Return to Transcripts main page
Laura Coates Live
Hegseth Speaks Amid Firestorm Over Security Breach; U.S. Wrongfully Deported Man Over Soccer Tattoo; Democrats Square Off Against Musk in Wisconsin Race; Laura Coates Interviews Laura Knox. Aired 11p-12a ET
Aired March 25, 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]
SCOTT JENNINGS, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: I just think that maybe -- it maybe the crazier is better on these first dates.
S.E. CUPP, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: What?
JENNINGS: What I'm saying? Minimize --
(CROSSTALK)
SHERMICHAEL SINGLETON, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: You know what, Scott? That's true.
(LAUGHTER)
That's true.
CUPP: What are you talking about?
JENNINGS: You guys maybe -- you guys maybe --
(CROSSTALK)
SINGLETON: -- lifetime of craziness.
(CROSSTALK)
JENNINGS: You guys are looking for perfect, and I think -- I think -- I think you're letting perfect be the enemy of the crazy. And you all went crazy.
(LAUGHTER)
You're letting perfect be the enemy of the crazy. Crazy --
(CROSSTALK)
ASHLEY ALLISON, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: -- is how you ended up with Donald Trump.
(LAUGHTER)
JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: All right, everyone, thank you all so much. If everyone is watching, the world remains single forever.
(LAUGHTER)
Thank you for watching "NewsNight." "Laura Coates Live" starts now.
UNKNOWN (voice-over): This is CNN Breaking News.
LAURA COATES, CNN HOST AND SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Good evening, everyone. I'm Laura Coates. So, it's looking like the biggest scandal to hit Trump 2.0 now has a name. 'Signal-gate.' You probably could've guessed that one. At any moment, we're expecting one of the key people in that signal group chat, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, to speak to reporters. We're bringing his remarks live as soon as he starts talking.
Everyone in the administration is trying to spin their way out of the scandal. They're saying it's no big deal that journalist Jeffrey Goldberg got added to a signal group chat about military plans against Yemen.
Take National Security Advisor Mike Waltz. He's actually one who inadvertently added Goldberg to that chat. Now, he admits the whole thing is a mistake, but he said it's all a distraction from Trump's successes, and he isn't really sure how Goldberg actually ended up in his phone in the first place.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MIKE WALTZ, NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR OF THE UNITED STATES: I don't know this guy. I don't text him. He wasn't on my phone. We're going to figure out how this happened.
LAURA INGRAHAM, FOX NEWS HOST: So, you don't know what staffer is responsible for this right now?
WALTZ: Well, look, a staffer wasn't responsible. And, look, I take full responsibility. I built the -- I built the group.
INGRAHAM: You've never talked him before. So, how's the number on your phone? I mean, I'm not an expert in any of this, but it's just -- how's the number on your phone --
WALTZ: Well, if you have somebody else's contact, and then it -- and then somehow, it gets sucked in --
INGRAHAM: Oh, someone sent you that contact.
WALTZ: It gets sucked in.
INGRAHAM: Was there someone else supposed to be on the chat that wasn't on the chat that you thought --
WALTZ: So, the person that I thought was on there was never on there. It was --
INGRAHAM: Who was that person that's supposed to be -- WALTZ: Well, I'm not -- look, Laura, I take -- I take responsibility. I built the -- I built the group.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: I've had this exact conversation with an ex-boyfriend once. I'm just going to tell you that right now. How was that in the phone? I don't really know. Somebody put it there. It's triggering. I'll keep going for a second.
Try to make sense of the entire thing, though. Okay? Because the president himself weighed in a short time ago and gave a little more clarity, if that was clarity, beyond the highly technical terminology of getting sucked in.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: What it was, we believe, is somebody that was on the line with permission, somebody that was with Mike Waltz, worked for Mike Waltz at a lower level, had, I guess, Goldberg's number or call through the app. And somehow, this guy ended up on the call.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: So, a staffer. Sounds like Trump and Waltz aren't really on the same page in this story. It is a complicated one, which, frankly, is already confusing enough for people. Right? But if it weren't enough for you yet, Trump's team is also muddying the waters by essentially triple dog daring Goldberg to release more texts from the chat. How? By denying his claim they discussed classified war plans at all.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: The attack was totally successful. It was, I guess, from what I understand, took place during, and it wasn't classified information. So, this was not classified.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: And you know all those other people who Goldberg says were in the group? People like Pete Hegseth and Tulsi Gabbard and John Ratcliffe? They're singing the same tune.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TULSI GABBARD, FORMER HAWAII REPRESENTATIVE: There were no classified or intelligence equities that were included in that chat group at any time.
JOHN RATCLIFFE, DIRECTOR, CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE: I was not discussing classified information in this -- in this setting.
UNKNOWN: No classified information.
