Return to Transcripts main page

Laura Coates Live

Senators Grill RFK Jr. in Contentious Senate Hearing; D.C. Attorney General Sues Trump Over National Guard Troops; Federal Judges Gave Rare Rebuke of Supreme Court; Laura Coates Interviews an Epstein Survivor; Tech Leaders Join Trump at White House Dinner. Aired 11p-12a ET

Aired September 04, 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)

LAURA COATES, CNN HOST AND SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Tonight, Appointment TV had a new home today. It's called the Senate. We have got to talk about that wild hearing with RFK Jr. That questioned science, it questioned our sanity, his as well, and the fate of America's health. We've got the governor who saw this moment coming from a mile away.

Plus, the highest court dressed down. Federal judges tell the Supreme Court to get its act together in a stunning critique that exposes a major concern in the judiciary.

And later, big tech CEOs get an audience with the president as a Republican senator warns about A.I. and about some of the people at that table.

Tonight on "Laura Coates Live."

So, look, if America was a patient on the exam table, they'd be trying to get the robe off and getting dressed again. Why? Look at the chart. You've got billions of dollars of health program cuts in just a matter of months. The CDC director got fired after four weeks on the job. Oh, and don't forget, every member of the CDC's Vaccine Advisory Committee as well. They're also gone. Multiple health agencies have been gutted by mass firings. States are choosing their own adventure when it comes to vaccines.

So that exam table? No surprise if America is freaking out, watching all of this chaos unfold. It might be thinking, time for a second opinion. And today, the senators who represent Americans, well, they tried to get one. They questioned Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. in his most intense hearing since his confirmation. And it got heated, and I mean fast.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. MICHAEL BENNET (D-CO): I'm asking the questions, Mr. Kennedy.

ROBERT F. KENNEDY, JR., SECRETARY, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES: Oh, I asked you a question. BENNET: I'm asking the questions for Mr. Kennedy on behalf of parents and schools and teachers all over the United States of America who deserve so much better than your leadership. That's what this conversation is about, Mr. Chairman.

KENNEDY: Senator, they deserve the truth, and that's what we're going to give them for the first time.

SEN. MARIA CANTWELL (D-WA): The mRNA technology is about continuing the research to be ready for the next flu influenza, the next pandemic, and you have to do the research.

KENNEDY: I'm happy to have a detailed discussion with you about it. You're so wrong on your facts.

CANTWELL: You're -- you're -- you're interrupting me. And, sir, you're a charlatan. That's what you are.

SEN. MARK WARNER (D-VA): Do you accept the fact that a million Americans died from COVID?

KENNEDY: I don't know how many died.

WARNER: The secretary of Health and Human Services doesn't know how many Americans died from COVID. Doesn't know that vaccine helped prevent any deaths. And you are sitting as secretary of Health and Human Services? How can you be that ignorant?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Now, no question, the biggest grilling did come from Democrats. But the criticism and the skepticism did not just come from one side of the aisle at all. No, several Republicans also came to play today. Take, for example, Senator John Barrasso, who is a doctor.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. JOHN BARRASSO (R-WY): In your confirmation hearings, you promised to uphold the highest standards for vaccines. Since then, I've grown deeply concerned. The public has seen measles outbreaks, leadership of the National Institute of Health questioning the use of mRNA vaccines, the recently confirmed director of Centers for Disease Control and Prevention fired, Americans don't know who to rely on.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: And, by the way, he wasn't the only Republican doctor asking tough questions. Here is senator -- I mean, Dr. Bill Cassidy.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. BILL CASSIDY (R-LA): Do you agree with me that the president -- that the president deserves a Nobel Prize for Operation Warp Speed?

KENNEDY: Absolutely, senator. That's phenomenal.

CASSIDY: Let me ask you. Let me ask you. But you just told Senator Bennet that the COVID vaccine killed more people than COVID.

KENNEDY: Wait --

CASSIDY: That was a statement.

KENNEDY: I did not say that.

CASSIDY: You were also, as lead attorney for the Children's Health Defense, you engaged in multiple lawsuits attempting to restrict access to the COVID vaccine. You've canceled or HHS did but, apparently, under your direction, $500 million in contracts using the mRNA vaccine platform that was critical to Operation Warp Speed. So, this just seems inconsistent that you would agree with me the president deserves a tremendous amount of credit for this.

