Return to Transcripts main page

Laura Coates Live

Bill Maher Got Kimmel's Back; Abuse of Power Is Unacceptable; Ride on to Be Safe; Erik Siebert Resigns; Lawmakers Not Pleased by Alex Acosta's Alibis. Aired 11p-12a ET

Aired September 19, 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: Well tonight, call it full-circle irony. Jimmy Kimmel's ABC predecessor weighs in on his suspension and Bill Maher is backing him loudly. His reaction moments away.

Plus, Stephen A. Smith raises some eyebrows over free speech by saying people need to adjust accordingly. So how is it different from self- censorship? He's here to explain. And a Jeffrey Epstein survivor responds to Alex Acosta's testimony before Congress. That Democrat say, left more questions than answers.

Tonight, on Laura Coates Live.

So just to show you how strange this free speech fight has gotten, get this. Remember when ABC showed Bill Maher the door of something that he said and then gave his slot to someone else? Well, let me jog your memory. That young comedian was named Jimmy Kimmel. And 24 years later, Maher is backing Kimmel up.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BILL MAHER, HOST, HBO: Let me just tell you something. I am not intimidated by the FCC and if President Trump is watching I have one thing to say to you. Have you lost weight? You look terrific.

(APPLAUSE)

MAHER: I got canceled before cancel even had a culture. Yes, this is on my wall from the Variety. White House keeps heat on ABC's Maher. This shit is not new. It's worse, we'll get to that, but you know, ABC, they are steady. ABC stands for always be caving.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Late night hosts like Maher have been coming out in full force to defend Kimmel, but tonight, President Trump is upping the ante and issuing more threats to broadcast networks he does not like.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: The newscasts are against me. The stories are 90 -- they said 97 percent bad. So, they gave me 97. They'll take a great story and they'll make it bad. See, I think that's really illegal, personally.

When somebody is given 97 percent of the stories are bad about a person, that's no longer free speech, that's no longer. That's just cheating.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: You don't like it. Really illegal about it though. And free speech is cheating, what exactly? Freedom of the press is protected by the First Amendment obviously, but Trump says it will be up to his FCC chairman, Brendan Carr, to decide if other shows or networks will get the Kimmel treatment.

And by the way, not every Republican is on board. And that includes one who normally is on board, Senator Ted Cruz.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. TED CRUZ (R-TX): But look, I like Brendan Carr. He's a good guy. He's chairman of the FCC. I work closely with him. But what he said there is dangerous as hell. He says, we can do this the easy way but we could do this the hard.

UNKNOWN: Yes.

CRUZ: And I got to say that's right out of goodfellows. That's right out of a Mafioso coming into a bar going, nice bar you have here. It'd be a shame if something happened to it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: I'm going to it to that was a pretty good impression by the senator. You know, who did not find what Cruz said funny.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: I think Brendan Carr is a great American patriot, so I disagree with Ted Cruz on that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Well, a rare break with Cruz, and a sign maybe of just how fractured this debate is really getting, or might still become. But the split does not end there. Other Republicans are openly admitting that they're rethinking the boundaries of free speech.

Take Senator Cynthia Lummis. She told the news outlet Semaphore, normal times, in normal circumstances, I tend to think that the First Amendment should always be sort of the ultimate right, and that there should be almost no checks and balances on it. I don't feel that way anymore.

And she went on to say, we just can't let people call each other those kinds of insane things and then be surprised when politicians get shot and the death threats they are receiving and then trying to get extra money for security.

[23:05:05]

She says an FCC license isn't a right, it's a privilege. But Republicans like Cruz and other commentators, well, they're on the right, they're warning something.

If Democrats regain power, they couldn't hold the remote.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CRUZ: It might feel good right now to threaten Jimmy Kimmel.

UNKNOWN: Yes.

CRUZ: But when it is used to silence every conservative in America, we will regret it.

BEN SHAPIRO, POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: I do not want the FCC in the business of telling local affiliates that their licenses will be removed if they broadcast material that the FCC deems to be informationally false. Why? Because one day the shoe will be on the other foot.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: With me now, John Fugelsang, he's the host of the SiriusXM show, Tell Me Everything with John Fugelsang. Also, CNN political commentator Xochitl Hinojosa, and former national spokesperson for Senator Ted Cruz's presidential campaign, Rick Tyler.

