Return to Transcripts main page

Laura Coates Live

Laura Coates And Guests Discuss The Latest In The Federal Trial Of Sean "Diddy" Combs; Kilmar Abrego Garcia Back In U.S. Facing Criminal Charges; Elon Musk Launches New Epstein Attack Against Trump; Proud Boys Sue DOJ; Who Has Marty McFly's Guitar? Aired 11p-12a ET

Aired June 06, 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]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCOTT JENNINGS, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, FORMER SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: -- you already started.

(LAUGHTER)

UNKNOWN: They got me drinking this stuff. It's a communion wine over here.

JENNINGS: I said last week to the question about best home cooked meal omelettes -- I'm going to say the same thing this week. I think I would eat one every single day if I had the chance because we have the eggs at home and everything.

UNKNOWN: Hmm.

JENNINGS: And I just -- I just think it's like one of the best things you can -- and it's versatile, too. So --

UNKNOWN: Expensive nowadays.

ABBY PHILLIP, CNN HOST: He also has chickens on his socks.

JENNINGS: Not for me.

(LAUGHTER)

PHILLIP: That's for the record.

JENNINGS: I -- I -- I reach under the Jennings family chickens.

UNKNOWN: His socks?

PHILLIP: Yes. I thought he has chickens on his socks. Okay, everyone, I would probably eat pasta or -- or omelettes. I don't know. Okay, either one will be fine with me.

Everyone, thank you very much. Thanks for watching "NewsNight." Catch us tomorrow morning, 10 a.m., with our conversation show "Table for Five," and you can catch me on your favorite social media X, Instagram, and TikTok. "Laura Coates Live" is right now.

LAURA COATES, CNN HOST: A dramatic day in the trial against Sean "Diddy" Combs as Jane delivered some of the most harrowing testimony yet. The jury also hearing audio of Diddy, and we have it for you here tonight.

Plus, Kilmar Abrego Garcia now back in America to face criminal charges. How the DOJ is justifying the move and their case.

And after hours of quiet, a major new salvo from Elon Musk against President Trump. And yes, it's about those Epstein files. Tonight on "Laura Coates Live."

Well, good evening and welcome. I'm Laura Coates. And some of the most graphic, difficult testimony we've heard so far unfolding on day 18 of the trial against Sean "Diddy" Combs. His former girlfriend got incredibly emotional, describing unwanted sex with male escorts and how those drug-fueled hotel nights, as she referred to him, kept happening even after she told Diddy she wanted them to stop.

In just a moment, my team of legal experts and court insiders will unpack day two of testimony from Jane, who is testifying under a pseudonym. And what she told the court is hard to listen to.

She broke down on the stand, describing several gut-wrenching hotel nights, including one Diddy sprung on her birthday. She said that she told him over and over the encounters had to stop, and testified that she entered what she called a "love contract" with Diddy, who later threatened to stop financially supporting her.

Now, much of her testimony today detail the unwanted hotel nights that she says she was pressured to take part in. One of the most shocking happened on her birthday in 2023.

She flew to Miami with Diddy. She says she didn't expect to have a freak-off-style hotel night, but she said Diddy unexpectedly alluded to one, telling the jury, we were at a sushi place and I was just really happy to be around my lover. And he was just so loving and sweet as always. And then he starts to tell me what entertainment is tonight. She went on to say, I had this gulp moment. Like something was stuck in my throat because I didn't expect that.

Now, what she described next is hard to hear. She said Diddy gave her a necklace after dinner, and then a man she hadn't met before showed up to their suite. She talked about feeling robotic during the encounter, and said that Diddy got frustrated when she asked for a condom for the man. Diddy eventually gave her one, but she said he became unhappy and disinterested. Eventually, that man left.

But then another showed up. So, they had -- quote -- "hours and hours of sex." And when he left, Diddy told her a third man was coming. She testified, I acted like it was nothing. But inside, I hated it. Jane said she told Diddy multiple times the hotel nights had to stop.

The jury saw this text she sent him shortly after her birthday. I'd like to get off the hamster wheel and do something different with you. She sent this one in September 2023. I don't want to play this role in your life anymore. It's dark, sleazy, and makes me feel disgusted with myself.

A text like that very well before that birthday incident. This one is from February of 2022. I don't ever want to do another hotel entertainment night with you.

Jane also testified that Diddy held significant financial control over her. They entered a two-year verbal love contract in 2023, where he agreed to pay her rent.

Later that year, texts show that they got in a fight over having a hotel night, and Jane said that she didn't want to do it because she was on her period. Diddy accused her of using him for money. And days later, he sent her an audio message threatening to cut off support. This is what the jury then heard.

[23:05:00]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEAN "DIDDY" COMBS, RAPPER, RECORD PRODUCER, RECORD EXECUTIVE (voice- over): Hey, um, I really don't know what's going on with you, but I just wanted to just give you a heads up that I'm about to really disappear on you, you feel me? I'm not going to be playing these games with you at all, at all.

