Return to Transcripts main page
Laura Coates Live
Hegseth Ensnared In Second Signal Scandal; Harvard Sues Trump Administration; Catholics Mourn Pope Francis With Eye Towards The Conclave; Rep. Nancy Mace Curses At Voter In Viral Confrontation. Aired 11p-12a ET
Aired April 21, 2025 - 23:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[23:00:00]
REP. MIKE LAWLER (R-NY): Mine is called "Blink." It's a thriller. A mission goes wrong and a covert agent develops a terrifying condition that every time he blinks, time moves faster from minutes to hours to days. And enemies -- allies become enemies. And ultimately, a global threat unfolds. And he's trapped in this timeline that he can't control. And he's one blink away from disaster.
ABBY PHILLIP, CNN ANCHOR AND SENIOR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: All right. You're all hired, everybody. Thank you very much for being here, and thanks for watching "NewsNight." You can catch me anytime on social media X, Instagram, TikTok. "Laura Coates Live" starts right now.
LAURA COATES, CNN HOST AND SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Well, tonight, a second scandal rocks Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. He's now just one misstep away from striking out at the Pentagon. Plus, Harvard seems to break out of the administration's strong-arm tactics. And university has lawyers with ties to Trump on its side. And a makeup store blowup goes viral after Congresswoman Nancy Mace trades F-bombs with a voter. That voter will join me tonight on "Laura Coates Live."
All right, so you ready for Signalgate 2.0? Because this scandal brings some new characters into the chat with a familiar face still front and center, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. Now, we're learning that he had actually a second Signal group thread on his personal phone detailing sensitive intel about the military attack against Houthi rebels in Yemen.
Now, this chat included his wife, his brother, and his lawyer. Now, his brother and lawyer, they now have Defense Department jobs, but it's not clear why they would have needed to know about an impending military strike.
The White House is having to deny a report that it's looking to replace Hegseth. And president Trump, he is publicly backing him.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNKNOWN (voice-over): Mr. President, are you concerned about the level of chaos and dysfunction that's being described at your Pentagon? DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: There's no dysfunction at all. Ask the Houthis how much dysfunction they have. There's none. Pete is doing a great job. Everybody is happy with him. It's just fake news. They just make up stories. I guess it's -- sounds like disgruntled employees. You know, he was put there to get rid of a lot of bad people, and that's what he's doing. So, you don't always have friends when you do that.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Now, Hegseth himself, he's echoing Trump and chalking the whole thing up to former aides with an axe to grind.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PETE HEGSETH, UNITED STATES SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: See, this is what the media does. They take anonymous sources from disgruntled former employees, and then they try to slash and burn people and ruin their reputations. Not going to work with me.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Now, we're learning some major power struggles are happening inside the Pentagon right now. Hegseth fired three of his top officials just last week. But they deny leaking anything.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TUCKER CARLSON, CONSERVATIVE POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, FORMER FOX NEWS HOST: Did you leak classified information against the wishes of your superiors to media outlets?
DAN CALDWELL, FORMER SENIOR ADVISER TO U.S. DEFENSE SECRETARY PETE HEGSETH: Absolutely not.
CARLSON: Did you photograph class -- classified material and then text pictures of that material to an NBC News reporter?
CALDWELL: Absolutely not. If I actually did some of the things that -- that anonymous people on the internet and in the Pentagon are saying I did, I'd -- I'd be in handcuffs.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: And it goes without saying, two of the people he fired are incredibly close to him. I mean, the man you just heard, Dan Caldwell, has worked for Hegseth for years. The White House is casting them as bad actors and sticking to the same script as last time, that no classified information was contained in that chat.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KAROLINE LEAVITT, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: This is what happens when the entire Pentagon is working against you and working against the monumental change that you are trying to implement. No classified information was shared in these chats. (END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: But what would have happened if a uniformed officer did the same thing? Well, a former defense secretary, he has some idea.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
LEON PANETTA, FORMER UNITED STATES DEFENSE SECRETARY: That uniformed officer would be summarily dismissed and fired for having really created a major breach in security. Make no mistake about it. We are talking about top secret information when you're talking about attack plans.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: So even if Trump says that he is standing by Hegseth and he is saying something to the effect, some are predicting that the writing is already on the wall. Take it from a former official who got canned in the first Trump administration.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOHN BOLTON, FORMER UNITED STATES NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR: I think he has used up his bank account with Donald Trump. Trump doesn't want to have to waste his resources defending his people, and that's now what he's doing on Hegseth. So, I think Hegseth has a shelf life of undetermined length, but it's not going to be much longer, would be my guess. Three months, four months, something like that.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[23:05:00]
COATES: With me now, former associate counsel to President George W. Bush, Jamil Jaffer, former deputy Pentagon -- Pentagon press secretary under President Joe Biden, Sabrina Singh, and CNN political commentator Shermichael Singleton. Glad to have you on.