KENNEDY: Is this a question, Senator Cassidy, or is this a speech that you don't want me to answer?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

[23:05:00]

COATES: It sounded like a question. If senators were looking for a second opinion, what they got, well, more like a second round. And RFK Jr. repeatedly tried to point out that what he thinks is America's real illness is chronic disease.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KENNEDY: 76.4% of Americans now have a chronic disease. This is stunning. We are the sickest country in the world. That's why we have to fire people at CDC. They did not do their job. Senator, you've sat in that chair for how long? Twenty, 25 years while the chronic disease in our children went up to 76%. And you said nothing. You never asked the question why it's happening. Why is this happening?

SEN. RAPHAEL WARNOCK (D-GA): It's clear that you are carrying out your extremist beliefs, which is why you attempted to fire Dr. Monarez --

KENNEDY: Senator, we're the sickest people in the --

WARNOCK: Sir -- sir, I'm not --

KENNEDY: We're the sickest people on earth.

WARNOCK: I'm speaking.

KENNEDY: How am I incorrect?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: So, after all the fireworks, what does RFK Jr.'s boss, the president of United States, think about his performance? Well, Trump says he didn't actually watch the hearing. There's overall diagnosis. Take two of these and call me in the morning. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: He's got a different take, and we want to listen to all of those takes. But I heard he did very well today. But it's not your standard -- it's not your standard talk, I would say, and that has to do with medical and vaccines. But if you look at what's going on in the world with health and look at this country also with regard to health, I like the fact that he's different.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: I don't think different is quite the standard. With me now, Democratic Governor Josh Green of Hawaii. His other title, doctor. And in 2019, he responded to the deadly measles outbreak in American Samoa. A crisis, he says, was fueled by RFK Jr.'s efforts to discredit the vaccine in Samoa. Well, tonight, he is calling Secretary RFK Jr. to resign. Governor, welcome. You heard from the president of United States just now. He says that RFK Jr. did very well, likes the fact that he is different. How do you see it?

GOV. JOSH GREEN (D-HI): Well, thank you for having me. He must resign. There's no question at all. Different is not okay when it is also unqualified, untrained. We're really struggling now because the entire department is in free fall, the CDC is in disarray.

What you're going to see now is that there will not be any possibility for RFK and the department to go forward because he has lost the trust of the Senate, he has lost the trust of Republican senators. They won't be able to get funding for HHS because he's destroying the vaccination program. Any aspirational goals he has about public health or community health, chronic disease, he won't even be able to activate any of those plans.

But if you watch this hearing, you can see that all of the work he has done now has, unfortunately, resulted in a disaster at HHS. A second opinion is more than what we need. It's very clear that even the first opinion is this guy can't -- he can't lead HHS.

COATES: And yet that first opinion resulted in a confirmation of him. That's why he is secretary of HHS. And some people look at this and say, I get that the senators are all riled up right now. A lot of this may have been predictable given what he had said during the confirmation hearing and beyond. You were sounding the alarms yourself, governor. And you have Republican Senator Tom Tillis, though, who says he doesn't regret confirming RFK Jr. yet. Now, he's one of a few Republican senators who are raising concerns about RFK Jr.

But do you think they'll actually apply pressure on the White House based on what you said in terms of the perhaps inability to even secure funding for the agency?

GREEN: I do. I think that this is how things go. When you see someone that's unable to lead, when there's literally an attack at the CDC, when thousands of their employees are writing letters saying that they can work in this setting, when the senators have that kind of exchange with someone now calling him out on the lies that he told, unfortunately, they will have to be changed.

Now, this is not personal, this is not political. A lot of us across the country are happy that Mr. Kennedy is looking at chronic disease and processed foods, and he could work in those areas for the president. That's okay, but he is dismantling research. That will set us back on our ability to treat cancer. That will set us back on our ability to fight bird flu. All of these things are disasters going forward.

And whether Senator Tillis or others say that they haven't seen the effects yet, they will because we're going to have outbreaks like we did overseas with measles because he's damaging our -- our vaccination plans and our potential to vaccinate kids.

[23:10:03]

We'll see mumps and rubella.

COATES: Hmm.

GREEN: We will see polio spread. Everyone will regret that because we won't be protecting our children, we won't be protecting people that are elderly who have immune compromised.

You're already seeing the effects of what he's doing because there are rogue states, in this case, Florida, who's not going to have any standard for vaccinations, which means you will see large outbreaks as their vaccination rates drop below 95 and 90 and 85%.

So, he's destroying our public health capacity and states, red or blue, it doesn't matter. We are all patients. We are all people. We are all citizens of America. All of our families are going to be devastated or at least someone we know will be devastated.

And that, having been a state senator and a lieutenant governor and a father and a doctor and a governor now, all of us know what happens when our people get hurt, especially if there's someone who should be accountable. And that's what the secretary of health must be. He has to be accountable.