So, I don't know, you think you sounding treating me -- treating me. And you think I'm going to be, nah, you'll have a rude awakening, you'll just have silence, and ain't nobody threatening you and I don't try to go back and forth with no woman, you know what I'm saying? I'm telling you I ain't got no time for no (bleep) games where my life is at right now. I don't have no time for no games, baby girl.

Me and you could be mad. I have a spat. We can have whatever, then after that, you better get on your job. That's really that -- that's -- that's all it is. Because you got me on my job. Nah, it ain't going, it ain't never going to work like that over here. You know what I'm saying?

I was trying not to leave this message, but you have left me no choice. So how do you -- you -- you go in the direction of like moving on and (bleep) like that, or you like, just like have me just keep moving? Ain't no threat. I'm just being clear. I can't do this (bleep) with you every time you get upset.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Well, my first guest witnessed all of the testimony in court today, editor-in-chief of "All Rise News," Adam Klasfeld. He joins me now. Adam, quite an emotional Jane on the stand today. Tell me, from her demeanor, what stood out to you?

ADAM KLASFELD, EDITOR-IN-CHIEF AND CO-FOUNDER, ALL RISE NEWS: It was just a very harrowing day of testimony. As you said, she was crying for such a long period of it. It seemed like several minutes, before the court recess, was her struggling to get through testimony, and the prosecutor, Maureen Comey, asking her if she needed to stop. To -- to her credit, she pushed through.

And what stood out to me was the harrowing nature of it. The text messages that -- you read some of them in your introduction -- that showed that for years, she was telling him continuously, in no uncertain terms, that she didn't want to do this and that, according to her testimony and to the extrinsic evidence, she was surprised and said that she did not expect these encounters to be sprung up on her by him.

COATES: What was Diddy doing while she was sobbing on the stand?

KLASFELD: Well, it wasn't like yesterday where he was -- there was no concern from the judge that he was making eyes at the jury. He -- from my view of it, he was sitting, just in his seat at the defense table. There was nothing dramatic like that.

COATES: Hmm.

KLASFELD: I would say that the jury kept rapt attention.

COATES: Really?

KLASFELD: There was -- the man kind of sitting in the -- probably closest to the witness box, and he was looking in her direction the entire time. They didn't let on too many emotions for such an emotional day. They kept a very professional demeanor.

But they were taking notes. They were engaged. I noticed at one point they were asked to see exhibits that will never become public. They're the kind of the accounts, the depictions of the hotel nights. And they were taking notes.

So, we don't know what they got from that record, but there was something in there, in that sealed evidence, that was significant enough for them to make a notation about it.

COATES: You've been here throughout the trial. I wonder if you could compare a little bit your impression of Jane's testimony to Cassie Ventura's testimony. Albeit these are, you know, for the prosecution standpoint, they want there to be a common thread to build their case. But, obviously, I'm not comparing two people's alleged traumas. But can you talk about the testimony and how they presented?

KLASFELD: Absolutely. And again, without comparing any two people's traumas, this was a uniquely devastating day of testimony. I will say that -- that her testimony echoed Cassie Ventura's not only in the kind of details and the progress of how this happened.

But there was this moment, a very telling moment, where both of those witnesses broke down when they asked -- when they were asked by prosecutors, was there anything you liked about the encounters? And they both choked up when saying being close to Sean. And that -- I thought that was a very telling moment. COATES: Indeed. There's a lot of similarities there. Again, they have to build on this pattern for the RICO and beyond. Adam Klams -- excuse me -- Adam Klasfeld, thank you so much.

My brilliant legal panel is back with me now. We've got Jim Trusty, former chief of the DOJ's Organized Crime and Gang Section. He represented President Trump in the past as well. Monique Pressley, a trial attorney who used to represent Bill Cosby. And Benjamin Chew, former co-counsel for Johnny Depp in his defamation case.

I'll begin with you, Ben, because the -- the emotion, the sobbing, the jury's reaction, every lawyer in that room, including the defendant as well, is looking very closely at this. But what do those things tell you about the effectiveness of her testimony, knowing that the jurors, they have to essentially assess credibility even through that emotion?

[23:10:06]

BENJAMIN CHEW, CO-LEAD COUNSEL FOR JOHNNY DEPP IN HIS DEFAMATION TRIAL: Well, not to use a flippant analogy, but for the prosecutors, this is like Aaron Judge hitting one out of Yankee Stadium. I think it sounds like she was the best witness they've had so far.

COATES: Why? Because of the sobbing, the -- the emotion? Why does that connect with the jury?

CHEW: Well, I -- I think it connects with the jury because they can really empathize with her. One of the texts that -- that -- that you didn't read, just a simple one, this doesn't make me feel good, I mean, I think it's just -- it's -- it -- it really plays on the jury's feelings. I think they can empathize with her.

This woman is someone's daughter, someone's aunt, someone's niece, and -- and it sounds like she hit all the bases, not just emotion, but also coercion, also enterprise. I mean, she really -- she really helped them in a lot of areas.

COATES: Flip side. Playing devil's advocate, I'll ask you all as well. Does the -- how does it impact? Because there's a lot of testimony from Cassie Ventura and that lingering question that many people obviously understand is judgmental of why did she stay, why did she come back to this if this is how she felt. How does that play for a jury? Is that a consideration that, as defense counsel, you'd want to consider?