PETE HEGSETH, UNITED STATES SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: Nobody was texting war plans, and that's all I have to say about that.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: I think you're going to have to say more. If they can't stay on message about how Goldberg got added, they sure are about what was discussed. Right? Sources telling CNN that those are indeed the marching orders. The strategy is to downplay this entire Signal-gate group chat and try to discredit the journalist who did the reporting.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: I mean, I happen to know the guy is a total sleazebag. "The Atlantic" -- "The Atlantic" is a failed magazine, does very, very poorly. Nobody gives a damn about it. He found it very boring, and he left early. He got off the line very early. So, I can't speak to it other than that. So, he has made up a lot of stories and, you know, I think he's basically bad for the country.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: So secret that Trump can't stand Goldberg.
[23:05:00]
The journalist has put a lot of reporting that, frankly, has infuriated the president. But that doesn't make these images any less real. Screenshots publicly released by Goldberg showing texts from the group. He says this one shows the conversation right after the strikes happened, fist bump and fire emojis and all. And these, well, they show J.D. Vance, the vice president, mind you, and Hegseth debating the merits of carrying out the attack.
So clearly, this wasn't just some, hey, what are you guys up to this weekend Text thread. Something serious was going down. And now, Goldberg is suggesting that he just might release a few more.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JEFFREY GOLDBERG, EDITOR-IN-CHIEF, THE ATLANTIC: Maybe in the coming days, I'll -- I'll -- I'll be able to let you know that, okay, I have a -- I have a plan to -- to have this material vetted publicly.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: With me now, Zolan Kanno-Youngs, CNN analyst and White House correspondent for "The New York Times," Sabrina Singh, former deputy Pentagon press secretary in the Biden administration, and Lance Trover, a Republican strategist and former spokesperson for Doug Burgum's presidential campaign. Glad to have you all here in the edition of it wasn't me, Shaggy edition, Signal-gate. I'll begin with you, Zolan. Will the claim of responsibility by Mike Waltz quiet all this noise?
ZOLAN KANNO-YOUNGS, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST, WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT FOR THE NEW YORK TIMES: No, I don't think it will. You are seeing for -- when it comes to the reaction, one from Congress, you're seeing Democrats coalesce around something in terms of going on the offensive, which we haven't seen in the past. You're seeing some Republicans as well talk about how alarming this was. And you're seeing former national security officials also say, look, this isn't just you accidentally add someone to a chat, this is an extraordinary breach of security as well.
What you saw from the White House today was a familiar playbook by the Trump administration when it comes to a story or reporting that is causing alarm inside, belittle the contents of the story and find an opponent. In this case, the journalist, the editor-in-chief of "The Atlantic," Jeffrey Goldberg.
But in their claim about classified information, it may actually turn out that that really doesn't matter. The law that national security officials cite here is the Espionage Act. That doesn't require classified information. It talks about mishandling information that could undermine national security. Right?
COATES: And the mishandling being putting it on a forum where somebody else who doesn't have clearance to see it is seeing it.
KANNO-YOUNGS: That's right. That's right. Talking about it outside of, you know, a safe environment like a SCIF on a commercial platform, but also adding a journalist to it accidentally.
And, again, just a reminder here, those screenshots definitely are, you know, encapsulated parts of this conversation. But the reporting in "The Atlantic" is that two hours before the strike against the Houthis, there were sensitive military details also discussed. Goldberg did not include that because he said it would put at risk also service members, but good to remind folks that that was reportedly in there as well.
COATES: By the way, he hasn't been clear as to why he chose to get out of the group chat. Some wondered why he left. They thought maybe they're nosy and want to keep going there. But I suspect him then releasing information could present some legal vulnerability for him for a number of reasons. We'll see.
Sabrina, the president, though, is saying that everyone else was using Signal. We're all doing it. Why don't you in some respects? Is that standard in the federal government for data like this?
SABRINA SINGH, DEPUTY PENTAGON PRESS SECRETARY: It is not. And -- and when I was at the White House, when I was at the Pentagon, I didn't have Signal on my work phone. And so, Signal is not an app that should be used by government officials. On our work phones, what we were doing -- I mean, you have classified systems and you have unclassified systems. The unclassified systems, you know, phones, emails, those are separate from classified systems.
And what is so damaging and harmful in this reporting is that Secretary Hegseth took classified information and moved it into a non- secure format.
And even though they're denying that there was classified information in these text threads, any time there's a military operation, before an operation, if it is true that Secretary Hegseth put the locations, the timing, and the targets in that thread, that is classified. That is an operation. And so, what he did was put those fighter pilots at risk, and that does warrant an investigation.
COATES: Is there any way to get around that truth if -- if they have done this? I mean, we're looking, by the way, at Secretary Hegseth live. He's in Honolulu. In fact, he's approaching. We're listening.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
HEGSETH: It's just a great day. Any day you're forward deployed with the troops as a secretary of defense is a good day. And what we got to see here, starting with PT with Navy SEALs in the morning, which has turned in to smoke the sec def, more than it has PT.
[23:10:05]
The opportunity to see what the Marines are doing here. Incredible stuff. Training. Training space. Jungle school for the Army with the Air Force capabilities, Space Force capabilities, naval lift. It's all here.
