Return to Transcripts main page

Laura Coates Live

Laura Coates and Guests Discuss the Latest in the Federal Trial of Sean "Diddy" Combs; Trump-Musk War Erupts in Dramatic Fashion; Laura Coates Interviews Rep. Melanie Stansbury; Trump-Musk Feud Threatens NASA, SpaceX, and Tesla; MA Teen Released on Bond After ICE Arrest. Aired 11p-12a ET

Aired June 05, 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]

ABBY PHILLIP, CNN ANCHOR AND SENIOR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: A special programming note for you. Most summer Fridays, we are taking the show on a little field trip. We are going to be broadcasting our round table debate from the Food Network kitchen. We will have food, drinks, and some lively conversation. That's tomorrow. Don't miss it.

Thank you very much for watching "NewsNight" tonight. You can catch me any time on your favorite social media X, Instagram, and TikTok. "Laura Coates Live" starts right now.

LAURA COATES, CNN HOST AND SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: The big, beautiful breakup. Musk and Trump at war with so much hanging in the balance. And now, Vice President J.D. Vance has weighed in just as signs emerge that it could get way worse.

Plus, an explosive day, a dramatic day in the case against Sean "Diddy" Combs. The direct warning to Diddy in the testimony that may have really hurt the prosecution's case. Tonight on "Laura Coates Live."

Well, good evening and welcome. I'm Laura Coates. And day 17 of the Sean Combs trial brought dramatic developments. A sharp tongue-lashing from the judge over Diddy's behavior in court and the long-awaited testimony from the accuser known as Jane, AKA "Victim 2."

My team of legal experts and court insiders are here to break it all down, and there is a lot to get to and break down.

The judge actually threatened to throw Diddy from the courtroom for nodding at jurors or if he kept doing so. The defense picked up their cross-examination of Cassie's friend and repeatedly tried to undercut her credibility. And the jury heard from a key witness and a new accuser, an ex-girlfriend who said that Diddy pressured her into unwanted sex with other men.

Now, about that rebuke from the judge. It happened while the jury was out of the courtroom. He told the defense that he saw Diddy looking at jurors, and the quote was "nodding vigorously, not once, but twice during the testimony of Cassie's friend, Bryana "Bana" Bongolan." The judge told Diddy's team, that is absolutely unacceptable. He asked defense lawyer Marc Agnifilo, who leads the team, if it was going to happen again. And the way he did it was, like, rhetorically, it's not going to happen again. Agnifilo assured him it would not. The judge replied, it cannot happen again.

The nodding happened during Bongolan's cross-examination when the defense tried to score some pretty big points. And they did. They challenged one of her most dramatic claims that Diddy dangled her over a 17-story balcony at Cassie's Los Angeles apartment.

The defense attorney, Nicole Westmoreland, pressed Bongolan on when exactly and where exactly it happened. And the theme today was receipts. She brought them out, quite literally. Those at the Trump Hotel where they showed that Diddy was staying at that hotel and traveling in places like New Jersey when Bongolan said that the incident actually occurred.

Westmoreland asked her, you agree that one person can't be in two places at the same time? Bongolan replied after a bit of a break, in theory, yeah.

Now, the day ended with a critical witness on the stand. The Diddy accuser testifying under the pseudonym Jane, who is identified as victim number two in the government's indictment. She said she first met Diddy in about 2020 and was dating him until his arrest. She described a very intense relationship involving drugs and vacations and financial support.

But she said that Pandora's box had been opened in 2021 when Diddy brought other men into their sexual relationship. And she described those encounters as debauchery or hotel nights, which prosecutors say are the same things as what Cassie Ventura referred to as "freak- offs."

Jane testified that she would have sex with other men while Diddy watched. And she said some of those sessions lasted more than 24 hours. So, the court -- the hotel room would be decorated with red lights, music would be playing, and there'd be -- quote -- "bed sheets covering everything, blankets, towels. She was asked what it was all for, and she replied, for the excessive use of baby oil everywhere.

Jane said she told Diddy multiple times that she did not want to have sex with other men, but he wouldn't listen. She explained why she went along with it at first, saying -- quote -- "I feared losing him. I just wanted to be everything that he wanted."

Now, Jane is going to be back on the stand tomorrow.

I want to begin with CNN's Kara Scannell, our eyes and ears in the courtroom. She has been, from the beginning, a part of this case. Kara, the judge, as you know, issued this stark warning to Diddy.

[23:04:59]

Today, he was saying that it could not happen again. What did you see? Have you seen Diddy nodding vigorously or looking at the jurors before today?