JIM TRUSTY, FORMER CHIEF, DOJ ORGANIZED CRIME AND GANG SECTION: Well, I -- I think it's an interesting game within a game here because, ultimately, there -- there are going to be questions of almost nullification or credibility calls where people are, like, you know, she wanted to be a part of this so much. How can I call that a crime? How can I call that human trafficking or sex trafficking?

The reality is I think what we're heading towards next week or the -- or soon after is an expert who's going to talk about human trafficking and is going to basically say this is a common phenomenon, this kind of hostage scenario where they're conflicted, where they know they're being debased, where they know they're being dominated in a horrible way, but they can't seem to break free of the psychological change.

And so, I think that's going to be a critical kind of back -- backstrap way of bolstering credibility down the road long after they've left the witness stand.

COATES: And that would be -- that would be distinct, of course, from, say, a previous witness who testified as an expert about people who are involved in domestic violence, who are victims of that. The trafficking element would be a different layer to talk about the mentality and the mental state. That'd be a distinct expert.

TRUSTY: Right. Right. And -- and look, one of the things that was just mentioned that, I think, is really going to show up in closing argument, that -- that text message is a good way of ending the week strong if you're in a long trial as a prosecutor. It's a great tactic to find good stuff.

COATES: Hmm.

TRUSTY: It's fairly impossible to refute like text messages, like voice messages. Leave the jury with that on a Friday so they're stewing on it all weekend. And one of the messages there was something about you can't leave your job or -- I forget what the --

COATES: Oh, here it was. It was -- he sent an audio message saying -- quote -- "You better get on your job. That's all it is." And then she added that -- quote -- "I understood that he had certain expectations of me and that I had to fulfill them."

And remember, this was something similar to what Cassie Ventura testified, that it became her job every week. Two, three days a week to do this. Go ahead.

TRUSTY: Yeah, that's going to be in closing argument. When they're talking about what labor trafficking is, I mean, remember, this is all these building blocks. You've got physical violence, sexual abuse that becomes human trafficking, which becomes the predicate crime for a RICO. It all builds together.

So, I think that's going to be a big part of closing argument, those types of phrasings where he's referring to it as their responsibility, their job, their employment.

COATES: Monique, how do you see it? And -- and keep in mind, that may have also been a turn of phrase and slang. Well, go ahead.

MONIQUE PRESSLEY, TRIAL ATTORNEY: So, based on what we just heard from Jim, any woman, married or with an intimate partner, who is being abused in a domestic violence situation with her husband or with her partner is being trafficked. Any time she leaves and goes on a vacation, she doesn't want to go on. Any time she does a task, she doesn't want to do.

Any time she has sex when she doesn't want to have it, even if the threat is not physical, even if the threat is emotional, that by this standard, would be trafficking. That's a husband who could be charged by SDNY or whatever their local U.S. attorney's office is for the trafficking of another human.

COATES: And to be clear, you could charge a spouse for, say, rape.

PRESSLEY: Absolutely.

COATES: Consent is not going -- gone away if the person is married to you. But your point is larger. The idea of not wanting to participate in an activity could be elevated to sexual trafficking without more.

PRESSLEY: Right. And -- and I'm not saying that it should be.

COATES: Sure.

PRESSLEY: And -- and actually, I don't think that it is. I don't -- I don't think that -- that we're meeting the legal standard for coercion here. But what I am saying is based on the arguments that are being made, that can be carried to every household.

And it's not just a force or corrosion or because I love him. It's money. It's okay, well, then leave. It's I won't pay the mortgage. It's I won't pay the kids' tuition. It's I won't pay the car note. It's you better go to work. I work. I pay the bills. You work in this bed.

[23:14:59]

People, unfortunately, women, all over this country are living that horrid reality. And yes, it's domestic violence. Yes, it may be rape. Yes, it may be all other manner of assault that -- that is criminal, given whatever the statute is. But does that mean that that husband is a trafficker?

Does that mean that if that husband has means or if all he has is two pickup trucks and some land, that because he has some sort of means, that it's now trafficking because he uses it, if they bring drugs in the house?

I mean, all of these things are actually happening, not just with this one case, but all over this country and all over the world. So, my concern is that this prosecution is stretching because they couldn't get what they should have been able to get. Maybe because the time expired, they're stretching to get what they think they can.

COATES: I want to hear you reactions quickly. Both of you.

CHEW: Well, I -- I was struck more by some of the details. I mean, for example, she asked that these people she didn't want to have sex with would at least use condoms. And he said no. I think --

COATES: At times, he said yes.

CHEW: At times, he said no. But -- I mean, she got UTIs. She -- she became sick and -- because of this. And I think it -- it shows the jury that he thought so little of her that he wouldn't even take care of her health, that his -- his pleasure was more important than her health. And I think that will go a long way with the jury. COATES: Jim?

