Return to Transcripts main page
Laura Coates Live
Supreme Court Hears Make-or-Break Tariff Case; Democrats Rebound with Election Blows to Trump; Judge Scolds DOJ for "Indict First, Investigate Second" Approach. Aired 11p-12a ET
Aired November 05, 2025 - 23:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[23:00:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SARA SIDNER, CNN ANCHOR AND SENIOR NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Before we go, a programming note. Take an intimate look at the life of New Zealand's former prime minister, Jacinda Ardern, in the new CNN film, "Prime Minister." It premieres Sunday, November 16th, at 9 p.m. It is fascinating. Nine p.m. here on CNN and the next day on the CNN app. And thank you for watching "NewsNight." "Laura Coates Live" starts right now.
LAURA COATES, CNN HOST AND SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Tonight, is the Supreme Court about to turn the terror of King into the terror of Jester? We'll take the inside of the case that could very well reshape Trump's entire term. Plus, blow out election victories for Democrats with the question, is their momentum here to stay or could Trump defy gravity yet again? And indict first, investigate second. How a judge delivered a brutal blow to the DOJ's case against James Comey. All these tonight on "Laura Coates Live."
How much power does the president have? Can he do what he wants? When he wants? Does he ever have to ask for permission from anyone? What if there is an emergency? Does your answer change? Or does it depend on what kind of emergency we're talking about? Well, then you just became a Supreme Court justice today because that's what the monumental case they heard was all about.
So, here is what you really need to know. Congress, they got the power to tax people. The president imposed widespread tariffs. He did not check with Congress first. Now, Trump says he didn't have to because it was an emergency, and he can do what he needs to do under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.
What's the emergency, you ask? The trade deficit. One problem with that, though, because the law that they're referencing doesn't actually mention that word, tariff. It says a whole bunch of other words. It says regulate, it says block, it says direct, it says compel, it says void, the importation or exportation of any property in which any foreign country of a national -- okay, enough.
Here's what it's about. If the trade deficit does not sound like an emergency to you, well, you're on the side of the people who think that his tariffs are then unconstitutional taxes. And the power to impose them, that belongs to Congress. Neal Katyal, the former acting solicitor general who has argued more than 50 cases in the Supreme Court, he put it quite succinctly. May it please the court. Tariffs are taxes.
But if the trade deficit does sound like an emergency to you, then you're on the side that says the president of the United States doesn't have to wait for Congress to give him the green light. And by the end of the two-and-a-half-hour hearing, supposed to be only 80 minutes, by the way, the Supreme Court looked like they were skeptical about an emergency, but also that tariffs weren't just taxes.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SONIA SOTOMAYOR, ASSOCIATE JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES (voice-over): It's a congressional power, not a presidential power to tax. And you want to say tariffs are not taxes, but that's exactly what they are, degenerating money from American citizens revenue.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: The solicitor general, D. John Sauer, he was in court, arguing that the court -- that the tariffs are not actually designed to raise revenue.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
D. JOHN SAUER, SOLICITOR GENERAL (voice-over): These are regulatory tariffs. They are not revenue raising tariffs. The fact that they raise revenue is only incidental.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Okay. Fast forward three hours, the president torpedoed that on camera, in public.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: At the same time, my tariffs are bringing in hundreds of billions of dollars and are helping slash the deficit this year by more than 50%.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Now, we don't know what the court is going to decide or when they'll decide it for that matter. But if they rule against the president, it would be a monumental decision, one with billions of dollars on the line that would impact millions of Americans and the entire U.S. economy. But, really, it goes back to the first question I asked you. How much power does the president have not just with -- with tariffs but matters of life or death? It was Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch, a vote that Trump would need, who raised that very issue.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) NEIL GORSUCH, ASSOCIATE JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES (voice-over): What would prohibit Congress from just abdicating all responsibility to regulate foreign commerce for that matter, declare war to the president?
SAUER (voice-over): We don't contend that he could do that if it did.
[23:05:01]
GORSUCH (voice-over): Why not?
SAUER (voice-over): Well, because we're dealing with a statute again that has a whole --
GORSUCH (voice-over): I'm not asking about the statute, general. I'm not asking about the statute. I'm asking for your theory of the Constitution.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Your theory of the Constitution Well, if anything has been made clear these last at least 11 months is that Trump's theory appears to be whatever he says it is. Now, this Supreme Court has been criticized for appearing to rubber-stamp that theory.
But there was something different in the air today. And tonight, I am joined by one of the people in the room who sensed that difference as well. He's also part of a coalition of 12 blue states that are suing President Trump to stop the tariffs.
