Return to Transcripts main page
Laura Coates Live
New Fear On Wall Street As Trade War Escalates; Judge Rules Trump Can Deport Pro-Palestinian Student; Trump Admin Ordered To Give Daily Updates On Wrongly Deported Man; Bill Maher Breaks Silence on Dinner With Trump; Jonathan Allen Talks About His Book, "Fight: Inside The Wildest Battle For The White House." Aired 11p-12a ET
Aired April 11, 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]
UNKNOWN: That was the end goal. This man wants human contact.
(LAUGHTER)
(APPLAUSE)
Someone, call him on the phone. Call him.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ABBY PHILLIP, CNN ANCHOR AND SENIOR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: You can catch the all-new episode, Saturday at 9 p.m., on CNN. Thank you so much for watching "NewsNight" tonight and all week. We will see you tomorrow morning, 10 a.m., with our conversation show "Table for Five." You can also catch me any time on your favorite social media platforms X, Instagram, and TikTok. "Laura Coates Live" starts right now.
LAURA COATES, CNN HOST AND SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Tonight, Trump, Xi, and the global trade war game of chicken with trillions at risk. Can we just get a sign of who might blink first? Legendary investor Steve Eisman of "Big Short" fame will be my guest tonight.
Plus, a judge gives the green light to deport a pro-Palestinian student. What his case means for the administration's crackdown.
And later, Bill Maher breaks his silence on his two-and-a-half-hour dinner with President Trump.
Tonight on "Laura Coates Live."
All right, I got a question for all of you on Friday night. You like trust falls? You know, when you turn your back and you fall backwards, trusting someone will catch you? You know, that's kind of what it sounds like the White House is asking the country to do with President Trump's trade war.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KAROLINE LEAVITT, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: He wants consumers to trust in him, and they should trust in him. So, trust in President Trump. He knows what he's doing. I think the president is -- is asking for Americans -- trust in Trump.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Here's what that fall has looked like for the Dow since Liberation Day, down about 2,000 points. So maybe no wonder that some signs are emerging that trust is in short supply. I mean, take today's consumer confidence numbers, down 11 points since last month, the worst reading since the pandemic.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PETER TUCHMAN, TRADER, NEW YORK STOCK EXCHANGE: You talk about consumer confidence and how low it is. I'm not sure there -- people are upset about policy. I'm -- I -- I think they're more upset about this lack of trust. What happened this week was a real breakdown.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Now, after this week's breakdown, we did see stocks rally today, a rare and welcome sight after all the red. But that's cold comfort right now because some of the biggest names on Wall Street are worried the damage has already been done. BlackRock CEO today went there with the R-word.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
LARRY FINK, CHAIRMAN AND CEO, BLACKROCK: I think we're very close, if not in, a recession now. This is not a pandemic. This is not a financial crisis. This is something that we've created.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: And you know what's causing a lot of the concern? It's the freak out in the bond market. And you've probably seen your crazy uncle turn now finance expert tweet about it this week. But thankfully for us, we have actual experts with whiteboards.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ERIN BURNETT, CNN ANCHOR: Usually, I'm underlining your bond market. Right? People are going to be -- they're all scared of stocks. They're scared of whatever bonds are going to up. More demand for debt means you don't have to pay as much for it. Interest rates go down. That's the whole thing.
UNKNOWN (voice-over): Yes.
BURNETT: That's the way the system works. That's it.
UNKNOWN (voice-over): Classic.
BURNETT: Here's what happened this week. Broken.
(END VIDEO CLIP) COATES: Now, Trump might want to take an eraser to Erin's whiteboard because he's shrugging it off. He now says it wasn't the panic in the bond market that led him to do a pause this week. And, in fact, tonight, he's saying everything is just fine.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: The bond market is doing good. They had a little moment, but they solved that problem very quickly. I'm very good at that stuff.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Big picture now. Everyone is racing to figure out how, if, and when this gets fixed. China isn't backing down. And, in fact, they retaliated today with 125% tariffs on American goods. Sources tell CNN the U.S. has made it clear to China that they should call Trump.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNKNOWN (voice-over): Is it up to President Xi to pick up the phone?
TRUMP: I guess so. You know, whatever it is that you set up. You know, we have a lot of countries, not just China. And -- but whatever it is, that is anywhere in a very good position.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Joining me now, Republic strategist Lance Trover, the author of the new book, "Fight: Inside the Wildest Battle for the White House," Jonathan Allen, former Democratic congressman from New Jersey, Tom Malinowski, and senior economics reporter for Axios, Courtenay Brown. Glad to have you all here on this week of weeks. I'll tell you that.
I'll begin with you, Courtenay. I mean, the U.S. is ending the week in, as we see, a major trade war with China. The confidence of consumers has been plummeting. So, where does the -- where do we go from here?
COURTENAY BROWN, SENIOR ECONOMICS REPORTER, AXIOS: If we were in a make-believe world, this would have been a really good week for Trump. Before we got that nasty consumer sentiment number earlier today, we got an amazing CPI report.