And it's all a reflection of America's commitment to the Indo-Pacific and the Trump administration's focus on ensuring that we are doing everything we can to deter conflict with the communist Chinese, who we don't see conflict with at all.
But we will stand strong in deterrence and will posture troops forward. That's why we're going out to Guam, to see our friends in Japan and the Philippines. We're posturing forward, talking and meeting with commanders who have the capabilities that understand the AOR, talking to friends and allies. That doesn't get any better than watching troops in action, which is a humbling and an honor for me.
So, it has been a great day here, and we look forward to many more ahead on this trip as we institute, sort of live out, try to showcase the pivot that President Trump is putting toward the Indo-Pacific, making sure we're properly focusing and prioritizing where we should on peer adversaries to stand strong and reflect deterrence.
Reestablishing deterrence is part of what President Trump has commanded me, compelled me to do, in addition to restoring the warrior ethos and rebuilding our military. And reestablishing deterrence is a big part of why we're here. Happy to take a couple of questions.
UNKNOWN (voice-over): Mr. Secretary, thanks. First of all, thanks so much for having me on the trip. That helicopter ride was awesome. I'm sure my colleagues feel the same way. My question is on Taiwan. You mentioned deterrence. Admiral Paparo in his speeches has said that the exercises around Taiwan are not just exercises, but rehearsals for an attack. How concerned are you about China's ability --
COATES: We're listening to Secretary Hegseth right now describe his missions, why he is there, talking about showcasing the pivot in the Indo-Pacific region and reestablishing deterrence and restoring a warrior ethos. We'll get back to his conversation and listen in. I'm hoping that he will, to my panel, address the very big elephant here stateside, of course, and that is the Signal-gate.
And, Lance, I was asking you before he came out about the idea of this challenge that's posed now. There is an -- a very obvious risk that could be posed if classified documents or information were shared. What is the appropriate way to address this? Is it just to fall on one sword and address it or to try to pivot?
LANCE TROVER, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST, FORMER SPOKESPERSON FOR DOUG BURGUM'S 2024 PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN: Well, the administration says, as you've noted and everybody has noted, that the there is no classified information in there. So, I'm taking them at their word.
Look, I -- I feel like they have done -- the Trump White House has done a pretty good job in terms of their handling of this. They acknowledged it out of the gate. They didn't try to hide it. They didn't try to say, oh, it wasn't me or it's fake news, which some people have alleged that they might've tried to do. They have taken responsibility.
Mike Waltz is on TV again tonight, many times over taking responsibility. The president himself took 20 minutes of questions on it today and addressed it straightforward to the American people, which is what he always does.
So, to me, in terms of a P.R. playbook here and how you would handle it, I think they've handled it about as well as they possibly could.
COATES: Well, then can we see all the documents or information that was shared then if it was nothing? I mean, if it's a nothing burger, I'll bite.
SINGH: Well, I mean, I didn't say it wasn't classified. I think the text messages and what Secretary Hegseth put in there is classified. If what the reporter is describing, that he put in locations, targets, timing, you never ever discuss that in an unclassified setting, let alone on a Signal.
TROVER: So, and again, they have said -- the president said himself today, there's going to be a review of what happened in this case. And so --
COATES: Well, I want to listen to -- he's taking -- he's listening to a question. Go ahead.
UNKNOWN (voice-over): -- using Signal to discuss operations as sensitive as the strikes against the Houthis on a government or a personal phone.
HEGSETH: First, all I would say is, the strikes against the Houthis that night were devastatingly effective. And I'm incredibly proud of the courage and skill of the troops. And they are ongoing and continue to be devastatingly effective. The last place I would want to be right now is a Houthi in Yemen who wants to disrupt freedom of navigation. So, the skill and courage of our troops is on full display. It's a complete opposite approach from the fecklessness of the Biden administration. President Trump said, peace through strength will be brought back, freedom of navigation will return, and that's exactly what we're doing. As I also stated yesterday, nobody is texting war plans, and that's all I have to say about it.
UNKNOWN (voice-over): So, those same troops that -- those same troops that you are proud of, do you regret putting information like the ones you did in the Signal chat that could endanger those same American service members?
[23:15:00]
HEGSETH: Nobody is texting war plans. I know exactly what I'm doing, exactly what we're directing, and I'm really proud of what we accomplished, the successful missions that night and going forward.
UNKNOWN (voice-over): So, you had a conversation with seniors of Indo- Pecan. How do you --
HEGSETH: Say it again (Ph).
UNKNOWN (voice-over): You had a conversation with senior officials of Indo-Pecan today and yesterday. How do you evaluate the importance of Indo-Pecan?
HEGSETH: Indo-Pecan is critically important. And Admiral Paparo is -- is a fighting admiral. He's a really smart guy.
COATES: (INAUDIBLE) that moment, Zolan, because this is an important point. He is talking about the effectiveness of the troops, comparing it to what he called the fecklessness of the Biden administration's approach to this, and that he was proud of the troops because the strikes against the Houthis was devastatingly effective, to use his own words.
But then he was very particular when he answered the question. Nobody is texting war plans. He did not go into the rest of the information about what else could have been. Is that enough to suggest that the reporting is inaccurate?