The Democratic attorney general of Oregon, Dan Rayfield, joins me now. Welcome. Glad to have you here. I mean, this is a huge case today. When you break it down to how much power the president should or should not have and whether Congress should have other powers that he can't have, I wonder what you make of how the Supreme Court from the get-go went after that thought. Did it give you optimism that they're going to rule against these tariffs?
DAN RAYFIELD, ATTORNEY GENERAL, OREGON: The gravity of the issue was palpable in the courtroom. Um, but I don't think American people should take our word for these things. They should take Trump's lawyers' words. And what he told the justices, that they're going to raise $4 trillion. That's right, trillion dollars of revenue coming into this country. And then he said on the conservative side, Americans, all of us, are going to pay up to 30 to 80% of this money. That is not some foreign country paying these things. And I have never heard Republicans so boldly brag how they are taxing the American people.
What the justice has sensed, we as American people, we know that if you're going to tax us and you want to raise our taxes, you need to do that in a public body, you need to do it with public input, and Congress needs to vote on it because we vote for them. We don't vote for one individual to unilaterally raise a trillion dollars of our taxpayers, yank it out of our pockets. COATES: That goes back to what the Supreme Court said last year about the major questions doctrine, right? Essentially saying, if it's going to have the implications you're talking about, it's got to go through Congress, a critical branch of government, to the presidency.
But yet there's this interesting part that I keep going back to, and that is what the administration says. It's not a tax on the American people, it's a tariff on other nations to try to get the money back that we should otherwise have. They didn't buy that.
RAYFIELD: Yeah. I don't buy it either. I mean, I could sit there and tell you I'm an amazing dancer, but it doesn't make it true, right? I mean, this is what this president does. He just says things. And so, we're just stuck in this moment where I think, as Americans, we're realizing that if this case is not successful, we are giving the president tremendous amount of power to tax and increase the cost of goods across our country, up and small businesses.
COATES: But he could, anyway. I mean, this is not contingent on the Supreme Court. I mean, tariffs don't go away if the Supreme Court says the president can't do this. They're just saying if they rule that way, you can't use this mechanism, this called emergency umbrella. That's not the way you can do it. It would be a longer process, though. He could still tariff.
RAYFIELD: You bring up a really good point because you can do tariffs. Trump did tariffs in his first term, but he did them with the right statutes. This is a statute that no other president had ever used. And so, you got to ask yourself, why would the president want to do that? Because he does not like the safeguards that Congress put in place on how high the tariffs can be, how long the tariffs can go.
He doesn't like the fact that I got to find certain facts before I can implement tariffs, and that's why he took this creative approach, which also bothered the justices today.
COATES: Uh-hmm.
RAYFIELD: They asked the council, like, how come, in 50 plus years, no other president has chosen to use this? Why has every other president chosen to use the proper statutes that Congress thought about?
COATES: Well, he has talked about an emergency. And I thought there was an interesting moment with Justice Elena Kagan today, who essentially was saying, you know, if everything is an emergency, nothing is an emergency. Listen to this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ELENA KAGAN, U.S. SUPREME COURT ASSOCIATE JUSTICE (voice-over): We've had cases recently which deals with the president's emergency powers, and it turns out we're in emergencies, everything all the time about like half the world.
(END VIDEO CLIP) COATES: So, her larger point was essentially you cannot claim if it's an emergency as you end run around Congress because then, every time you wanted to say so, you could just say and use the word emergency. But what if it were an emergency, a true emergency? Would you think the Supreme Court should allow the president of the United States to do something like this to protect economic security as national security?
RAYFIELD: The president has a tremendous amount of tools at his or her disposal to be able to curb a lot of the emergencies going on. The reason why revenue raising issues like tariffs are separate and excluded is because they are taking money out of Americans' pockets. They are raising the goods.
[23:09:58]
That was one tool that we said, hey, if you want to do that, we'll give you a separate set of statutes, separate set of statutes for emergencies, national emergencies. We have separate statutes for that. We have statutes for when there is a trade imbalance. Use those, use them within these parameters.
Now, you can do other things. You want to do quotas. You want to do licenses to be able to move things in because maybe we think a product is dangerous. President has those tools under AIIPA (ph). But it's only when it comes to revenue raising, right? That is an incredibly important topic that we want public disclosure on.