[23:05:00]
It turns out that, you know, for months, progress on inflation had been stalling, and it looks like we're in this disinflation territory again. That, any president would celebrate. But guess what? Wall Street does not care because that data is from March, and March might as well be an eternity ago.
And everyone is worried about not what happened, but what's going to happen. And so that's when that consumer sentiment number comes into play. And you show the graphic, the really sad-looking chart of consumer sentiment falling off a cliff.
The most or the scariest thing about that report to me was Americans expect the highest inflation over the next year since the 1980s. Like, their inflation expectations are higher now than when we had 9% inflation at the height of the post-pandemic inflation shock. We have 3% inflation. That's, like, pretty good, given where we've come.
So, I think financial markets are freaking out. Consumers are freaking out. It's not a good combination for the state of the economy.
COATES: Voters freaking out. How does this bode well?
LANCE TROVER, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: Yeah, look, it has been a shock to the system. That creates uncertainty. And uncertainty means that the voters are -- you know, they're going to have some concerns about it.
And look, I do think voters understand, if you look in some of the polling that's starting to trickle out, they know why he's doing it. They understand that this is a thing that -- this trade war has been coming for a long time. They want him to take on China. It's something he ran on. So, I don't think they're completely surprised by it. But, yes, it's a shock to the system.
I do think the White House did a good job today by putting out a document that explained again here's why we are having this fight because we are -- we are $300 billion in -- with an imbalance with China, and this is what we're doing.
If I were them, I would continue over the course of the next few weeks to make this about China, continue talking about why we are doing this to remind people because, remember, everybody -- everybody knows China is our number one economic competitor and our number one national security competitor out there.
COATES: But is that piece of paper enough to help voters think, oh, okay, well, then I'll just wait this out? I'm good, I'll -- I'll wait out this whole thing now? It's -- it's a shock to the system. It's also really debilitating to people who are watching 401Ks go right into the basement and wondering, how long can I sustain?
TOM MALINOWSKI, FORMER NEW JERSEY REPRESENTATIVE: Yeah, so, it's the 401Ks. It's the fact that the price of everything is going to go up.
COATES: Uh-hmm.
MALINOWSKI: More attention should be paid to the fact that we're going to have shortages because this is not -- these tariffs are at a level where trade with our number three trading partner will end.
So, what -- you know, washing machines, appliances, electronics, it's not just that they're going to be more expensive, we're going to have -- we're going to have shortages, we're going to have supply chain shocks that our manufacturers are going to be feeling, so you're going to have job losses as a result of that. COATES: But President Trump seems to think that this is the leverage one needs to get them to the table and that because of that, they should expect a call.
MALINOWSKI: Well, the -- the last time a Chinese leader initiated a call to an American president was 24 years ago, after 9/11, with a condolence call. That's not going to happen.
Xi Jinping is not your traditional Chinese leader. He's not somebody who prioritizes economic growth. He's someone who prioritizes competition with the United States, the defeat of the United States. Right now, he thinks we're in decline. He thinks that what Trump just did accelerates our decline. He is not going to help us fix this problem of our own creation. So --
JONATHAN ALLEN, CO-AUTHOR OF "FIGHT: INSIDE THE WILDEST BATTLE FOR THE WHITE HOUSE": He is also willing to -- he's willing to have the Chinese people take more pain than I think the American people are willing to take in part because we have a political system where people react to things like their 401ks getting smaller at the same time prices are rising. Right?
COATES: Uh-hmm.
ALLEN: Which means they have less ability to buy things and the things cost more. And as a result of that, they get antsy.
COATES: Uh-hmm.
ALLEN: And the politicians get antsy. Courtenay, you were talking about sentiment before consumer sentiment being terrible.
BROWN: Yeah.
ALLEN: Huge political problem for Trump. That's not a long-term problem. That's a short-term problem, a medium-term problem, and potentially a long-term problem.
And the other sentiment that matters, we're talking about the bond market before you're seeing the yields go up. And what that means is, the demand for bonds -- basically, the investor faith in the United States across the world is shrinking. And all those things happening at the same time --
COATES: Uh-hmm.
ALLEN: -- I think are a potential political catastrophe for the president, especially with the Chinese government that has no incentive to back them.
COATES: Look at -- I mean, we -- I want to show people the costs of goods and what this looks like in -- in real terms for so many people. I mean, the estimated cost, I think, you're referencing, Courtney, of Trump tariffs to the average U.S. household. Look, just since April 2nd alone, it has gone up to from $3,800 to $4,700 per year. I mean, Lance, when you look at a lot of the -- what the president ran on, he was, you know, going to get to the economy and bring costs down, do you think that this is obviously going to be long-term counterproductive to his ability to keep the trust of the American people if he has it universally already?
[23:09:59]
TROVER: Well, those are estimates, and we talk about consumer confidence. We don't know that the spending -- I mean, consumer spending doesn't necessarily have to track with the confidence. Consumers may continue to spend even if prices go up. So, the economy -- and that's the other thing to remember.