You already heard Bolton giving a rough timeline of what he thinks. No one really knows the answer but, of course, Trump. But this is another Hegseth and Signal scandal. I -- I go back to Hollywood, right, thinking about you're on a "need to know" basis. Why would this particular group of participants be on a "need to know" -- you're talking about his wife, his brother, his lawyer -- about military strike plans?
JAMIL JAFFER, FOUNDER AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL SECURITY INSTITUTE AT GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY: It's hard to know why they would need to know that. It does appear the Signal group was set up before he was confirmed to try and give advice on his confirmation and the like, and he may have just been in the habit of sending them information about what's going on at the Pentagon to get advice.
This seems like the wrong thing to be sending information out about. Certainly unwise. Whether it's illegal or not, different question. Definitely unwise. Not a smart play. Could put people in danger if the wrong person is in that chat. We've already seen reporters who didn't mean to be in a chat in the P.C. small group as well.
COATES: I mean, we've seen this movie play out recently in terms of a Signal scandal. But the idea -- you heard Panetta, what he said, Sabrina -- of attack plans. Of course, targets and weapons. Now, the administration -- this is not classified information, but that category of information is particularly serious and sensitive.
SABRINA SINGH, FORMER DEPUTY PENTAGON PRESS SECRETARY: Well, that type of information is classified before an operation begins. So, if what is being reported is that the secretary put this information in both of these Signal chats, one with his wife, his brother, his personal lawyer, and then one with the entire national security apparatus that Mike Walsh started, any information before an operation has begun is classified. It doesn't matter what the secretary says about it. It is classified information.
You have fighter pilots up in the air. They're there, you know, sometimes hours before an operation begins. Then you have the secretary detailing when the bombs are going to drop, when the tomahawks are going to deploy, when the F-18s are going to be up. All of that, I can tell you, I've looked at the TikTok at the Pentagon, it's all completely classified. So, what the secretary did is put our fighter pilots at risk and our sailors at risk that are in the Red Sea conducting those operations.
COATES: How are we back here again, Shermichael? And, of course, the White House is trying to offer some semblance of an explanation and defense, knowing that Trump is still publicly backing him. I mean, this is more than political if you're talking about the safety of our esteemed members of our service.
SHERMICHAEL SINGLETON, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: Sure. I mean, look, the mission was successful, and I think that has to be acknowledged. Two, this occurred around the same time as the first incident. Mike Walsh, the national security adviser, did acknowledge, like, hey, we made a mistake here, we got to make some changes. Even the president, which he rarely ever does on camera, acknowledged that, hey, we got to improve this process. From my understanding, they have since done that. Now, we'll see what happens over the next couple of weeks.
But remember, the administration spent a ton of political capital trying to get Hegseth confirmed.
COATES: Uh-hmm.
SINGLETON: I do not believe the president is in the mood or temperament to remove this guy less than 100 days in. We'll see again what happens over the next, you know, I don't know, several weeks. If this occurs, third time, fourth time, then I think some things may change. But if this is all in the past and they've learned from it, they're communicating differently, they've made some reforms, which you should do when you make errors and mistakes such as this, I think that's a step in the right direction.
COATES: Well, from Signalgate to this larger issue, Sabrina, because you've got Hegseth's former top Pentagon spokesman, John Ullyot, who quit last week, as you recall. He wrote in a scathing op-ed the following: That the Pentagon is -- quote -- "in disarray under Hegseth's leadership." Now, he called it a month of total chaos. How does this impact the morale and the ability and efficiency of people at the Pentagon when all this is happening in addition to that statement?
SINGH: Yeah, I think when you have the secretary of defense firing, you know, senior leadership around him and those senior leaders have been coordinating on, you know, whether it be major operations all around the world or just general management of the building, you know, the military, what makes our military so great and so effective is that it -- it thrives on -- on order and processes. And so, when you disrupt that, yeah, that injects chaos into a system that doesn't like chaos. We like order and -- and, you know, being able to conduct our operations with the people that have been involved with them from the beginning.
So, you know, I saw that op-ed and I think, yes, there is a tremendous amount of damage that has been done -- done to the institutions there, but you have to remember that if these people were fired because they, you know, disclose classified information, they're technically being held accountable for it, and the person that's not being held accountable is the secretary of defense.
COATES: Well, on that point, Jamil, I mean, the -- the statements that have been made by Secretary Hegseth has been about, you know, I'm paraphrasing him, disgruntled aides, people with axes to grind. We've seen this play out in prior administrations, including the Trump administration, where the accusation is that your axe to grind undermines your credibility fundamentally and fatally.
Does this give you pause when you hear statements like it's in disarray under his leadership and you have other things talking about it? Is the politics more or is this about truth?
[23:10:02]
JAFFER: Well, look, I mean, John Ullyot was also just demoted. Right? And so, he -- he may very well have an axe to grind. He was defending the secretary of defense just four or five days ago.
COATES: Right.
JAFFER: And now, he's coming after an op-ed (ph) while saying he's still really loyal to him. So, you got to wonder about that. But on top of that, you've got all these people right around Hegseth, around the deputy secretary of defense, key senior advisers, the chief of staff, the deputy chief of staff, the senior adviser, all being fired simultaneously. This is not a good look in any administration. This one, another administration, this just makes it chaotic itself. Right? Regardless where the entire bill is in disarray, this number of firings is brutal and makes it hard to get your job done.