COATES: Let's talk about the money for the American people because refunds came up. I don't mean tax refunds. I'm talking about the idea of what would happen if they had to pay back these tariffs.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett actually said it would be a -- quote -- "complete mess." These are her words, complete mess. And also, your lawyer, Neal Katyal, who's representing obviously the parties on that side, alleges that it would be difficult, maybe not for the particular person that was raising this claim, but more broadly.
Should refunds be a part of the decision in this instance to refund that money? And, by the way, where would it come from other than the taxpayers?
RAYFIELD: Absolutely. I mean, this is what we teach our kids. When you make a wrong, you make it right. Um, I feel pretty confident that Trump's lawyers went to him and said, hey, the way that you want to do these tariffs is a way that no other president has done it, and you probably can't do it. And they did it, anyway. And they did it in a way that is impacting Americans, whether it's our utility bills, our health care, our clothing. That's going on right now. They did it in way that's impacting our small businesses. And when you screw up, you got to make it right.
Now, the fascinating thing for me is you have them talking about hey, it's going to be real easy to give everybody these refund checks, right?
COATES: Hmm.
RAYFIELD: So, why isn't it easy to do this? Uh, here's my offer. You know, the president can make me secretary of Treasury, you know, for a period of time. I'll figure it out by the close of business day although, actually, I probably wouldn't take him up on that offer.
COATES: Well, his own was there today trying to sow the gravitas of what was going on in that census. Something tells me you're not going to be the candidate for it, but things can change. Let me ask you. Finally, say, the Supreme Court rules against these tariffs and says unconstitutional. Congress gets to do it, not you, Mr. President. What if he ignores it? It's not that can force him to repeal every tariff for these nations. What's the plan, then?
RAYFIELD: I think the fact that the president is already talking about alternatives and actually following the statutes that Congress followed is a really good sign. The fact that they are even contemplating about how they might actually compensate businesses and Americans for the money that they have unlawfully taken from them is a really good first step. So, I'm going to stay in the lane of optimism as we go through a lot of this.
And actually, it was interesting. I did talk to Bessent, had a chance encounter with him --
COATES: Hmm.
RAYFIELD: -- when we were in the courtroom. He tried to convince me that these tariffs are really good for the American treasury. And I said, well, they're coming from Americans' pocketbooks.
COATES: Hmm.
RAYFIELD: So, I think there's just a fundamental difference of opinion on, you know, sound economic theory coming out of that administration.
COATES: The ballot box seems to think so. How do you think the Democrats are going to leverage this decision that might be forthcoming with the ballots?
RAYFIELD: I think yesterday told us one thing, that the candidates that were talking about economic issues that Americans are feeling every single day were incredibly successful.
And you have an administration right now that is out of touch with the American people. They are taking away food assistance. They're yanking back health care. At the same time, they are pursuing devastating economic policies that have a regressive impact on Americans that need money in their pockets, and they're increasing the cost of things.
That is not how you win elections, and that's why Democrats right now who are pivoting and talking about these commonsense economic issues are winning.
COATES: We'll see if there's a win in the Supreme Court. Dan Rayfield, thank you for being here.
RAYFIELD: Thank you.
COATES: Up next, we're talking about David versus Goliath with this case. And you're going to meet the David. The toymaker who had the courage to sue the president and make today possible, he's here. And Democrats feeling like they've got their groove back after those big election wins. But might the party be at risk of misreading the results? You know what? Let's debate it, next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:15:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: So, who exactly is leading the charge against Trump's tariffs? Not the Fortune 500 companies, not the Silicon Valley powerhouses, not even the major retail chains either. They all decided to -- let me sit this one out. It's actually a group of small businesses who could soon upend a cornerstone of the president's economic policy, including a family-owned toy maker in Illinois, who the CEO says they're still trying to recover from these tariffs.
That company is Learning Resources, and they are the petitioners in the case, Learning Resources versus Donald J. Trump, that came before the Supreme Court today, and their CEO, Rick Woldenberg, joins me now. Rick, I'm so glad you're here. People are learning about this case in real time. They are wondering about the David versus the Goliath because so many people in these bigger companies said, hmm, somebody else, and yet you're fighting. Why did you think this was so important to make sure that these tariffs were challenged?
RICK WOLDENBERG, CEO, LEARNING RESOURCES: Well, it is an existential threat to our business. And we're also a mission-driven business. We think about that a lot. And I really just did not want -- not want to stand idly by and let someone else ruin it.
COATES: How bad have these tariffs been for your business?