I'll start with you, John, if I can, because you want me to tell you everything. I love it. So, here's more from Bill Maher tonight. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MAHER: These people do not understand free speech at all. I mean, listen to Mike Pence. The First Amendment of the Constitution protects against government censorship of individuals. The First Amendment, though, does not protect entertainers who say crass or thoughtless things. The (muted), yes, it does. What are you talking about?

(APPLAUSE)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: So, John, we're seeing this debate. It's about critical speech and crass speech and hate speech. Where would the consensus land that speech aside from the few exceptions that are prosecutable, where is it going to land?

JOHN FUGELSANG, NEW YORK TIMES BEST-SELLING AUTHOR: I mean, wherever they feel like it on any given day, it's not really about free speech. And it's not even technically about government censorship. It's more about government coercion and abuse of power to bring about self- censorship from private corporations.

That's how this was done with Nexstar, with the affiliates, all ganging up to try to get Bob Iger to sacrifice on this. Now, the FCC does not have the power to make comedians not say what they want. They have no power over what anyone can say and the First Amendment exists specifically. So, presidents can't fire artists for saying things they don't like.

It's great that Ted Cruz is standing up about this, except if you listen to what he said, he completely approves of it. He just doesn't like the fact that it's going to be used against him someday.

So, when it comes to being spineless, he stands tall. This is not polling well. This is not good for Republicans. The majority of Americans don't like this and the majority of Americans don't care about Jimmy Kimmel. They care about housing and health care and why is my Big Mac $19 now.

COATES: I hope it's not $19 right now. I turned everything you said, John, and then my mind went, are you kidding me? I'll go to Rick for a second on this, because, Rick, you work with Ted Cruz.

Tell me do you think that his problem as he's alluding to is that it could be a boomerang effect and come back to haunt, or that he has a problem with the fact that this is perhaps a government or entity who's putting a thumb on the scale to try to have somebody, suppose, behavior induced.

RICK TYLER, DIRECTOR, ADVANCED SCHOOL OF POLITICS AT THE LEADERSHIP INSTITUTE: Look, I think it's a ladder. And I think that Ted was just making an additional point that, you know, watch what you wish for.

COATES: Yes.

TYLER: In the camera. Look, there are two parts to this. One is actually rather humorous, which is the FCC controls broadcast airways. It does not control cables, it does not control streaming. Half of Jimmy Kimmel's audience doesn't even watch television on broadcast television. They watch it through streaming platforms and the rest.

And the FCC chairman has no say over that whatsoever. It's sort of like having FCC chairman threatened to disconnect your telegraph. I mean, the debate is moved so far beyond what these guys even understand how the modern media world.

COATES: Well, hold on. Are you --

TYLER: Yes.

COATES: Are you suggesting that this is much to do about nothing that --

(CROSSTALK)

TYLER: No, no. No. The second part is very dangerous.

COATES: OK.

TYLER: Which is what Brandon Carr did was illegal. He cannot threaten people or licenses of broadcasters because he doesn't like what they say. And that is a very dangerous thing and people ought to take that seriously. So, in the one hand you have the, sort of, paper tiger that really has no authority to do anything and doesn't control half of the media that people watch or more, and then you have this idea that the government can coerce people into saying what they can and what they can't.

Brendan Carr is either incompetent or he's just stupid and he should be fired but he won't be because the president supports this, or he should resign in disgrace. Because you have to -- if you're the chairman of FCC job one is to understand what the First Amendment means. And I think that goes for the attorney General as well.

COATES: Well, obviously President Trump, I think he calls him a great American if I'm not mistaken. He seems to be pleased with what's going on right now, but there is this other side of the argument people are making and they're saying kind of like how they would say, well, oh, now Democrats are concerned about this. Now the left is worried about free speech.

[23:09:56]

They're pointing to statements that have been made about the statements on then called Twitter of say, President Trump and talking about even former Vice President Kamala Harris on social media calling for a Trump Twitter ban.

Do you see a fair comparison here, or is this apples to oranges?

XOCHITL HINOJOSA, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, the Biden administration and Democrats have not tried to silence speech. What you see that is happening with Trump is not only is he going after the media, Brendan Carr is going after networks. I think Ted Cruz is right. What happens if there's a Democratic president, they start going after Fox News.