COATES: You worked for Dr. Carson in the first administration, Shermichael, and obviously, a notable Washingtonian here focusing on what administrations do to function efficiently.
SINGLETON: Sure.
COATES: How do you view this?
SINGLETON: Well, look, operationally, to -- to -- to your point, efficacy matters. And my hope is that the secretary is stepping into this, getting comfortable with the role, realizing maybe I brought some of my old friends who were very loyal to me, to the points that you made, they may not have been the best individuals for the job.
I think oftentimes, you'll find people who think, well, I'm going to bring folks who I trust, who I know, they're -- they're going to help me succeed as a leader, and you realize pretty quickly that they may not be the best individuals to help you succeed.
And so, I'm hoping that's the realization that the secretary is having, and he's going to make those changes in the course correction moving forward to bring on more capable, qualified people so that he can be successful at the job.
COATES: Well, if he himself is the one they're questioning of capability, that'll be a big question. And, of course, the big one in everyone's mind, do you have the same grace for a second administration, second term? We'll have to see. Thank you, everyone.
SINGLETON: Thanks, Laura.
COATES: President Trump lashing out at one of his favorite economic targets, Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell. Trump calling him -- quote -- "Mr. Too Late and a major loser" -- unquote, all while demanding Powell lower interest rates right now at his Truth Social post.
Sparking another major sell-off on Wall Street, the Dow tumbling about two and a half percent. The Nasdaq and S&P 500 closing down as well. Investors thought Powell's fate was safe. His four-year term, that ends next year, for anyone counting at home. But Trump's threats to fire him are adding to the economic uncertainty sparked by Trump's trade war.
With me now, Rick Newman, senior columnist at Yahoo Finance, and Nick Timiraos, chief economic correspondent for "The Wall Street Journal" and author of "Trillion Dollar Triage." I'll return your wave to you as well.
I'll begin with you, Nick. You reported that Trump has, for months, privately discussed firing Powell. It's not clear that he actually can do that. But there's also a board of governors who decide whether to move interest rates. So, will Trump get what he wants from the Fed even if he does fire Powell?
NICK TIMIRAOS, AUTHOR, CHIEF ECONOMIC CORRESPONDENT FOR THE WALL STREET JOURNAL: Well, to your point, it's not clear that he can do this. Powell has made clear that he doesn't think he can be pushed out of his office. It seems likely that this would put into motion a legal showdown for the ages if the president were to try.
But I think Wall Street is taking that prospect more seriously than in the president's first term because the president has been willing to challenge legal and institutional norms that he did four or five years ago.
COATES: Well, you know, Trump has been pressuring Powell, as you know, even hinting that he may take the blame for any economic downturn that could happen. Is this part, do you think, Nick, a strategy to deflect any blame if a recession indeed happens?
TIMIRAOS: That's certainly part of this. He's putting everybody -- the president is putting everybody on notice that if there is fallout, economic weakness from the trade war, he wants it -- you know, he wants to try to deflect blame and put it on Powell. The Fed is a convenient scapegoat here because they don't generally punch back. They try to stay outside of partisan politics.
But the truth is that, you know, in that -- in that post that you put up where the president was calling for lower interest rates, it's true that inflation was mild in March. And if the president had not imposed these large tariff hikes, which are creating a lot of uncertainty and the prospect of price increases, then the Fed probably would be on a track to lower interest rates again this year.
COATES: Rick, I want to bring you in here because even Trump's treasury secretary, Scott Bessent, even he called the Fed's independence on -- on monetary policy a -- quote -- "jewel box." So how would the market respond if President Trump tried to fire him?
RICK NEWMAN, SENIOR COLUMNIST, YAHOO FINANCE: Well, we're getting a preview of that. The -- the market would respond very badly. Now, the -- the market -- for everything we saw today, the market for the most part still doesn't think that Trump is going to try to fire Powell in the so-called betting markets. You can look up a thing called poly market. The odds of Trump trying to fire Powell are just 20%. So, 80% chance he won't.
[23:14:58]
But the odds should be 0% that he's going to try to fire Powell with 100% likelihood that Powell is going to stay. I mean, you know, the Federal Reserve, it makes mistakes and it certainly has made mistakes before, but it's sort of the last honest broker in the room that can do anything that might be necessary if we actually do get into a recession or some kind of financial crisis. So, any -- anything that looks like it's raising the odds that the president of the United States might actually gain control of the Central Bank is terrible news for markets.
And, you know, like, Wall Street analysts shouldn't even be worrying about this right now, but they're now getting into the details. So, for what it's worth, to really gain control of the Fed policy, Trump would have to fire Powell, and then get rid of the other decision- making members of the board, which I think there are seven in total. So, firing Powell alone wouldn't do it, but it would be an ugly start to what has been an ugly year in the markets.