So, this is now a time where he must step aside for the good of America. And what I would implore the president to do is to use Mr. Kennedy in some other capacity and put in someone of a conservative ideology, that's fine, but who believes in science to run HHS.

COATES: Well, I do wonder, given the extraordinary influence of the MAHA movement, Make America Healthy Again movement, was in the campaign, whether people would be able to compartmentalize his role in any other capacity given what you've said.

And yet there are many states that are banding together. Yours, along with California and Oregon and Washington State, there might be a growing presence as well that are opposing the secretary. And this coalition, I mean, they're talking about 24 hours old of the coalition.

But you're pledging to provide people in your state credible information about vaccines that are separate and apart from the guidelines coming out of HHS which, of course, speaks to the lack of trust that you are explaining. But I wonder if you're concerned about a patchwork approach when we are a really global world. Is this going to hurt the overall health or the workability of that across the country?

GREEN: Well, yes, the dismantling of HHS by the secretary is damaging us terribly. The coalition we have, the Western States Coalition for Healthcare, which I'm very pleased with and I'm honored to be a part of, we'll use science simply. We will use best practices. We'll use the science that hundreds of thousands of physicians, the National Pediatric Association and the American Health Care Association, have embraced and used.

We are simply going to use the science that was used by Democrats and Republican administrations for -- for decades. We're going to go to best science. We're going to continue the process of actually protecting people. And we'll have to be able to message and communicate this very clearly.

But you're right, this causes a great schism and it's very dangerous because people can get confused, and confusion will lead to lower rates of vaccination, and that is doom in the space of infectious disease prevention.

So, the sooner that Mr. Kennedy can step aside and the president can put someone in there that is able to help unite us, the better. Every day that he's in that position, we lose months, if not years, of scientific progress. So, you will see more people join these coalitions.

And, hopefully, we'll be able to rebuild the healthcare system as soon as possible because right now, what he's doing is intentionally sowing doubt amongst the American people against their healthcare providers. And, frankly, physicians have been the most trusted individuals historically when people go and need their pediatrician to give them advice for their child. That's why vaccination saved lives for millions and millions of kids.

COATES: I hear you, governor.

GREEN: It has to happen now. And soon, you're going to see no health department, no CDC if this doesn't. So, I implore the president to make this change and use Mr. Kennedy in some other capacity where he can still offer something positive, I hope, but not in this space.

COATES: Governor Josh Green, thank you for joining.

GREEN: Thank you.

COATES: I want to bring in CNN political commentator Shermichael Singleton, also senior advisor for Our Republican Legacy initiative, excuse me, Rina Shah. Glad to have both of you here. Let's just jump right in, Shermichael. I mean, the governor is talking about maybe using the HHS secretary in a different capacity. Is his position and role as secretary of HHS untenable for the administration?

SHERMICHAEL SINGLETON, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: I don't think that's the case now. U, I think from the president's perspective, if you were to get maybe pressure from Republicans in the Senate, maybe if there was a decrease in polling numbers or support, or maybe if there was a health emergency and we weren't capable of responding quickly and appropriately, then I think those things would probably pretty swiftly move the president to making decision. But as a --

COATES: That was very reactive as opposed to, I think, Trump has often been. Well, some would say very proactive.

SINGLETON: Yeah. look, from my understanding, I think the president really likes RFK.

[23:15:00]

And I think a part of his appeal this time around was sort of bringing together non-traditional Republicans, if you will, to be a part of his Cabinet. And he got a lot of support from many people who supported RFK. And so, I don't know if he'll be swift to make any type of changes at the Cabinet level. I think it would have to be something pretty significant for that to happen. And I don't see that as of yet occurring.

COATES: Rina, how do you see it?

RINA SHAH, SENIOR ADVISOR OF OUR REPUBLICAN LEGACY, CEO OF RILAX STRATEGIES, GEOPOLITICAL ADVISER, POLITICAL STRATEGIST: I have a personal bent to this entire story. I'm the daughter of a physician, the wife of one, and a sister of two. I am surrounded by medical doctors, and I myself have studied public health at the graduate level. That's how much I care.

And what I saw on display today at that Senate hearing wasn't just intense, it was an affront to the millions of Americans like me who care enough about non-junk science. We care enough about the public health and about facts.

And I think seeing him grilled on vaccine skepticism and on the CDC upheaval, not just on the firing of the CDC director, Susan Monarez, it wasn't just a messy moment for HHS, it was a defining moment.

And we have to ask now, is he helping or hurting Trump's team? Because there's two things here. He can be an asset politically, but he's also a huge liability.

