and so true, to think about the arc of his story and that he owned it. Jeremy Schaap, thank you so much.

SCHAAP: Thank you.

COATES: We have much more on George Foreman. Ahead, a boxing heavyweight of his own and friend of George Foreman, Roy Jones, Jr. is here after this. I'm almost tongue-tied. Thank you for that.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:30:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: Back to our breaking news. Heavyweight champion George Foreman has died at the age of 76. Joining me now to reflect on his relationship with the late boxer is world champion Roy Jones, Jr. Roy, thank you for being here. I'm so sorry for the loss of somebody that I know you knew personally. Tell us about who he really was.

ROY JONES, JR., WORLD CHAMPION BOXER: Man, George Foreman was one of the most inspirational people that you ever would want to meet. There is just so much about George that makes him so much more different than most people. I tell people all the time, you got to realize that they are fighters, they are good boxers, and they are superstars and superheroes. George is a superstar and a superhero. Always has been in my book. And the reason it being is because when you're a guy, you fight amateur for one year, one year, and you go to the Olympics, and you win a gold medal. How?

(LAUGHTER)

It's -- it's almost impossible. You know, to come back and win the heavyweight championship at 45 years old. How? It's almost impossible. But George actually show people what the true meaning of faith in God is because he showed it over and over and over again.

[23:34:58]

And even coming back after the loss to Muhammad Ali 20 years later and recapturing the heavyweight championship of the world, it's just -- it's unheard of.

So, when I use the box, me and George both work as color commentaries for HBO at the same time, I would fight. He would come to my fights. And I just like to go back some time and listen to the things he would say. You know what I mean? He would say such good things about me.

(LAUGHTER)

No matter what, no matter what, George always has something nice to say about Roy Jones, Jr. I love George for that reason.

COATES: Well, you know, when you describe it, people don't realize the discipline required to box, to be able to have the intellect in the ring, to be able to be resilient, and be able to really understand your opponent. And he did that so well. He knew every part of that opponent. Right?

JONES: And you better believe it. And what's so funny is I always tell people, I boxed probably -- my style was closer to Muhammad Ali.

COATES: Hmmm.

JONES: But I always tell people that me and George Foreman are very, very hard on short people. A person shorter than us is not going to beat us. That's both me and George.

COATES: Well, I'm five-foot, three and a half, so let's not ever fight, Roy. We'll never fight. But let me ask you this, though. When you -- when you think about the -- the different times of his life -- I mean, you mentioned an amateur for a year, going on to win gold, heavyweight champion, and then coming back in his 40s to do it again. What would that take in terms of one's athleticism and just their drive?

JONES: To tell you the truth, drive and faith. Faith first, then drive across. You got to first have faith in God to do anything. Right? But to have the drive after that faith, to have the drive and determination and to show people that you believe in God so much that you're going to go out there and do something that the world can't believe, is even possible of being done. That's real faith, and that's what George stood for.

COATES: You know, sports has a way, boxing included, of, you know, having a hero and then chewing people up and spitting them out. He rose above being a villain during the Ali years, being that person that people wanted to hate sometimes because he was so good. What is the -- the impact on your mind of being in the limelight like he was, and then having to reinvent himself later?

JONES: It's kind of like, like I said, only God could have orchestrated such an ingenious move. The way George did that, that was almost unbelievable. He came out as a more of a thuggish-type guy that didn't care about nobody, that had not much discipline, just was a mean guy. And after what he went through with the Ali and the Jimmy Young situation, he went out and he found God.

And he came back as a totally different person, totally different person. But he still did miraculous things as a good person. Matter of fact, he did more miraculous things as a good person than he did as a person who didn't know God at first.

COATES: Hmmm.

JONES: So, like I said, once again, his testimony is one of the biggest and one of the best ones that you can ever listen to.

COATES: He was also a family man, and you knew him like that, too.

JONES: Yeah, of course. He had beautiful family. As a matter of fact, I still hear from one of his daughters every now and then. She's such a cool person. She also worked with us at HBO, so I'll see her passing every now and then. I see -- I think it's his brother every now and then. And, you know, I just -- I just always felt an attachment to the Foreman family, you know, because he is such a family-oriented person.

COATES: Roy, does the boxing world appreciate who this man was?

JONES: I hope the boxing world does. But most of the time, it takes a person passing for the boxing world to really go back and look and realize what that person did. But in my lifetime, my dad always made a reference to George Foreman for us, whether good or bad.

But for me, I always thought Big George Foreman was Big George Foreman. And I thought Big George Foreman did certain things like he hit -- I want to say it was one of the guys, maybe Gerry Cooney (ph), I think, with a left lead uppercut. I do it a lot when I'm fighting. Matter of fact, I think I hit Vinny Pazienza (ph). Don't have the same shot, but I call it the Big George. You dip up like you're going to throw a hook and you turn into a left uppercut. I call it the Big George myself.