We -- and you make a very good point about China. I mean, I -- I take your point about Xi and what he's willing to do, but he is going to have a decision to make because their economy isn't nearly as strong as our economy. Courtenay talked about it a while ago. The jobs numbers that came out last week, inflation going down here in this country. So, we have a strong economy. We can withstand a lot of that. I understand your fickleness point, but we do have a strong economy here, and that's a question, I think, will become to China.
Also, I'd make the point, I think they need to move quickly and get some of these other trade deals done as quickly as possible, what they've been talking about doing in the next 90 days, because I think they will have to face a lot.
COATES: Where are those deals?
MALINOWSKI: They're -- look, Trump thinks that he is, like, this great and powerful Oz who can bend the world to his will with his giant tariff gun. He's actually in a really weak position with respect to all these other countries right now.
COATES: Why?
MALINOWSKI: Because they all saw what happened. They -- they saw, when he imposed these so-called reciprocal tariffs, 30, 40, 50%. The bond market, the stock market, 24 hours, he caved, because of all of that. We all know why -- why he did it.
COATES: He's saying he's not -- not --
MALINOWSKI: On the day, he said it was because of those things and it's obvious --
BROWN: Economists said it was because of the --
MALINOWSKI: Yeah.
COATES: But wait, do we have leverage that we're talking about? Is -- is the -- I mean, is that --
MALINOWSKI: So, the point is, like, all of these countries saw what happened and that -- that he is the one who now desperately needs -- COATES: Hmmm.
MALINOWSKI: -- to strike dozens of deals with dozens of countries in 90 days to justify what he did to the American economy. If I'm the European Union and they see this, I would -- I would drive a very, very hard bargain right now. So, these are not going to be great deals for the United States if they happen at all.
COATES: All right. Trump's advisers giving him any insight as to what Tom is talking about?
BROWN: So, I want to make the point what he's trying to do here, bring manufacturing back to the U.S., you can debate with economists till you're blue in the face. It is politically popular. People support this idea. I think what is not politically popular is trying to rip up the trading system that has been in place for decades in a week. Right?
I spoke to a small manufacturer in Florida, and I've been talking to him over the past few weeks. He wants to bring manufacturing back in the U.S. He has -- he has factories in Canada and Mexico. But he's, like, can you give us some time? Like, can you give us some time before you impose these tariffs that are going to basically crush my company because global manufacturing is so interconnected and you cannot separate it?
ALLEN: We haven't -- we haven't even talked about retailers yet.
COATES: Right.
ALLEN: If you're somebody who sells goods that are made in China or made in any other country that has tariffs slapped on it, all of a sudden, you are unable to continue your business. We're going to see a lot of -- if this -- if this continues as it's going, we're going to see a lot of businesses closed down.
COATES: Hmmm.
ALLEN: So, that's -- and I'm not talking about the huge, you know, multinational corporations, but if you're selling, you know, ties made in China and socks made in China and whatever else, medical goods made in China, all of a sudden, you don't have the ability to -- to sell those goods to the consumers that you've been selling them to. The supply chains are going to get messed up.
MALINOWSKI: Or if you're a farmer.
ALLEN: Or if you're a farmer, although it does seem that the president has some interest in, and we saw this in the last administration, subsidizing farmers to try to offset the tariff problems.
MALINOWSKI: Which will be massively expensive. I mean, the last time, we spent more money subsidizing farmers because of the limited tariffs on China than we spend on building ships for the Navy. This time, the price tag is going to be way more than that, and -- and people will feel that burden and the embarrassment of it as well. COATES: We have a lot more to talk about. Everyone, stand by. We've got so much more ahead. But first, legendary investor of "Big Short" fame, Steve Eisman, is here with his take on Trump's trade war. His predictions paid off in 2008. He's right this time, too? And ahead, Bill Maher speaking out just moments ago for the very first time about his dinner with the president.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BILL MAHER, HBO POLITICAL TALK SHOW HOST: Millions of liberal sphincters just tightened.
(LAUGHTER)
Oh, my God, Bill. Are you going to say something nice about him? What I'm going to do is report exactly what happened. You decide what you think about it. And if that's not enough, pure Trump hate for you, I don't give a (bleep).
(APPLAUSE)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:15:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: President Trump softening his tone toward China tonight as the trade war he started escalates. Trump says he's open to negotiating and wants to hear from China's president.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: I've always gotten along well with President Xi. We had a good relationship, very good. China is a very big, great country. He's a very good leader, very smart leader.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: You know, many investors fear the trade war will spiral into a recession. But others think it could level the economic playing field and possibly destabilize China after it flooded the globe with cheap goods.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KEVIN O'LEARY, CHAIRMAN OF O'LEARY VENTURES: We've got a little bit of a game here, a little game of chicken, because Xi only gets to stay in power if people have jobs and they can feed their families. He gets a vote every day. If those factory workers have no jobs, they're going to be like a Frankenstein with torches up at the castle. It's going to be brutal. And he knows that.