[23:20:00]
WOLDENBERG: Well, we think of it as pandemic 2.0. So, it's just very disruptive. We -- it's financially disruptive. The yo-yoing around of rules is unbelievably disruptive. And we were forced with no warning because nothing came with a warning to immediately reorganize a supply chain we'd built over 40 years. We -- we originally made 3,000 different items in China and essentially received a government order, again, no advance warning, to move them all immediately. And the way that they did that is they hit us with an asphyxiating tax.
COATES: Which was what? How high compared to what you're used to?
WOLDENBERG: Well, I decided we had to sue when it went from -- uh, when it went up to 145%. In the year before, the -- the tariff rate on our business was zero. We had an average across all of our items of, like, one and a half or 2%. But China went to 145% and it was not survivable.
COATES: How much does this actually cost?
WOLDENBERG: Well, the -- the cost of 145% was being projected out based on a run rate of $100 million up from two. The amount we've actually -- we actually spent -- expect to spend in cash this year turned out to be 14 million, but everything has been very carefully metered to keep it as low as possible. That's up from zero --
COATES: Zero to 14 million?
WOLDENBERG: Yes. And -- and we haven't burned through all our inventory. So, it'll be much more next year.
COATES: If this lasts, that's devastating. Can you remain in business?
WOLDENBERG: Yeah, we'll remain in business. I'm paid to make sure we remain in business. Um, but we can't carry the load ourselves. So, we'll have to pass it along. We had a small price increase earlier this year, and we're trying to extend it as long as we can to protect consumers. But if it continues to mount, we won't be able to bear it. We -- we don't do anyone any good if we get sick. And so, we have to make sure that we don't.
Um, you're talking about an expense going from zero in IPA (ph) tariffs to 14 million, maybe to 25 or more next year. We can't -- we don't have the financial wherewithal to absorb that. It's just not mathematically possible.
COATES: Yet it seems President Trump understands that it's going to be very costly. But he wants people to bring manufacturing to the United States. And, in fact, here's what he had to say on Liberation Day, a so-called message to business owners. Listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Any company that objects to our commonsense reciprocal tariffs -- again, reciprocal, back and forth, back and forth. My answer is very simple if they complain. If you want your tariff rate to be zero, then you build your product right here in America because there is no tariff if you build your plant, your product in America.
(APPLAUSE)
And we've seen companies coming in like we've never seen before.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Is that realistic and on the timeline he created?
WOLDENBERG: Certainly not. It doesn't even make any sense. All companies are not the same. All products are not the same. He would like chip companies, car manufacturers, he'd like phones screwed together in this country. He does not think about the consequences of finished toys. And it happens to be very important to our U.S. schools and to U.S. families with young children. But it's not feasible here. It's too much labor. If there was an economic incentive to make them here, we would be. No significant businesses in the U.S. are making products like ours in the U.S., which suggests there's no capacity.
COATES: Are you surprised that big companies have not been invested at least at this level in the Supreme Court and have sat this one out?
WOLDENBERG: It's very difficult for me to explain why other people do things or don't. I'm better able to explain why this is important to me. And -- and I have a background as a lawyer. And one of the reasons that we did this is I believe in the rule of law. It's like a beautiful thing to me. I think it's responsible for American way of life.
And this, I felt, was unlawful. It was an abuse of the law. And I felt we needed to not only protect our business, but stand up for something that is important to life that we lead, the life that we enjoy. And so, I just felt like we should do it. And I wanted my name on the lawsuit. I'm proud to have done this.
COATES: Do you anticipate, if the Supreme Court rules your way, the refund?
WOLDENBERG: Absolutely. The -- the -- the taxes were unlawful. They have to follow the law. And I don't feel sorry for them that this will be inconvenient. They found it quite convenient to take the money. I think they can go through the effort to give it back. They didn't complain when I sent it to them.
COATES: Rick Woldenberg, thank you.
WOLDENBERG: Thank you.
[23:24:56]
COATES: Up next, Americans telling Washington 'it's the economy, stupid' with their votes last night. So, why is President Trump trying to convince them the economy is better than they think? Plus, want to know what's going on inside DOJ right now in what could be its most chaotic and political era ever? Well, good. We've got the reporters with all the inside sources here to tell us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:30:00]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: The country is doing very well. But, as Republicans, you have to talk about it, because if you don't talk about it -- you know, I saw that they kept talking about affordability. Well, Biden was a disaster with affordability. I think the biggest problem is Republicans don't talk about it. They don't talk about the word affordability. And the Democrats lie about it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: So, the president's main takeaway from Democrats big election night, his party is not talking about affordability enough. There's a problem with the president's seemingly rosy view of the economy. It doesn't match what voters are actually feeling. Sounds familiar from a prior administration, doesn't it?