TRUSTY: Well, look, I -- I think there -- there's something to the points that were made about, you know, how expansive the human trafficking definition may be to these prosecutors. That's going to be an issue for jury instructions and for the jury determinations. They're the ones that are going to have to decide. Has it met -- has the state met its burden, the government met its burden in this case?

And -- and I think that we're going to see a real pivot away from kind of the emotional and -- and kind of the horrific details that we've been hearing, some of which are helping their credibility by being that detailed, into a more classic RICO case in the next week with different types of testimony.

COATES: A classic (INAUDIBLE) apply to anything we've learned so far. But there is a lot more ahead. We've got probably weeks left in this trial. Thank you for the valuable conversation and insight, everyone.

We've got much more in the Diddy trial on my brand-new CNN podcast, "Trial by Jury." You can listen to it on cnn.com or wherever you get your podcasts.

Still ahead, Kilmar Abrego Garcia back in the United States and facing criminal charges of trafficking migrants. The indictment leading a top prosecutor to resign as Garcia's attorney says it's an abuse of power. So, what case does the government actually have?

Plus, Elon Musk reloading on X and firing off new posts about President Trump and Jeffrey Epstein.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:20:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: Well, after months of relentless resistance against a series of court orders, the DOJ returning Kilmar Abrego Garcia to the United States. Now, remember, he is the Maryland man who the administration mistakenly deported to El Salvador.

But he's actually here to face charges now, we're learning. Charges of smuggling undocumented migrants in the country, which stem from a 2022 traffic stop when he was pulled over for speeding in a vehicle with nine passengers. At the time, Abrego Garcia told police they were traveling to do construction work.

Democratic Senator Chris Van Hollen, who visited Greg Garcia in El Salvador, reacting to his return tonight, saying his support is about due process.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. CHRIS VAN HOLLEN (D-MD): I've said I'm not vouching for the man, Abrego Garcia. This is not about him. It is about his constitutional rights.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: With me now, senior legal affairs reporter for Politico, Josh Gerstein, Democratic strategist Ameshia Cross, and Republican strategist Lance Trover.

Good to have you all here. This is a surprise, Josh, to have him back in the country, but now facing human smuggling charges. How did this come about all of a sudden?

JOSH GERSTEIN, SENIOR LEGAL AFFAIRS REPORTER, POLITICO: Well, we knew that things were going on behind the scenes, that the Trump administration was trying to negotiate not only this case but some other complicated deportation cases with the president of El Salvador.

And you may remember that interview President Trump gave a few weeks ago where he said that if he wanted to get Abrego Garcia back, he could just pick up the phone and get him back.

I think that was a pretty significant admission and put the DOJ lawyers in an awkward position where they were trying to say, we're doing all we can, but their -- their ultimate boss had publicly said that he could make this happen.

COATES: Which then undermine their credibility in the court.

GERSTEIN: Right. That's what -- that's what I think. And I think they think this is a beneficial resolution for the administration. It turns down the temperature of the fight they were facing in front of that Maryland judge, possible contempt citation.

I don't think all those issues go away, but the urgency of them fades a little bit now that he's back in the United States and back in sort of the normal litigation criminal process that we're all a bit more used to.

COATES: And yet, the idea that he would be charged now with a crime, not just -- I think what they implied was return home to be with his family because he's mistakenly deported. I mean, you had DHS Secretary Kristi Noem at one point saying that -- in the Senate hearing, actually, last month -- there is no scenario where Abrego Garcia will be in the United States again. If he were to come back, we would immediately deport him again.

So, obviously, something has changed. And, as I said, this appears to stem from a 2022 incident. So, obviously, this may have been known in some capacity. Where is the disconnect? The left hand and right hand not knowing what they're doing?

LANCE TROVER, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST, FORMER SPOKESPERSON FOR DOUG BURGUM'S 2024 PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN: I don't think there's a disconnect at all. These are very --

COATES: Between Kristi Noem and what they've done now?

[23:25:00]

She said there's no way he's coming back in the country. He's here again.

TROVER: Well, I think they've had -- according -- and Josh, correct me if I'm wrong. I mean, I think they had some new information that came to light and some -- and somebody -- a jailhouse informant that stepped forward as well with new information on him, according to the attorney general today. So, I -- I mean, these are very serious charges, if you ask me. I mean, a whole or a hundred trips of smuggling.

But I think we should talk about the raw politics of this. It's what I -- I always go back to the politics of this because I'm thinking about how the Democrats lost the last election when it came to this immigration issue. They're standing with the public in terms of immigration.

And they have spent enormous amounts of capital trying to get this illegal immigrant -- that word has not been used here once since we started this -- illegal immigrant back here into this country, someone who has alleged ties to MS-13, someone who has alleged to have beaten his wife, and now has human trafficking charges against him.

And so, I guess maybe, in a way, I should be happy that we're going to see this play out in court in Nashville because I think it's going to be put in front of the public. And I think if the media covers it half as much as they've covered this deportation issue, the Americans are going to be sitting there saying, what were the Democrats thinking, wanting to bring this person back into the country?