KARA SCANNELL, CNN CORRESPONDENT: I have seen this. I mean, he was nodding vigorously during the testimony of one of his former personal assistants, George Kaplan, who was testifying that he quit working for Diddy because of the physical violence that he had witnessed. But he also talked very fondly of times that he had spent with Diddy, saying that he learned a lot from Diddy. And during all of the positive testimony, Diddy was nodding his head vigorously. He's very animated.

And he does look over at the jury. I mean, in fact, yesterday, when they were doing the cross-examination of Cassie Ventura's friend, Bryana Bongolan, I saw him watching the jury for most of that cross- examination. I didn't catch any nodding at that point, but he certainly was paying attention and looking at their reaction.

And, honestly, after the warning today, when Jane was on the witness stand, I saw Combs again looking at the jury, stone-faced, but he was watching them for their reaction during some of this very explicit testimony.

COATES: Really important. I -- I actually interviewed Joe Tacopino as well for my podcast. And his take as defense counsel on what it was like to hear news like that and how he would guide his own client, really interesting. Check that out, Kara.

But also, you mentioned Jane, a woman testifying under the pseudonym Jane. She took the stand today. Jane was in an open relationship with Diddy, we learned, from 2021 until his arrest. Can you describe what Jane's demeanor was like and any reaction whatsoever that Diddy had to what she was testifying to?

SCANNELL: When Jane walked into the courtroom -- you know that courtroom. There's the center aisle. Diddy is sitting at the defense table. He turned all the way around and watched her walk down that center aisle to the witness stand. Now, as far as I could tell, because I was -- my head was kind of ricocheting between the two of them --

COATES: Uh-hmm.

SCANNELL: -- is that she just had her eyes focused, and she didn't appear to make any eye contact with him. You know, she was testifying very -- in a very clear voice. She's a little soft spoken, but very clear.

But when the prosecutor was shifting this conversation, she'd been talking about the early hey days -- hey days of their relationship and how in love she was, when she asked her to focus on May 2021, that is when she just drew silent, her head dropped, and she started dabbing her eyes with a tissue from the witness box. The prosecutor even asked, you know, do you want to take a break? She said in a firm voice, no. She wants to go forward.

And she then described how in May of 2021, that's when this Pandora's box opened, that she said she was a door. She was unable to ever close throughout their relationship of when they began, what they didn't -- what in her vernacular was called hotel nights. Cassie Ventura referred to them as "freak-offs." But she was describing this.

And, you know, a key part of the case here is whether there was force or coercion to --

COATES: Uh-hmm.

SCANNELL: -- to satisfy the burden of sex trafficking. And she was asked, you know, if she ever told Combs she didn't want to do this. She testified she did in writing multiple times and also one-on-one. And she said, when she told him one-on-one, that actually she didn't want to do this anymore, he said, okay, if we break up, you know, I'll give you three months and, you know, I'm not going to pay rent for a woman I'm not involved with.

She said she wasn't at all suggesting they break up, but Combs was paying $10,000 a month for her rent, and she said that because of that, she felt obligated to continue with these hotel nights even though she didn't want to do it.

COATES: Really important for the prosecution to try to move the needle on that fraud or coercion or force notion -- excuse me -- as it relates to sex trafficking, and a comparison for jurors who recall the testimony of, say, Cassie Ventura. They're going to undoubtedly compare and contrast their notes on these two particular alleged victims.

Kara Scannell, keep your eyes and ears open. We need you. Thank you so much.

Let's hear now from our powerhouse legal team: Former federal prosecutor Gene Rossi, trial attorney Monique Pressley, who also represented at, one point, Bill Cosby, and Benjamin Chew, former co- lead counsel for Johnny Depp during his defamation trial against Amber Heard.

Monique, I want to get right to this pattern. I know, obviously, in a RICO case, you got to show a pattern of different behavior, these so- called predicate crimes. But we're hearing a lot about the pattern of the "freak-offs." Multiple witnesses now testifying to this effect in these hotel nights or whatever it might be. Is there a compounding effect that is useful for the prosecution on that issue?

MONIQUE PRESSLEY, TRIAL ATTORNEY: Not to me. Not from what we've seen so far. I mean, if someone who -- when they're involved in an intimate relationship, likes to have candles in the room, likes to have some sort of oil, some sort of lubricant, some sort of music, some sort of lighting, that seems to be what they're establishing, that that is his pattern for what he likes during those interactions, but that's not criminal.

And -- and until they show that that's aiding in a particular crime, then what we've got is dating pleasures.

[23:09:58]

And I am concerned, frankly, Laura, that a lot of what we are hearing could be the makings of crimes for millions of people all across this country if what the prosecution is saying thus far is what we are supposed to accept as a criminal enterprise.

