Return to Transcripts main page
Laura Coates Live
Trump Demands $230 Million Settlement From DOJ For Past Cases; Shutdown Ties Records For Second-Longest As Workers Feel The Pain; Virginia Giuffre Shares New Details About Epstein's Inner Circle; GOP About To Pick Up Another Win In Redistricting Battle. Aired 11p-12a ET
Aired October 21, 2025 - 23:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
DR. CORNEL WEST, AUTHOR: I come from a great Black people who've been hated for 400 years and teaching the world so much about love.
ABBY PHILLIP, CNN ANCHOR AND SENIOR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: Simple and beautiful. Go ahead.
SCOTT JENNINGS, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, FORMER SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH, SALEM RADIO HOST: Very simple. I brought my sign.
UNKNOWN: Oh.
JENNINGS: In in one week, one week from today. My sign is "go order Abby's book." You get it in a week. I know it's hard to sell your own book. I'm doing it right now.
PHILLIP: Thank you, Scott.
JENNINGS: I'm going to sell it for you. In one week, if you care about national political affairs, buy Abby's book.
(LAUGHTER)
I'm going to order it today, and it'll be here a week from today.
PHILLIP: All right.
JENNINGS: That's the sign.
PHILLIP: Thank you, Scott. Everyone, thank you very much. Thanks for watching "NewsNight." "Laura Coates Live" starts right now.
(LAUGHTER)
LAURA COATES, CNN HOST: Tonight, President Trump demanding $230 million bucks from, well, taxpayer wallet. Why? His grudges. The conflict of interest you'd be hard pressed to find even in illegal drama. But can he legally do it? It'll surprise you.
Plus, a Jeffrey Epstein survivor sends a message to the world: Don't be fooled. Virginia Giuffre's new memoir is out, and it is reigniting questions about who knew what. And more and more workers feel the squeeze from the government shutdown, prompting many people to ask, why isn't anyone actually talking? Tonight on "Laura Coates Live."
All right, forget payback is a bitch. Payback is a taxpayer. Yes, I'm talking about you. Us, really, because it may be your, our, we money, the American taxpayers' money that pays President Trump for something he sees as a years-long injustice against him.
Read it right here, straight from "The New York Times." Trump said to demand Justice Department pay him $230 million for past cases. Yes, you're reading and hearing that correctly. Trump no longer wants figurative payback, he wants literal payback.
It is the same DOJ that investigated him in the first place that may end up facilitating the writing of that check. A DOJ now stacked to the brim with people who have been loyal to him, some of whom actually stood by Trump or were his allies' red counsel in court.
But let me cut to the chase, people, because I know you are wondering the very thing that everyone is. It's one thing and one thing only. Your question, I'm guessing. Can he do it? The short answer is yes. Yes, he can. Yes, you can sue the federal government, and people do it every single day. And yes, they can decide to settle with you. They also do that every day.
You know what is very different here and you do not see every day, every year, every decade, every presidential term? The person doing it as the president of the United States. Now, technically, he was not the current president when he started this action. So, let me tell you exactly what we're talking about.
The Times says that Trump filed what are called administrative claims before he was reelected to the presidency. The first was in 2023, allegedly seeking damages over the Russia investigation. Now, the second was in summer of 2024, and that one, apparently, accuses the FBI of violating Trump's privacy in the Mar-a-Lago search for classified documents.
Now, again, another surprise for you. There are actually mechanisms where Trump can ask for this money. The Times published one of those claims, filed under what's called Federal Tort Claims Act. It basically lets people try to get compensation from the government when federal employees, including law enforcement, commit wrongful acts. So that happens. And these claims, as you can imagine, are very hard to prove because the government doesn't want to let go of its money, even if it's yours.
And there are big carve-outs for decisions that come down to policy choices they're making or discretionary judgments that come from the top. In other words, you don't get paid for just being investigated. It's kind of part of the due process. If a claim is actually granted, any payments would come out of taxpayer dollars and resources. But not as if it's the DOJ coming up with the money for this sole purpose.
The president did seem to allude to the idea that these claims were in the universe just last week.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: I have a lawsuit that was doing very well. And when -- when I became president, I said, I'm sort of suing myself. I don't know. How do you settle the lawsuit? I'll say give me X dollars, right? And I don't know what to do with the lawsuit. It's a great lawsuit. And now, I won, it sorts of looks bad. I'm suing myself, right?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Right. Now, despite what Trump is saying, these aren't actually technically lawsuits.
[23:05:01]
At least not yet. Because administrative claims often become lawsuits if the DOJ rejects a settlement. Here's the thing. It probably won't get to that point. You might not know if it does anyway because it doesn't necessarily happen for thousands of other cases where they do settle before a lawsuit.