So, let's have this dance. Let's go now. Let's settle this now, 400%, tomorrow morning to absolutely lock down zero trade, zero trade until we solve this.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[23:19:57]
COATES: With me now, an investor who knows how to predict market turmoil, Steve Eisman, the "Big Short" investor and host of "The Eisman Playbook" podcast.
Glad to have you, Steve. What a week. What a few days. What a time we're in. You heard Kevin O'Leary. He thinks the U.S. can win a trade war and that pressuring China is actually the right way to do it. How do you see it?
STEVE EISMAN, INVESTOR AT "BIG SHORT," PODCAST HOST: Well, I -- I don't want to be quite so dramatic. I -- I think this is a time for people to, you know, have some cooler heads to really try to figure out what's going on.
And so, let me say a couple of things. I think this goes back to the 90s when President Clinton campaigned for NAFTA and bringing China into the WTO, the World Trade Organization. He made basically two arguments. He argued that it would improve GDP and it would create a lot of jobs. And he was 100% right about the former, and he was dead wrong about the latter.
You know, GDP has gotten -- had growth accelerated. It ushered in a massive bull market that has lasted on and off till this day. A lot of people have made a lot of money at that.
And yet, you know, if you travel throughout the country, you come across communities where people not only lost their jobs, their communities got obliterated.
So, I have great sympathy for what President Trump is trying to do. I think people sometimes get a little dramatic about what's happening because the paradigm of free trade that has existed for the last 30 some odd years is under threat.
So, if everybody is rational during this negotiation period, and believe me, that is a very huge if --
COATES: It is a huge if.
(LAUGHTER)
EISMAN: Huge if.
COATES: Indeed.
EISMAN: But if everybody is just rational, every country will come to the United States and try and cut as good a deal as possible.
COATES: Well, Steve --
EISMAN: But there's a lot more here than just rationality. There's politics.
COATES: Yes.
EISMAN: There are voters. There are constituents. So, I don't know how this is going to -- nor does anybody know how this is eventually going to come out. It may be a mixed bag. It may not. But we're not going to know it for months.
COATES: Well, that's part of the -- you call it being dramatic. That's part of the -- the uncertainty is fueling a lot of concern and anxiety because not everyone is capable of being able to weather the uncertainty because there's a direct hit on their ability to sustain and have income. And, of course, small businesses, let alone 401ks, they're all thinking about that because they're all players.
But I'm really intrigued by what you're talking about in particular, and that is the GDP and who could sustain longer, because there has been a lot of discussion about the leverage that, say, the United States might have over what a Chinese consumer could withstand.
You think that he's going to come to the table and speak to Trump, the president, of course, of China? Trump hopes the same thing. But realistically, who has more leverage here, the Chinese consumer or the American consumer?
EISMAN: Oh, there's no question that between the two countries, the United States is in a better position to weather a, God forbid, trade war. You know, like I said --
COATES: Even though China says they've been preparing for quite some time at the prospect of having these sanctions and tariffs and beyond?
EISMAN: When you have 30% of your GDP from -- from foreign exports, you could prepare all you want. But the U.S., of all developed countries, is the most insular economy of all. So, if there's any -- look, nobody is going to do well in a trade war. Let's just get that straight.
COATES: Of course.
EISMAN: That's not going to be pleasant for any country. But if you're asking me which country is in the best position to withstand a trade war, hands down, that's the United States.
COATES: There is fear of a bond market collapse. That was reportedly a decisive factor in Trump's decision to pause tariffs for the other countries, of course. Are investors really losing faith in the stability of this economy?
EISMAN: You know, I get that question once every five to seven years.
COATES: Well, here it is.
EISMAN: Here it is again.
(LAUGHTER) And what -- what I would say to that is I -- you know, the increase in rates in the bond market in the last couple of weeks is reflection of short-term trading patterns, of people selling U.S. bonds, you know, going to Europe and elsewhere.
But I take a bit of a longer-term perspective on it. I don't think that's much of a risk at all. And the reason why I say that is one thing that most people don't understand is the financial -- the global financial system because it's very arcane and difficult to understand. But this is what I do for a living.
The global financial system operates on U.S. treasuries. Heart stop. It's the most liquid market in the world, and it's the safest.
[23:24:58]
And until there is an alternative to treasuries, I just don't see the abandonment of treasuries as a significant risk.
COATES: Steve Eisman, thank you so much.
EISMAN: Thank you.
COATES: Up next, a judge ruling Mahmoud Khalil can be deported. So, is that the end of the activist's fight to stay in the country? Plus, where is he? A judge asking the DOJ for the whereabouts of the Maryland father they mistakenly deported. And, well, she didn't get an answer.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:30:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: New tonight, two very high-profile deportation cases with two very different trajectories. First, the case of the mistakenly deported Maryland father. President Trump suggesting he'll follow the Supreme Court's orders to bring him back.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: If the Supreme Court said bring somebody back, I would do that. I respect the Supreme Court.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Now, that's despite a DOJ attorney stonewalling a judge earlier today when she asked -- quote -- "I'm simply -- I'm asking a very simply question -- simple question. Where is he?" About that very man.