COATES: What do you say about that capital being spent? I mean, obviously, you heard at least one person who visited with him down in El Salvador that it was about due process. And part of the argument that has been made in the past, as well as other arguments, has been they want this person to have due process. And wherever the consequence or outcome will be, so be it. But have Democrats spent too much capital on this?

AMESHIA CROSS, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: I mean, America is the country of laws. Point blank. Period. That's what separates us from countries across the board. I think that for your average American who's watching this play out, this man is accused of smuggling humans, this man is accused of trafficking. They aren't going to care as much. There is the legal ramification of this.

And there's also the side of the American public that voted for Trump that said that our -- our borders were open, that our immigration needed serious levels of reform, that are still, unfortunately, walking in lockstep with this president despite how egregious he can be in multiple cases, well beyond Abrego Garcia.

I think that what we're going to see is a continued fight. Democrats are in a very interesting posture because, on the one hand, they want to follow the rule of law. They want to ensure that these individuals are receiving their due process, that everyone in this country has their legal right to a -- to a trial, has their legal right to actually have that investigation play out, not just be deported or just get locked up for any reason without having that process play out.

But on that same token, I think that they are up against a very, very tough cycle of a -- of an American public that is very anti-immigrant, that has shown itself to have a sentiment that stronger than what we've seen in recent years.

COATES: Hmm.

CROSS: And I think that that is going to be a very hard place for them, especially as more and more comes out about Abrego Garcia.

COATES: We'll see about that. I mean, Josh, the federal indictment, it caused a stir of pain within the Department of Justice as well. There's a source telling CNN that the chief of the DOJ criminal division in Nashville actually resigned over this case. What do you know?

GERSTEIN: Well, there's a fellow down there. His name is Ben Schrader.

COATES: Oh, by the way, full disclosure, I work with at DOJ.

GERSTEIN: Okay.

COATES: Very principled and solid prosecutor.

GERSTEIN: Yeah. So, he's a veteran prosecutor down there, was the head of the criminal division within the U.S. attorney's office in Nashville. And what we know at this point is that he resigned after being there for many, many years, in a very senior capacity. He resigned on May 21st, in the evening. That happened to be the exact same day that Abrego Garcia was indicted under seal.

We didn't know it at the time. We didn't know till today. He decided to leave the office. And he didn't mention this case specifically, but he did have a LinkedIn post he put up, where he talked about the importance of being principled in what we do at all times and upholding the highest standards of the Department of Justice.

So, I think we're going to hear more about this. As we all know, in prosecuting these kinds of cases, it's not just a question of whether there's a violation of the law but what are the office's standards.

If you're simply driving people, you know, for an alien smuggling ring, are those kinds of people typically prosecuted? Bondi was talking about 10-year sentence for each person in the car. As far as I can tell, the average sentence for alien smuggling is around 17 months.

So, the gravity with which they're treating this may have run up against, say, the standards of that office in terms of who gets charged with alien smuggling in a normal case, which obviously this is not. COATES: Well, as the story unfold, then the question will be these two reasons, pretextual or principled? We'll have to wait and see. Thank you all.

GERSTEIN: Thank you.

TROVER: Thank you.

COATES: Up next, after a relatively quiet day in the Trump-Musk war, things are heating back up tonight. Musk now vowing that he won't apologize to Trump until the Epstein files come out. Well, the former top DOGE supporter who got Musk to make that response, standing by to join us, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:30:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: Well, the Trump-Musk breakup still going very strong tonight. Just a few hours ago, Musk posted to X, I will apologize profusely as soon as there is a full dump of the Epstein files. That post was a direct response to my next guest who's demanding a full-throated apology for his attacks against Trump. I should note, Musk has since deleted the post.

Now, as for Trump, he's taking a very different approach, saying this on Air Force One tonight.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNKNOWN (voice-over): What's your view on Elon Musk as of today? I mean, have you heard from him at all?

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Honestly, I've been so busy working on China, working on Russia, working on Iran, working on so many things. I'm not thinking about Elon Musk. You know I just wish him well.

UNKNOWN (voice-over): Do you have any plans to speak with Mr. Musk? This was one of your closest advisers.

TRUMP: No, I don't have any plans.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Joining me now is James Fishback.

[23:34:59]

He is the CEO of the investment firm Azoria and the architect camp (ph) with the proposal to send DOGE checks. James, welcome.

I have to ask you because you certainly have the ear of Elon Musk this evening. He responded to your post where you called for him to apologize profusely. And he asked what's the apology for, exactly. And he's now renewing those attacks, calling for the Epstein files to be released, said spent some deletions, but that's out there. It's hard to un-ring that particular bell. What's your response to him?

JAMES FISHBACK, ARCHITECT BEHIND "DOGE CHECKS, CEO OF AZORIA: My response to him is you have to apologize for two things. The first of which is randomly calling for the impeachment of the duly-elected president of the United States over a policy disagreement, this big beautiful bill, which I support entirely. That's not okay. I mean, at least, the Democrats have the common courtesy of making up the Ukraine hoax to then go after the president in his first term to impeach him. Elon Musk did so over a simple disagreement on a policy.