Here to discuss, campaign veterans Karen Finney and Bryan Lanza. I mean, I had to start with this because, Bryan, Biden was criticized widely for being out of touch with the so-called "feelonomics." Why is this different?
BRYAN LANZA, FORMER DEPUTY COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR FOR TRUMP 2016 CAMPAIGN, FORMER SENIOR ADVISER FOR TRUMP-VANCE 2024 PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN: Uh, I don't see how it is. I mean, I think if you look at the economic numbers right now, they're tough. I think Judgment Day usually for candidates or for Congress usually comes around July of an election year, so he still has time. But the numbers don't look good.
The good news is he can reverse course pretty quickly on these tariffs, and that's going to drive costs, you know, down tremendously. He has done stuff to bring wages up. I think everybody can criticize the immigration models, the mass deportation, all these other things, all these workers. But the reality is when you shrink the voting or when you shrink the work pool, it drives up wages. And we've seen wages go up at a higher rate --
COATES: Hmm.
LANZA: -- in the first year than we ever saw under Joe Biden.
COATES: Trump says inflation is dead. Listen to this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: Inflation is dead.
Under my leadership, energy costs are down, gasoline prices are down, grocery prices are down, mortgage rates are down.
The country is the strongest it has ever been. Thank God for tariffs.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: July to October. Out of touch?
KAREN FINNEY, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Very much so. But also, not keeping your word. I mean, he campaigned on lowering costs. And we're in an economic environment where people -- we had COVID. That really did a lot of damage to people's savings. Start to build it back up. And now, we're in an environment where, again, people are telling you they're anxious. And what you don't do is tear up the West -- the East Wing. What you don't do is a 30 million-dollar bailout to Argentina at the same time that your voters are saying, hey, we're struggling. And so, you know, I think one of the lessons from last night and what the candidates did very well was to make people feel seen and heard. And that was one of the mistakes that Joe Biden made. He does sound a lot like Biden. You know, many of us argued at the time to say, it's not what people are feeling, so don't tell them they're not feeling something that they know in their gut to be true.
COATES: Well, the word affordability came up time and time again during many campaigns, particularly in New York's mayoral race. President Trump believing that they're losing the messaging battle when it comes to the word affordability. What a turn.
LANZA: Yeah. Listen, I think we are. But I think, you know, we're a cause of it, right? You know, Republicans themselves. What have we done in the last month? We bailed out Argentina to the tune of $40 billion, and we -- we allowed a lot of their beef imports to come in. Who does their beef imports hurt when they come in? They hurt American farmers. They hurt, you know, cattlemen.
And so, listen, I voted for it. I helped President Trump get elected because he was singularly focused on the election. I still believe he has the ability to be focused on the elections. I think some of those policies will absolutely work. But I think in the last six weeks or maybe in two months, we've lost distraction of why he was elected. He was elected solely on the economic purpose. He has been focusing too much on, you know, foreign affairs, too much external things. I think the focus needs to be here.
COATES: And, by the way, he's losing -- I should mention, he is losing Latino voters, which was a huge gain for him during his election. And some of that support went to Democrats last night. In fact, listen to Senator Ruben Gallego's comments on this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. RUBEN GALLEGO (D-AZ): Imagine what that means in elections coming up in places like Nevada, in places like Arizona, and in places like Texas where you just gerrymandered a bunch of Latino districts into 50% Latino districts that you think are going to vote for Trump. And clearly, there's a movement happening that's going to come back and punish Republicans for that.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Do you agree?
FINNEY: I think a couple things happened last night. I think that's possible. But I think you don't get the kind of turnout, that historic turnout that we saw across the country in the off-year election if voters don't feel like they have something to say. And so --
COATES: What was their message?
FINNEY: Their message was affordability and pay attention to us. We're -- you know, we're hurting and you're not listening. And, again, the candidates who were successful -- even in California, people were still in line, right, when Governor Newsom was speaking, and they were trying to say we're going to use the vote -- the vote, the way we can express our voice, to say we're not happy, we're angry. Even in conservative areas of California.
In terms of the Latino vote, the one thing I would say is I don't want my party to think you can take anybody for granted.
[23:35:02]
I don't want my party to look at those numbers and say, oh great, we've got Latinos and Black voters back and young voters back. No, you have to do the work to earn those votes.
COATES: Speaking of work, the shutdown is still in effect. It's now the longest in history, passing that 35-day mark. They're still stalemate. And now, it's impacting as well. We're told the FAA is planning to reduce air traffic by 10% because of staffing shortages. It could impact flights nationwide. Obviously, the shutdown reverberates beyond the beltway here in Washington, D.C. Who's going to blink first?