So, it's like -- man, it's like George leaves such a big legacy behind that I don't know if there'll ever be another George Foreman. We think there never will be Muhammad Ali, another Muhammad Ali. There will never be another George Foreman either. But the thing about it was in those times, you had people that really stood out. The Ali, Joe Frazier, George Foreman, Jimmy Young. I mean, just -- it was crazy.

[23:40:00]

Earnie Shavers was crazy back then. You know?

COATES: Yes. And now, we will continue to remember this legend from another legend. Roy Jones, Jr., thank you so much for sharing what this man meant to you and the boxing world. Thank you.

JONES: Thank you. Thank you so much for having me. And we suffered a terrible loss tonight.

COATES: Indeed. We'll continue to remember his legacy. Thank you.

JONES: Thank you.

COATES: Next, there is more breaking news tonight. President Trump now ordering the attorney general to review the conduct of lawyers and firms across the country. We'll discuss next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: Well, the breaking news just keeps coming out tonight.

[23:44:54]

Breaking now, President Trump ordering the attorney general of the United States to review the conduct of lawyers and firms all across the country, law firms that his administration has deemed to have filed frivolous lawsuits against them or to have blocked his immigration initiatives, saying in a memo, their -- quote -- "conduct must be efficiently and effectively held accountable."

This is coming after the administration already targeted the top law firms, suspending their security clearances. I want to bring in Jeff Swartz. He's a law professor and a former judge in the Miami-Dade County Court. Judge Swartz, thank you for joining. This is quickly becoming striking in the land of constitutionality. The

president wants the attorney general to review the conduct of lawyers filing what he calls frivolous lawsuits against him or trying to block his -- this is remarkable.

JEFF SWARTZ, FORMER JUDGE, MIAMI-DADE COUNTY COURT: Yeah. Unfortunately, I happen to be one of those lawyers that he talks about in that -- in that thing because I've worked with Norm Eisen and Mark Zaid in one particular thing involving USAID that we were very successful, along with a lot of very -- other very good lawyers. I wouldn't say I was one of those very good lawyers, but I worked with them.

COATES: But you're being humble.

SWARTZ: Yeah. I would tell you that this is very chilling, the idea that the president of the United States is seeking the attorney general on lawyers who are doing work representing people in front of the district court or the circuit court or even SCOTUS, which -- who decides whether it's frivolous, who decides whether it is inappropriate, who decides what it has validity and what doesn't. That's what a judge does, not the president of the United States and not the attorney general of the United States.

And this is really very chilling, that he would go after people's licenses, and that's what he threatens in this statement to do.

COATES: First of all, thinking about the role of the attorney general and all of the different prosecutions and cases and inner divisions that they're working on, to have the attention directed in this way is stunning and in its own right. But as you point out, just because a case is unsuccessful does not render it frivolous. There is a process to deal with that.

SWARTZ: Right.

COATES: This may not be the one. But you mentioned chilling. Will this have a chilling effect on those firms that have court fights that are presently happening around the country?

SWARTZ: It already has on two or three of the more prominent firms in Washington, D.C. Large firms. What we call big law. Three of these firms in the past week have either pulled off of representing people or, just today, there was another law firm that just settled with the White House, with some sort of idea that they would do work for pro bono, including people who are in favor of the president and are supporting the president.

This is not what lawyers do. Lawyers choose things that they can represent people zealously on and that they believe in. You don't -- for example, a defense attorney represents someone, he doesn't have to believe they're guilty or not guilty to represent them. He holds the government to a standard.

This is what a lot of lawyers in the Washington area and around the country are doing now. The idea that now the president is going to sick his dogs on people because he doesn't like what they're doing is trying to shut down the judicial system by removing the advocates as opposed to the judges.

COATES: Speaking of the judges, there were strong signals today that Judge Boasberg might have a, well, may rule against the administration in the dispute about deportations. What were your thoughts on the hearing today knowing the vitriol that he is already receiving for simply wanting to ask questions about who may have been on the plane, what authority they were acting under, and did they violate his order?

SWARTZ: Those are basically the three questions that I kind of anticipated he was going to be asking. The -- he wants to get and he's trying to get to "who ignored my order?" And one of the things that happened in court today was one of the lawyers for the government stood up and said, yes, judge, I passed on your verbal order. And, yes, I agree that your verbal order was an enforceable order.

Now, we didn't get to who he passed it on to, and we don't know who that person passed it on to and actually pulled the trigger, but today, it seems that he's throwing Marco Rubio under the bus and pushing all the responsibility on him.

COATES: We'll see how all of this unfolds. This is likely to go before the Supreme Court, but that might be by design. Jeff Swartz, thank you for joining.

[23:50:00]

SWARTZ: Thank you for having me, Laura. I appreciate it.

COATES: Did you ever wonder what does Anita Hill think of Justice Clarence Thomas now Well, Jake Tapper sat down with her and has that answer. He'll tell us next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: Before we go tonight, don't miss this week's all new episode of "United States of Scandal with Jake Tapper."