And the second, and it -- it's just pains me to bring this up, is the slanderous accusation that somehow the president of the United States was a co-conspirator at a multi-decade sex trafficking ring of minors. The president is a father, a husband, and a grandfather. He has no association with Epstein whatsoever. He threw him out of his Mar-a- Lago club because he was a scumbag. And now, to have Elon Musk drag this in the mud, it's not okay.

As Americans, we are allowed to disagree on the substance of the issue, but ad hominem attacks have no place in the public square.

COATES: That's certainly true. I don't know that President Trump has always adhered to that particular philosophy, and I know your smirk actually confirms my thinking on that. But you also said that you're leaving the DOGE movement after Musk's attacks on Trump. What was your final straw?

FISHBACK: My final straw was -- look, for months now, Elon set expectations. Two trillion, one and a half trillion, one trillion. And if you take the numbers at face value on doge.gov right now, it's 170 billion. Now, that's real money. I think that Sesame Street in Iraq should have been defunded. That's about $1,100 a taxpayer as it stands right now.

But the truth is the DOGE movement ought to continue and it will with the Cabinet secretaries like Secretary Hegseth and Secretary Duffy in their own respective agencies, identifying waste, fraud and abuse, making the government leaner and more accountable to taxpayers like you and me and your listeners at home.

But the truth of the matter is that Elon Musk set expectations with the president, with me, and with the country that he did not fulfill. The DOGE movement has to continue, and I'm eager to support that movement in a new light.

COATES: What does that light look like? Obviously, he was a special government employee and his time was supposed to be limited. You didn't believe that it was going to all be accomplished, his objectives within that amount of time. There must be something else that led you astray.

FISHBACK: Well, I -- I think I'm a big believer. I was a high school debater 15 years ago, Laura, and we were always taught to separate our opponent from the argument and when you make the argument about your opponent, when you steep to these personal slanderous vicious attacks against a father, a grandfather, a husband, the president of the United States who won the electoral college, the popular vote, all seven swing states.

COATES: Which President Trump has done as well. You know.

FISHBACK: Well, look, I think I don't want to judge the president or anybody by what they may have done four, eight, 10 years ago. The truth of the matter is the president has been exceptionally gracious, magnanimous, and patient with these slanderous attacks. They are beneath him. He is taking the high road as he should, and we all should compliments him on doing so.

As the president just said on Air Force One, he's focused on bigger things, Laura.

COATES: Hmm.

FISHBACK: There's a jobs' report today, 140,000 jobs created, all of which were in the private sector, not in the government sector, not here in the D.C. zip codes, but hardworking folks across this country getting back to work.

You heard the president say he's making progress on the U.S.-China front, on the Iran front, on the Russia front. He doesn't have any time, no distractions to deal with Elon Musk. He is focused on delivering on that historic mandate Americans gave him in November.

COATES: Well, certainly, I hope a president of any country, let alone this one, would focus on the priorities that he has laid out as opposed to Twitter wars, although he has elevated Elon Musk as an advisor such that the American public and the world is paying attention to him --

FISHBACK: Right.

COATES: -- in a very different realm. And if he was once the right- hand man, either philosophically or otherwise, he has made a bit of this bed for himself. But what about this big beautiful bill as it's called? Why do you think Elon Musk is wrong about it?

FISHBACK: Well, the big beautiful bill is not merely a good bill, it's a great bill. You take President Trump's campaign promises. Think about it. Deliver tax relief for working families, no tax on tips, no tax on overtime, delivering tax relief for seniors. That benefits hardworking Americans all over this country. That's in the big beautiful bill. Increase in border security of $70 billion, a one-time increase to ensure that we have more detention center space, more ICE agents, a fully-sealed border.

The truth is that the illegal migrants that came into this country under President Biden, over 12 million. They're costing taxpayers about $150 billion a year.

[23:40:01] COATES: But also, CBO, speaking of money to taxpayers, says that this bill could increase it by, like, trillions. I mean, you have a number that's --

FISHBACK: Yeah.

COATES: -- talking about, if taxpayer money is an issue, is that not a concern of yours?

FISHBACK: Well, the interesting thing about the CBO survey, their forecast is that they don't take into an account one, the tariff revenue, which is going to be about $2 trillion over the next 10 years.

COATES: Uh-hmm.

FISHBACK: Number two, they don't take --

COATES: If the tariff revenue stands. Right?

FISHBACK: Sure.

COATES: That's if. Go ahead.

FISHBACK: There's a lot of ifs here.

COATES: Sure.

FISHBACK: The second one is, if you secure the border and save taxpayers a $150 billion a year, Trump has done that 99% reduction in border crossing since President Biden was thrown out of office. What ends up happening, Laura, is you save the taxpayer money in the process. The CBO has not put that in their model.

And then, finally, they assumed that the Trump tax cuts, which everybody in D.C., Republican and Democrat would tell you, were going to continue. They assumed they would expire and, therefore, their model does not accurately reflect that.

The truth of the matter is the CBO is not a nonpartisan organization, Laura. Eight out of 10 employees who work there are registered Democrats. We should be skeptical of the forecast for that reason, but also for the substantive reasons I just laid out.