Because guess who needs to sign off on any settlement? It could be one of two people. And you know what? Both of those people have something in common. They have directly represented President Trump or his allies. The first is the number two at the DOJ, Deputy A.G. Todd Blanche. He was, of course, Trump's former personal attorney from his New York hush money trial. The second is the chief of the DOJ's civil division, his name, Stanley Woodward, Jr., who represented a Trump aide and co-defendant in the classified documents case.
And this is why there are questions about whether they should do this, not just can they, but should they, and is it ethical? I mean, you talk about a legal house of mirrors at the DOJ. I mean, Trump could have cleared himself of all these conflicts the moment he became president again. He could have, he could have abandoned the claims he raised when he was civilian Trump, but he's choosing not to. And tonight, he's saying that he's going to give the money if it comes to charity, not to line his pockets.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: I don't know what the numbers are. I don't even talk to them about it. All I know is that they would owe me a lot of money. But I don't -- I'm not looking for money. I'd give it to charity or something. I would give it to charity.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: To a charity where technically, taxpayers would be the donors. Also, what charity did he say? Would it matter to you out there which one it was? Well, there are a few people who know what goes on in Trump's world, who know better than my next guest. I can't think of one than with the president's longtime fixer. He went to prison over the hush money payments to Stormy Daniels.
And with me now, Michael Cohen. You know, he's the host of the real "Michael Cohen" on Substack, also the host of the "Mea Culpa" podcast. He joins us now. Michael, I'm so glad you're here because --
MICHAEL COHEN, FORMER DONALD TRUMP'S ATTORNEY: Hey, Laura.
COATES: -- you've got a lot of insight into the mindset of Donald Trump when it's about not as the money, as he's talking about, but the principle behind it.
COHEN: Uh-hmm.
COATES: I mean, this is a relatively small amount of money for Trump compared to the 1.6 billion bucks in assets that Trump holds, according to his financial disclosure form. So, it's not the money he's looking for, right? What is he looking for?
COHEN: He's looking for vindication. And, you know, as I was listening to your opening, you're exactly correct, Laura, because there are two aspects in this case that need consideration. The first is whether he can. And the second aspect is whether he should.
Because legally, legally, Donald Trump's claim, and it's filed as a notice of claim against the Justice Department, is meritorious. He has every right within which to file that notice of claim because when the investigations began, as you rightfully stated, he was a private citizen. And as a private citizen, when the government does wrong by you, you are entitled to seek damages if they acted improperly or if they caused measurable harm.
COATES: You had experience here.
COHEN: I sure do because I brought the same action. Under the Federal Tort Claims Act, the government can be held liable for these wrongful actions, right? Even though that the bar to prove it, as you also said, is extremely high.
But then the second aspect is whether or not he should because what makes this moment extraordinary is that Trump now leads the very department that's going to be reviewing the case. And again, to talk about what you were just asking, this is a very rare collision of law --
COATES: Uh-hmm.
COHEN: -- of power, and personal vindication that will ultimately reshape how justice is measured when, and I heard this quote from somebody, when the governed becomes the governor. And that's the problem here. It's not so much about the dollar amount.
My reading of the -- of the document was that Trump spent over the period of time, and it includes the Russia hoax, approximately $130 million, which he wants back. The hundred million additional is punitive damages. And again, it's whether or not he can. The answer to that is yes. Any American citizen can. And the second aspect, of course, whether he should.
[23:10:01] COATES: And, of course, the settlement that could be confirmed or approved by the DOJ, you know, they don't have to settle for that full amount. That's what settlements can do. You can negotiate sometimes the price of this, obviously.
COHEN: Correct.
COATES: But it's the idea of who. You talked about the governed and the governed, the two lawyers I'm talking about who would be in a position to stamp this.
(LAUGHTER)
Yes. I mean, they were part of a council team number one. And number two, they serve at the pleasure, essentially, of the president of the United States. And so, you'd be hard pressed to find someone truly objective in that same capacity who could say, you know what? This is not meritorious. We're not going to approve this settlement.
Is that what you mean about how this could set a foundational precedent that could change the way these cases are evaluated or is Trump so uniquely situated here, Michael Cohen, that this won't happen again?
COHEN: Well, let me say, I don't believe this ever will happen again. What was the likelihood that an individual who was running for the presidency a second time that was under investigation, rightfully or as President Trump will say, wrongfully, ultimately becomes president of the United States again? And the answer is it's infinitesimally small.
So, this probably will never happen again. But right now, we have to deal with the issue, and the issue is there is a claim, which ultimately will be turned into a lawsuit should President Trump and his counsel elect to do so.