But it's not only the media, it is also organizations. You heard earlier this week Donald Trump talked about how he's going to start going after progressive lefty organizations and you heard Pam Bondi also talk about hate speech. Well, MAGA jumped on her and said, wait a minute, wait a minute, hate speech is free speech. We cannot be going after hate speech in any way.

Also, to your point, Brendan Carr should be fired. Pam Bondi should be fired. She's supposed to be the top cop in the United States, and she doesn't understand that you can't prosecute free speech. That is embarrassing.

So, I think that what is happening here is that they're using every lever of the federal government to silence those that they disagree with. And we've never seen this in recent history before. Joe Biden didn't do it. Barack Obama didn't do it. We might not like what people say sometimes. We, I mean, the list is long with Donald Trump. He has said all sorts of crazy things about Democrats, but we are not silencing them and I think that is the difference.

COATES: Well John, I mean, I heard your reaction as well, but we're talking about the government obviously a lot with good reason because the FCC. However, he was actually suspended by a private entity.

FUGELSANG: Correct.

COATES: The former head of Disney, Michael Eisner, appearing to take aim at the Disney brass, questioning where has all the leadership gone and calling the suspension of Jimmy Kimmel yet another example of out- of-control intimidation.

Obviously there appears to have been a chain reaction from what the FCC chair has said or implied or suggested, --

FUGELSANG: Indeed.

COATES: -- but what is the role of corporations and institutions that are not the government at this time?

FUGELSANG: And why wouldn't a corporation object to having the government abuse power to assert pressure on it to bring about changes? I mean, this is what our Republican brothers and sisters are supposed to not want to see. The government interfering with capitalism and private business by strong-arming them. It's crazy. And it doesn't make Donald Trump look strong. It makes him look weak and brittle and unmanly.

Nixon went on laughing. Nixon wasn't afraid to laugh at himself. Imagine having less game than Nixon and Eisner is right. We waited a long time to see Michael Eisner become the hero in a story here. But Bob Iger seems very content to let his career be capped off with accusations of censorship and being opposed to the First Amendment.

Iger was really willing to silence this man and put an entire team of great people out of business so the stock price wouldn't drip before they got to a merger. I mean, Iger is really coming off looking worse than Nexstar in this.

COATES: Well, you know, it's not just Kimmel that people looking at us being impacted. Tonight, Bill Maher also called out The View for being radio silent on the suspension. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MAHER: Girls, let me go out strong, okay? And let me kill you. I promise it's happening to me and I may go out after this show.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

FUGELSANG: Yes.

COATES: Well, what do you think? Should they have spoken out?

FUGELSANG: I do think so, but again, it's not my place. know, I can't tell them what to do. They've all got their own staff members. They work for ABC.

COATES: Yes.

FUGELSANG: And it's very obvious that the EPs were saying, let's put the kibosh on this for the day and not talk about it. They're playing safe. And it's one thing for me to play First Amendment warrior and say, you've got to be brave, but these people have families and they have staffs they're trying to preserve it. This is a line that everyone's got to walk.

I can tell you that no one's going to respect timidity here. And the people who are brave, especially the politicians and artists, are the ones that are going to be memorable.

COATES: Pick up. Go ahead.

TYLER: I want to pick up that point really quickly. The front line of the defense of the First Amendment is not the government. It is actually the broadcasters, the comedians, you, anybody in the media who speaks out. And ABC really is the failure here of backing down and being moved by the government, the threats of intimidation.

Free speech means nothing unless somebody is willing to defend it. And ABC should have defended it. They might not like what Jimmy Kimmel -- they don't have to like what Jimmy Kimmel says, but when they have to back down to the government because the government didn't like what they say, that's the front line of free speech. And if they're not willing to stand up for free speech, then it has no meaning.

COATES: Because of course, if you follow that thread, if the big corporations don't do it, what is the little guy to think?

TYLER: Exactly.

COATES: Well, what can, I mean, you have Democrats who are in the minority here, obviously Republicans are speaking out, including Senator Ted Cruz, what's Congress going to do about it? Can they do anything?

HINOJOSA: Well, I mean, there is only about a year left until the Democrats may end up having the House. I think that --

(CROSSTALK)

COATES: Are they vocal in that?