LANZA: Well, I know it's not going be Trump. I think he has been -- he has been abundantly clear. He goes, you know, the Democrats have hijacked this process by bringing policy into the discussion. They've lost their election.
FINNEY: By bringing policy into the discussion.
COATES: You had to address that.
FINNEY: I will -- I mean --
LANZA: Let's be clear. Chuck Schumer has voted for every C.R. in his last 30-year career until just now. And the reason he can't do it now is because he sees a real threat on the left, AOC. We see what the socialists are doing to the Democratic Party. They're causing a civil war. And Chuck Schumer is in the middle of that civil war. And he's like, look, I have to appease the crazy base of my party, so I'm going to shut down the government.
FINNEY: By arguing for lower health care costs? No, that is -- that is not a civil war. And there has been the most party unity and message uniformity that I have seen in a very long time. You have a measure passed in Colorado where voters agreed to raise taxes on people, to pay for free student lunches for kids.
I mean, people are in economic pain. They think the president is ignoring it. They think Republicans are feckless and just going along with it. And they are holding people accountable. And they are holding Trump and the Republicans accountable for this shutdown. So, you know, say what you like, Bryan, but, at some point --
COATES: He's not giving in.
FINNEY: He may not but -- COATES: Well, this lunch -- is it breakfast or lunch? I'll call it brunch. Earlier today, with the president and Republicans, he wasn't praising of what's going on with the shutdown. He wasn't on the ballot. He said that's part of the reason that they -- there was obvious losses, he believes as well, although he may be an invisible ink on every ballot in the country at all times. The shutdown, I think he's aware that it's not doing wonders for the Republican Party.
LANZA: Listen, I think you said it on one of the times we're on television before. You know, when a shutdown hits to 30 days, it's shame on both political parties, right? You know, the numbers will reflect that.
But I think, at the end of the day, you know, Trump being the ultimate sort of, you know, take advantage of every situation, he always wanted to get rid of the filibuster. He talked about that six months ago. He talked about it at the beginning of his term. And now, he's going to talk about it again because he thinks there's an opportunity to get rid of the filibuster. I don't think we should get rid of the filibuster. Certainly, Democrats, some do.
FINNEY: And Republicans. I mean, there's bipartisan -- you know, on a bipartisan basis, there are institutionalists who believe that that would be problematic for lots of reasons.
Look, I think part of the problem that Trump has is that during this shutdown, again, he has been focused on let's bail out Argentina, let's -- you know, let's send troops to Africa. I mean, again, people are saying, hey, why aren't you -- why aren't we seeing you actively trying to solve the problem? You can say it's somebody else's fault but, at the end of the day, you're the president. People want to see you on their side fighting.
COATES: New ad alert. We had new race alerts last night. Here's a new one from the National Republican Congressional Committee. It launched across battleground states. Go recognize the faces.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNKNOWN (voice-over): A radical left earthquake just hit America. The epicenter: New York. This is the future House Democrats want. And your city could be next.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
FINNEY: Oh, brown people are scary. Look, it was a great night for DEI last night. Let me tell you.
LANZA: That's what that ad said. We know who --
COATES: Look at this inkblot test that just happened just now in real time.
LANZA: I don't think I'm scared. I'm a brown person. I don't find myself --
FINNEY: Well, actually --
LANZA: But I think socialists are very scary.
FINNEY: Well, actually, there was a Democratic socialist who was defeated by a Democrat in a mayor's race. So, look, New York made their choice. Let's see if he can deliver. But most importantly about that race and all these other races, I mean, three Black people were elected to the legislature in Mississippi to break a super majority. People want people who are on their side fighting for them. And they want people who are going to come and do the work to earn their vote.
Whether you agree with Mamdani or not, he did the work. I mean, it was almost the Trump strategy of let me reconfigure the electorate --
LANZA: Very populist.
FINNEY: -- to one I can work in, I can get elected in.
COATES: I think election season has started. Karen, Bryan, thank you both. Mass firings, departments demolished, and legal arguments that leave judges scratching their heads. We've got an inside look at the politicization of justice under the Trump administration, and that's next. And ahead, the Louvre heist angle no one saw coming.
[23:39:58]
Let's just say, even if your password is 1234, you probably have better security than (INAUDIBLE) Museum. Oh, wait.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: Just about nine months into the second Trump presidency, the Department of Justice has already transformed, from mass layoffs to demotions to the gutting of my alma mater, the Civil Rights Division.