COATES: Interesting point. The idea of the question lingering. Why not charge others with this? That might be a question the jurors are asking themselves to some degree.

But then, how about this theme of money and financial dependence of some of the witnesses? I mean, this person, Jane, who has been testifying, says that Diddy would frequently give her between 5 and 20,000 bucks because her source of income, as she testified, was affected after she then prioritized their relationship.

What is the prosecution trying to get at when they're addressing these so-called allowances? Is it financial independence as a way of coercion?

BENJAMIN CHEW, CO-LEAD COUNSEL FOR JOHNNY DEPP IN HIS DEFAMATION TRIAL: Yeah, I think that's part of it. I think also -- I think why Jane is so powerful witness is that she has the same arc of the relationship with Diddy that Cassie Ventura had. It started out as a friendship. It became love. It became romantic. And then, he, allegedly, converted it into more coercion and having sex with other people, which --

So, I do think -- I -- I think Monique's point is outstanding. But I -- but I also think that they are getting some of the coercion that they're going to need for the RICO count.

COATES: So, how about this moment in court? I mean, I -- when I saw it, I -- I was taken aback when the judge scolded counsel, obviously scolding Diddy about nodding at the jury, nodding and -- and also looking directly at them. It's not the first time you heard Kara Scannell say it.

GENE ROSSI, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: Right.

COATES: Not the first time he has been nodding. But you say that's a really big moment because it's a very big mistake for a defendant to do that. Tell me why.

ROSSI: For 27 seven years, I was a prosecutor.

COATES: Uh-hmm.

ROSSI: And whenever the opposing party and the defendant made faces to the jury or nodded, I almost did the Toyota commercial and jumped to the sky because jurors hate when that happens. They hate it when the prosecutors do it.

COATES: They hate being looked at.

ROSSI: Absolutely. You're invading their space. And I remember telling Ben that one of the key moments of his trial is when Amber Heard was looking at the jury after every question. They don't mind you looking at the jury, but that was sort of invading. And I said a couple shows ago that when I was a prosecutor, I always assigned somebody in a big case, not that small. I always said, watch the jury. But I never said to the defendant, watch the jury. So, he is -- he is antagonizing the jury. But I got to -- I got to --

COATES: If he is --

ROSSI: Jury.

COATES: -- nodding at, you're saying? Okay.

ROSSI: Yeah. But -- but let's assume he was. I have to criticize the judge a little bit. If he allowed it to happen and then had an epiphany, you know, he should have done it the first time Diddy did that with that security guy.

COATES: Uh-hmm.

ROSSI: He should have admonished Diddy then. But --

COATES: Well, I -- I think that's an interesting point particularly because you should -- guys should know, the number of sidebars that happened in this trial are -- are -- it is pretty stunning. I mean, when there's momentum happening from a good questioning and the witnesses has their back gimped the ropes, there's a sidebar to obviously slow down the tactic. There's also a number of moments when they are conversing with the judge, and one would presume at earlier moments during the trial, the judge could have addressed what he was actively seeing.

But then, Monique, a defendant, people might think, they can't react. They've got to be a cardboard figure. They're not able to do anything if they're being accused of horrific crimes, etcetera. What is that line between a human reaction and honoring the judge's order not to, as you've said, antagonize by looking?

PRESSLEY: So, first, the defendant is the most important person at that table, and they're the one with their life on the line because we're talking about liberty interest here in this case. They have every right to, not just in addition to whomever the defense also has looking at the jury, they have a right to look at the jury.

If they notice something that can aid in their case, if they notice a juror slipping, a juror sleeping, a juror questioning, a juror frowning, and want to let their attorneys know that it's happening, they -- the reason why they're there is so they can see.

Now, yes, there's a line, and yes, you have to coach them beforehand. You might hear this today and this is going to be hard to take, and here's the way I'm going to need you to respond to that and here's how we prep for that. So, that's the work preparing for trial.

But in any trial that I've been in, the voice I needed to hear the most, the voice that was most important throughout witness testimony was my client. COATES: A really important point. And, of course, you have right to confront your accusers and the threat to remove him from the room would be a pretty drastic one and one that would leave the jurors asking questions and possibly, if convicted, an appellate issue.

But let me just ask you about this witness. She went by the name of "Bana."

[23:15:00]

She was a friend of Cassie Ventura. Still is, she testified. I got to tell you, sitting in that courtroom, the defense was scoring a lot of points with her. They talked about the civil lawsuits, about a financial motive, the dates were wrong, there were some discrepancies, some memory issues, the idea of the government's notes.

There were a lot of moments where even in the eye and people were thinking, why did the prosecution call this person who had such baggage on this issue? Was it a mistake?