Then there's the case of Mahmoud Khalil. That's the Columbia grad student detained by federal agents. A judge ruling the administration can deport him. The government says he poses a national security risk and cited Khalil's participation in pro-Palestinian protests. A lawyer for Khalil vowing to appeal and blasting the court's decision.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MARC VAN DER HOUT, ATTORNEY FOR COLUMBIA STUDENT MAHMOUD KHALIL: And so, we are going to district court to say, judge, the immigration court process is a sham. There is no ability to really challenge the evidence here, to challenge the allegations. And we need the district court to step in and say he has a constitutional right to speak his mind.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: With me now, Andrea Flores, vice president of Immigration Policy for Forward U.S., and former federal prosecutor and defense attorney, Shan Wu. No shortage of these cases and conversations surrounding both.
I want to begin with you, Shan, because Secretary of State Marco Rubio invoked the Immigration and Nationality Act, saying that Khalil presented potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences. So, given that subjectivity, how much wiggle room did the judge even have to decide otherwise?
SHAN WU, DEFENSE ATTORNEY, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: I'm not sure the immigration judge had that much wiggle room. I think the critical point there is they finally got some process. At least a judge was looking at it.
The problem with using that provision, it has been so rarely used, I think millions of cases has been used fractionally, and hasn't been really built out in terms of the law.
That's why the other case, when the -- his lawyer was talking about the district court case, the habeas petition case, is really where they can get more into the substance of, you know, how do you figure out what is the scope of Rubio's authority on and is it constitutional, the way that he's using it?
COATES: And the authority really, again, is quite subjective, Andrea. Right? I mean, it -- it doesn't really say that he has to give a flushed- out reason or one that satisfies the nation or the person who's being deported. And they actually cited removing Khalil based on information that -- quote -- "He took part in 'antisemitic protests and disruptive activities' and received 'citations for unlawful activity during the protests.'"
Is this really going to be enough going forward to remove someone?
ANDREA FLORES, VICE PRESIDENT, IMMIGRATION POLICY FOR FORWARD U.S.: I mean, hopefully not because this isn't an immigration issue. It's actually just a free speech issue. And what the administration is doing is they're trying to choose categories of speech that they find unacceptable.
And immigration law is very broad. But let's remember where this law came from. It comes from the 1950s. It came from a time when we were trying to remove people who the government felt did not align with their political beliefs. And that precedent is -- is not just going to impact immigrants. They're going to try and use that probably for citizens.
So, they're declaring a whole category of speech unacceptable, and they're using this one case. And I really hope that the federal court rules with the First Amendment. But I think we should all be watching this very closely. They want it to be about students and protesters. It's not about -- it's about our First Amendment rights.
COATES: I'll be curious to see if they can take that bridge towards citizens. Obviously, there's different rights and subjectivity involving for a citizen versus a green card holder, for example.
But then you have, in the meanwhile, the Trump administration has to facilitate, that's the word that's being used, facilitate the return of Kilmar Armando -- Abrego Garcia. Now, they don't say the word make sure or effectuate or I insist or he must. Facilitate, give some wiggle room to the administration. but they are ordering them to provide daily updates to that judge.
But today in court, a DOJ lawyer couldn't even answer the basic question of where he was. That was astonishing to figure out a prosecutor in a courtroom unable to answer a very basic question like that. What did that tell you?
WU: It tells me that DOJ is really having a hard time. They're falling apart. They're sending these line prosecutors, less of them each day, and they're sending them out with no instructions. I mean, it struck me, they're really waiting for Trump to opine publicly to give them a sense of where to go.
In the meantime, they're sending these line attorneys in who are showing candor to the court, which is, I don't know what to tell you, your honor. And we saw what happened to the last attorney who said that Friday evening hearing. Also, by Saturday, he was on unpaid leave or administrative leave.
[23:34:59]
COATES: I mean, is there some reason to extend the benefit of the doubt that the turnaround was too quick for this particular -- for him to have the answer? Is that a possibility or is it this case has had enough ample notice that you ought to know what the court was going to ask?
WU: Yeah, I -- I'd like to give them the -- the benefit of the doubt, but having been in court just like you have, there's no way you can show up there and not be able to answer that question. Where is he?
COATES: So, let me ask you, what happens, Andrea, if the government does not comply? I mean, they're kicking a can down the road. But this is not a can. Right? This is somebody they have admitted to -- to wrongfully deporting from this country. What realistic leverage does a judge have to compel performance? FLORES: Well, they're really testing that judge's leverage, and they're saying this is a foreign policy power, which is, once again, a very dangerous legal theory that they're testing, because I'm surprised that this reached the court at all.
Past administrations have wrongfully deported immigrants in the past. And you know what happens? ICE just brings them back. Why? Because they pay those countries. In this case, they're paying El Salvador. They have a contract to detain these, not just Mr. Abrego Garcia, but 200 Venezuelans.