[23:45:02]
The changes and the broken norms, they keep coming fast and furious. Like the AP reporting the FBI recently fired agents. Been unfired, some of them. Only to fire them again. Why? For working on the investigation into President Trump's efforts to overturn the 2020 election.
Well, then there's the legal cases. The judge overseeing former FBI Chief James Comey's case scolding President Trump's handpicked prosecutor, Lindsey Halligan, today, saying she's adopting an indict first, investigate second kind of approach. And that judge ordered the DOJ to give Comey's team grand jury material and other documents related to the investigation. Now, those are just two of the most recent examples of how troubled the DOJ appears to be.
But as my next guests found out, it's really just the tip of the iceberg. Carol Leonnig and Aaron Davis are both here, two Pulitzer Prize-winning reporters who spent the last two years investigating just what is going on behind the scenes at DOJ. They've got a brand- new book. It's called "Injustice: How Politics and Fear Vanquished America's Justice Department."
So glad to have you guys both here because everyone has been sort of wanting to be the fly on the wall, but from the outside, looking in and wondering what is happening and how has this happened so seemingly quickly. This is why I was so intrigued by the book because you talk about this not just happening now, but this has maybe been a longer time coming than people thought. Can you explain a little more?
CAROL LEONNIG, AUTHOR, NATIONAL INVESTIGATIVE REPORTER FOR THE WASHINGTON POST: You're totally right, Laura. What we learned as reporters covering it in real time was Donald Trump was doing a lot of crazy-sounding things, attacking personally and individually prosecutors and FBI agents. We all sort of thought that was very strange for president to do in his first presidency as he did.
But what we learned in reporting for the book was the damage from that was much more scarring, so much more serious than we realized when we were just reporting it daily for "The Washington Post." It caused a weakening and a buckling of the foundation of this, your beloved institution.
COATES: It sounds very ominous to think about that because, of course, although the Trump focus is a very narrow one, and he has been talking about it in the press for years now, but the DOJ does a lot more than cases that even revolve around the sort of orbit of Trump. So, weakening and a buckling, what is that doing to morale? But also, what's it doing to the institution's ability at all?
AARON C. DAVIS, AUTHOR: Well, you hit right on like the most important thing for all Americans, I think, right now, that, you know, we're only beginning to see so much attention on like the Comey case, the Letitia James case. But there, you know, in the first 100 days, there was this just clearing of House of anybody who had worked on the January 6 investigation, who had worked on the classified documents investigation
And they didn't stop there. They took out, you know, the senior DOJ folks who worked in international relations and affairs, you know, people who coordinated with other governments, the people who worked in national security, counterintelligence. There has just been a brain drain of a loss of talent and a loss of decades of experience, and just an understanding of how we do things fairly inside the Department of Justice has really gone.
COATES: Institutional knowledge gone. Very scary. Approaching new cases as well. And then who is replacing that brain trust? Stephen Miller has a very prominent role. What is it?
LEONNIG: Well, as we report in the book, Stephen Miller is the person basically hammering at the acting deputy attorney general. And we take you inside the room in our book, Injustice, to see how Miller is the one telling Emil Bove, you will get rid of more FBI officials and leaders to be commensurate with the firing we've been having at the Department of Justice. This is in, Laura, in the first few weeks of the administration after Trump is inaugurated. And that removal of the top layer of leadership of the FBI takes out centuries of experience. And I think one of the things that we found really worrisome as we began this reporting is that people who really don't normally talk to reporters began talking to us because they're afraid of the five-alarm fire that's going on there.
COATES: Hmm.
LEONNIG: You asked about morale. They're worried about whether they can stop the next terror attack. They're worried about corporate fraud that has been told open season. We don't really have the same kind of teams --
COATES: Hmm.
LEONNIG: -- in place for that kind of work.
COATES: And I suppose also the judges don't have the same level of credibility that they will assign to the lawyers who are coming before them from the Justice Department.
[23:50:02]
And then you've got the why. You -- part of it, of course, is perhaps possible (ph) discretion. The other part is who is currently in office. And people have criticized the Biden administration and the DOJ under him for slow walking investigations that related to Mar-a- Lago, classified docs and beyond. Does the administration, the previous one, regret that decision to sort of do things, the crossing of the Ts, the dotting of the Is in a different way?
DAVIS: You know, I think they really came in -- it's hard to go back and think about where we started with --
COATES: Uh-hmm.
DAVIS: -- you know, back after January 6th. But Merrick Garland came in and really thought there was time.