But here's the problem that we have also. As you may recall, I brought an action against the Department of Justice, Bill Barr, and a series of individuals for violating my First Amendment constitutional rights.
COATES: Uh-hmm.
COHEN: And ultimately, what happened is it was determined by a court that pursuant to the Dobbs decision, which overturned Bivens, which was how you would be compensated when they violate your constitutional rights, first, you have to show that your constitutional rights were violated.
COATES: Uh-hmm.
COHEN: My specific case, Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein said so, federal court judge said so. Now, it goes to the other part. Well, right before, several months before my case was heard by the appellate court, there was a case called Egbert that basically destroyed Bivens, unless it's of the most unusual circumstance --
COATES: Uh-hmm.
COHEN: -- which I believe I was. And, by the way, so did the judges. However, they still, meaning the Supreme Court, refused to hear my case, which brings me to the point that you just brought up. Will this case ever make it to the courts or will the DOJ ultimately settle with Donald Trump on this? Even if they settle for a dollar, it is a major victory on his behalf.
COATES: And, you know, I want to underscore this point.
COHEN: And people will say, well, why would a dollar be --
COATES: Well --
COHEN: -- why would a dollar be a big victory for him? Because it is vindication that the Russia hoax and all of those that are worth involved, some of whom are now being indicted, that Donald Trump was correct and they were wrong.
COATES: I want to underscore the point, Michael, for people out there, that the idea that the DOJ would have the potential authority to settle this case before a lawsuit begins might make it totally unreviewable later by a higher court. I mean, a settlement in and of itself that the parties are not agreed and don't want to change anything and have no issue with it. The courts can kind of say themselves, well, why are you asking me now? Everyone seems to be fine about this. There's not that longstanding presidential value for them to actually create. That's an important point.
But let me ask you something else because he's talking about charity and he's talking about --
COHEN: By the way, that again assumes -- that assumes something, Laura.
COATES: Yeah.
COHEN: That assumes that this case even goes to court --
COATES: Yes.
COHEN: -- and doesn't end up settling out.
COATES: That's -- that's the point I'm making. They would be unrevealed because the settlement would actually happen and preclude even the idea of a lawsuit.
Let me turn to the idea here of what's happening in the White House, the construction efforts that are happening at the White House. Um, he's talking about charity. Maybe it goes to charity, maybe it doesn't, maybe it goes to charity of the ballroom. I don't know what the charity is. I do know that he talks a lot about building this ballroom. And we've seen the demolition begin of the East Wing for a ballroom. Why do think he is doing this?
COHEN: Well, he's obviously looking to leave his mark on this presidency.
COATES: I think Trump got --
COHEN: But this is only --
COATES: -- the number of marks on presidencies. This is a physical one. I hear your point. But he left his mark, my friend. He left his mark.
COHEN: Yes, but multiple physical.
[23:14:55]
I mean, we're now talking about not just the East Wing with this new ballroom, but you also are in discussions about the Arc de Trump, which is to mirror the Arc de Triomphe in Paris. On top of that, there are right now House resolutions within which to place his image on Mount Rushmore. Moreover, you have the two-sided coin, the commemorative coin. There are many aspects of this presidency that will ultimately be, let's just say, a very significant branding mark for the Trump family name should these issues end up coming to fruition.
COATES: We will see. Michael Cohen, thank you so much.
COHEN: Always good to see you, Laura.
COATES: Me, too. Ahead, much more analysis on all of this. We've got Elliot Williams here on set with me to run us through what happens next. Plus -- quote -- "Don't be fooled." That's Virginia Giuffre's warning coming straight from her memoir that's out today. We've read the book, we have dug through the allegations, and we'll tell you what fallout could come next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:20:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: So, you just heard one perspective about why President Trump is filing this $230 million claim against the DOJ, which he has a legal right to do. Is there a legal rationale behind his request? And what happens next?
Let's bring in CNN legal analyst Elliot Williams. Elliot, I'm glad you're here because everyone wants to know if Trump is entitled to be able not only to do the actual suit, but to get a financial settlement if there was no trial, no verdict. What do you think?
ELLIOT WILLIAMS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: Everyone, and Michael Cohen had said this before, everyone is entitled to their rights, and that sometimes involves filing claims and even lawsuits when you've been wronged by the government. No one is entitled to win and no one is entitled to money. The big question here is, was the government's behavior negligent or wrongful? And if it is, of course, the party is entitled to recover. But the mere fact of charges being brought against someone, the mere fact of even investigations or even uncomfortable investigations aren't necessarily a sign that the government is behaving in negligent or wrongful way, and that's what's going to be tricky here.