[23:14:54]

HINOJOSA: Well, I think that they need to be more vocal. I think they -- but it is hard. Donald Trump controls the airwaves. He says something to change the subject. I mean, I think they're trying to do some of it. They could do more, but I mean, ultimately, they're not going to get anything done unless they win the House of Representatives and start conducting oversight of this administration. I think Donald Trump is worried about that.

COATES: That's how I tell my little girl. You can do hard things.

Thank you, everyone. Up next, Stephen A. Smith standing by with his response to Kimmel's suspension and why he says people need to, quote, adjust accordingly.

Plus, I'll ask Stephen A. Smith about Vice President Kamala Harris going scorched earth in a new book. We've got the new revelations about how she really felt about President Biden and some of the 2028 contenders as well.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:19:54]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

STEPHEN A. SMITH, HOST, SIRIUSXM: I am incredibly along by what appears to be our First Amendment rights being attacked. This is what I do for a living, I don't like that! But you know he's coming. The man is coming. And you have to adjust accordingly.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Well, that was Stephen A. Smith talking about the Jimmy Kimmel situation. And when I heard him say that, I thought to myself, what exactly does he mean? Well, he was kind of to accept our invitation, and he's with us right now. He's also the host of the new show, Straight Shooter with Stephen A. on Sirius XM, Wednesday nights from 6 to 8.

Stephen A., welcome back. I'm glad that you're here.

I want to dive right in because you said the man is coming and you have to adjust accordingly. Tell what you mean by that and why that is different than say pandering or self-censorship and you think just the right move.

SMITH: Well, listen, I think it's obvious that the president is on a vengeance tour. He's out to exact retribution against all naysayers, all critics, anybody that he deems necessary to go after. And he's made no apologies for it. He's told us on numerous occasions that is what he intends to do. And that's exactly what he's doing.

And when you look at Jimmy Kimmel and the stance that he took, do I believe that it was the wisest thing to do? No. But it's certainly within his right to do so, and it should be within his right to do so, as is the case for Stephen Colbert, Jimmy Fallon, or anybody else, because as our former President Barack Obama articulated, these kinds of matters are at the heart of a democracy.

First Amendment rights, the right to free speech, no matter who it is. And when you're trying to use government influence like Trump has done with the FCC, Mr. Brendan Carr, and you're trying to force your will upon folks from a government's perspective, that's problematic. That goes exactly against First Amendment protections. And so, the fact that President Trump has been willing to take that

stance, has been unapologetic in doing so, definitely points the finger of, you know, trying to infringe upon our First Amendment rights. I was just of the mindset, however, that he's made it very, very obvious for quite a long time that this is exactly what he was willing to do.

Stephen Colbert was obviously an example before Jimmy Kimmel became an example. And I was of the mindset that Jimmy Kimmel, you've got to know that. And all of us have to know that to some degree and operate accordingly. The certain severe critics of him, the man is coming. He's not playing around. He's unapologetic about the retribution he's willing to exact against anybody.

He deems harmful to his ego, his psyche, his presidency, in his own way that he may choose to materialize it. Know this and operate --

(CROSSTALK)

COATES: But what does it mean -- hold on. You said, know this and operate accordingly. Describe, though, because when you say operate accordingly, you can on the one hand know this and the response can be and I'm not going to lay down and take it. I'm not going to stand aside and allow and acquiesce. The other side is move accordingly sort of under the radar in some way.

Where do you -- how are you defining operate accordingly? 'Cause I know from just hearing you and following your whole career, you are somebody who's been unapologetic about speaking your mind, having even unpopular opinions and not pulling any punches. So, is this different than that?

SMITH: That's true. Yes, because I'm fair and balanced. I'm not one sided and I'm not directing my eye at one individual consistently since 2015. That's not the kind of behavior I choose to engage in. Even people that I don't like, that I've been on the record stating I don't like, I still remain fair and balanced. When they deserve to be complimented, I say so. I don't avoid complimenting them just because I may not like them.

And when they deserve to be criticized, I don't hesitate to do so. And their opponents or people that are on the opposite side of the aisle than other figures. I'll make sure to call them out too under the same guys. If I agree with them, I'll say so. If I don't agree with them, I'll say so. And I'll say why.

You have to remember that with Trump and the government itself, particularly as presently constructed, they're looking and accusing folks of being fair and partial. They're not being fear imbalance. That's the accusation that they're making. If you know that's what his fight is going to be, make sure that you know hesitate to criticize others on the opposite side just as equally so when he comes complaining about you, he can't say that you've been biased and indiscriminate against him and his administration.