[23:55:02]

It follows the controversy around the Supreme Court nomination of Clarence Thomas in 1991. One of his former employees, Anita Hill, accused him of sexual harassment, and it sparked a series of unprecedented and dramatic congressional hearings.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JAKE TAPPER, CNN CHIEF WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT: I remember watching, just watching it as a viewer. You seemed so composed. But inside, it must have been different. What was the experience of testifying like?

ANITA HILL, LAWYER AND EDUCATOR: So, the hearings were surreal. I mean, they were -- they were like a surreal experience.

My working relationship became even more strained when Judge Thomas began to use work situations to discuss sex. On several occasions, Thomas told me graphically of his own sexual prowess. I told him that I did not want to talk about these subjects. He said that if I ever told anyone of his behavior, that it would ruin his career.

TAPPER: What you described during the hearing is classic sexual harassment.

HILL: It absolutely is. I mean, for some people, it's just they -- they think it's just an annoyance. It's no big deal.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: I must note Clarence Thomas has denied Anita Hill's allegations, as you recall. But I caught up with Jake to hear more about what we can expect from that conversation. Jake, another amazing season in this particular episode. So poignant. Did anything, though, surprise you about your conversation with Anita Hill?

TAPPER: You know, one of the great things about the jobs we have is that if you and I were accountants, lawyers, whatever, we would be news junkies, and we'd be sitting at home thinking, I really would love just to ask this person this. So, I got to do that for Anita Hill.

And one of the things I really wondered about in addition to, like, what she thought of Joe Biden --

COATES: Uh-hmm.

TAPPER: -- who was the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee during those hearings was, after all of this, and all of a sudden, this hearing became a touchstone for the country. She became famous or infamous, depending on your point of view. Sexual harassment became something that people were suddenly aware of.

COATES: Uh-hmm.

TAPPER: And then it was the year of the woman in 1992. All these women got elected, Democrats to the House. Her party nominated Bill Clinton for president. And I always -- and I wondered, what did you think of that? Because he has been credibly accused of sexual harassment with Paula Jones.

COATES: Was she surprised by that question or was she kind of, like, finally, someone has asked. I want to answer all these --

TAPPER: Well, I don't want to say finally someone has asked, but it was not something that she had to dig for the answer.

COATES: Uh-hmm. TAPPER: It was something that she had thought about. And so, that was really interesting for me, personally.

COATES: How about Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas who, obviously, is synonymous with people who know Anita Hill? He famously called his own Supreme Court confirmation hearing process a high-tech lynching. She has been asked about --

TAPPER: Of an uppity Black man.

COATES: Of an uppity Black man.

TAPPER: Yeah.

COATES: She went on from there. I wonder, was there an impact that she felt that she had had in that experience on the standing overall of the Supreme Court of the United States or her views of him today?

TAPPER: Well, her views are, obviously, not great of him --

COATES: Uh-hmm.

TAPPER: -- because she thinks that he lied about what happened. Her views of the process of the confirmation hearings are not great because there were witnesses that, in her view, would have corroborated that behavior, other witnesses who experienced similar things allegedly by Clarence Thomas.

COATES: But they wouldn't call those people.

TAPPER: But they didn't call them. Joe Biden didn't call them, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee. So, she has feelings about that. She also has feelings about the fact that there really hasn't been any improvement when it comes to the process of confirming a Supreme Court justice.

I mean, arguably, the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation hearing process was even more shambolic than the Clarence Thomas one. There were allegations being made last minute. There was no real vetting. It was a circus again. Very partisan. Nobody really knew what the truth was. So, there really hasn't been an improvement on this in this area since.

COATES: Interestingly enough, she might very well believe people know how to navigate the process because of the experience and how they were able to steal the Supreme Court justice at the end of these allegations, by the way.

It has been over 30 years, though. As you know, we've had the "Me Too" movement. It's not a finite period. It's still ongoing. She certainly has spearheaded some relevant aspects of it. Do you think the conversation publicly has shifted, though, not away from the process of confirmations, but the idea of sexual harassment?

TAPPER: So, I asked her about this general topic and one of the things -- because, obviously, now, when women level such accusations, it is taken more seriously by the media, by society.

COATES: Yep.

TAPPER: But she says -- I said, do you think people are more inclined to believe women?

COATES: Uh-hmm.

TAPPER: She said, I think they believe them. I think they just don't care.

COATES: Really?

TAPPER: Yeah.

COATES: I want to hear the rest of this conversation.

TAPPER: Yeah.

COATES: Really powerful.

[00:00:00]

She continues on talking about these topics. I'm glad she did it here. Jake, thank you so much.

TAPPER: Thank you, Laura.

COATES: And be sure to tune in. A new episode of "United States of Scandal" airs Sunday at 9 p.m., only on CNN.

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