And so, if they can send in press, if they can send in Secretary Noem, they must know where Mr. Abrego Garcia is, and it's highly unusual. So --
COATES: But then why would -- they filed some case, Andrea.
FLORES: Yeah.
COATES: And we're speculating.
FLORES: Absolutely.
COATES: We don't know where he is. But why would he not be brought back if that's the normal course of things? What is your -- what are you intimating? Why would he not be brought back in this case?
FLORES: Well, they want to hit a certain metric of mass deportations. They want to remove one million people a year. And so, in order to do that, they need countries to send them to beyond the countries of origin because it takes time and diplomatic agreements to remove people.
And so, I think they're testing if we can send people and then say we can't get them back because they're in the jurisdiction of a foreign government, then that can really ramp up the numbers of people we're seeing put on flights.
And if they can also test the due process because, once again, they're not just testing the First Amendment, they're testing due process and they're trying to limit as much as possible.
But what I will say is the Supreme Court was unanimous that due process was essential for noncitizens in this case, and also Congress needs to be demanding what will be the process going forward with the Alien Enemies Act, which is a wartime authority that should not be invoked during peacetime, and for Mr. Abrego Garcia.
COATES: Well, that's two of the three coequal branches. Andrea, Shan, thank you so much.
Well, he's spilling the tea. Bill Maher telling all about his dinner with President Trump. And his take, well, he may surprise you.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) MAHER: My friend said to me, what are you going to wear to the White House? I said, I don't know, but I'm not going to dress like Zelenskyy, I'll tell you that.
(LAUGHTER)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:40:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: Well, moments ago, Bill Maher finally telling us all about his dinner with President Trump on his HBO show, "Real Time." The dinner surprised everyone when it happened a week and a half ago.
Let's face it, the two are no strangers to slinging insults at one another. And Trump even sued Maher, if you recall, back in 2013, but they came together to break some bread, anyway.
Musician Kid Rock organized the entire thing, and UFC's Dana White also showed up. And Maher, you know, he came prepared with a list of many of the insults Trump has slung his way, and Maher asked him to sign them. You better believe that Trump obliged. Maher says the man we see on the global stage is not the same man behind closed doors. Trump, he says, is funny.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MAHER: Just for starters, he laughs. I'd never seen him laugh in public. But he does, including at himself. And it's not fake. Believe me, as a comedian of 40 years, I know a fake laugh when I hear it.
(LAUGHTER)
And I thank you for that. Example, in the Oval Office, he was showing me the portraits of presidents, and he pointed to Reagan, and said, in all seriousness, you know, the best thing about him is hair.
(LAUGHTER)
I said, well, there was also that whole bringing down communism thing. I'm waiting for the button next to the Diet Coke button to get pushed and I go through the trap door.
(LAUGHTER)
But no, he laughed, he got it. Look, I get it. It doesn't matter who he is at a private dinner with a comedian. It matters who he is on the world stage. I'm just taking as a positive that this person exists because everything I've ever not liked about him was, I swear to God, absent at least on this night with this guy.
I never felt I had to walk on eggshells around him. And honestly, I voted for Clinton and Obama, and I would never feel comfortable talking to them the way I was able to talk with Donald Trump. That's just how it went down. Make of it what you will. Me, I feel it's emblematic of why the Democrat is so unpopular these days.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: My panel is back with me now. First of all, Jon, I wonder, why you think President Trump agreed to have this dinner? Is it because, well, frankly, he was hoping for the message that just came out of, you don't know him like I do?
ALLEN: No. He invited Bill Maher over to dinner, and he ate Bill Maher for lunch. That's the --
(LAUGHTER)
I mean, he took somebody that was not on, you know, on his side and co- opted him and brought him over and, like, he does that a lot. This is not the first person we've seen. This is one of many people we've seen who hates Donald Trump, who insults Donald Trump, who then becomes part of the Trump-verse. And, you know, over and over and over again.
I'll tell you what, there was a time when Trump and Joe Rogan were feuding with each other --
COATES: Uh-hmm.
ALLEN: And then, during this election, you know, Trump ends up going on Joe Rogan, charming him, has a great time there, picks up some votes along the way. I think President Trump is very capable of being charming when he wants to be.
[23:45:01]
COATES: Hmmm.
ALLEN: And I think Bill Maher is a comedian with an audience and, you know, will try to expand that audience as much as he can.
COATES: Why do you think he hasn't always (INAUDIBLE)? Because he hasn't had this appeal to everyone, clearly.
TROVER: Oh, I think that -- I think one of the biggest problems in this country, and I can't believe we're still talking about this 10 years later, is the -- especially those on the far left that have Trump derangement syndrome, they just have no understanding of Trump or MAGA world or Middle America, and they don't want to know.
And so, I don't know why this is such a bad thing. I'm on X looking at the left going at Bill Maher because he sat down with the president of the United States. Why is that a bad thing? It should not be a bad thing in this country, to go have lunch or dinner with the president of the United States.