KANNO-YOUNGS: I -- I -- I don't think it is. I mean, at this point, he is saying -- I mean, war plans -- correct me if I'm wrong, anyone here, especially someone who has been -- who has worked for the Defense Department. I don't think there's one legal term for war plans. He might be using his own discretion to describe what exactly the war plans are in this instance.
Look, what Jeffrey Goldberg reported is that there were sensitive details on this military strike sent in this group chat just two hours before the strike. I think any person that will -- that's reading this would consider that to be plans for a war. Right? So, he might be using his -- his own discretion there.
But at this point, you're right, we have not heard a specific answer and a detailed answer from the secretary of defense of, why were you talking about this just in general on Signal? You know? Obviously, why -- what checks were in place to ensure who else was in this channel? Why not talk about this in the space the government -- that the government creates for these sensitive conversations as well?
(END VIDEOTAPE)
I don't think that answer will have this story go away.
COATES: Is this a kind of odd arose by any other name? His -- it's not a war plan I tweeted. It was not a war plan that I sent. Okay. Maybe it was classified or sensitive information about location or strategy or anything else. It's not under the same umbrella and the point the same?
TROVER: Look, again, I go back to I think this administration has been straightforward from the very beginning. I don't think that -- to me, I don't see him playing games here with war plans. I see where we can parse it out. But, again, I'm going to take him at his word. We have the -- we have Mike Waltz taking responsibility for this. So, we have to take him at his word.
And so, I don't -- I don't know what other suggestion there is to do, whether it is to release all of the information, but, I mean, that's up to the administration. And that, to me, is what we're going to break. I think that's what their review is all about, and that's what I assume this administration will continue to do.
KANNO-YOUNGS: The thing about the review, too, I believe it's -- it's out of the NSC and the White House right now. What this one test that this creates, too, is, you know, Kash Patel said that he would lead an FBI that would be independent in his confirmation hearing. Pam Bondi saying the same thing. Will we actually see any review from the Justice Department on this or the FBI? It does create a real test there for that.
SINGH: And -- and Donald Trump also fired all of the inspector generals, who are also the check on the agencies as well.
COATES: Details. Details. Everyone, thank you so much. Signal-gate reminding people of other national security scandals, myself included, like the former NSA contractor Reality Winner. Remember that she pleaded guilty to leaking classified information to a reporter, and she was given the longest sentence ever for leaking government secrets, five years. Tonight, a lot of people at home are wondering, what is Reality Winner thinking?
Well, lucky for us, she joins us now. Reality, thank you for joining us. You have, obviously, seen many of the comments comparing your case to this group chat. Should the people in this group be held responsible and how?
REALITY WINNER, FORMER NSA TRANSLATOR: So, I definitely think that accepting responsibility is an important step and finding a way to have these conversations that's not on Signal that's more secure should definitely be like the first outcome. But as far as any disciplinary or administrative action, I would just prefer that we find more secure ways to, you know, text war plans as opposed to just going about -- yeah, I don't think anybody needs to resign at this point. I think that we need to not lose our heads over this because next week, it's just going to be something worse, anyway.
COATES: Hmmm. Resignation is certainly one avenue. But what would consequence would someone like you face if you were in the chat and you weren't a Cabinet member?
[23:20:02]
Should the same penalty apply?
WINNER: I mean, I think that, definitely, there would be an administrative route, some type of disciplinary. Obviously, if I were in the Military, loss of rank would ensue. But definitely, probably not like criminal charges. No. Absolutely not. I'm not looking to increase the strength of the Espionage Act at this point because that also puts the journalist at risk.
COATES: How common is it, Reality, for, say, national security employees more broadly, to use an app like Signal?
WINNER: Well, before I got arrested, I don't think Signal existed, and I still don't use it. So, it seemed very nonchalant. I mean, you have people like Ratcliffe and Tulsi Gabbard using it. Nobody really seemed to be questioning the use of it.
But again, I think that it's very strange that the United States government doesn't have a more secure encrypted government-approved text program so that people in the Cabinet can have these conversations in real time without being in a SCIF.
COATES: Well, what is the benefit of not using a SCIF or the more secure measures that are in place right now? Why do you think there is a need to have these sorts of offline private communications in this way as opposed to the normal course of action?
WINNER: Probably because they don't want to be sitting in a SCIF on Saturday.
COATES: So just convenience then, I guess. I take your point. I understand. But --
WINNER: I mean, it's 2025. You know, we should have this technology. You know, put the little tech wizards on it, the 22-year-olds that are running the government now. Have them do it.
COATES: Point well taken. But, you know, lawmakers, Reality, they've been blasting the administration for using Signal, at least some members. You believe that we're missing, though, the bigger picture here, focusing on the Signal use as opposed to the strikes in Yemen itself. Why?
WINNER: Definitely. So, I think that we're going at the sensational stuff. We're talking about the emojis. Right? We're not talking about AUMF. Are these operations being held under the war time actions, are taking place without our Congress? Who was elected declaring war? That's not the bigger conversation.