COATES: I hear negligence. I think damages always. What is the damage that you suffered to be able to quantify what you're asking for? And some people would say, well, I mean, you still won the presidency of the United States --
WILLIAMS: Yeah.
COATES: -- in spite of what you believe were malicious actions against you. How do you quantify damages when that may have been the result?
WILLIAMS: And moreover, one of the big things he's talking about is the invasion of his privacy that occurred during --
COATES: Right.
WILLIAMS: -- the Mar-a-Lago search, the search of his home for documents. Everyone who has ever searched under every search warrant in America has their privacy invaded. So, you have to do a little bit of mental gymnastics here to find that the mere fact of having been searched is itself problematic.
Now, again, the president and many people around him believed that the very enterprise was stacked against him and that all the investigations were faulty or twisted or wrong or whatever else. You know, a court can sort that out.
COATES: So, how do you distinguish between people who say, look, I didn't want you to search my home, the home is my castle, and I don't think you had any right to or the investigation didn't lead anywhere and I'm left with my home in shambles, reputational losses?
WILLIAMS: Yeah.
COATES: What's my standard?
WILLIAMS: Investigations don't always lead anywhere. The question is, did prosecutors have a basis for searching? Did investigators have a basis for searching? Did they have at least probable cause to believe there was evidence of a crime there? Now, I would say --
COATES: They got a warrant.
WILLIAMS: They had a warrant and, quite frankly, they had criminal charges brought against the president, at least for Mar-a-Lago. Russia was a far more complicated, far more fraught and political investigation. But Mar-a-Lago, you had a court signing off on charges and quite compelling charges that were brought against the president regardless of the political backdrop behind all of it. So --
COATES: A political investigation or political implications. That has been the great debate about Russia, of course, right?
WILLIAMS: Right.
COATES: The DOJ, you know, has people who were appointed, who were his counsel.
WILLIAMS: Yeah.
COATES: You know, Todd Blanche, for example. You had, I think, Walt Nauta as the head of --
WILLIAMS: Yes.
COATES: -- the civil division as well. Walt Nauta being his, you know, co-defendant.
WILLIAMS: His lawyer. His lawyer.
COATES: His lawyer. Not Walt -- not Walt Nauta. Yes, his lawyer as the person who heads the civil division in this instance. The fact that these two are potentially those who could sign off on a settlement, what does this process look like?
WILLIAMS: There's one way this process should work, Laura, and that is for the president to wait until January 20th or 21st. What is it? It would be 2029 and once he's not president anymore. There are -- this is a minefield of potential ethics questions based on the things you've identified there. Number one, his former attorneys being the ones who are going to be assessing.
But even setting that aside, he's a president of the United States and the Justice Department that he oversees will be determining whether to assign a quarter of a billion dollars to him.
There are so many questions and conflicts and potential ethical issues that could be just resolved if he said, wait a second, time out, I might have a claim here, but after I'm president, we can resolve that. And certainly, the Justice Department could honor that, but it just seems preposterous to have them weighing in right now given -- and even setting aside the question of who they are, the fact they were his attorneys, the mere fact that he's president just sort of makes it smell sort of bad.
COATES: And, by the way, it would toll. Now that he's the president, he could say, I want to bring this later. It wouldn't run some sort of limitations period?
[23:25:01]
WILLIAMS: None of us knows.
COATES: Oh, we're in the wild, wild west.
WILLIAMS: We're in the wild, wild west. I think nobody knows. Now, I think he would go to a court and say, it is not practical to have the Justice Department weighing on this for president. And I think a smart court would agree with that. It just doesn't. We are in such uncharted territory with this one. It's so bizarre. It's hard to see where it goes.
COATES: You mentioned ethics. I think Bondi fired the top ethics advisor --
WILLIAMS: Yes.
COATES: -- at the DOJ earlier this year. So, we'll see what the prospective one will say. Elliot Williams, thank you so much.
Up next, we've got a lot more ahead. The shutdown is now tied for the second longest shutdown ever. And the reality is things are not getting done. People are losing their jobs. And no one is watching. I'll talk with a business owner hit particularly hard with economic hardships and a Democratic congressman next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:30:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: Right now, Democratic Senator Jeff Merkley is on the Senate floor. He has been speaking for five hours, protesting Trump's grave threat to democracy while there are a total stalemate happening on Capitol Hill. And the government shutdown enters now its fourth week. By the way, no one is talking to anyone. The House is not in session. Senators have failed 11 times to reopen the government.