COATES: To say the least on the ugliness factor there, Nick. I mean, Trump wants Powell to lower interest rates. That's evident. He wants to do it in response to the Trump -- to the trade war that Trump started nearly three weeks ago, what he dubbed, by the way, Liberation Day, if we can all recall. He claims the countries that they want to make deals. But where are the deals?
TIMIRAOS: Well, these deals take time. They're complicated. And countries right now, you know, it's not clear what exactly the Trump administration wants out of these countries. So, I think there's a lot of optimism in the markets that deals are going to get announced. But you look back at the deal with China in 2019, early 2020. That took many months to get negotiated.
You know, the other point I would add here is that Scott Bessent, the treasury secretary, has said that they -- they aren't paying -- they are not going to pay attention to what the Fed is doing. That's what he was saying earlier this year. They're going to pay attention to the 10-year treasury yield, which the Fed does not directly control. Well, since that Liberation Day, the 10-year treasury yield is up, and that's a sign that investors have a risk premium now to purchase longer dated government bonds.
COATES: Wait. Translate that to me in plain English. What does that mean if that is the case?
TIMIRAOS: It means the mortgage rates have not gone down. Normally, when bond investors get concerned about economic growth, they might seek the safe haven of a -- of a government bond. That hasn't happened here. And so, if investors are concerned about inflation, if they're concerned that maybe the U.S. isn't the best place to park their money right now, it means that the U.S. has to have a higher interest rate on its debt. It means if you're out there trying to get a car loan or a mortgage, you might actually have to pay a little bit more --
COATES: Hmmm.
TIMIRAOS: -- than would otherwise be the case.
COATES: Rick, one investor told Bloomberg about today's sell-off -- quote -- "There is a big fear of making any big moves, just a sense that in a dark room with a lot of sharp glass on the floor, the best thing to do is stand still and hope the lights come back on." I mean, how much longer can investors and corporations deal with this level of uncertainty?
NEWMAN: Investors are trying their best to be optimistic. You know, hoping that we're going to see some trade deals. But then -- then they look at what has happened, and the tariffs are on. I mean, we're at a point now -- the thing about these tariffs is people have not started to see the price hikes that are coming if these tariffs stay in place. But these taxes are being paid by any -- by any importers that are still bringing in these products.
So, we've had a tax on $3 trillion worth of stuff that American consumers and businesses buy. That tax has gone from about 2.5% to about 27%. Now, I think some importers are not even buying stuff at that high of a tax. They're hoping that this gets -- that this gets resolved. But in -- in the meanwhile, retailers and stores, they're working through a pre-tariff inventory. They stocked up knowing this was coming.
But if -- if these things don't start to get resolved, then by midsummer or what analysts have said to me perfect, you know, the perfect timing right at the back to school shopping season in late -- in late summer, we're going to start seeing some eyepopping price increases on stuff, and that is going to be a real pressure moment for Trump. Is he -- is he really going to, you know, raise the price of -- of -- of shoes for kids --
COATES: Hmmm.
NEWMAN: -- by 60% or 70%, which is what we're talking about here as parents are shopping for back to school? So, we know we're getting -- we're getting -- we're getting close.
COATES: Rick Newman, Nick Timiraos, thank you for breaking it down. I appreciate it.
NEWMAN: Yep. Thanks.
COATES: Up next, Harvard fights back, launching a new lawsuit, challenging President Trump's demands. Why the high-profile showdown could have implications far beyond that campus at Cambridge. Plus, the South Carolina voter who says Congresswoman Nancy Mace berated him in this video had to join me tonight to explain what happened.
[23:20:01]
And later, paying tribute to Pope Francis as we look at his reshaping of the Catholic church and how it might impact the upcoming conclave to succeed him.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: Well, tonight, Harvard University taking the fight over federal funding to court, suing the administration for what they say is -- quote -- "the government's effort to use the withholding of federal funding as leverage to gain control of academic decision making at Harvard."
The suit comes after the White House sent the elite university a long list of demands in order to avoid a federal funding freeze in the billions.
[23:25:00]
That's right, with a capital B. That's not all. The NIH saying tonight that it will pull medical research funding from all universities with DEI programs, with more potentially on the line. The administration says tonight the -- quote, unquote -- "gravy train of federal funding to universities like Harvard is coming to an end." Joining me now is CNN Supreme Court analyst and professor at Georgetown University Law Center, Steve Vladeck. Glad you're here, Steve, to help make sense of, well, what's happening now. And people wonder, does Harvard have a strong case here?
STEVE VLADECK, CNN SUPREME COURT ANALYST, PROFESSOR AT GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY LAW CENTER: Yeah. I mean, it's a very strong case, Laura. You know, it's not that controversial a proposition that the government is not allowed to say, in exchange for this money, which we're going to give you to fund medical research, to fund, you know, new scientific methods, etcetera, you have to only teach the classes we tell you to teach or you have to only hire the administrators we tell you to hire.
We've never understood the First Amendment to allow the government to impose its viewpoints, its orthodoxy on any entity, let alone a university that has academic freedom.