On the personal front, my late dad would be here alive today had he had access to the polio vaccine as a young boy in the 1940s in Africa in Uganda. He is no longer with us today, seven and a half years later, because of post-polio syndrome. And I need more Americans to understand that.

And the president would be better. President Trump would be better off if he nominated -- rescinded Secretary Kennedy.

COATES: Hmm.

SHAH: And instead replaced him with Dr. Marty Makary or Dr. Scott Gottlieb, two right-of-center physicians, medical doctors, who would do far better in leading this agency through a tumultuous time.

I agree with governor of Hawaii, excuse me, who says that the agency is now embroiled in scandal. He did not put himself -- his best self on display today. He showed that he can traffic in conspiracy theories. And yes, he got cut off. And yes, there was political grandstanding. But at the end of the day, just being a disruptor with a famous last name is not going to be enough to shake up the status quo and it's not enough catnip for the Republican base.

COATES: Rina, first of all, I'm sorry for the loss of your father, and I'm grateful that you shared a deeply personal part of why you feel so strongly about this. It's important for people to understand that there are real people behind the conversations we're having, politically speaking.

And to that end, Shermichael, when you -- when you think about who might replace, if that were even on the table, the idea of the political calculations and the idea of trust in institutions was very much part of the campaign. People had a lack of trust in certain institutions.

SINGLETON: Yeah.

COATES: They believed that the status quo was what was far more detrimental than -- than changing something entirely. Do you think that the voters are still on that particular point?

SINGLETON: I think so. I mean, I was looking at a National Institute of Health study that came out two or three years ago. And what they found was that Americans trust in the medical community and pharmaceutical companies were at large decreased to 40%. However, they found around 70 to 80% of those same respondents said that they trust their personal physicians. This is a very interesting phenomenon.

I was reading an article by a professor from the University of Maine today and she was talking about how women have said that their personal experiences with physicians, whether it's going through the pregnancy process when they were younger, has increased their personal skepticism as it pertains to vaccines, et cetera.

And then you can get into the racial history around why certain communities don't trust doctors or don't trust physicians. We saw within our own community, many African-Americans didn't really trust the COVID vaccine. We spent a lot of money trying to encourage more African-Americans to get themselves vaccinated.

And so, this is a very complicated problem. I don't want to politicize it, but I definitely think we have to address some of these concerns that people are raising to at least dispel myths and educate people.

COATES: Well, of course, doing so, usually people tune in when they are at their most vulnerable, medically speaking. They don't always think about it in advance that we're talking about. Shermichael, Rina, thank you both so much.

Still ahead, another day, another lawsuit. This time, D.C.'s attorney general tries his hand at getting the National Guard out of the district. Will this move work or could it backfire?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:20:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: President Trump's takeover of policing in Washington, D.C. is supposed to end November 30th, but the city's attorney general wants it done now. In fact, he's suing over the National Guard deployment, writing -- quote -- "No American jurisdiction should be involuntarily subjected to military occupation." The suit claims the troops are acting like local police, patrolling neighborhoods, conducting searches, making arrests, despite federal law that bars the military from doing just that.

The White House is firing back, calling the lawsuit -- quote -- "another attempt -- at the detriment of D.C. residents and visitors -- to undermine the president's highly successful operations to stop violent crime in D.C."

And not everyone believed the lawsuit is a slam dunk. "The Washington Post" editorial board warns it could backfire because Trump controls the National Guard in the district, not the local officials.

We'll talk more with Ankush Khardori, who is a senior writer for Politico and a former federal prosecutor. Let's talk about this, the idea of a slam dunk or not. Do you think they have a case here to try to get the National Guard out of D.C.?

ANKUSH KHARDORI, SENIOR WRITER FOR POLITICO, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: I think they have a case. You know, I think the complaint was well done, um, but it's a very tricky area of the law.

[23:24:56]

You know, fortunately, we do not have a long history in this country of having to litigate --

COATES: Uh-hmm.

KHARDORI: -- sending the National Guard into local jurisdictions over their objections when there's not something really like serious happening during the civil rights era, right? So, there's not a lot of law in this area. And it is the case -- I don't know about what they mean when they say it would backfire. I'm not quite sure what that means in this context. I understand the concept that the complaint might not, they may not win.

COATES: I think the thought is that it could possibly embolden if he has a litigation win that supports his decision to send the National Guard, although he has the authority to do so in the district anyway.

KHARDORI: That's the thing. That's the thing. It's like -- so, this is what I was telling folks when the case in L.A. was going on. They're like, oh, is this going to affect D.C.? I was like, not really because -- or not necessarily --

COATES: Uh-hmm.