But in a unified front, Senate Republicans visiting the White House for lunch today when the president said, sure, he'd meet with Democrats, but --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: I would like to meet with both of them. But I said one little caveat. I will only meet if they let the country open. They have to let the country open. The people want to go back to work. They want to be served. They want to -- they need the services of some people. And a lot of people need the money, the payroll. So, I'll do it as soon as they open up the country.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Pennsylvania Democratic Senator John Fetterman says he's frustrated.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. JOHN FETTERMAN (D-PA): It's Groundhog Day, you know. And I'm just saying -- and it -- and it's not entertaining. That's a great movie, but this is (bleep). And now -- it's like now, real damage is going to -- are now touching the lives of -- of regular Americans. And we all lose. And it's embarrassing to -- to our -- to our allies and to our enemies abroad. (END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: And the damage to regular Americans is real. As Republicans are dining on, well, apparently, cheeseburgers at the White House, furloughed federal workers are lining up in Maryland for food donations.
And the economic hardship extends far beyond that because the private sector is also feeling the pain, like my next guest, Brandon Muniz. He is the CEO of HeiTech Services, a company that relies on government contracts and has faced steep hardships with federal funding cuts this year, coupled now with this government shutdown. Brandon, thank you for being here. I really want to understand what your company does and how much do you rely on government contracts such that you have faced this hardship.
BRANDON MUNIZ, CEO, HEITECH SERVICES: Yeah. Thank you for having me, Laura. This is an interesting time, for sure. As you mentioned, it's not just the shutdown itself, but it's everything that led up to the shutdown with contracts being delayed and the DOGE cuts.
So, all of those different factors factor into small businesses like mine, service disabled veteran-owned businesses. It was founded over 26 years ago by the first woman from Minnesota to graduate the Naval Academy, an incredible leader. And we provided government services in the IT sector for over 26 years. So, these government shutdowns really do impact our workforce.
COATES: I'm glad you talked about the context and the lead up because it's so important to understand. But you've also had to already furlough I think 25 employees. And I don't see an end in sight right now to reopen the government. If this goes on for an extended period of time, what are you going to do?
MUNIZ: So, this is unfortunate. The government typically in the past has always opened up. And then with the federal workers that are able to get back paid, but with small businesses like ours, we don't get the back pay for that time. So, it really does damage.
Over the last 26 years, I mean, we've always adapted to new administration. So, we're going to get through this. But it is difficult because each one of those people who are furloughed are people who have families, and many of them are married to either government employees or other contractors. So, if they're missing out on paychecks, then that could be -- the impact could be exponential at times.
COATES: Hmm. Your company's clients, they include farmers, operators of seasonal attractions, seafood processors. I understand you can't process green card applications or work visas. Walk me through this domino effect that this has, not just on your business, but on these other sectors of the economy.
MUNIZ: Yes. So, our -- I like to say that our company is made up of missionaries and not mercenaries. And that's because they really believe in the work that they do, whether it's helping people with disabilities through the National Disability Archive or whether it's on the FDA side processing medical devices or, as you said, on the immigration side.
They truly believe in the work that they're doing, protecting the country through the immigration system and allowing a legal path to citizenship for those immigrants who are going through the process.
[23:35:02]
My wife is a Brazilian immigrant as well, so we've been through that process. And it's frustrating when there's delays. But also, when those workers are not able to work, it impacts the morale and make it impact their families as well.
COATES: So important to hear this. Brandon Muniz, thank you so much for telling us.
MUNIZ: Thank you, Laura.
COATES: The shutdown essentially shutting down Congress with Speaker Johnson saying he doesn't see the point in bringing back the House until the Senate votes to reopen the government, and that is keeping Congress from doing their duties as representatives of the constituents.
Joining me now is Democratic congressman from Washington, Adam Smith, who serves as the ranking member on the House Armed Services Committee. Congressman, welcome. Thank you for being here. I mean, people are very frustrated. Uh, they've seen this movie before. Something feels different this time in terms of the longevity and the expectation that this might not be resolved any time soon.
Today, Trump called Democrats obstructionists at a luncheon with Republican senators on the Rose Garden patio. He has given conditions about meeting if the government reopens first. What's your response?
REP. ADAM SMITH (D-WA): Well, I mean, first of all, how can we obstruct a group of people who won't talk to us --
(LAUGHTER)
-- won't negotiate? We've had shutdowns before. I've been there for many of them. Congress always stayed open. The House always continued to work. It was particularly important to work when we couldn't agree on extending the budget. That was the time we needed to negotiate, we needed to talk. What the Republicans are saying is, no, you have to accept our budget, period. You know, we're not -- we're not going to negotiate with you.