COATES: I mean, this is akin to ransom. How could any university agree to those terms?
VLADECK: You know, every university is different. I mean, I've taught at four of them, but I don't know that a university that agreed to this kind of corporate restructuring, this kind of government oversight, really would be a university that could hold its own with its peers.
I mean, academic freedom is the idea that folks like me can say unpopular things, can research unorthodox subjects entirely because you never know when you're going to accidentally discover a polio vaccine, you're never going to actually know what the unpopular legal arguments are if everyone is being intimidated into making only what the government wants to hear.
That's exactly why the Supreme Court, for the better part of 60 years, has said that among the things the First Amendment protects is academic freedom.
COATES: I mean, this is a chilling effect for so many reasons. And that -- I'm also intrigued by who is helping to defend Harvard. Talking about really a who's who of conservative lawyers who not -- would not necessarily be in the same -- bedfellows. Normally, you have Robert Hur as one person. He -- if people remember, he's the person who was in charge of the Biden investigation as to whether or not he had -- had misused classified documents.
VLADECK: Yeah. I mean, the signature block on the 51-page complaint that Harvard filed today in the federal court in Boston really is a veritable who's who of some pretty prominent conservative lawyers, folks who clerked for, you know, Justice Antonin Scalia, Justice Clarence Thomas.
And, Laura, I think what that really tells us is that this is not an ideologically charged case. This is not about Democrats versus Republicans. This is about folks fighting for principles that could be used, you know, by a Democratic president in the future against more conservative universities, forget universities, against conservative organizations in ways that just run so fundamentally counter to basic First Amendment principles.
COATES: How do you see this as qualitatively different than, say, law firms making decisions that are different?
VLADECK: So, I think some of the First Amendment issues are the same, but actually, I think the real big difference here is the historical role of the university. Universities -- you know, the ivory tower is a phrase folks use usually as a pejorative, but actually part of what that was supposed to reflect is that universities are protected from the normal political pressures that other entities, corporations, nonprofit organizations are subject to entirely because we want universities to be exploring whatever topics of the day we might be exploring without looking over their shoulder at Uncle Sam and without worrying about, you know, the tax man.
And I think the more that the Trump administration tries to go after even schools that folks might say, well that's just Harvard, that's not my state university, that's not my small private college, you know, I think the more you're going to see this kind of concerted, organized pushback because, Laura, once you have the federal government telling universities how to run everything from their curricular programs to their internal bureaucratic structure, universities couldn't really do what they do anymore, universities couldn't claim to be invested in furthering education. They would just be yet another arm of whichever power -- whichever party is currently in political power.
COATES: A mile past a slippery slope. Thank you so much, Steve.
VLADECK: Thank you.
COATES: Still ahead tonight, it's one of the most secretive traditions in the whole world, a conclave to pick a pope. And now, some contenders are emerging as Catholics mourn the loss of Pope Francis. So, what does his legacy mean for whomever might succeed him? We'll talk about all of it next.
(MUSIC PLAYING)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:30:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: A singular question rests on the mind of the world's 1.4 billion Catholics tonight: Who will be the next pope? The world hit with a wave of grief today after the Vatican revealed Pope Francis died early this morning at the age of 88.
The Empire State Building shimmering in gold and white, the colors of the flag of Vatican City, to remember Pope Francis. In Paris, the Eiffel Tower going dark to honor the pontiff. The traditions marking the transition of the pope happening as we speak. The papal apartment sealed, the symbolic move since Pope Francis chose to live in a more modest two-room suite.
[23:35:00]
The Vatican says that Pope Francis died from a stroke and heart failure weeks after suffering a severe respiratory infection. But Francis -- Pope Francis worked until the very end, meeting Vice President J.D. Vance on Easter Sunday and delivering the traditional mass to worshipers at Saint Peter's Square.
With me now, Father Dave Dwyer, former campus minister at the University of Colorado and host of the Sirius XM radio show, "The Busted Halo Show," and Elise Allen, CNN Vatican analyst and senior correspondent at the Catholic news outlet Crux. Thank you both for joining me this evening.
FATHER DAVE DWYER, FORMER CAMPUS MINISTER AT UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO, RADIO SHOW HOST: Thank you, Laura.
COATES: Elise, we begin with you. Pope Francis, known as a reformer, was not always the most popular among conservative Catholic leaders. What direction do you see the church going now?
ELISE ALLEN, CNN VATICAN ANALYST: Well, good evening, Laura. It's wonderful to be with you. You know, this is the question, I think, that every cardinal is asking themselves right now. What direction do we want the church to go in? And that decision basically comes down to two points. Do they think that Francis and his papacy was taking the church in a good direction or not? Do they want to keep going in that same direction or do they want to try something different?
So, that really depends on what each cardinal is personally thinking at this point, and then we have to get a greater feel for that in the coming days and weeks once the pre-conclave meeting starts.
Right now, we're in an official period of mourning for nine days. We'll have, you know, the pope's funeral on a day that is still to be announced. And after that, you know, we'll have more chatter about what to possibly expect in terms of what they're looking for.