CHEW: I think it was a mistake. I think they didn't need her. They had they -- they had --

COATES: But why didn't they need her? Because she talked about the balcony. Why is that not important to the RICO case?

CHEW: Well, it -- it -- it is. So, I -- I could see them wanting to get that. But they really needed to nail that down.

COATES: Hmm.

CHEW: You know, we were talking about this before. You get the timing, nail down. For example, if she wasn't sure about the date, then that should have been established in the direct. It shouldn't come out, as Gene said, in the cross because then it makes her look guilty. I think it destroyed her testimony. I haven't been a great fan of the cross-examinations generally. This one was good.

COATES: And, by the way, there was a moment -- I'll let you finish your point, but there was a moment at the very beginning of the cross when Ms. Westmoreland asked the question about the immunity and said, you're only can be prosecuted if you're lying. Right? Yes. Who gets to decide whether you're lying?

(LAUGHTER)

ROSSI: Well, the prosecutor decides whether she's telling the truth.

COATES: Yeah.

ROSSI: But here's the thing. And I -- I hate to be a Monday morning (ph) quarterback for the prosecutors --

COATES: Sure.

ROSSI: -- or for the defense, but this is an example, in my view, of a lack of preparation. She was a Jekyll and Hyde witness. When she probably prepped, she was good. But on the stand, if they didn't pin down that date, you can't -- you can't rehabilitate a witness after you've been crushed on cross on the date. It's too late.

COATES: It can't be it happened someday, and they said it happened on a particular day. Thank you so much, everyone.

ROSSI: Thank you.

COATES: Up next, the Trump-Musk feud of 2025. Conspiracy theories, personal insults, calls for impeachment, and calls for deportation are all playing out very publicly. Musk winning the P.R. battle today. But will he win the war? Tara Palmeri is standing by with new reporting from what MAGA World is saying tonight.

Plus, Congresswoman Melanie Stansbury, a top DOGE critic, on how Democrats are going to handle this war.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. MELANIE STANSBURY (D-NM): But this bromance is so messy, you guys. Like, this breakup is messy as all hell. Let me tell you.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:20:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: Alien versus predator, WWE-style summer slam, MAGA sweating which side to pick, Trump or Musk, and Andy Cohen of "The Real Housewives" offering to host the reunion. The memes that are capturing one of the most insane days in American politics ever.

The Trump-Musk relationship is blowing up, and the debris is still falling.

Musk has heel-turned on Trump and is now trying to take the DOGE chainsaw to Trump's agenda by railing against the massive policy bill that he thinks is going to bankrupt the country. This just six days after they appeared here together in the Oval.

Now, today, Musk called for Trump to be impeached and replaced by his own vice president, J.D. Vance. Called Trump ungrateful, said he wouldn't have won the election had it not been for him. He even called for a third party.

Musk then issued what may be the most Marvel supervillain warning of all, flat-out telling congressional Republicans that Trump has just three years left as president, but that Musk will be around for 40 plus years.

He then dropped what he called the really big bomb. A claim, without evidence, that Trump is in the Epstein files, and that's why they haven't been released. I guess he'll see your conspiracy theory and raise you another one. That tweet alone viewed more than a hundred million times. So, if we're going to judge this war by crowd size, it's not even close.

Trump fired back with just three posts on Truth Social midday. One said, the best way to save money was to terminate Elon's government contracts. The other, that Elon was wearing thin on him, that Musk went crazy just because Trump took away his EV mandate. And Trump said, I don't mind Elon turning on me, but he should've done so months ago.

Now, Trump had a chance to say something on camera at an event this afternoon after Musk's barrage. He chose not to.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Thank you all for being here. And thank you very much, media. Appreciate it. Thank you very much.

UNKNOWN (voice-over): Mr. President, any response to Elon Musk's claims about the Epstein files?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: So, that meant that Trump's only on-camera response was in the Oval at noon today.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: But I'm -- I'm very disappointed in Elon. I've helped Elon a lot. I'll be honest. I think he misses the place. Look, Elon and I had a great relationship. I don't know if we will anymore.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: The big question now, who wins? What happens and what will Trump do next? Well, the man who helped architect Trump's first rise to power, he has an idea.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

STEVE BANNON, FORMER WHITE HOUSE CHIEF STRATEGIST: Thirteen million and one because Elon Musk is illegal. He got to go, too. Okay? You're going to ship these other people home? Let's start with the -- let's start with the South Africans.

[23:25:00]

Okay? And I got a couple other that could go, too. But he's illegal. Deport immediately.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Here with me now, Tara Palmeri. She's the author of "The Red Letter" on Substack. Tara, good to see you. I mean, the breaking news on this tonight is that Vice President Vance has finally now said something, weighing in, and here's what he said. President Trump has done more than any person in my lifetime to earn the trust of the movement he leads. I'm proud to stand beside him.