ALLEN: Can I just say really quick that I -- COATES: Yeah.
ALLEN: I would love to have dinner with the president of the United States as long as I can bring my notepad --
(LAUGHTER)
-- and a recorder. And I think anybody --
TROVER: I feel like he talks to -- he has no problem talking to reporters.
ALLEN: No problem talking to reporters. And I think anybody should want to sit down with the president of the United States.
TROVER: That's what I'm saying. I think that is part of the problem we've had in this country, is that there is this hatred of Donald Trump and that translates into not really understanding the people who elected him, the MAGA movement and that is -- And so that's why I think this is great. We should be cheering on things like this.
COATES: Well, I don't -- I don't think that there there's a synonymous nature of someone can detest the policies of Donald Trump and not have Trump derangement syndrome. They can dislike other things that he does and take issue with this. What is your thought?
MALINOWSKI: I -- I got no problem with some. I mean, he's the president of the United States. Like, any journalist or -- I don't know if Bill Maher is a journalist or entertainer or comedian. But, of course, you want to go and talk to him.
BROWN: Yeah.
MALINOWSKI: But it's also, like, not very important. It -- it doesn't matter.
COATES: Why do you think so?
MALINOWSKI: What matters is what we were talking about in the last segment. What matters is the economy. What matters is the war in Ukraine. What matters is what the president of the United States is or isn't doing to make our lives better, stronger, fairer. And --
COATES: Well, part of Bill Maher's criticism tonight, I will play for you before you finish your point. He was critical of Democrats as well. I mean, Bill, frankly, he might be the equal opportunity critic in many respects. Listen to what he had to say.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MAHER: He said, you know, I've heard from a lot of people who really -- who really liked that we're having this dinner. Not all, but a lot. And I said, same. A lot of people told me they loved it, but not all. And we agreed. The people who don't even want us to talk, we don't like you. Don't talk as opposed to what? Writing the same editorial for the millionth time and making 25-hour speeches into the wind? Really? That's what liberals have? He takes the piss out of everybody else and we can hold ours?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: I'm certain he was talking about Cory Booker in one part of that with 25-hour speech, which was, by the way, impressive just that he didn't have to use the bathroom, I got to tell you that, on anything else.
Courtenay, may I ask you, when you look at this and hear the criticism when it comes to, obviously, the former congressman is talking about what's important and what's not, does this move a needle given that President Biden had to overcome, if he did it all, feel-nomics? How people feel about you and what we do for the economy. How they feel about him could translate to how they feel about his actions respective to the economy.
BROWN: I keep thinking about how what Bill Maher did today is important because I was sitting at my desk earlier today looking at the consumer sentiment data, and they break it down by political party.
And this data is so nonsensical these days because if you ask a Democrat what they think about inflation, it's not really what they think about inflation. They're upset that Donald Trump is president, and they think the economy is going to go to crap because Donald Trump is president.
It has gotten to the point where you were talking about the Biden era. We didn't know if we could trust the sentiment indicators because they were so partisan, and that's new. That's not something economists had to think about, you know, before, the Trump era.
So, this idea of when you ask someone how they feel about the economy, are they telling you how they feel about the economy or are they telling you how they feel about the president? It's -- it's hard. It's hard.
COATES: Is that filter standing for you as well?
MALINOWSKI: Well, first of all, I need to defend Cory Booker because that was a cheap shot. I think most Americans look at what Cory Booker did and admire him, and think that he's an eloquent person who is -- who is fighting sincerely for his point of view, and most Americans respect that.
COATES: Twenty-five-hours-worth as well.
MALINOWSKI: Exactly. And look, I agree with this really interesting phenomenon, but I do think we're -- it's not 100% partisan right now. And I think, you know, farmers losing their -- their farms, small business people losing --
BROWN: Yeah.
MALINOWSKI: -- their small businesses --
BROWN: Yeah.
MALINOWSKI: -- people seeing prices go up, people seeing shortages. I --there's still going to be a distinction between how Democrats and Republicans view that.
BROWN: Yeah.
MALINOWSKI: But it's going to be less significantly partisan once reality bites.
[23:50:01]
BROWN: It goes the other way, too. Right? Like, when you look at how Republicans feel about the economy, I mean, it's down from the election, but it's still pretty elevated. And is that because they really think the economy is good or is that because --
MALINOWSKI: No, because --
BROWN: -- they like the president? So, it goes both ways.
COATES: It does, indeed.
BROWN: Yeah.
COATES: A really good point.
MALINOWSKI: -- trust him. But how long? We'll have to see.
COATES: We will see.
MALINOWSKI: We'll see what happens, as he says.
COATES: Thank you, everyone. Jon, stay with me because Jon has the scoop, the blame game over why Democrats lost to Trump and who wasn't on board with Kamala Harris's presidential campaign. All the juicy details he's revealing in this new book, I got it right here. He's revealing them here, next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:55:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KAMALA HARRIS, FORMER VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, FORMER U.S. PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Do we believe in the promise of America?
CROWD: Yes!