And as an American, having bombs dropped under my flag when I didn't vote on it or I didn't vote -- my senator didn't vote on it is a little more alarming than whether or not they're using Signal or whether or not they're using the thumbs up emoji.
COATES: Thank you for bringing it into the conversation. It is a very important point to consider as well. Reality Winner, thank you.
WINNER: Thank you so much.
COATES: Still ahead, did the Trump administration mistakenly deport a Venezuelan man because of a soccer tattoo? Well, the man's lawyer says that's exactly what happened, and she claims she has proof.
And later, Elon Musk spending millions of bucks in the Wisconsin Supreme Court race. Why? And can Democrats actually use that to their advantage? We'll answer both.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:25:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: Deported because of his tattoo. That's what the family and attorney of Venezuelan Jerce Reyes Barrios is claiming. His lawyer says the former pro soccer player and coach fled his home country to the United States-Mexico border in September, where he was detained immediately under the Biden administration.
DHS officials claims that Jerce's tattoo was proof of gang membership. Now, since then, Jesse has been waiting for his asylum appointment while in U.S. custody. According to his lawyer, though, everything changed 10 days ago when relatives lost track of him.
Then came the unthinkable. Jesse's aunt recognized her nephew in photos from the notorious prison in El Salvador, where over 200 Venezuelan migrants were recently sent from the United States, deported under the Trump administration, you recall?
His attorney says that immigration officials misinterpreted Jesse's soccer tattoo. It shows a crown sitting above a soccer ball with a rosary and the word "Dios," which means God in Spanish. A declaration from Jesse's tattoo artist obtained from his lawyer says it was designed to resemble his favorite soccer team, Real Madrid.
Jerce's immigration attorney, Linette Tobin, is here now. Linette, thank you for joining us. You say that he had an asylum hearing that was scheduled for next month. And how was he on these deportation flights?
LINETTE TOBIN, IMMIGRATION ATTORNEY FOR JERCE REYES BARRIOS: Well, that's the question. In this case, Jerce entered the United States. He fled Venezuela for safety, to get away from political violence. He entered the U.S. He was given permission to enter so that he could present his asylum case to a judge. And that final hearing was set for April 17. And then without notice to me, without notice to his family, he was just deported.
COATES: Now, Linette, DHS has said in a statement that Jerce Reyes Barrios was not only in the United States illegally, but they're saying -- quote -- "he has tattoos that are consistent with those indicating Tren de Aragua gang membership." They say that his own social media indicates he is a member of the vicious Tren de Aragua gang. That all said, DHS intelligence assessments go beyond a single tattoo, and we are confident in our findings."
[23:30:02]
That's their quote from their statement. Now, the U.S. government says he has multiple tattoos related to the gang. What's your response to that?
TOBIN: Well, they have only accused him of having one tattoo related to the gang. He does have many tattoos, but they are focusing on only one, and that is the soccer ball with the crown. And the DHS position is a crown tattoo is proof of gang membership. Period. That's -- that's their proof.
The second thing they're talking about are these posts on his social media where he's making this hand sign, which they say is also proof of gang membership. And -- but it's also the sign for "I love you" or for "rock and roll." It's a very common hand gesture that appears in a lot of people's social media.
COATES: It certainly is.
TOBIN: As for being in the --
COATES: Go ahead. Go ahead, Linette.
TOBIN: And as far as being in the country illegally, that's -- that's just not true. He did everything he was supposed to do. He left Venezuela. He went to Mexico, and he went through the process that he was supposed to go through, which is downloading an app called CBP One, Customs and Border Patrol One, and then waiting for an appointment.
He waited for four months for that appointment. His appointment came up on September 1. And on that day, he presented himself at the border exactly as he was supposed to. He was interviewed. He told his story, and CBP officials said, we will permit you to enter the country to make your case before an immigration judge. So, he did nothing wrong.
COATES: And the case he wants to make explains why he needs asylum here. Can you explain why that is?
TOBIN: We don't want to go into those details so that it could endanger his family and endanger him as well other than to say he fled political violence and was seeking asylum here due to that.
COATES: Now, his aunt recognized, apparently, her nephew in photos from the notorious prison in El Salvador. Have you been able to make a contact with him there or anywhere?
TOBIN: No. And as far as I know, no family members and no attorneys have been able to contact any of the 238 people who were deported. They have disappeared.
COATES: So, what comes next? I mean, what -- what legal recourse -- given that appointment and given where he is so far, what legal recourse could he have?
TOBIN: Well, the ACLU has brought a big lawsuit against the government to -- initially, to stop these deportations. But now, since they occurred anyway in violation of this judge's order, they're doing what they can to -- to get the government to bring them back, to have the court system order the government to bring these people back, who were deported without due process rights and in violation of this court order.
So, he does have a hearing coming up on April 17, and I'm hoping that we have him back before that, and he can present his case to the judge. That's all he's asking for, is a chance to make his case to the judge.
COATES: Any indication of what the courts will say if he does not appear at that hearing? Is it pushed back indefinitely? Is it thrown out and dismissed in some way? What happens at hearing date?