Meanwhile, on November 4th -- sorry, November 1st, November 4th is Election Day, November 1st, health care co-ops are going to go through the ceiling. And we, as Democrats, said we need to do something about that. And so now we'll talk about it on November 21st, after it all happens. And they will not negotiate, even as millions of people are going to see their health care go up. And for Speaker Johnson to shut down the United States House of Representatives, to refuse to appoint the member of Congress elected from Arizona, I mean, this is obstruction of democracy. Democracy is we get together and we negotiate.
But also, in addition to the health care problem, Donald Trump, as Brandon just mentioned, had been doing this long before October 1st, long before the shutdown. DOGE had fired hundreds of thousands of employees, frozen hundreds of billions of dollars in programs, illegally disrupted business all over the place, and that is another issue that we Democrats want to see addressed.
What Republicans want is they want us to simply vote to continue Donald Trump's budget and Donald Trump's government. And we got a whole series of very legitimate objectives. Now, if they want our votes, come talk. Let's negotiate. Otherwise, they ought to just do it with Republican votes.
COATES: Health care, very significant, but one of many issues --
SMITH: Yes.
COATES: -- facing constituents. And I -- I'm curious. As the ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee, how is this shutdown directly impacting your ability to investigate, have hearings, find out information about areas that are even outside of that health care realm?
SMITH: Well, with Congress not in session, we are not meeting as a committee. We're not doing oversight. But keep in mind, the Trump administration and the secretary of defense, Secretary Hegseth, and this DOD have utterly frozen out Congress. They are not being transparent. They are not communicating with us, certainly about the strikes that are going on off the coast of Venezuela. They have basically frozen Congress out. Look, this whole thing --
COATES: And you can't have these hearings then. You've asked for hearings about what --
SMITH: Well --
COATES: -- was going on in the Caribbean, these strikes.
SMITH: We can't have hearings where we're not in session --
COATES: Right.
SMITH: -- but they weren't even having the hearings before that to honestly do oversight. And, of course, Donald Trump fired all the inspector generals, all the judge advocate generals, all the ethics people who were supposed to do oversight.
I want the American people to understand, there's a thousand issues here, but it all comes back to one thing. Donald Trump wants to consolidate the power in his hands. He wants to undermine every other institution. He wants to undermine Congress, he wants to undermine the media, as we've seen with some of the lawsuits. The Pentagon has now kicked the media out --
COATES: Right.
SMITH: -- a little less. They are allowed to pre-approve the stories, the media rights about the Pentagon. Are we living in North Korea? So, this is about the consolidation of power. And the shutdown fight, yes, it is about health care, it is about the millions of people who are going to lose their health care and see their costs go up.
But it is also about democracy. It is about not allowing President Trump to disobey the law, consolidate power and ignore Congress, shut down the media, use the Justice Department to persecute his personal enemies.
COATES: Hmm.
SMITH: We need a government that lives up to the Constitution, is responsible to the American people. And at an absolute minimum, we ought to be able to talk about it. Trump and Johnson say, no, we're going home, you have to do what we say, we're not going to talk to you. As I've joked, Trump will negotiate with Hamas, but he won't negotiate with Hakeem Jeffries and Chuck Schumer.
[23:40:02]
It -- it is a challenge to the fundamentals of democracy in this country.
COATES: And the collateral damage, the American people.
SMITH: I want to be clear on that. Look, the impacts of this shutdown are devastating. So why won't Donald Trump negotiate with us? Why won't Mike Johnson bring the Congress back into session and negotiate with us to open up the government and fix this problem instead of saying, no, you have to vote for my autocratic government or I'm not going to talk to you? That's not the way this process is supposed to work.
COATES: Congressman Adam Smith, thank you for joining.
SMITH: Thanks for this chance.
COATES: Next, Virginia Giuffre's memoir has been released. But in it, she's not naming any new names. Why? I'll talk with a reporter who has been all over this story after this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: They were -- quote -- "two halves of a wicked whole."
[23:45:00]
Those are the exact words Virginia Giuffre uses to describe Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. And a brand-new book published today offering a first-hand account of the years of abuse that she says Epstein and Maxwell inflicted on her. And one thing Giuffre makes quite clear -- quote -- "Don't be fooled by those in Epstein's circle who say they didn't know what Epstein was doing." Well, tonight, Giuffre's co-author sat down with Anderson Cooper revealing what Giuffre told her just weeks before she took her own life.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
AMY WALLACE, CO-AUTHOR, "NOBODY'S GIRL" BY VIRGINIA GIUFFRE: She sent me an email about three weeks before she died, saying, in the case of my passing, I want this book published not just for me but -- but for all survivors of sexual abuse.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Joining me now, legal correspondent for Business Insider, Jacob Shamsian. He reported extensively on the Epstein case. Jacob, how are -- how damaging are the revelations that Giuffre makes in this book and is it going to increase the pressure to release the Epstein files in their entirety?