COATES: Hmm.
DAVIS: That nobody was ever going to elect President Trump again to office. That, you know, we were going to build the case up brick by brick and go through the rioters. And there was going, you know --
COATES: Sounds naive now, looking back.
DAVIS: Well, you know, there was really -- it's remarkable. In the whole long history of 150 years of the Justice Department, they really had a window this big of a couple years, you know, to really get inside, understand what had been done, and decide if they are going to prosecute or not.
And we found that there was, in fact, a 15-month gap between January 6th and when the FBI and DOJ actually began the first investigation with people around Trump and whether they'd done anything criminally culpable related to January 6th. Obviously, that puts, you know, Jack Smith in a race against time --
COATES: Hmm.
DAVIS: -- to make a decision. You know, Jack Smith did a lot of things that people will respect. But in the end, they created a lot of case law that is now emboldened by Donald Trump to do everything he can do. There's this wide range of immunity because of the way that they handle that investigation.
COATES: Interestingly enough, your book goes into all of that, but also describes the idea of -- I mean, people had some semblance of what delays would look like when the Mueller probe was going on. There was frustration there as well, which begs the question, what now? We're only nine months into -- well, about 10 months into his presidency right now. Um, you've got the president reminding people it was a year ago today that he was elected into office. People say this is not sustainable. What are you finding?
LEONNIG: What we're finding is that some of the people that you would have considered your peers and colleagues are now sounding the alarm. They're now speaking up because they want Americans to recognize how serious this is.
If Jim Comey can be charged and indicted, you know, a ham sandwich can always be indicted, but if -- if the Department of Justice is going to bring a case in which it's confusing what the evidence actually is that he lied to Congress, then these people inside the Department of Justice are trying to flag you as an American could get on the wrong side of Donald Trump. And if that happens, you could be charged with something without any evidence.
That -- that kind of cry from inside the House and outside the House from recent depart -- departing alums, they have this hope that Americans are going to wake up to how serious this is. That rule of law, right? It sounds so esoteric and academic.
COATES: Hmm.
LEONNIG: Um, but it really matters about fair and equal justice, which you know a lot about.
COATES: This book is incredible. I'm so glad you go into the details of what's really happening. I think people really want to know. Thank you both.
LEONNIG: Thank you.
COATES: The book again is called "Injustice: How Politics and Fear Vanquished America's Justice Department." Up next, the stunning Louvre heist, it's even more stunning, with an embarrassing revelation you just have to hear to believe.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:55:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: It's almost midnight here on the East Coast, which means it's almost time to pass the baton to our friend, Elex Michaelson, out in L.A. Elex, good to see you. Late night last night with election coverage. You're here. I'm glad to see you.
And just when you thought, just when you thought, the Louvre heist could not get any more absurd. An investigation has revealed that the museum's video security password was literally -- I can't even say it. It was not anything like this. No, it was just -- wait for it. It was actually "Louvre."
(LAUGHTER)
Not even a zero or an exclamation point. All right, is your password for "The Story Is" "the story is?"
ELEX MICHAELSON, CNN ANCHOR AND CORRESPONDENT: It's just "the story is." And for people -- the password for CNN, by the way, to lock is just "CNN." That's it.
(LAUGHTER)
So, we've just given up the trade secrets for the entire company tonight.
COATES: Now we know why Mona Lisa was smiling. She's actually smirking at the stupid password.
(LAUGHTER)
That's the secret, everyone. Forget the DaVinci code. There it is. Well, Elex, let's talk about California's Prop 50. They got that redistricting initiative. It passed with overwhelming support last night. But you're hearing from a lawmaker who's suing over this. Tell me why.
MICHAELSON: Yeah. Well, he says that it's unconstitutional, that essentially, it's not following the Voting Rights Act districts because it's giving undue influence to Latinos at a time when Latinos are essentially the majority in California. So, we're going to be talking to him. We're going to be talking to one of the main funders of Prop 50, Tom Steyer, who's got a very different view.
But already, Laura, we're seeing Congress members running for different districts and they were already in. I mean, there's this whole domino effect that's happening around Prop 50 that's going to really reshape California politics, but also could reshape who controls the House.
COATES: How's Newsom reacting?
MICHAELSON: I mean, he's feeling good. And like he has come to do, he's putting out a lot of memes to express his appreciation. That seems to be his favorite way of expressing himself these days.
COATES: Indeed. Well, our favorite way of expressing ourselves is to say, Elex, have a great show!
[00:00:02]
MICHAELSON: Thanks, Laura. Have a great night.