But I think the general consensus is that Francis was very beloved by the world. He was a bit of a lightning rod, though. So, you know, he was quite controversial, as you mentioned, with conservatives and, you know, especially with some doctrinal points, you know, that they disputed. Maybe he wasn't firm enough on some issues. And so, I think they're going to look for something.
My instinct, and I could be totally wrong on this, is that they're going to want something, you know, someone who could continue a lot of Francis's legacy, the things that the world appreciated, but who might be a little more predictable, be a little more stable at this point, you know, in terms of shaking things up.
COATES: Well, father, to that point, we're saying they, but we know that the conclave consisted of that sequestration of the cardinals, and he selected about 80% of the cardinals who will choose his replacement. And many shared his ideological view. But what impact do you think they will actually have at the conclave in terms of how they might choose the next papal?
DWYER: Well, Laura, when Pope Francis was elected, came out of the balcony, he said, it seems like my brother cardinals have gone to the ends of the earth to bring you the bishop of Rome, meaning himself. And then he proceeded to do that, not only in his many actual visits to places where popes had never been before, but also in his selecting, as you just mentioned, in selecting members of the College of Cardinals from places -- 20 -- I think 25 countries that had never been represented in the College of Cardinals prior to now.
So, sure, I mean, if you say the College of Cardinals that is voting over the next couple of weeks, 80% of them were placed there by Francis, does that necessarily mean they -- they go along exactly with everything that Francis was kind of moving forward? Does it mean that that even can be identified as kind of a platform or a party? Certainly not.
So, I think the holy spirit is going to need to kick in and do plenty of work in the next couple of weeks to bring the church to the next phase.
COATES: And, I mean, of course, Elise, to that point, I mean, thinking about who might be considered, I often wonder what the criteria truly is. And, obviously, it's what's moving spiritually within each of these cardinals. But are you getting a sense of who the top contenders, so to speak, might be and how they might compare to Pope Francis?
ALLEN: Well, that's the big question. Right? Is who -- who might the best candidate be? You know? And I think that there are no real criteria. You know, with the election of, you know, Pope John Paul II, you know, that proved the papacy was no longer fundamentally an Italian institution. You know? And -- and that was reinforced by the election of Benedict XVI.
France's election showed that you could really come from anywhere in the world. You know, the peripheries, as Father Dwyer was just saying. So, you know, in terms of a global criteria, you can really come from anywhere at this point. You could be anyone.
You know, I think there are, of course, some -- some names that are always popping up ahead of time. You know, it depends on if you want continuity of Pope Francis or discontinuity. Some of the big names, of course, coming out with continuity have been Cardinal Pietro Parolin, who's secretary of state, Cardinal Matteo Zuppi, the archbishop of Bologna. They'd be seen as very much carrying forward Pope Francis's legacy and very faithful for that.
If you want discontinuity, you know, you have a few other names. Cardinal Willem Eijk in the Netherlands is one.
[23:40:01]
Cardinal Peter Erdo from Hungary. These are some discontinuity candidates, if you think the church should go in a different direction. Those are sort of the big names that are coming out at this point, but it's anyone's guess.
COATES: Well, father, I mean, many people have a reference point sometimes of -- of Hollywood in a visual description of it. And the movie "Conclave" gave a glimpse to the masses recently how the conclave process works. Of course, they had some creative license more than a little. Watch.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNKNOWN: And tell them that I believe women should play more of a role in the curia.
UNKNOWN: Let's -- let's not mention women.
UNKNOWN: Why? Brother, I have no intention of concealing my views or pretending to be anything other than I am in order to sway any of our number who are undecided.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Of course, they're showing moments where there are private discussions about who might put their name before the various cardinals. Did the "Conclave" get that right in the process of what it's like essentially behind the scenes, discussing how they might vie for that position?
DWYER: Well, Laura, I -- I think the movie got a lot of it. Right? I've never been behind the scenes with the cardinals discussing with one another.
(LAUGHTER)
But one thing we know for sure is that many of these cardinals, because Pope Francis has gone beyond the bounds of what has customarily been the College of Cardinals, that many of these guys don't know each other very well, maybe have never even met. So, the intent -- the intention of gathering together before the conclave, the conclave means that they're locked away with a key.
And one of the things that the movie did get right is that during that process, the only thing that they do is vote. So, when they're inside the Sistine Chapel, you showed the picture before of the smoke and the very secret process, the only thing they're doing there is casting their votes. So, prior to that, they need to pray, they need to celebrate mass together, they need to have meals and coffee and pasta together, get to know one another to allow the holy spirit to kind of begin that selection process prior to when they actually walk in -- in the doors of the Sistine Chapel.
COATES: Father Dave Dwyer, Elise Allen, thank you both.