KHARDORI: Right? Because there's a different legal framework. The National Guard does not report to a governor here. We don't have a governor here. So, um, and likewise, any decision on the D.C. National Guard is not going to --

COATES: Yeah.

KHARDORI: -- have a really persuasive effect on the other jurisdictions.

COATES: I wonder what the impact will be ultimately in this case. But then there's another thing that's really fascinating here, and that is where this upside-down topsy-turvy notion of the Supreme Court being criticized by lower courts. Normally, this was sacrosanct, to not to criticize the Supreme Nine, right, with the buck ending there and all.

But you also have a federal judge, a few of them actually, who took the unusual step of criticizing how the Supreme Court has not been given sort of this bright line guidance. One judge writing, judges in the trenches need and deserve well-reasoned, bright-line guidance.

So, the absence of clarity, particularly in these emergency cases that Trump has raised and beyond, it bypasses the federal judge's ability to sort of hear the full case, decide an issue, and then to go up the regular course. Is it strange to you, though, that this is the new tactic?

KHARDORI: Meaning on --

COATES: From the federal courts.

KHARDORI: From the lower courts criticizing it?

COATES: Uh-hmm.

KHARDORI: Um, it's unusual. It's highly unusual.

COATES: Are they right?

KHARDORI: Yes. Yes, they're right.

COATES: So, what of it? Being right. Now, what?

KHARDORI: It looks like -- look, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh have been like weirdly pushing back on this notion. They've been writing in their opinions, kind of taking sort of little swipes at the district judges.

I mean, the fact of the matter is the Supreme Court, as a practical matter, we're talking about the six Republican appointees, the conservative justices, have been handling very significant issues on these emergency dockets, um, issuing these stays on these very complicated areas of law with no briefing or barely any consideration, and they are sending standards down to the court to lower courts to try to make some sense of it.

But often, you know, they're changing the law in many respects, too, right? You're not supposed to be able to fire the independent commissioners of all these agencies, but the Supreme Court has let them go forward with that so far. And all of the jurisprudence around appropriations --

COATES: Uh-hmm.

KHARDORI: -- contract terminations, things like that, it's complicated. And there's not been a very good explication by the Supreme Court, which I think has thoroughly undermined, in some respects, public confidence in the court. Gallup just last month released a poll that showed that the approval of the Supreme Court is an all-time low.

COATES: Which used to never be the case. They were the most revered and respected as being the apolitical body. And yet, it is changing people's perceptions in some respects. The courts also going to take up lawsuit. You wrote about Trump's tariffs. In fact, the Supreme Court, we kind of know that was coming, if they would take that case up.

You wrote in an op-ed for Politico that Trump is blackmailing justices to give him what he wants even if it is clearly unlawful or unconstitutional. Why do you see the pressure as blackmail essentially?

KHARDORI: Because it's so over-the-top. It is so over-the-top. You know, Trump and his, uh, most senior officials, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, those two guys along with U.S. Trade Representative Jamison Greer, Howard Lutnick, they've been putting in sworn declarations in the courts saying that if they don't get their way, they'll be a foreign policy disaster, that they will affect our -- president's ability to protect the homeland. Marco Rubio said that if the president doesn't get his way on tariffs, he might not be able to solve the Ukraine-Russia war.

COATES: Hmm.

KHARDORI: These are absurd propositions and it is bizarre for them to be put into the record or even said publicly because, as you and I know, they are wholly irrelevant to the question of whether or not the tariffs are legal or not.

So, it's kind of like they're creating all this -- actually, they're trying to create this sort of sense of public pressure or drama around this in order to sort of get people to maybe take a step back. And in the process, they're doing all sorts of bizarre things, not just putting in the sworn declarations.

I don't know if you saw the motion to expedite that was filed yesterday along with the petition on the tariffs. They put in a declaration, again from Scott Bessent, who attached a letter from a friend of his, who wrote about how unhappy he was with the tariff ruling last week. This is bizarre. Lawyers do not do this, much less government lawyers at the Supreme Court. I mean, it's desperate.

COATES: Well, yeah. Usually, amicus briefs are people who actually have some stake and some credibility before a court of law. That seems odd in and of itself. Ankush Khardori, thank you so much.

KHARDORI: Thanks.