Make sure you're able to do that because throughout history from Johnny Carson, to Jay Leno to David Letterman and others, they pulled no punches with anybody. But over the last several years, definitely there has been more cynicism and skepticism thrown in his direction. Even when he wasn't the president, when he left office in 2020, as much as it was happening when he was in office for his first term.

[23:25:02]

Fair and balanced is the answer to that question. That's how you ward off some of the arguments that he may try to make on your behalf.

COATES: I understand how you navigate the minefield and not to be naive. I do want to turn for a second though from somebody who is not censoring at all oneself. I'm talking about the former Vice President Kamala Harris because her new book, --

SMITH: Yes.

COATES: -- very blunt. I mean, she called Biden's decision to keep running reckless. She says she was disappointed with Tim Walz's debate performance, that she actually wanted Pete Buttigieg as V.P. but didn't pick him because he'd be too risky because he's a gay man.

She claimed that Governor Newsom avoided her call, called Governor Shapiro too ambitious, accused Biden of distracting her right before the debate with Trump. I mean, I could go on.

I do wonder what you think the end game is here. Does any of this help her party move forward now that she is being so open about how she really felt? Or is this something that is perhaps transparent that might cut off one's nose to spite someone's face?

SMITH: I believe Kamala Harris's political career is over. I think you've seen the last of her with this book, politically. I'm quite sure she's a highly intelligent woman, very accomplished. She's a former state attorney general. She's a former senator. She's a former vice president of United States and obviously the Democratic nominee for the presidency of the United States in 2024.

But this was the last straw. And I'm going to tell you why. Because Although I'm certainly not an advocate of her diming out her boss and talking about whatever deficiencies he may have had, you could have said something. You could have done something other than what you did.

And I don't want to hear about "107 Days" and that's all you had. You know what "107 Days" gave you? It gave you the opportunity to take over the campaign and do it your way instead of capitulating to what his people wanted you to do and you doing whatever you thought was necessary under the realm or the guise of, you know, loyalty and costing and in some people's eyes, costing yourself the presidency.

There are things that she could have done that was more effective. Don't get me started with her appearance on The View. Don't get me started when Sunny Hostin looked at her and said, is there anything that you would do differently than Joe Biden? And I can't think of anything. No one wants to hear that when the country was in the state that it was in and we knew that change was the order of the day and you had a candidate that was not only using her rhetoric, her verbiage and the lack thereof from him, but also was accusing her as hiding and engaging in his own definition of machismo or misogynism or whatever you want to call it, to point out how he was a man's man and he goes everywhere. And he talks to everyone while she was not willing to do that initially.

And then you come out with a book in the aftermath of it all. And you've talked about Pete Buttigieg and you know him being gay, or you talked about Josh Shapiro, the governor that I just interviewed the other day. And you talk about him being too eager for the vice presidency when he was clearly a better choice than Tim Walz. Or you want to talk about Gavin Newsom now but you wouldn't do it before.

Nobody is trying to hear that now. That is a candidate that's on her way out the door and I'm not saying I wish it. I've had the pleasure of meeting her once before. She is a very nice person, very accomplished. I respect her. But when I look at the excerpts from this book, it's too little, too late. And that's what this comes down to.

As far as I am concerned, I believe, and I hope I'm wrong, but I believe her political career is over. The minute people buy it and read with the stuff that she could have said and the stuff that she could have done but refrained from doing, which obviously contributed to her losing the election. It's too little, too late. Are you in it to win it or not? She wasn't, and that is that.

COATES: Well, now I want to read the whole book and see how the context around the excerpts might answer some of the questions as to why now, why this, and why she's saying what she is saying. Stephen A. Smith --

(CROSSTALK)

SMITH: Most people don't isn't going to read the whole book.

COATES: Huh?

SMITH: Most people is not going to read the whole book. They're take the excerpts.

COATES: I'm going to read the whole book.

SMITH: I'm not saying they shouldn't read the whole book. But there's a lot of people that's going to take the excerpts and run from it and use it as a reason to dismiss anything that she's saying. So, I hope the book is very, very successful for her because that's what she's going to have to fall back on in her wonderful life and all her accomplishments. But her future as a politician, I believe, is over.