TOBIN: This -- this is uncharted territory. I've -- I've never seen this. I've never had a client who was set for a final hearing, and then suddenly deported without notice. It's -- it's -- well, it's a violation of the law, so that's why it doesn't happen. But here, it is happening.
COATES: Linette Tobin, thank you for joining.
TOBIN: Thank you.
COATES: Still ahead, a critical first test for Democrats as they look to turn a Wisconsin State Supreme Court race into a referendum on Elon Musk and the millions he is spending in the state. The candidate he wants to stop will be my guest tonight.
And later, a very special installment in our exonerated series. Amanda Knox is with me and opening up in a way you haven't heard before.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:35:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: One hundred million dollars. That's how much money could end up being spent on a race that'll become the center of the political universe exactly one week from today. It's the race for the state supreme court in Wisconsin. Former President Barack Obama today made the rare push to help get the liberal candidate, Judge Susan Crawford, over the finish line.
Now, this race, it was always going to be a big deal. Why? Because the state court is going to be ruling on some really important issues, including redistricting, which could sway the balance of power in the all-important midterms.
But in this new Trump-Elon Musk era, it has been supercharged. Some Democrats are seeing it as a potential referendum on Musk and Trump, their first chance to turn their party's anger into a win at the ballot box.
Musk, for himself, has been all in on the conservative candidate, Judge Brad Schimel, a judge he thinks could reject the kind of liberal rulings that Trump and others have railed against. Musk and groups aligned with him have plowed more than $20 million in the race.
[23:39:57]
Big name Democrats, they're spending, too, funding the state's party with big bucks, though not nearly as much, all with an eye to help get Judge Crawford on the bench.
It's an attempt to keep the court's liberal majority, four liberals and three conservatives.
And Judge Crawford is with me now. Judge, thank you for joining us. As we've mentioned, Democrats are placing an incredible amount of attention and focus on your race. So are Republicans, frankly. How are you feeling about your chances?
SUSAN CRAWFORD, JUDGE, CANDIDATE FOR WISCONSIN STATE SUPREME COURT: Well, I'm feeling really confident. We are crisscrossing the state for the next week, visiting communities all over the state of Wisconsin, talking to a lot of voters. And there's just a lot of energy and enthusiasm among my supporters. So, we're feeling really strong.
COATES: Nationally, Democrats are turning us into a bit of a referendum on an unelected official, Elon Musk. Has his influence impacted the race at all?
CRAWFORD: Well, he has spent now over $20 million on this race, and that has a significant impact on a race like this. It's -- it's just unprecedented in Wisconsin for one person to spend that much on a judicial race.
COATES: There are others, though, who poured millions or poured a lot of money into the race when you have people like Democratic donors Michael Bloomberg, you've got Governor JB Pritzker. How do their contributions compare to what Elon Musk has contributed?
CRAWFORD: A fraction. You know, I think that the largest contribution that has been received on my side of the table, and these are contributions made to the Wisconsin Democratic Party, are a million dollars tops. So, it's just dwarf by what Elon Musk is doing. He's -- he has really kind of taken over the campaign of Brad Schimel. He is doing T.V. ads. He's doing mailers. He's got paid canvassers going door to door in Wisconsin. He's really the one spending all the money at this point.
COATES: Why do you think he cares so much about this race?
CRAWFORD: Well, I think there are two theories. One is that he wants influence over the Wisconsin judiciary. He wants access. Tesla actually filed a lawsuit against the state of Wisconsin just a few days before Elon Musk started taking interest, started tweeting about this race, and that case is moving through the Wisconsin state courts right now. I think maybe Elon Musk is using this as a test case to see if he can buy a state court judge who he can have some influence over.
He has also made it clear from the mailers and the flyers that he is sending around door to door that he, as those flyers say, wants to protect the Trump agenda, and he believes Brad Schimel is the guy to do that for him.
COATES: He's also seeking to rally support for the impeachment of judges, I'm sure you've heard, who rule against the Trump administration, going as far as offering voters in your state a hundred dollars to sign a petition against what he calls activist judges. How are you navigating this anti-judge rhetoric we've been hearing about?
CRAWFORD: Well, I think that petition is just a naked attempt to get data from voters, and then attempt to turn them out. So, that's what that's all about, buying votes.
You know, we just have to do what we can to reach voters and help them to understand that we don't want somebody like Elon Musk coming in from outside and buying a state judicial election in Wisconsin. The Wisconsin Supreme Court needs to be about protecting the people of Wisconsin and not about Elon Musk.
COATES: What's most at stake, judge, should your opponent win this race?
CRAWFORD: Well, a lot of things, honestly. He has got a really strident views about women's reproductive health services. He believes on their freedom to choose reproductive health services. So, there's an 1849 law in Wisconsin that would criminalize just about all abortions in the state.
Brad Schimmel, my opponent, has said that he thinks there's nothing wrong with that law, in his own words. So, that would give Wisconsin an abortion ban, similar to the state of Texas, if he were elected.