[23:29:58]

COATES: Still ahead, she was 14 years old when she met Jeffrey Epstein, later becoming a key witness in his criminal indictment that -- that sweetheart deal Acosta gave, and then she could no longer take the stand even if she wanted to. Well, tonight, she's with us to share her personal story next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MARINA LACERDA, EPSTEIN SURVIVOR: Why didn't they let me testify to help stop him? Our government could have saved so many women. But Jeffrey Epstein was too important and those women didn't matter. Why? Well, we matter now, we are here today, and we are speaking, and we are not going to stop speaking.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

[23:35:03]

COATES: Despite emotional pleas from survivors, today, Speaker Mike Johnson is casting doubt on a bipartisan push to compel the DOJ to release all of the Epstein files, telling CNN's Manu Raju -- quote -- "The whole effort has been mooted."

What? He says the work that the Oversight Committee is doing goes further and is enough. And the committee is making headway in their investigation, announcing tonight they'll be traveling to meet with the Epstein estate next week to see unredacted documents.

Let's go back to the survivors and what they want, because the women you heard from and who you also heard from moments ago was known as "Minor-Victim 1" in Epstein 2019 indictment. She provided key information to law enforcement that helped them build a case against Jeffrey Epstein.

You know what? She joins me right now. Marina Lacerda, welcome. I'm glad that you're here to share and talk about this experience. It's so important knowing how important transparency really is, particularly here. And I want to ask you, Marina. This effort in the House to compel the DOJ to produce all of the Epstein documents, they are short by just two Republican votes and there has been a lot of pressure to try to stop them from voting this way and releasing it. Are you concerned that an attempt to get this release would actually fail?

LACERDA: Well, first of all, thank you for having me here. I really appreciate it. Um, you know, I am concerned a little bit, unfortunately, to say I wasn't concerned when I was at the press conference the day before yesterday. But as I can see today, it's not going the way that we were planning. We are almost feeling like Washington is failing us.

Um, I think if this bill can't be signed with flying colors, it only means that you stand with the sexual predators. It should fly. It should be signed with no problem.

COATES: Just the idea of releasing the information, I mean, you were so powerful when you spoke about that there were documents, there were files somewhere in this Epstein universe. Someone knew more about what happened to you than even you experiencing what you went through. You were just 14 when you first met him. Can you describe a little bit how you were drawn into his entire world?

LACERDA: Well, you know, I'm going to give you a short version of it. You know, I did come from a very broken home, and I think people are mistaken for a broken home and they see it like a divorced family. It was more deep than that. I was working two to three jobs at the time, but it just wasn't enough. As an immigrant from Brazil at the time and being underage, you do not get paid what you're supposed to get paid. Right?

COATES: Uh-hmm.

LACERDA: And, of course, neighborhood girls knew that I was struggling through this. And one of the girls came up to me and just said, hey, listen, you know, we have this older gentleman who likes to get massage. You'll make $300. It will be very simple, very easy.

And, you know, we went to his mansion in New York. And when I got there, you know, it started out fine, but then she started to remove particles of her clothes. You know, she moved her top, and she asked me to do the same. And I got put in the position where, like I said, it's very dark, the massage room that he's in, and there's -- you can't see the doors. It's my first time there.

COATES: Uh-hmm.

LACERDA: There's no lights. There's -- there's no windows. There's nothing. So, I just followed on upon what she did. And, you know, later on, I just started to see him, you know, on my own and it became a very -- almost, you know -- you know, two, three times a week thing.

COATES: In fact, I mean, you -- you talk about how you were called upon so often, that you ended up leaving school, not to return. Is that right?

LACERDA: Yes, I did. Yes, I did leave high school. You know, um, Jeffrey always had this thing, which I didn't share and get into details. He really didn't believe in school. He didn't believe that school really taught you anything. He always -- he always believed that it was connections. So, I don't think he was really interested I was dropping out of high school. I think he was more worried about when was I going there, where were my friends, and who can I bring to him.

COATES: You actually said that Epstein was the one that got you a lawyer when the FBI agent showed up at your door back in 2008, and that his lawyer -- the lawyer told you -- quote -- "that everything was just going to go away like nothing happened."

And in two weeks, the House Oversight Committee is going to interview Alex Acosta. And you know that the U.S. attorney at the time who gave what has been called this sweetheart deal to Epstein to plead in that case. What would you want to ask Alex Acosta knowing what you know about the experience of yourself and so many others?

[23:40:00]

LACERDA: Well, I have a lot of questions for him. But, obviously, we're not going to go through all of them.

COATES: Uh-hmm.

LACERDA: But what I would like to ask him is, who were you protecting besides Jeffrey Epstein? Why did you give him a non-prosecution agreement?

COATES: Uh-hmm.