COATES: The Republicans also have touted the CBO over time. Is it not a good organization or good entity at all if it doesn't support what you're saying?

FISHBACK: No. What the CBO did 20 years ago, 30 years ago under President Clinton or President Bush, is very different than the highly-polarized environment that exists today. I think both you and I can agree with that.

The truth of the matter is when there's gaping holes in their models and forecast when it comes to tariff revenue, when it comes to the actual net benefit of cutting out illegal labor and illegal immigration that actually saves the taxpayer money, the CBO model does not estimate that whatsoever.

This is a good bill. It delivers on President Trump's promises. And it's a shame that because it doesn't have Elon Musk's electric vehicle subsidies, that he would oppose it.

COATES: Are you holding your breath for Elon Musk's apology?

FISHBACK: I'm not. I think the president has moved on. I would like Elon Musk to apologize. But the president doesn't need Elon Musk to do anything. He was elected by the people. He's going to deliver for them.

COATES: You don't think Elon Musk's money will have any impact on GOP? Well, leave it alone. We'll ask another day.

FISHBACK: Sure.

(LAUGHTER)

COATES: We'll see. James Fishback, thank you so much.

Up next tonight, remember when the president and all his allies, the DOJ, cast doubt on the January 6 prosecutions, calling them politically-motivated? Well, tonight, some of the Proud Boys he pardoned and commuted think that he is exactly right, and they're now suing the government for $100 million. Will the DOJ fight it? Will they settle? Extraordinary lawsuit, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:45:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: Political prosecution. That's what five Proud Boys are calling their January 6 cases. Now, they're suing the federal government over it. Yes, the same people who were pardoned or had their sentences commuted by President Trump now want 100 million bucks in restitution.

They say their cases amounted to a -- quote -- "egregious and systemic abuse of the legal system and the United States Constitution to punish and oppress political allies of President Trump."

Now, while they're demanding $100 million from the government, the Government Accountability Office says January 6 cost the U.S. $2.7 billion in damage, repairs, and security to the Capitol Building.

With me now, Brendan Ballou, a former DOJ prosecutor who worked on January 6 cases. Welcome, Brendan. I mean, the lawsuit claims that you and other prosecutors violated their constitutional rights. What's your response?

BRENDAN BALLOU, FORMER DOJ PROSECUTOR WHO WORKED ON JANUARY 6 CASES: These were issues that were brought up at a trial, a trial that they lost. This lawsuit is essentially a rehash of the arguments that they made, saying that they don't like that there was the amount of evidence that was available at the trial. They don't like the legal theories that were used. They alleged that there was witness tampering. But all of these things got raised years ago in a trial where they were convicted and lost on appeal.

COATES: One issue on appeal, the Supreme Court did rule that the prosecutors may have improperly used an obstruction law to prosecute some. Is there any validity to the argument that they're saying that you guys overstepped?

BALLOU: No. This was a really poorly thought-out lawsuit. Just a couple of things. You know, there, but for the grace of God, go I, but this was a lawsuit that had a lot of typos in it.

This was something that seems like it was put together pretty quickly for one of two reasons. Either to get attention for the Proud Boys, an organization that really needs it to survive, or to hope that the Department of Justice or the government folds and funnels a lot of money to the Proud Boys. This does not seem like it's a lawsuit that's written to win on the merits.

COATES: Will DOJ fight this lawsuit?

BALLOU: That's the question. So, the U.S. attorney for the Middle District of Florida, where this was filed, seems like in the spectrum of Trump appointees, something of a moderate. So, we've got some hope that he's actually going to put up a defense here. But --

COATES: What would that defense be, given the fact that the administration has certainly agreed in some respect, including Pam Bondi's own statements, to suggest some type of railroading?

BALLOU: Yeah. At least one former January 6 prosecutor has been sued civilly, and the Department of Justice is defending that person. So, there's some precedent here. But, you know, I think it's -- it's sort of baked into the question that you're asking, which is for Donald Trump and for his administration, rewriting the history of January 6 is absolutely essential. And so, it shouldn't be surprising if they decide to fold on this case, too.

COATES: How have these claims been impacting your life? Obviously, there has been a lot of political discussion and the court of public opinion's gums are flapping.

BALLOU: For me, you know, it's -- it's not out of a sense of selflessness, but this is not about me. You know, the prosecutors who are involved in this case are going to be totally fine. The people that I worry about are the officers that defended the Capitol and defended the elected representatives in the Capitol on January 6. Their lives have been changed forever, and they are in danger in a way that, I think, people really have forgotten or don't realize.

COATES: Really important sentiment. Thank you so much, Brendan.

BALLOU: Thank you.

[23:50:00] COATES: How about we end with something, I mean, fun on this Friday night? It has been quite a week. Hit the music. Great Scott!

(MUSIC PLAYING)

Yep. It's a "Back to the Future" mystery. Who has Marty McFly's guitar? Tonight, the search is actually on, and a man trying to find it will join me, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

(MUSIC PLAYING)

COATES: Go, go. Oh, God, I love that movie. Such an iconic scene that Coldplay's Chris Martin credits Marty McFly as the reason he ever picked up a guitar in the first place.