He also said that he believes that Donald Trump was screwed over by the Wisconsin Supreme Court in 2020 when that court, which had a conservative majority at that time, failed to throw out the election results in Wisconsin. He was trying to -- Donald Trump was trying to get over 200,000 ballots thrown out in Wisconsin. Brad Schimel thinks that that was a rip off for Donald Trump. So, our democracy is at stake.
COATES: Well, judge, the stakes are high. I know why the interest is, too, now.
CRAWFORD: Yeah.
[23:45:00]
COATES: Judge Susan Crawford, thank you so much.
CRAWFORD: Thanks so much, Laura. It was a pleasure to be on.
COATES: We've also extended an invitation to Judge Crawford's challenger, Judge Brad Schimel, to join us. That invitation still stands.
Up next, she became a household name for all the wrong reasons. Now, nearly 20 years after her wrongful conviction for murder, Amanda Knox is ready to open up, from rage to redemption to the healing relationships that she has now made, including her bond with Monica Lewinsky. Amanda Knox shares it all with me next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: It's the court case that captivated the entire globe. Amanda Knox, the student from Seattle wrongfully accused of murder. Her roommate, Meredith Kercher, found dead in the home they shared while studying abroad in Italy.
[23:49:58]
Knox was convicted, acquitted, convicted again, and finally acquitted. The nearly two-decade long legal saga for Amanda Knox is still ongoing. Recently, Italy's highest court upheld a slander conviction against her for pointing the finger at an innocent man. Knox maintains Italian Police coerced the confession after hours of brutal interrogation. Another man was ultimately convicted of murdering Meredith Kircher.
Along the way, the public's fascination with Amanda Knox only grew, from the lurid nickname "Foxy Knoxy" splashed across tabloids to the flood of documentaries and podcasts about her case. Plenty of people have told her story.
Tonight, she's telling her story on her terms, opening up about life in prison, how she kept her hope alive during her darkest hours, and the unlikely friendships that she has made along the way. It's all in her new book, "Free: My Search for Meaning." And I talked to her about what freedom means to her now.
Amanda, I'm so glad you're here. I have to tell you, when I first heard about this new book, I wondered how transferable it would be for you to tell a story about finding one's identity, being a public figure, and having these notions relate to other people. But then I read it. And I have to tell you, it -- I was really taken aback by how poignant it is. Why did you want to write this one? AMANDA KNOX, WRONGLY ACCUSED OF MURDER: Great question. Because it's a very different book than my last book. Right?
COATES: Uh-hmm.
KNOZ: Which was very much written in the spirit of -- lots of people have been authoring this horrible experience about me. I'm going to tell it from my perspective. But it was certainly a story of something that happened to me, and it wasn't a story about something that I did or that really spoke to who I was.
And what I discovered over the course of living this book and then writing this book was realizing that I was not alone because I had experienced some extreme crazy story. In fact, I had lived a very human drama, which is feeling like I was trapped in my own life, that I wasn't the protagonist of my own life, and that other people were defining me based on false narratives.
And I feel like while my version of that is a very extreme case, everyone experiences that at some point in their life. And I found a lot of meaning and connection with people and then purpose as a result of realizing those universal elements of my story.
COATES: You talk about in the book thinking about suicide while you were in jail, in prison. You talk about how people wanted you to remain optimistic and having that statement of there's always a light at the end of the tunnel. Your own mother was talking about that.
KNOX: Yeah.
COATES: And I was struck by the way in which you describe what that phrase meant to you, that it was not a realistic, tangible thing. You had to experience life now and that light was not visible to you.
KNOX: Right.
COATES: So many people who were imprisoned wrongfully accused are trying to figure out how to mentally stay in that moment. How did you?
KNOX: That's a great question. In fact, I talk about that shift because I felt like I spent the first two years of my imprisonment with this idea of this light at the end of the tunnel. And I think some people do get through their prison experience that way. But what was missing for me was a sense of, like, living my own life and being present in my own life.
COATES: This was the life, though.
KNOX: This was the life. Exactly. So, this sort of light at the end of the tunnel idea was this idea that I'm waiting to live my life. This is not the life that I'm living, I'm waiting to be able to live it.
And then once I was convicted, I had a complete shift in my understanding of what the light was. There was no -- there was no guarantee that there was going to be truth or that I was going to be vindicated and freed, so I had to really be present and aware of accepting my reality as it was. And by doing so, I was able to, like, shift my ability to engage with the world around me and find purpose in what I had the life that I had been given to live.
COATES: I was struck by the friendship between yourself and Monica Lewinsky, somebody who, as you described in a chapter, talking about the treatment of women towards women or people being used as entertainment for the media's folly, that you had a kindred spirit in somebody like her. Tell me about that relationship.
KNOX: I mean, that relationship is -- she has been absolutely a model for me of how you can reclaim your own identity and your own life.
COATES: Uh-hmm.
KNOX: And I think the thing that is also really interesting about Monica's and my shared experience is there was this, like, prepackaged idea out there that women hate women.