COATES: Stephen A. Smith, thank you.

Well, the president says he wants to fire him. It says so publicly. So, two hours later, the U.S. attorney Trump railed against. Well, he resigns. Why? And should he have? I'll ask someone who knows him next.

[23:30:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: Well, tonight, the resignation of a U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia is raising a ton of eyebrows, particularly because he's been leading a mortgage fraud investigation into the New York attorney general, Letitia James. Those allegations remain unproven.

[23:34:51]

But CNN has learned that U.S. attorney Erik Siebert was under intense pressure from Trump to bring these charges. Just this afternoon, Trump publicly called for Siebert's ouster.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: It looks to me like she's very guilty of something, but I really don't know. I know that the U.S. attorney from the eastern district or from that district in Virginia that he was approved by two Democrat senators who in my opinion are among the worst. When I saw that he got approved by those two men, I said pull it because he can't be any good.

UNKNOWN: So, you want him fired? You want him out?

TRUMP: Yes, I want him out. Yes.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Well, just two hours later, a person who's familiar with the matter told CNN that Siebert told his staff he will be stepping down.

With me now, former federal prosecutor Gene Rossi, who was a former assistant U.S. attorney in the Eastern District of Virginia.

Gene, you served at the EDVA.

GENE ROSSI, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: For one time.

COATES: What's your reaction to this tonight?

ROSSI: I have three comments. I'm going to talk about a wall, EDVA, and Mr. Siebert. What bothers me and disturbs me is there is no more a wall between the White House and the Department of Justice. For many years, especially under Garland, even under the Bush administration and the first Bush administration, there was a wall where the White House would try to be independent from the decision making of the Justice Department.

Let's talk about EDVA. There are 94 U.S. attorney's offices. I worked in EDVA, which is the most special among the special offices in my humble view. It is the creme de la creme. It is a first among equals. It has the CIA issues. It has the Pentagon. It is a treasure trove of national security issues.

So the U.S. attorney of that district, which is a premier district where I worked for 20 years, seven of them, Mr. Siebert, you have to have somebody that is purer than Caesar's wife, has integrity and a moral compass.

Let me talk about Erik Siebert. I worked with him, as I said, for seven years from 2010 to 2016. We consulted a little bit on immigration, on drug trafficking, organized crime cases. I can say this categorically. There is no prosecutor holding a U.S. attorney post as of yesterday who had more integrity, more moral fiber, and more integrity and courage than Mr. Siebert.

And when Trump fired him and he essentially was fired. He didn't resign. When he did that today, what he has done is he's just crashed that wall. And why? He wants Comey prosecuted. He wants Letitia James. He wants Adam Schiff and Lisa Cook. And Mr. Siebert, Erik Siebert said, I can't do that because the evidence is not there.

COATES: Well, let's talk about that because if he is indeed not going to any longer serve, as we were told he may not. Anyone coming next, if the evidence is not there, the evidence is not there. What would be different, and there's somebody else that would give people the confidence that this would be a just and substantiated charge if it ever comes about.

ROSSI: Here's the question that's going to be posed to the next U.S. attorney for the EDVA, Eastern District. Are you going to prosecute Jim Comey? Are you going to prosecute Letitia James, Lisa Cook and Adam Schiff? And if the answer is no, they're not going to be appointed.

COATES: And of course, they couldn't answer that question without having --

ROSSI: Of course.

COATES: -- evidence and --

ROSSI: Yes.

COATES: -- knowledge of what's actually there. So that does not bode well for the integrity of any investigations, forthcoming.

ROSSI: Absolutely. They're putting a cart before the horse. You can't charge somebody before you do an investigation. And you can't charge somebody with weak evidence. And what the president and the White House want to do is the things that you're taught as a prosecutor not to do.

I got to end with this or add this. Outside the office of the Attorney General of the United States, etched in the rotunda, is the greatest quote of all time. Quote, "the United States wins its point when justice is done its citizens in the courts," unquote. That is the moral compass, the North Star of every federal prosecutor and U.S. attorney in the land. And Erik Siebert had that North Star and now he's gone.

COATES: Well, then we are all disoriented by that fact. We'll see this ends up.

Gene Rossi, thank you so much.