Let's get to CNN's chief data analyst, Harry Enten, who's with us now. He has been running the numbers, so to speak, on Pope Francis. Harry, there has been a lot of polling done during his 12 as the pontiff. How popular was he among Americans? HARRY ENTEN, CNN SENIOR DATA REPORTER: Yeah. Let's take a look and kind of put into some perspective for you, Laura. Let's take a look. We got the last three popes on the screen, their final readings. Look, the world champion in terms of popularity among Americans was John Paul II. Look at his net favorability rating at the end there. It was plus 59 points.
What you see is Francis and Benedict pretty similar. Right? On the positive side, Benedict's final rating came in at plus 24. Francis right behind him at plus 20. But both of them considerably less popular than John Paul II was. Though granted, President of the United States would very much like these net favorability ratings.
But why were Benedict and Francis much lower than John Paul II? I think when we break it down by party, you can get an idea why. Take a look at Francis and look at Benedict. What you see is massive party splits going on here in the states.
Francis is very popular among Democrats at plus 53. But among Republicans, he was only a plus eight. Not a big surprise. He was often seen as a more liberal pope. While Benedict, who was seen as a more conservative pope, considerably more popular among Republicans at plus 47 net favorability points compared to just plus 17 among Democrats.
So really, Francis and Benedict couldn't quite get on the same page with Democrats and Republicans in the same way John Paul II, and that's why their favorability ratings, though still high, were considerably lower than John Paul II were.
COATES: Well, that's fascinating to think about and how this all shakes out when you think about it. It does feel odd in some ways to even talk about the popularity of the pope. But people have been really honed in on these particular reasons. And some folks, frankly, may be tempted to look at betting markets to figure out who has the best odds of being the next pope to be named. But that is not a great idea. Right?
ENTEN: I don't think it's necessarily a great idea, and I'll tell you why. It's because the fact is betting markets, while sometimes can get the next pope right, oftentimes don't. I mean, last time around, Francis in 2013, the betting markets only gave him a 4% chance of being the next pope. He was nowhere near being the favorite. Now, Benedict was the favorite with about a 25% chance. But the bottom line is we had no real concept necessarily whether the betting markets will be right this time around.
Of course, the other thing we really don't know is how long this conclave is going to last because conclave lengths can truly vary. Back from 1268 to 1271, the longest one on record, 2.75 years. My goodness gracious. The shortest, back in October of 1503, was less than a day. Usually, they last a little bit about less than two weeks. But the bottom line is we don't know how long this conclave is going to last, Laura Coates.
COATES: Well, the memory of this pope will be everlasting for so many. Harry Enten, thank you so much.
ENTEN: Thank you.
COATES: Still ahead tonight, Congresswoman Nancy Mace goes off on a South Carolina voter.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. NANCY MACE (R-SC) (voice-over): Get out of my face.
[23:45:00]
ELY MURRAY-QUICK, HAD VIRAL CONFRONTATION WITH REP. NANCY MACE: You're insane.
MACE (voiceover): Goodbye.
MURRAY-QUICK: You're insane.
MACE (voiceover): (bleep).
MURRAY-QUICK: You're going (bleep). You're going to be voted out so fast, as soon as --
COATES: The video now viral after the man she cursed at says he was simply asking her why she wasn't holding town halls or when her next one would be.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: The man in that video joins with his side of the story next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: Did you see that Congresswoman Nancy Mace posted this this weekend?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MACE: Because you people on the left are crazy.
MURRAY-QUICK: So, I'm on the left.
MACE: You're absolutely (bleep).
MURRAY-QUICK: I'm absolutely (bleep).
MACE: You are. And get out of my -- get out of my face.
(LAUGHTER)
MURRAY-QUICK: You're insane.
MACE: Goodbye.
MURRAY-QUICK: You're insane. MACE: (Bleep).
MURRAY-QUICK: You're going to (bleep). You're going to be voted out so fast this year. I cannot wait for you --
MACE: I'm not. I won by so much.
MURRAY-QUICK: You're a disgrace to the state. That's what you are. (Bleep).
MACE: Get out of my face.
MURRAY-QUICK: You're a nasty bitch.
MACE: Try it again. What's your name?
MURRAY-QUICK: You're a nasty bitch.
MACE: What's your name?
MURRAY-QUICK: You're a nasty bitch. That's what you are.
MACE: What's your name?
MURRAY-QUICK: Did you say (bleep) me?
MACE: Yeah. What's your name?
[23:50:00]
MURRAY-QUICK: I'm asking you a question --
MACE: Get out of my face now.
MURRAY-QUICK: (Bleep).
MACE: (Bleep). You couldn't take me on, baby. Say (bleep) away from me.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: That's Republican Nancy Mace getting into a fight with the voter at a South Carolina Ulta store. Now, the voter says that he approached Mace asking her if she plans on hosting any town halls while recording on his own phone. Here's how things started from his perspective.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MURRAY-QUICK: Nancy?
MACE: Yes?
MURRAY-QUICK: When are you going to host a real town hall for the people?
MACE: You did miss the 15 I had last year?
MURRAY-QUICK: That wasn't a town -- when are you going to host one this year?
MACE: I've already had one, and we'll have a dozen more.