HARRIS: And are we ready to fight for it?
CROWD: Yes!
HARRIS: And when we fight --
CROWD: We win!
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Did Kamala Harris ever stand a chance? Well, a new book recounts the high-level chess taking place behind the scenes as the vice president rapidly coalesced support for her last-minute bid for the presidency. And it turns out, Harris was -- quote -- "very annoyed" -- unquote -- with former President Obama for his hesitation to jump on her bandwagon. And little did she know, the former president -- quote -- "flat out told allies she would lose to Trump" -- end quote.
Now, the coauthor of "Fight: Inside the Wildest Battle for the White House," Jonathan Allen, is back with me. I got to know immediately about this endorsement because, why you write in the book that Obama just was not wanting to give the endorsement right away? Why not?
ALLEN: So, there's this crazy thing that happens on, and this was not reported at the time, it's reported for the first time in the book. On the day that Joe Biden hands the baton to Kamala Harris, they actually have two discussions on the phone because she is imploring Biden to endorse her immediately.
COATES: Hmmm.
ALLEN: And Biden wants to wait a few days because he wants to kind of take a victory lap and say, look, I did this magnanimous thing, I stepped aside, I'm George Washington giving up my power, and he wants to, like, bask in his moment.
And Harris is, like, if you don't endorse me immediately, there's going to be some kind of mini-primary, there's going to be an open convention, there is going to be a lot of --
COATES: People will wonder why not?
ALLEN: Right, exactly, people are going wonder why that. As they did in the 30 minutes that it ended up taking between when he stepped away publicly and then endorsed her. But she gets Biden on board and people can read about it in the book, the entire, like, tense discussion between the two of them with their staff and to some of her family on the phone.
And then she talks to Obama later in the day, and he says, when she's asking for endorsements, he says, I don't want to put my thumb on the scale --
COATES: Hmmm.
ALLEN: -- to endorse her. And what he was trying to do is put together an open convention and --
COATES: Wait. Who did he have in mind for an open convention?
ALLEN: So, we've talked -- Amie -- Amie Parnes, my co-author, and I talked to sources who said that he really liked Gretchen Whitmer and really liked Wes Moore, and possibly the two of them as a ticket. But I think, mostly, he was looking for a competition that would produce not Kamala Harris.
And the interesting thing about -- one of the interesting things that happens on that day where the baton gets passed is Obama is making phone calls to try to set up this open convention idea. He sets up a 5:30 p.m. phone call that day with Jim Clyburn, the congressman from South Carolina, obviously, very influential lawmaker.
And Clyburn is, like, rushing his endorsement of Harris out so that it happens before he talks to Obama because he knows Obama is going to try to rope him into this open primary. He's, like, Kamala Harris should be our candidate. Gets on the phone with Obama. He says, look, I already endorsed her. You need to get behind her.
COATES: What impact did that have? Was it immediate?
ALLEN: No. In fact, it took a couple days even after that for Obama to issue his endorsement. You know, at some point, the Obama team started saying, like, well, you know, they want to have a big splash with the endorsement. They don't want it to just be a paper endorsement.
Kamala Harris would have been very happy with a paper endorsement on the day that pretty much the entire rest of the Democratic Party endorsed her.
So, Obama was just late to the party because he was trying to get somebody other than her into that into that -- into that nomination.
COATES: And a former president, Bill Clinton, had some workings in this as well.
ALLEN: Yeah. He did -- took a much different tack, which was -- and we report this in the book. He basically tried to not talk about it publicly at all except for to give support to Joe Biden after the debate. And then as soon as Harris starts making calls after Biden drops out, one of her first calls is to Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton, and they immediately throw their support behind her.
So, between Biden and Bill Clinton, within, you know, an hour or so of becoming the candidate or trying to become the candidate, she has got half the living Democratic presidents in her corner.
COATES: And, of course, the big question now for many Democrats is, who is next? Who is the leader? Who is it is going to be? Your book tells a little bit about that.
ALLEN: Oh, absolutely. The reason you got to read all the autopsy here --
COATES: Uh-hmm.
ALLEN: -- is because it leads you to understand, like, where that party is headed and sort of what voters should do to think about '28.
COATES: Oh, I'm reading the autopsy. I know my read this weekend. Jon, thank you so much. The book again is "Fight: Inside the Wildest Battle for the White House."
Hey, thank you all for watching. Before we go tonight, a sneak peek at the brand-new episode of "United States of Scandal with Jake Tapper." Make sure you tune in, Sunday night at 9 p.m. Eastern and Pacific.
[00:00:03]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNKNOWN: Jack Abramoff is a chameleon. Sometimes, he's very religious and caring. Sometimes, he's an absolute crook.
JAKE TAPPER, CNN CHIEF WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Jack was able to alter or block bills for his clients by plying lawmakers with free meals, Super Bowl tickets, exotic vacations and, of course, massive campaign contributions.
By the early 2000s, Jack Abramoff was Washington, D.C.'s most powerful man that you had never heard of.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