Still ahead, Alex Acosta described as evasive, defensive, and he faced hours of questions about the sweetheart deal he gave to Jeffrey Epstein. Tonight, what he said that some of Epstein's survivors stunned.

[23:40:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: It was the deal of a lifetime. The 2008 Jeffrey Epstein plea deal I'm talking about. It's the deal that allowed him to serve just 13 months in a county jail, allowed him to leave that jail nearly every day, and gave Epstein any potential co-conspirators as well immunity from any further federal prosecution. You know, it's the so- called sweetheart deal. And the U.S. attorney at the heart of it was on Capitol Hill today.

[23:45:01]

Alex Acosta testifying for six hours before the House Oversight Committee. The chairman of that committee, Republican James Comer, says Acosta cooperated. But Democrats, they weren't satisfied.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. SUHAS SUBRAMANYAM (D-VA): He was very defiant and it was just striking the lack of remorse.

REP. MELANIE STANSBURY (D-NM): When asked if he had directly reviewed the evidence itself in this case, he said that he had not actually read the statements of the victims.

REP. DAVE MIN (D-CA): I found him to be completely non-credible as a witness. His answers were evasive, they obfuscated and they were just not believable.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Joining me now, former state attorney for Palm Beach County, Dave Aronberg. I'm also joined by Epstein survivor Marina Lacerda. She was known as minor victim One in Epstein's 2019 indictment.

Marina, Dave, welcome back. I want to begin with you, please, Marina, because Democrats on the committee, they describe Acosta's testimony today as evasive, unremorseful. They say Acosta testified that he did not actually read victim statements and quote, "didn't get into the minutiae of this case." What's your reaction to that?

MARINA LACERDA, EPSTEIN SURVIVOR: You know, I really can't believe that he would defend the plea deal that he should be apologizing to us. Because of that deal that he has made, Jeffrey Epstein was free within two years. As soon as he got out of jail, he started abusing girls again. He was abusing girl while he was on work release.

And if Alexa Acosta had done the right thing and prosecuted Epstein the same way any other pedophile would have been prosecuted in America, then he could have saved hundreds of girls. To know that he could have saved so many girls from being abused and instead of apologizing, he defends the deal. I really can't believe this is happening.

I know Epstein signed Acosta's deal in September 2007. The FBI contacted me in 2008. How can they let Epstein sign that deal and get away with sexually abusing so many girls when they had evidence that the same thing that was happening to me in New York was happening here?

You know when the FBI came to me in 2008, I was living with my friend who's also a survivor today and the same thing that was happening to us there was happening to the girls here. You know, if the FBI had just asked me one question, they would have uncovered 40 more, you know, victims in New York. How can Acosta defend this?

COATES: It's stomach-turning and heartbreaking, Dave, just hear about what she's describing. Dave, I want to ask you because you and I, both prosecutors, the idea of a U.S. attorney agreeing or overseeing this kind of a plea deal, but then saying not reading victim statements. He stood by the deal, as Marina has talked about. He stood by it nonetheless, saying there were evidentiary issues and there was consensus within the office to pursue this plea.

Can you try to illuminate on what he might be referencing? Are we talking about credibility? Are we talking about something was missing in the burden of proof? Because if those two concerns were there, one would think you wouldn't even offer a plea in the first place.

DAVE ARONBERG, FORMER STATE ATTORNEY, PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA: Laura, it was a different time back then. And back then under Florida law, an underage girl who was taking money in exchange for sex acts was seen as a prostitute, a criminal. Thankfully, things have changed and now laws have changed and our understanding of these things have changed. And so they are rightly seen as victims.

So perhaps he was referring to the fact that the law was not ideal back then, but make no mistake, the fact that the feds came in is because they were dissatisfied with the way that the state attorney's office, my old office, was handling the case. Mind you, this happened well before I ever got to that office.

So they were on notice that there was an issue. They were on notice and they came in to try to fix things because the police chief of Palm Beach went to the feds to say, we don't like what's going on at the state level. You need to come in and fix this. So they were on notice that there was a problem. And so for them now to say, well, I didn't read through it or evidentiary issues or witness issues really does boggle the mind. COATES: If I'm not mistaken on this point, Dave. It suggested that

Acosta was saying, had he known, for example, that the state would have allowed for work release or other conditions that point to the idea of the sweetheart deal you've been describing, then they never would have handed the case to the states. He's implying that. Do you buy it?