Now, Tara, you've been talking to sources in the administration all night. How is this feud landing?

TARA PALMERI, SENIOR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT FOR PUCK, PODCAST HOST: I mean, I've been talking to them all week --

COATES: Uh-hmm.

PALMERI: -- asking them how do we think it's going to end because I didn't think it was going to end the way that we saw it ending, which seemed to sort of escalate over the days. Right? I don't think anyone expected it to blow up this quickly. They were hoping maybe August would be, like, height escalation, not just, you know, a few weeks into first week of June.

But, yeah, I mean, everyone is sort of trying to understand what's going on right now. J.D. is taking a political calculation. He's deciding to stick with Donald Trump, who won't even endorse him when asked if he would endorse J.D. as his successor.

Elon Musk, obviously, has deep pockets. He could choose somebody else to go up against J.D. Vance in retribution. He could go with Ron DeSantis, who clearly sees Elon Musk as someone that he can partner with again. As -- as you remember, Elon Musk hosted him on X when he announced that he was running for president. And, already, Ron DeSantis has sent out some fundraising emails supporting Elon Musk. Well, before the Epstein tweet.

But still, you know, there's -- there's obviously a little bit of jockeying going on because he is the richest man in the world, and he can cause a lot of havoc in the Republican Party.

And all day long, you know, operatives who are working on important races in the House, in the Senate, they've been trying to reach Elon Musk's adviser, and they are, like, what do we do, what do we do? And no answer.

COATES: On that point, in terms of the GOP, I mean, you also spoke to Steve Bannon, who we noted is actually calling for Musk to be deported. He actually had some warnings for the Republican Party about what Musk might do. What did he tell you?

PALMERI: Yeah. He predicted -- this was yesterday that we spoke, and he predicted that Musk would take a hard turn left to try to save Tesla, that he would say that they were all drill, baby, drill, they were going to burn the earth down, that Trump is the, you know, antichrist and that he has seen the light and he has had a sort of, like, midlife crisis, and now he is -- he's -- he's turning the left, and he's going to make environmentally friendly cars and try to make up for his -- his -- his bad ways.

But, ultimately, I think that that is unlikely, that the left would take Elon Musk back, especially after all of his, you know, racist comments. And I think he -- I don't think that Democrats would ever take him back. But, you know, that was the concern then. And I think what we're really seeing is Elon Musk going even further to the right, frankly.

COATES: I'm going to ask Congresswoman Stansbury, who's joining us a little bit later, about what she thinks Democrats will do with respect to Elon Musk on that very point.

I want to ask you because Musk is suggesting, without evidence, that Trump is in the Epstein files. He called it -- quote -- "a really big bomb." You've actually spoken to Epstein survivors about this very topic in the past. What did you learn?

PALMERI: Uh-hmm. Yeah, I mean, I've spoken to a number of Epstein survivors and, you know, they were aware of President Trump, they've seen him around. None of them told me that they were personally victimized by him or saw him victimized a child before. So, I can only go on the accounts that I have.

And, you know, we know that he's in Epstein's last book in terms of his phone numbers in there, about 14 times. We know they were friends during the height of Epstein's sex trafficking operation in the 1980s to the early 2000. And actually, they got in a fight over real estate. And that's what really angered Trump about Epstein, that they got into this feud over a piece of property in Palm Beach.

COATES: Hmm.

PALMERI: And one of the Epstein survivors actually subpoenaed Donald Trump to help -- help her case, and he -- he did actually help. He sat down and he -- he was deposed, and he helped give out information about Epstein's friends.

And he had, like, some very bizarre comments. He said that he noticed that the girls, when he went to his house, were very young, hanging around Epstein's pool. And he asked Epstein about it. And Epstein said, oh, they're part of a big brother, big sister program. I mean, the kids were so obviously young.

[23:30:00]

I mean -- but you have to think to yourself, Laura. If you saw something like that, wouldn't you, you know, tell the authorities and do something about it?

COATES: Well, Trump, just so we're clear, he -- he has never been charged in connection with anything related to Epstein, just so we're clear.

PALMERI: No.

COATES: But the -- and the accusers --

PALMERI: No, no, no.

COATES: -- you've spoken to have not intimated as much either. Right?

PALMERI: No, no, no. Just that they had seen him around and that he was -- and he had told Brad Edwards, who was the lawyer of one of the victims, that he was suspicious of Epstein because he had seen so many young girls around, and he asked Epstein about it, and that was his response, that he was a mentor.