COATES: Uh-hmm.
KNOX: And that's where all of that scandal sort -- sort of ultimately comes down to is sex and the idea that women hate other women.
COATES: It was a theme during your own trial.
KNOX: Exactly. And it is a lie. And it is a lie that is being packaged and sold to us every single day. And you see it in small or big ways. And she was absolutely a model of someone who was packaged in this way of, like, this evil, sexualized woman.
[23:54:58]
And she came out of it and proved that she is absolutely not that and way more than that, and gave me the courage to feel like someone actually might find value in what my perspective, because when I met her, I was very much in the place of no one is ever going to listen to me, no one is ever going to believe me, and nothing I say matters.
COATES: But you also talk about the fact that you're still fighting. I mean, just as recently, as in recent January, there was still an appellate court upholding a slander conviction where after you say hours and hours of being interrogated, you were coerced into naming a pub owner as somebody complicit with the horrible murder of your friend. You're still fighting against that. But they said they've upheld that portion of it. How do you feel about that?
KNOX: I mean, I feel like -- first of all, thank you for pointing out that I remain wrongly convicted of this crime. It's -- it's something that I think a lot of people, when they talk to me, they're like, well, why can't you put the past behind you? Move on with your life. And it's like, well, I'm still wrongly convicted, so I'm still fighting, I'm still fighting the consequences of this injustice that happened to me in Italy.
And it's -- it's incredibly frustrating. I was surprised by the verdict. I really genuinely thought that when they examined this final document, like, it was a retraction of the statements that I was coerced into implicating, that's what I was convicted based on.
And so, I was very surprised. I was very disappointed. And it ultimately came back to me as an example of how in the Italian justice system, they wanted to find some kind of fault in me. And they couldn't pinpoint it, they couldn't, like, prove it. And instead, they just found the last very thing that they could so that I wouldn't be recognized as the completely innocent person that I am.
COATES: You challenge faith, you challenge therapy, you challenge --
(LAUGHTER)
-- all of the -- I mean, I -- you believe it helps people.
CRAWFORD: I guess. I guess. Both, by the way.
COATES: (INAUDIBLE) to be true. What was interesting is that most people, when they're talking about -- you know, I've been a prosecutor, and I've dealt with a lot of people who've been exonerated, thank God.
KNOX: Yeah.
COATES: But when you think about it, most people think either faith is the reason or therapy is the reason. You almost reject those notions and say, I have my own view towards both those things. But then there's a moment, I don't want to give it away, but you actually, not only do you go back to Italy, not only do you go back to Perugia, you actually speak to the prosecutor who held this case.
KNOX: Yeah.
COATES: I found that very fascinating, without giving, you know, all the marbles in it. Can you reflect on what that moment was like for you, to sit across from that man?
KNOX: You know, it's really funny that you position it in the way that you just did because now that you say it, it's almost like it was the scariest form of immersion therapy that I possibly could have.
COATES: Uh-hmm.
KNOX: Like, okay, I'm really scared of this, like, person who was the boogeyman to me, in my life, and I didn't want to view him that way. So, I thought I want to reach out to this person directly and connect with him as a human being and see what comes of it. And I think that the really interesting part of it is how do you approach this difficulty, like, difficult experiences and different relationships in our life.
COATES: Uh-hmm.
KNOX: Do you come with it with a set of expectations or do you come to it with this -- with the openness, with an open heart to what is available to you or what comes your way? And I, after a long time of preparing for this moment, I came to it with an open heart, I came to it with a purpose. I had a goal of giving him something instead of receiving from him something. And so, I came away from it feeling unstoppable. And again, that is freedom.
COATES: Finally, Amanda, there are times when you have made light of perhaps for your own sanity.
KNOX: Yeah.
COATES: Circumstances.
KNOX: Yeah.
COATES: You have described your time as abroad. You have been shamed for joking as if you're O.J. Simpson or making some comparisons and beyond. Do you feel that people understand why you feel the need to do that?
KNOX: I don't. I mean, actually, I take that back. A lot of people do think I'm hilarious. So --
(LAUGHTER)
KNOX: So, some people who understand comedy and understand that so much of comedy comes from a place of darkness or a place of hurt, like, that's where a lot of comedians find their material, anyway. I think --
COATES: You don't see it as a disrespectful tone towards the memory of my Kercher or your own experience. You're -- you are expressing yourself.
KNOX: Yes. And I'm very -- I'm very specific when I joke. I never joke about what happened to Meredith because what happened to her is tragic and it also belongs to her. I joke about what happened to me.
And I think that by doing so, I can find interesting ways to process my experience and also share it with others and make it relatable and approachable because, again, that's that thing that comedy does, is it takes tragedy and makes it approachable through this, like, different angle. And I believe in that, I love it, and I want comedy to be a part of my life as much as tragedy is.
[00:00:00]
COATES: Well, then let us all be free.
KNOX: Yeah.
COATES: Amanda Knox, "My Search for Meaning," thank you.
KNOX: Thank you.
COATES: Thanks for watching. "Anderson Cooper 360" is next.