LACERDA: Okay? And then my last question is really important. What if this happened to your daughters? Because you do have two daughters from what I know, unless you have more now. But you have two daughters. Would you have given a non-prosecution agreement or would it have been different?

COATES: Hmm. I'd like to hear you answer that question as well. I am really intrigued by the idea of you wanting to get that FBI file. Have you ever spoken to anyone in the Justice Department recently or then about that file or had any idea of what might be contained in it, including -- I've been hearing that there may have been some sort of video? Are you aware of that in terms of what might have been in the home to capture what was going on?

LACERDA: So, you know, I'm finding out a lot of things, you know, in the past month. Um, I think we were somewhat aware that there was video inside the house, but we weren't sure of because we were so young.

COATES: Right.

LACERDA: Now, I'm understanding that there is. And then we also come to find out that there's this birthday book, right? And then I come to find out that I'm somewhat in this birthday book.

COATES: Hmm.

LACERDA: But what is in that birthday book? I can't remember. I don't remember ever writing him a birthday letter. I don't remember even sending him a picture. But from what I'm understanding is that I'm in this birthday book.

And then I did ask the House of Committee. A couple of us did ask for our files because I think I'm not the only -- obviously, I'm not the only one who is traumatized here and can't remember a lot of stuff. They did, you know, agree that I can't see my files, and I think we're going to be setting that up very soon, hopefully.

COATES: Oh. I hope that happens for you. And I do wonder, do you have a message? If you could speak to the members of Congress, to the Republicans, to the president, who are watching tonight, what would you say?

LACERDA: Well, um, I would like to tell, you know, I mean, the House of Committee, when we spoke to them yesterday -- I mean, I'm sorry, two days ago, they seemed that they were full -- they were by our side all the way, and they wanted to release these files. You know, they had no problems with that.

Um, I think the biggest issue here is Donald Trump, you know. And I don't know why it is such a big deal not to release these files. I think we need transparency, not only as victims but as Americans. We are in the United States of America. Okay?

This is something that -- it is -- this is not a third world country. This should be easy. This should be no problem. If you cannot sign this bill, if you cannot give us these files, then it just means that you stand with these sexual predators, these monsters that need to be put down.

COATES: Marina Lacerda, thank you for joining and thank you for sharing.

LACERDA: Thank you so much.

COATES: We should note that Alex Acosta has defended his handling of Epstein's 2008 non-prosecution agreement and denied any wrongdoing, saying in 2019 -- quote -- "We believe that we proceeded appropriately. Based on the evidence, there was value to getting a guilty plea and having him register."

Up next, the titans of tech huddled with President Trump at the White House from Mark Zuckerberg to Bill Gates. What were they talking about? Turns out, the future.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:45:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: President Trump didn't let the rain ruin his parade of tech CEOs coming for dinner at the White House tonight. They were scheduled to dine al fresco, as they say, on the renovated Rose Garden concrete patio. Instead, it happened inside at the state dining room. And it was a who's who at that dinner table. Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, Microsoft founder Bill Gates, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman, Apple CEO Tim Cook, and Google CEO Sundar Pichai. All at the table with the president.

And one of the hot topics on the menu, on the mind, artificial intelligence. In fact, earlier in the day, some of the same leaders were with the first lady, Melania Trump, to talk about how to deal with A.I. in schools responsibly.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MELANIA TRUMP, FIRST LADY OF THE UNITED STATES: The robots are here. Our future is no longer science fiction. As leaders and parents, we must manage A.I.'s growth responsibly. During this primitive stage, it is our duty to treat A.I. as we would with our own children, empowering but with watchful guidance.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Let's talk now with New York Times technology reporter Mike Isaac. Mike, I'm wondering, what did President Trump get out of this meeting? I mean, what the CEOs get out of the meeting? Tell me.

MIKE ISAAC, TECHNOLOGY CORRESPONDENT, NEW YORK TIMES: Yeah, it's super interesting to see, you know, only eight years ago, the CEOs were way more defiant during the first Trump administration --

COATES: Uh-hmm.

ISAAC: -- and, you know, some refusing to join the business council. Now, they all just sort of regularly expect we have to go to the White House and kind of kiss the ring and basically say, yes, President Trump, we're going to sort of, you know, change our policies. And in the case of Meta, you know, change speech policies on the platform or start sort of essentially removing some of the more social contentious elements like, let's say, uh, DEI stuff inside of all these companies basically going away.

[23:50:05]

And, in exchange, what they get is President Trump kind of pushing through this idea that, hey, we want to help you navigate these big challenges, especially with regard to getting more energy to power all the data centers that use --

COATES: Hmm.