COATES: Wow. Tara Palmeri, thank you so much.

PALMERI: Thank you.

COATES: Well, my next guest is the top Democrat on the House DOGE subcommittee. And tonight, she took to the House floor to officially enter the Musk-Trump breakup tweets into the record, in what she is now calling the "Real Housewives" of Pennsylvania Avenue. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

STANSBURY: It looks like Elon Musk was retweeting what other people were saying about his attacks on the president and this big abomination of a bill. And Elon Musk says, in November of next year, we fire all politicians who betrayed the American people.

I mean, you guys, we cannot make this up. This is like the real tea that is going on the internet. There might be more drama going down just since we started this very conversation on the floor. But the reality of the situation is you all have both got what you paid for.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Congresswoman Melanie Stansbury is with me now. Congresswoman, you certainly held court today on that floor, the tea included. You've been critical, though, of Musk, frankly, for a very long time. You even called DOGE a -- a scam on the American people. You've kind of read the tea leaves, so to speak, that this bromance would end. But what do you make of this break up?

REP. MELANIE STANSBURY (D-NM): Well, I mean, I think I said this on the floor today, but break ups are hard, man, and I don't think I've ever seen a harder breakup in my life, to be honest.

(LAUGHTER)

It has been real. But, you know, I -- I mean, I think that I'm not totally surprised, to be honest. You've got the wealthiest man on planet Earth who helped to buy an election for who's now the most powerful man on Earth, and they're completely melt -- melting down on each other and, like, in total destruction mode right now.

So, I don't know. I don't know what's going to emerge out of this in the coming days. But what I do know is Elon Musk, and I hope it's okay to say this on the air, is a total bullshit artist. And you don't have to take my word for that. Donald Trump said that a few days ago.

And I think that you could see that in the literal receipts from DOGE and the way in which he spent the last several months self-dealing, stealing people's data, giving himself government contracts and, you know, he tried to wipe his hands and walk out of the White House but it, apparently, imploded on him in the last few hours.

COATES: Well, this destruction mode, as you call it, is particularly acute right now when we're watching all the stakes, and they're very high for the American people.

And you actually replied to Trump's post where he suggested even terminating Musk's contracts by saying -- quote -- "We'd love to work with you on a bipartisan bill to do just this."

But not all of your colleagues, of course, have taken that kind of stance. In fact, Senator John Fetterman said this earlier. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. JOHN FETTERMAN (D-PA): The Dems, we've been dumping all over Musk and vandalizing Teslas or whatever. And now, suddenly, you know, we might be more back into him. It's just, like, a thing. It's, like, you know, he's right about the big beautiful bill. It's, like, we have to decide, you know, where are we thinking about him.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: So, what is the strategy? What ought it to be when it comes to Elon Musk? Is it to embrace or antagonize? Is there some middle ground? What?

STANSBURY: Well, I mean, first, we have to acknowledge that for the last 130 days that Elon Musk was a special government employee, he broke the law, he stored data, as I mentioned, he fired thousands of federal employees, he dismantled agencies illegally, and there's now over 200 court cases in the federal court system holding him and the Trump administration accountable.

And so, I don't think we can sit here and pretend like nothing has gone down for the last three and a half months, and I think he needs to be held fully accountable for his actions.

Now, politically speaking, I think, as some of us were just saying, America needed this. We really, really did -- did. You know, we've lived through such, I think, dark times over the last few months that, you know, it's hard to not take a little bit of joy in watching them destroy each other.

But I don't think we should be embracing somebody who's engaged in criminal activity against the American people and shattered lives for the last three and a half months.

COATES: Speaking of that, I know -- should I -- it hearkens back. You remember when James Carville made that comment about, you know, the Democrats ought to, as a strategy, roll over and play dead. Essentially, wants to -- I'll tell you what he said after that. He -- he went on to say, allow the Republicans to crumble beneath their own weight and make the American people miss us. [23:35:01]

I saw you kind of wince to the idea of rolling over and playing dead. But his greater message, it appears, was, you know, sit back and let them implode, and then Democrats can seize on the opportunity, if I'm paraphrasing them. We look at this right now. Is that a sound strategy? What -- are the Democrats doing that?

STANSBURY: Well, I think when you have megalomaniacs like Donald Trump and Elon Musk, it is sort of mutually-assured destruction regardless of whether or not Democrats intervene.

But what the American people want is very clear. They want to see leaders fighting for them. They want to see them fighting for democracy. They want to see us fighting against this disgusting abomination of a bill. They want to see us fighting against taking away their health care and their food assistance and making sure that we're fighting for democracy and basic human rights in this country.