JACOB SHAMSIAN, LEGAL CORRESPONDENT, BUSINESS INSIDER: Thank you so much for having me, Laura. Well, they're definitely damaging for Jeffrey Epstein's reputation, not that it needed much of a hit. Ghislaine Maxwell looks terrible. For Prince Andrew, it's quite bad.
But the thing is it doesn't really have anything bad to say about Donald Trump, which is the thing that I think a lot of people were looking to see. And that, again, raises this question of, why is it that the Trump administration hasn't released these files given that there doesn't seem to be anything damaging out there?
COATES: You know, she described her decision not to name more abusers, whoever they may be. We do not know. But she wrote, "Partly that is because I still don't know some of their names. Partly, too, that is because there are certain men who I fear naming." What kind of pressure did she describe being under and -- and all of Epstein's accusers who have come out in the last few months as well?
SHAMSIAN: So, um, she talks in her book about some of the threats that she faced. She faced legal threats. She talks about how her lawyers were threatened, that she has to deal with litigation for the rest of her life. She'd go bankrupt. She'd be drowned by lawsuits and legal fees. So, that's one sort of thing.
She also feared physical harm. She talked about how -- one person in particular. She talks about being a victim of violent sexual abuse. She was afraid she'd be harmed by this person. And that's -- and she also, in this book, she discloses for the first time some of the physical abuse that also came from Epstein during her experience with him.
So, I think that's all -- that's all part of her mindset and part of her experience and what's informed, what she's choosing to, what she chose to disclose and not disclose.
COATES: She wrote that Epstein may have been keeping records of potentially Black male people who were in power. And she wrote -- quote -- " I don't know if that is true, but I do know that Epstein kept a huge library of videotapes that had been recorded inside his houses. In the Manhattan townhouse, Epstein himself showed me the room in which he monitored and recorded the camera feeds." Has the existence of a video library been corroborated?
SHAMSIAN: This isn't something that has come up in much of the litigation. Of course, Ghislaine Maxwell had a whole trial. There's a lot of evidence there of photos and CDs full of photos of victims. But this video library is not something that came up in that trial where there's a ton of evidence.
However, I will note that "The New York Times" published some photos from the inside of Epstein's home a few weeks ago. And in that, you can see in a bedroom, there is a camera in there that's visible in this photo.
So, I do think this is one of these open questions of what was going on with footage. None has really surfaced. You know, the Justice Department didn't bring any into evidence in the Maxwell trial. But, you know, if they have something in the FBI files or the DOJ files, that the government should release. Then, you know, that is one of the open questions.
COATES: Between Howard Lutnick's statements about Epstein being a great blackmailer, and then Pam Bondi being questioned by a senator about this, I wonder if this will lead to an investigation into this point specifically as well. Jacob Shamsian, thank you.
SHAMSIAN: Thanks for having me.
COATES: Up next, Republicans about to pick up another House seat simply by redrawing the maps. Again. So, what are Democrats going to do about it? Elie Mystal thinks they are fumbling the ball. And we'll talk about it after this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:50:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: So, first, it was Texas. Now, it's battleground North Carolina. The Republican-controlled state Senate approving new congressional maps today with the single goal in mind.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
STATE SEN. RALPH HISE (R-NC): The motivation behind this draw was to produce a new map that will bring an additional Republican seat to North Carolina's congressional delegation. Republicans hold a razor- thin margin in the United States House of Representatives. If Democrats flip four seats in the upcoming midterm elections, they will take control of the House and torpedo President Trump's agenda.
(END VIDEO CLIP) COATES: Quiet heart out loud. Hundreds of protesters rallying outside the state capitol today. But there's not much recourse for them, I should add. The maps are expected to pass the full chamber by the end of the week. And the state's Democratic governor can't veto it.
I want you look at this map closely. Both Texas and Missouri already approved new maps estimated to net six more seats for Republicans.
[23:55:04]
And plenty more red states are expected to follow. But look closely because Democrats don't have as many options to follow suit. California had to vote on Gavin Newsom's new maps this November. And that could add as many as five Democrat seats there. And that could make the world of difference in a chamber the GOP controls by just two seats.
Joining me now, justice correspondent for "The Nation," Elie Mystal. Elie, so glad you're here to unpack this. You've argued that Democrats have seriously fumbled the ball when it comes to pushing back against GOP redistricting. Explain more.
ELIE MYSTAL, JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT, THE NATION: Well, Democrats have operated with, let's say, the best of intentions. Democrats in many of the states that Democrats control, many of the blue states, they've neutered themselves by insisting on independent redistricting -- independent redistricting commissions and other kind of good government ideas to try to tamp down gerrymandering in the states that they control.