But you know what has been missing for the last 40 years? That guitar! When "Back to the Future" wrapped filming in 1985, the crew returned the guitar, originally in rental, to Norman's Rare Guitars emporium in Los Angeles.

[23:55:04]

But when they tried getting it back for the sequel four years later, it was missing.

My next guest and his colleague have spent the last six years trying to find it. Now, they're teaming up with the original cast of the film in a new documentary about the search.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNKNOWN: Somehow, it's vanished.

UNKNOWN: Erased from existence.

UNKNOWN: It's somewhere at (INAUDIBLE) or it's in some teamsters (ph) garage.

UNKNOWN: This guitar has been lost to the future.

UNKNOWN: We're kind of hoping you can help us find it.

UNKNOWN: Ask your friends. Ask your relatives. Ask your bandmates.

UNKNOWN: If you know where it is, if you -- if you know who has it, call us, text us.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: I love this. With me now is Mark Agnesi, director of Brand Experience at Gibson, who has been on the hunt for Marty McFly's guitar. Mark, tell me about this journey. What inspired this and how hard has it been to find this guitar?

MARK AGNESI, DIRECTOR, BRAND EXPERIENCE, GIBSON: Well, I mean, what inspired this journey was seeing the movie as a kid. I mean, that scene is the reason I started playing guitar and set me on this whole journey that I've gone on. The -- the -- the director of the film that we're making, Doc Crotzer, he started playing guitar because of this. He also started making movies because of this scene.

Like, there -- there's -- there's a big -- there's a big cultural significance for -- for people of our age demographic with this movie. And I think this scene really inspired a lot of kids to pick up the guitar. We keep trying to equate it to, like, it's our generation's Beatles on Ed Sullivan kind of moment.

COATES: I love it. I love this movie. My -- I made my kids watch it. I occasionally rock a red puffer vest just because it would've -- it's a whole long story about this. But how hard has it been? Any leads?

AGNESI: Well, I started looking for this guitar in 2009 when I started managing Norman's Rare Guitars in Los Angeles. And I've been looking and following up on little hints and leads that I've -- you know, for this -- for 16 years now.

So, Todd Harapiak, my partner at Gibson Films, and Doc Crotzer, we've been quietly making this movie now for the last couple years. As you can see, we've already -- we've already kind of sat down with all the members of the cast, and we've been kind of piecing together some stuff, and we've kind of got it as far as we can take it, and -- and it's at the point where we have to ask the whole world for help now.

COATES: It has a Willy Wonka golden ticket feel, and I love everything about it. But how are you going to know if it's the real deal when you actually do find it?

AGNESI: It -- it's -- it's as Hollywood as you can possibly imagine, and we couldn't script it any better. The guitar in the movie is a Gibson ES-345 model. It has a distinguishing feature, the -- the inlays on the fingerboard of the guitar, what we call split parallelogram inlays or two parallelograms with a split piece of wood.

For whatever reason, the guitar that Norm Harris from Norman's Rare Guitars rented to "Back to the Future" had a solid 12th fret parallelogram inlay. Whether it was custom-ordered like that, whether the guitar was a factory second and that there was a mistake at the factory, they put that in. It shouldn't be there. And that happens to be the guitar that got used in the movie. And we have this one little anomalous thing that will be the smoking gun that'll let us know that we found it.

COATES: Have we asked at Biff's house? Because he was always a problem.

AGNESI: You know, Biff has been a popular lead in the comment section so far. We've had a few theories popping up and Biff keeps -- keeps being the main one, main suspect so far.

COATES: So, what should people do if they may have some insight or want to be a part of trying to track this down?

AGNESI: Yeah, we want everyone to come on the journey with us. We're -- we're literally doing this in real time right now. We don't want to, like, reenact finding the guitar on camera. We want to find it on camera, you know? So, if you go to losttothefuture.com, you can give us -- give us your tips there, you can also sign up to stay connected with us, you can also call our 1800 number, it's 1855-345-1955. You can call or text that number, and you can leave us your tips.

COATES: Do I get a prize if I win?

AGNESI: You know what? The prize we're going for right now is to find this guitar, and whether it's for an hour or for a longer period of time, reunite this guitar with Michael J. Fox.

COATES: That is something.

AGNESI: That is the goal of this, and that is what we're all really trying to do. I really -- I really want to make sure Michael J. Fox gets his due as the guitar hero that he really is. He wasn't in a band, he didn't make records, he never won a Grammy, but he inspired a lot of kids to pick up the guitar, and that's what a guitar hero is. And at Gibson, we want to make sure that Michael gets his due.

COATES: Well, he certainly is an inspiration. So, let's say, go, Johnny, go, go, go. Mark Agnesi, thank you so much.

AGNESI: Laura, thank you so much for having me.

COATES: Thank you. And hey, everyone, thank you for watching. "Anderson Cooper 360" is next.

(MUSIC PLAYING)

[00:00:00]