So, the idea that Democrats should just stand back and let them destroy each other and not intervene and not actually fight for the American people is absurd, like, this is our fight, this is the fight of our generation.

COATES: Congresswoman Melanie Stansbury, thank you.

STANSBURY: Thank you.

COATES: Still ahead, Steve Bannon urging Trump to nationalize SpaceX just as Trump warns that he may cut Musk's government contract. So, what would that actually mean? One of the top experts on SpaceX standing by to explain.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:40:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: An all-out battle royal between President Trump and Elon Musk. Trump threatening to put the kibosh on the -- quote -- "billions and billions of dollars of Musk's federal contracts."

My next guest tweeted, the end of those subsidies and agreements would both end the International Space Station and simultaneously provide no way to safely deorbit it, to which Elon himself responded, this just gets better and better. Go ahead, make my day.

So, what did Musk tweet next? SpaceX would ground the spacecraft used to take astronauts to the International Space Station. But tonight, cooler heads might prevail. Musk saying, okay, we won't decommission Dragon.

With me now, senior space editor for ARS Technica, Eric Berger. Eric, first, let's address Musk threat back to Trump to ground the Dragon spacecraft. Tell me, how would that effectively mean, as you say, the end of the International Space Station?

ERIC BERGER, SENIOR SPACE EDITOR FOR ARS TECHNICA, AUTHOR: Sure. Good evening, Laura. So, right now, SpaceX or NASA only has one operational spacecraft that can carry its astronauts to the International Space Station, and that's SpaceX's Dragon vehicle.

We all probably remember the problems that Starliner had over the last year or so. And the fact of the matter is that NASA has not declared that vehicle safe to get people. So, they can't put people on his space station.

Right now, the only cargo vehicle to carry supplies at the space station is Dragon, a different version of Dragon, because there's another cargo vehicle, but the last one that they were carrying launch, site got damaged. So -- I mean, basically, Dragon is the only lifeline of the space station right now. So, if you cut that off, you wouldn't have people or food up there.

COATES: That's scary, to think about that and how this is dependent on personality conflicts in part. I mean, there's also the SpaceX other contracts with NASA and the Starlink of it all, which has, of course, military implications and complications. What else is at risk here?

BERGER: Yeah. I mean, all of NASA's science missions right now are launching on Dragon -- excuse me, on Falcon 9 rockets. The art of this program, the return to the moon, relies on SpaceX's Starship to land astronauts for the first couple of missions on the moon. And obviously, the vehicles had some issues, but that is the human landing system for NASA. So, they'd be cutting that off.

The Department of Military, the Department of Defense relies on Starlink under the Star Shield branding. Also, right now, the majority of military satellites are launching into space on Falcon rockets as well.

COATES: Well, you know, one thing that Trump did post, a reference back to his predecessor. He posted that President Biden should have terminated Musk's contracts. Why didn't Biden do that?

BERGER: Well, I think Biden probably had some respect for the people running NASA and for the military. If they told him that SpaceX was providing the best service at the best price, he probably was inclined to believe them. So, while he may have had some personal disagreements with Musk, you know, he recognized the fact that this company really has stepped up for the U.S.-based industry.

And the fact of the matter is NASA and SpaceX have had a great partnership for 20 years.

COATES: Hmm.

BERGER: And it's across Republican, Democratic presidents, you know, going back to President Obama, even President George W. Bush.

COATES: So, if -- if ending contract, as you say, is more of a downside for the federal government, is there a more effective way for the president to inflict some pain on Musk's businesses as he seems to want to suggest?

BERGER: Well, certainly, Musk is playing with fire because the president has shown a willingness to use the federal government to act on his desires and has put people in agencies to really carry out, you know, his demands and his wishes.

And so, yes, absolutely, you could turn the Federal Aviation Administration loose on SpaceX and you could sort of shut down development of launch sites, you could stop Starship launches for various reasons. There's an open investigation right now into the last Starship anomaly.

And similarly, with Tesla, the National Highway and Transportation Safety Administration could get involved with autopilot and full self- driving and really, sort of, kind of shut those programs down as well.

[23:45:04]

So, absolutely, if the president wanted to hurt Elon Musk, we could do so quite badly.

COATES: We'll see what happens. Eric Berger, thank you so much.

BERGER: Thank you.

COATES: There is now a new flash point in the deportation battle. A Massachusetts high school student arrested on his way to volleyball practice for an expired student visa. Well, he is out on bond tonight, but will he be able to stay in the country? His attorney joins me next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:50:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: ICE's latest target? High school. At least that was the case for the 18-year-old Marcelo Gomes da Silva, who was on his way to volleyball practice with some teammates. He was pulled over by several ICE agents, who claimed they were looking for his father. When agents found his student visa expired, he was arrested. Silva was held in an ICE facility for six days.