MURRAY-QUICK: The town hall you hosted this year was not a town hall.
MACE: It was a town hall, and I do them -- I do them every year.
MURRAY-QUICK: Every year?
MACE: You want to keep going?
MURRAY-QUICK: Are you going to any more this year?
MACE: You want to keep going?
MURRAY-QUICK: Are you going to do --
MACE: You want to keep harassing me?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Our show did reach out to Mace's office for comment. Here is what they said: Quote -- "Never thought we'd need to say this, but if you harass a congresswoman in public while wearing daisy dukes, maybe you're the problem. The congresswoman has every right to stand up for herself when she's being harassed. She will never apologize for standing her ground and standing up for women everywhere" -- unquote.
Joining me now, the man you just saw on that video who had that viral interaction with Mace, Ely Murray-Quick. Eli, thank you for joining. I saw this, and I was eager to speak with you about what happened. I'm wondering, what were you expecting when you first approached her and asked her that question?
MURRAY-QUICK: Laura, thank you for having me, first of all. I suppose I was expecting a proper response, a response that you would expect of elective representatives from our state. Maybe even a schedule would have worked out just fine.
COATES: You asked her, when you're going to have a proper town hall, and wanting to obviously, perhaps, attend one. And it seemed as though she thought you were trying to trigger or antagonize her. Was that your intention?
MURRAY-QUICK: Laura, my intention was to get an answer to the question that I asked. I feel like it was a simple question, and I'm not the only person who has the question. A lot of South Carolina citizens are wondering the same thing.
COATES: And yet she was on Fox News tonight. I don't know if you saw. But she was asked about the confrontation, Ely. I -- I want you to listen to what she had to say, and I'd love to hear your response. Listen. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MACE: I felt threatened. I felt harassed. And I will tell you, as someone who has experienced trauma in her life, and a lot of women will understand what I'm talking about, when some guy gets in your face and approaches you in the aggressive manner that he did, and you feel like you're in danger, instinctively, as women who've been through trauma, who've survived sexual assault, survived domestic abuse, you have two options: You can fight or you can flee. And Sean, I'm a fighter.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Ely, we saw from your perspective and your own cellphone footage. What is your response to what she said tonight?
MURRAY-QUICK: Laura, here's -- it's a simple thing. I asked a simple question. Nancy Mace was not held in this aisle. She had to clear out of this aisle. I was at least eight feet away from her at all times. There was no aggression. There was no harassment. Nancy Mace likes to play the victim card, but that's not what happened here. I asked a simple question as a resident of the state of South Carolina, and she couldn't -- she couldn't answer it. She couldn't meet the demand of the people.
COATES: I want to play for people because there was this -- we saw only a part of this from what we played just now. But she tried to scold you, it seemed, when you started questioning her by citing her previous support for gay marriage, a point you did not raise, did not inquire about, and only mentioned the idea of wanting to know when her next town hall was. But I want to play this exchange to show what she said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MACE: And by the way, I voted for gay marriage twice.
MURRAY-QUICK: What does that have to do with me?
MACE: So, I'm just saying. It has to everything to do with you.
MURRAY-QUICK: Do you think everything about me has to do with gay marriage?
MACE: I do, absolutely.
MURRAY-QUICK: That's your first chance when you speak with me?
MACE: Yeah, absolutely.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Why do you think she brought that up, and what was your reaction to her doing so?
MURRAY-QUICK: Laura, Nancy Mace sees people in a single layer. She sees me, and she sees the people of my community one way. She feels that we owe her something because she voted yay for gay marriage. We don't owe her anything. In fact, we'd like her to answer the questions that we actually have. When are you putting out your schedule for an actual town hall? When are you going to fight for that people of South Carolina instead of playing these theatrics like you're so good at?
COATES: There was a moment when you questioned that that was the only thing that she saw or that she thought that she saw, that your interest in her votes is on the congressional floor.
[23:54:53]
If she were listening tonight, given what she has said earlier on Fox News and also her post on X calling you -- quote -- "an unhinged lunatic, a man wearing daisy dukes at a makeup store," and I'm sorry I have to even read that to you, what would you say?
MURRAY-QUICK: Laura, it's -- it's a shame that you should have to even ask that question, that quote coming from the elected representative in Congress for South Carolina, making these types of statements.
I feel great. You know, I've dealt with this for a large period of my life. I feel great. What I don't feel great about is the future of South Carolina with her touting a govern -- a gubernatorial run. That's what I don't feel great about.
COATES: Well, Ely Murray-Quick, thank you so much for joining us this evening. I suppose you did not realize how viral this would really get. What's your life been like since it did?
MURRAY-QUICK: You know, not much is going to change for me, Laura. It's -- there's a lot of movement happening right now and there's a lot of support and outreach, and I'm very appreciative.
COATES: Hmmm.
MURRAY-QUICK: But, you know, at the end of the day, it was a simple question. We just want our elected representatives to be held accountable. We want to know what they're actually going to do for us.
COATES: Ely, thank you. And thank you all for watching. "Anderson Cooper 360" is next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