That's not how Republicans play ball. Republicans, as we're seeing in Texas, Missouri, North Carolina, Tennessee potentially, and other states, Florida for sure, they are gerrymandering their states to the absolute maximum to have total Republican control as much as they can possibly have it. Republicans understand that if everybody gets to vote fairly and everybody gets to vote in a natural district, Republicans can't win. They, as you pointed out in your open, they're saying that part out loud.
And so, they have done the work, not just in the -- in the current kind of environment, but over the past decade, over the past two decades to redistrict and gerrymander their states so that you have permanent Republican control in those states, whereas Democrats have been trying to be like, come on guys, let's do the right thing. It doesn't work that way. It's a race to the bottom. And when the Republicans are fishing at the bottom of the barrel, the Democrats are committing political malpractice when they don't do the same.
COATES: Not to mention the Supreme Court chopping parts of the Voting Rights Act and Section 2 being questioned as we speak about this very issue. I want to turn to California in particular, Elie, because former Republican governor there, Arnold Schwarzenegger, he laid out a three-step plan that he describes as the Save Democracy Act. He was on Bill Maher's show over the weekend. Listen to this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, FORMER CALIFORNIA GOVERNOR: Where we go and make Election Day a holiday, so that everyone has time to go out --
BILL MAHER, HBO POLITICAL TALK SHOW HOST: Yes.
(APPLAUSE)
SCHWARZENEGGER: -- and go to the election.
MAHER: Well, again, this is something Democrats are all for and Republicans are all against.
SCHWARZENEGGER: There's a second point.
MAHER: Okay.
SCHWARZENEGGER: You have to have fair redistricting. You have independent redistricting commission in each state all over the United States.
MAHER: Yeah.
(APPLAUSE)
SCHWARZENEGGER: And number three --
(LAUGHTER)
MAHER: They won't do it.
SCHWARZENEGGER: And number three, you have a voter I.D., so then when you go and vote --
MAHER: Sure.
SCHWARZENEGGER: -- people should know that you are that person.
MAHER: Yes.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: I mean, Elie, yeah, these have all been described before. This reminds me of my son, when he was four, said that he had invented tacos because he knew how to combine the meat and the tortillas. It was not novel then, my son. And this is not novel for the governor. And yet -- what do you think?
MYSTAL: No, look, the governator is making a plan from the 80s, right? Like this has been thought of before. There are a couple of problems with this. One, let's start with voter I.D. If you're a fan of voter I.D., you have to figure out how that's going to jibe with the Constitution and its prohibition against poll taxes. So, if you have -- if you're going to have voter I.D., it has to be easily accessible and free. That's the important thing. It has to be free for everybody so they don't have to pay an additional tax in order to vote. Now, my trade-off for voter I.D., if that's what you want, if you're going to say that that is how we know where everybody is, well, then, we need to have automatic registration. That wasn't in the governator's plan, right?
COATES: Uh-hmm.
MYSTAL: Automatic portable registration so everybody who is eligible to vote is automatically registered to vote. That's how they do it in the rest of the world for the most part.
COATES: There is some motor voter, though, right? There is some of that in some areas.
MYSTAL: You -- there is some motor voter laws where you can get registered to vote when you go get your driver's license. So, if we're going to create this whole new national voter I.D. system that's free, that everybody has to have, then that should automatically register you to vote. If you're eligible to vote and you have the I.D. to vote, then you should automatically register.
The governator's second point about the independent redistricting commissions, this is kind of what I'm saying that it's a race to the bottom. That plan only works if every single state adopts it. And you can't impose it from the federal government because the Supreme Court will say that that is a violation of state's rights.
[23:59:55]
This current Republican court will not let us mandate independent redistricting commissions across the United States because they'll say that it violates state's rights. Tennessee has a right to do whatever they want, North Carolina has a right to do whatever they want, is what John Roberts and his cabal of Republicans will say.
So, unless the governor has a plan to get around the Supreme Court to get his independent redistricting commissions, all that involves is the Democrats de-arming themselves, unilateral disarmament, while the Republicans continue to gerrymander.
COATES: It sounds like --
MYSTAL: In terms of Election Day being a holiday, sure, fine, that's great. I'm kind of more interested in making mail-in voting a little bit easier. But sure, Election Day should be a holiday. I got no problem with that.
COATES: Sounds like more than a three-point plan. Elie Mystal, thank you so much.
MYSTAL: Thanks so much for having me.
COATES: Thank you all for watching. "Anderson Cooper 360" is next.