But Marcelo's community in Milford, Massachusetts rallied behind him. And tonight, he has been released on $2,000 bond following his first hearing.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MARCELO GOMES DA SILVA, DETAINED BY ICE FOR SIX DAYS: It showed me that a lot of people understand that it's not -- it's not as easy as just taking someone, putting them in a detention center, and sending them off to their country. There's more to that. There's family, there's love, there's community.

There -- like, I -- I grew up in Milford. Like, that's my home. That's the only place I call home. I -- I don't see myself anywhere in -- anywhere else but Milford. Just -- just as my parents. Like, they grew up with me. They -- they were with me there. They don't see themselves anywhere else but Milford.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: That's a high school student. Joining me now is Robin Nice. She is Marcello's attorney. Robin, welcome. I mean, Marcelo eloquently telling the press that he -- he wanted McDonald's. He wanted to hug his dog upon release.

ROBIN NICE, ATTORNEY FOR MARCELO GOMES DA SILVA: Yep.

COATES: How is he doing tonight?

NICE: I mean, he is a resilient kid, if ever I've met one. I -- I would -- I'd be thrilled if my kids could turn out to be like him. But he's -- he's doing okay. I mean, I think -- he's still, I think, in a bit of a shock from everything that he has been through, but he's doing as well as he could possibly do in the situation.

COATES: I mean, he was being held, he said, with dozens of adult men in a small room for nearly a week. What was it like for him in that facility?

NICE: Yeah. It was awful. It's deplorable. You saw in the -- in the video there. Reps Moulton and Auchincloss came in today and actually did a visitation of the center. And they said, even as marines, that these are not conditions -- they -- they know what acceptable conditions are like, and this is not it.

I have my colleague who filed the habeas petition said, GC has death row inmates and max security prisons who are in better conditions. There's no sunlight. There is -- there's no yard time. They're sleeping on a cement floor. He had no shower at any point while he was detained. He had -- if he was lucky, one, two-minute phone call a day. But oftentimes, that didn't happen. The food was atrocious. It was sweltering hot. It just un-excusable -- un-excusable conditions.

COATES: This is an 18-year-old. An 18-year-old. His visa -- visa was expired. He is out now, but are you concerned that he could --

NICE: Yes.

COATES: -- be deported?

NICE: Nothing is -- is final until someone has a -- a green card or, frankly, even a citizenship certificate in their hot little hands. So, we're obviously worried not just for Marcelo and everyone else in his community. Frankly, we've seen other people already in Milford get picked up. There was about a dozen folks picked up at the same time as him.

So, yeah, it's going to be a long slog. He -- it will take at least a couple of years until it's really all set.

COATES: ICE was looking for, apparently, his father when they arrested Marcelo instead. Is his father in jeopardy? Is -- is the family making plans in case a deportation might happen for one or any of them?

NICE: We're going to -- we're going to have some real conversations about that. I think they definitely -- everyone is concerned. I think -- I think it's important to recognize that everyone in the United States who doesn't have permanent lawful status is at risk. So, whether that's mom and dad or -- or other kids like Marcelo, they're at risk.

And I think I would point out, too, you know, they said they're going after dad. Nothing in their behavior indicated that that was the case. So, this whole time, there has been a lot of, at best, miscommunication and at worst, really hiding the ball in the situation.

COATES: Why do you say that nothing in the behavior? They didn't ask about the father? They didn't suggest they're looking for him instead?

NICE: No. When they stopped Marcelo -- number one, they followed him from his home. So, presumably, they saw this 18-year-old kid with braces get into a car. They followed that car from two stops to pick up his volleyball colleagues.

When they stopped him, it was a masked man with an ICE insignia on his uniform. He said, do you know why we pulled you over? Give me license which, obviously, has Marcelo's name, not his father's. Said, I pulled you over because you're illegal, you're an illegal immigrant.

At no point did he know or believe that they were looking for his dad and no point did they say dad's name until he heard it from other detainees getting brought into the ICE unit. Like, oh, they're looking for your dad. He never heard boo about that.

[23:55:00]

COATES: That sounds terrifying for this 18-year-old. And imagine the family or seeing his little brother asking for him to be returned home. Really, really compelling. Robin Nice, thank you so much.

NICE: Thank you.

COATES: Before we go, I don't want you to miss the first ever T.V. broadcast of a live Broadway play. George Clooney stars in "Good Night and Good Luck," presented live right here on CNN, and streaming on CNN.com. It'll be Saturday night at 7.

I want to thank you all for watching. "Anderson Cooper 360" is next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)