[23:49:55]

ARONBERG: Well, remember, what was unusual about the plea deal was that the feds came in to try to fix it, and instead they allowed Epstein to plea to state charges.

COATES: Right.

ARONBERG: I've never seen, right? I've never seen federal prosecutors, Laura, have a plea deal with a defendant on state charges. And then there's the question of why did they enter into a non-prosecution agreement that included immunity for all co-conspirators known and unknown?

COATES: Marina, I want to go back to you on this because, you know, members of the committee revealed that Acosta said the victims did not seem fully credible and could have been impeached in court, a fancy way of saying, I'm going to try to prove that you're lying.

We heard from the FBI director earlier in the week as well, seeming to suggest there was a credibility issue about survivors. What is your response to this pattern now?

LACERDA: It's honestly unbelievable when people say we're not credible. It's a joke. That we've been through is a hoax. I can't believe people were saying this. We're sitting here on public television choosing to relieve -- we're not choosing to relieve our trauma out here. It's not easy. And I'm going to tell you one thing, the only reason why we're doing this is because the truth matters. Okay.

We're sharing our story so that change can happen and yet people still call us fake. It's disheartening and frankly it's insulting. If people like Kash Patel and Alex Acosta think we're not credible, think we're hoax, think we're actors that are getting paid, then let's meet. Let's sit down, let's have a real conversation. I have information to share and I know I'm not the only one.

COATES: Really important.

LACERDA: Every survivor who's come forward has something important to say. They have a story. Okay. So, if you want to know what's real, if you want to know the truth, then meet with us. I feel like a lot of people have met with us in the past few weeks. Look us in the eye and that's all we're asking for. Give us the time. And we don't -- we're not asking for a lot of time. We're asking some of your time.

COATES: Sounds like it's the least that someone can do for what you've been through. Marina Lacerda, Dave Aronberg, thank you both so much. LACERDA: Thank you.

ARONBERG: Thank you, Laura.

COATES: Up next, meet the former crime reporter who is now on special assignment.

[23:55:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: Before we go tonight, this week's CNN hero is an Indiana woman and former crime reporter helping inmates improve their lives through creative writing. Meet Debra Des Vignes.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DEBRA DES VIGNES, FORMER CRIME REPORTER: But when sheriff SWAT team members arrived at the home, no one was found inside.

I was a television news reporter and I covered crime. I didn't really understand humanity as I should have as a young reporter in my early 20s. It wasn't until much later that the faces had stories and had names.

I decided to volunteer in a prison because I was always inquisitive and curious about their stories.

UNKNOWN: And this is one more reminder that it makes a difference.

DES VIGNES: I saw the raw talent and that's what led me to create this 12-week creative writing curriculum.

UNKNOWN: I was convicted of dealing in a narcotic and dealing marijuana. I pretty much grew up on the streets. I lost my mother, my father, my sister, and my brother. And came to a crossroads and had to make decision whether I was going to use that as fuel to do better.

DES VIGNES: Thank you for sharing that. Yes, I know that was heartfelt. We never excuse what they've done. In fact, a lot of them write about their remorse. We're just giving them a sacred space where they can let their shoulders down.

UNKNOWN: Eventually though, I began to confront my grief with a clear mind and an open heart, accepting the fact that no matter what I did or who I hurt, nothing was going to bring my brother back from the dead.

UNKNOWN: I look forward to my Friday afternoons more than most days. People just let their souls bleed out of their pens onto that paper. And for two hours a day, everyone can just truly be themselves. And we're like a little small-knit family here. I plan on going into college and majoring in psychology when I get out. So, I feel like this is a huge step towards that.

DES VIGNES: This is going to make me tear up. We'll end on that one. That was really powerful.

Some people would think it's a lock them up and throw away the key. If a lot of these prisoners are going to be released, then why not use writing as a tool to become better in the space that you're in.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: To learn more about Debra's work, go to cnn.com/heroes.

Hey, thank you all for watching. Anderson Cooper 360 is next and I'll see you all tomorrow for a CNN concert event. I'll be hosting Farm Aid 40 along with John Berman. Don't miss performances by Willie Nelson, Neil Young, Bob Dylan, Dave Matthews and more. That's tomorrow at 7 p.m. Eastern, right here on CNN.

[00:00:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)