ISAAC: -- tons of energy to build A.I. right now. And that's a real state issue that he, during this dinner, said we need to push forward through legislation there and clear the red tape.

COATES: You know, we have seen Trump cut several A.I. deals. And some of these tech leaders like the OpenAI CEO Sam Alpert, for example, they're pushing back against regulations. So, is Trump's, I guess, relative coziness to the A.I. companies, is that good or bad for any potential regulation?

ISAAC: Yeah, you know, it's a really interesting period where under Biden, under President Biden, you know, there was a really antagonistic sort of relationship between Silicon Valley and the White House. And this is like kind of a whole new era in that both, uh, you know, all of the CEOs are basically trying to sort of get, uh, the White House on board with pushing through regulation in Congress.

And I think the closer they can get to him, the more amenable they could see senators and Congress in general to being open to different ways of making a more, uh, friendly environment to A.I. But we're still a long way from any sort of build, I guess, is what I would say right now.

COATES: Well, speaking of senators, Senator Josh Hawley warning that A.I. could cause widespread job losses for Americans, for all Americans. Listen to what said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. JOSH HAWLEY (R-MO): Thus far, the A.I. revolution is proceeding on transhumanist lines. It is working against the working man, his liberty and his worth. It is operating to install a rich and powerful elite. It is undermining many of our cherished ideals. And if that keeps on, A.I. will work to undermine America. Let's fully repeal Section 230. Open the courtroom doors.

(APPLAUSE)

Allow people to sue who have their rights taken away from them, including suing companies and actors and individuals who use A.I.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Let's (INAUDIBLE) aside for a second in terms of liability for what's said on the platforms. But tell me instead, do you think that big tech, do they care if there are massive layoffs because of A.I.?

ISAAC: Oh, man, they -- they -- they're looking forward to it, honestly.

COATES: Hmm.

ISAAC: Basically, there's a lot of ways in which I think the companies are -- you know, they went through a period a few years ago where they were taking hits on Wall Street for the amount of money they're spending, cost an enormous amount of money to build for these A.I. systems, to build the data centers, to build the chips that power them. And the idea is if you can build systems strong enough to replace workers, that's going to cut your overhead in a huge way.

So, they keep saying hey, look, the future is coming, it's going to be very different, there's going to a lot of jobs lost, but I think they -- they only see that as a -- as a net benefit in the long run.

And senators like Josh Hawley, who you just played, is really bearish, really hawkish on a number of these companies and the effects that it could have on society, and I think, you know, to the point that they're trying to cross these hurdles with getting Congress on board. Hawley and Senator Marsha Blackburn is going to be another one that's going to be hard for them to win over.

COATES: Mike Isaac, thank you so much.

ISAAC: Thank you. Thanks, Laura.

COATES: Up next, one man's fight to save forgotten and abused animals.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:55:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: Before we go tonight, a CNN hero who's giving cats and dogs a new lease on life. Tim Woodward helps rescue animals who have been hoarded in homes all across the country often enduring horrific conditions. Here's his story.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

(DOG BARKING)

TIM WOODWARD, CNN HERO: We see animals living in conditions that I would have never imagined before doing this.

WOODWARD (voice-over): (INAUDIBLE). Hi, mama.

WOODWARD: Their physical condition is incredibly debilitated. It can be very gruesome. Your average shelter is used to taking animals in one or two at a time. We pull in large numbers of animals from a crisis situation. We'll work with law enforcement. They will designate us as an agent of law enforcement to go onto the scene to seize those animals.

You're okay. See?

UNKNOWN (voice-over): Look at that smile.

UNKNOWN (voice-over): Yeah.

WOODWARD: We bring a very tight trained team, including a state licensed forensic vet, vet techs, as well as an intake team and, of course, our trained handlers.

WOODWARD (voice-over): They're in five different pop-ups. We'll split them up two, two, and two.

WOODWARD: We're kind of the midway point between where they came from and where they will find their forever home.

I can get you all fixed up.

So, for the time that they're in our care, we try to make sure that they are becoming healthier.

What are you doing, huh?

And we try as best we can to prepare them for life in a home.

(LAUGHTER)

The change in the animals is always remarkable.

[23:59:57]

They come out of situations where they have no trust, and then with time and attention, they begin to literally blossom.

You're getting out of here.

We've rescued well over 10,000 animals.

Where is that tail at?

My hope is that they have the best life possible and forget all about where they came from.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

COATES: Remarkable. To find out more about Tim's organization, go to cnn.com/heroes. Hey, thank you all so much for watching. "Anderson Cooper 360" is next.