Return to Transcripts main page

Laura Coates Live

House Democrats Furious As Senate Votes To End Shutdown; Trump Issues Sweeping Pardon To 2020 Election Allies; Trump Floats Checks, 50-Year Mortgages Amid Pressure. Aired 11p-12a ET

Aired November 10, 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]

SCOTT JENNINGS, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: At one point was Aaron Burr's attorney. And -- and when Lincoln wrote his inaugural address, he consulted this man's speeches. He's an important figure in my home state. But I think for the nation, "Rediscovering Henry Clay" could be a good movie.

SARA SIDNER, CNN ANCHOR AND SENIOR NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: It might be as good as the "Hamilton." Maybe it'll get that kind of treatment. All right, congressman, what is your biopic you think someone needs?

REP. JIM CLYBURN (D-SC): Robert Smalls, who was number six among the first eight. Robert Smalls is the only genuine hero of the Civil War. You can -- you may have some biases about who was this general or the other, but who? Born enslaved, stole the planter, the ship --

SIDNER: Yeah.

CLYBURN: -- took it to give it to the union soldiers, developed great wealth without any education. He spent 10 years in the South Carolina legislature, 10 years in the United States Congress. And he was the only genuine hero of the Civil War.

SIDNER: An incredible American story. "The First Eight," this book comes out tomorrow. You can read all about --

ANA NAVARRO, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: I am reading it, and it is worth reading, and I'm very grateful to you for having written it.

CLYBURN: Thank you.

SIDNER: All right. Everybody, thank you so much. "Laura Coates Live" starts right now.

LAURA COATES, CNN HOST AND SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Well, tonight, some Democrats say "uncle" and give up their shutdown fight. Some in the party are nothing short of furious, now alleging betrayal. But was it a betrayal or a strategic surrender? You decide. Plus, the big lie turns into the big pardon. Trump gives cover to his 2020 election allies with a pardon so broad that its critics worried about 2026. And later, the 50-year mortgage, the $2,000 rebate check, and the one big deflection from President Trump on the economy. All tonight on "Laura Coates Live." So, is something really better than nothing? That's the question hanging over Washington, D.C. tonight, the district where for weeks, for 41 days to be exact, we've been watching what happens when politicians say all or nothing, the government shutdown. And the big all is the Democrats' main demand, extending the Affordable Care Act subsidies so that 22 million Americans won't be hit by skyrocketing premiums come January. It was the hill a united front of Democrats said that they would die on.

That is until tonight when eight members of their caucus broke ranks and climbed down. Now, the longest shutdown in U.S. history is likely to end on day 43 after they officially voted a few moments ago on a bill to reopen the government. Now, it passed in the Senate 60 to 40. It's not done yet. It's got to go to the House with the vote there happening Wednesday.

But the deal includes nothing definitive about extending Obamacare subsidies, away the pledge of a Senate vote on it by mid-December. Cue the headlines. "Democratic unity fractures." "Liberal fury over shutdown deal convulses Democrats" -- unquote. Axios is reporting that one Democratic congresswoman told her colleagues on a private call, "People are f-king pissed." Governor Gavin Newsom had one word, pathetic. Congressman Ro Khanna is calling for Senate majority -- Senate minority leader, excuse me, Chuck Schumer to be replaced. And President Trump, he couldn't say quiet.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNKNOWN (voice-over): What message do you have for Schumer tonight?

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Well, I think he made a mistake in going too far. Uh, he --

UNKNOWN (voice-over): Going too far, how?

TRUMP: Well, he just went too far. He thought he could break the Republicans, and the Republicans broke him.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Of course, that's his version of the story. But those eight Democrats who voted for the deal, well, they say the strategy to force Republicans to budge on the ACA subsidies hit a dead end.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. JEANE SHAHEEN (D-NH): All those people who opposed this agreement, staying in a shutdown mode was not getting us anywhere. And they need to train their fire on the people who are responsible.

SEN. ANGUS KING (I-ME): If the tactic isn't working and there were no prospects that it was going to work, then let's move on, not make a lot of other people suffer, uh, in order to get a goal that wasn't attainable.

SEN. TIM KAINE (D-VA): I did not see waiting as improving the likelihood that we would get the fix. Now, we have a path to a vote.

[23:05:00]

No guarantee. There are no guarantees up here.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: No, there are not. Senator Tim Kaine is right about one thing. There is no guarantee that ACA subsidies will be extended because even if the Senate votes on it and passes it, it will be a whole different ball game in the House. And you know who's in control of the House? The speaker, Mike Johnson, and he is not promising a thing.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MIKE JOHNSON, SPEAKER OF THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: I'm not committing to it or not committing to it. What I'm saying is that we do a deliberative process. That's the way this always works. And we have to have time to do that, and we will in a bipartisan fashion.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Definition of non-committal. I wonder if you feel good out there because here are the key questions I have. What exactly did Democrats walk away with if the very thing they were fighting for is uncertain? I wonder if voters will blame Democrats or Republicans, Congress in general, for making any deal without locking in those subsidies, or will it be just Republicans they blame? They have the House and the Senate and, of course, the White House.

But where is the detailed plan that Republicans would have to reduce health care costs? Because, remember, the timing is so important. It hasn't even been a week since Democrats camped with several -- with big and several elections. They won despite the shutdown and on one message more than any other. Remember the word? Affordability. That is still the arena where it's going to be decided because if these subsidies expire, the premiums, they're going up by as much as double or even triple what they are now.

So, the political rally for so many is this, really for all of us, either Trump and Republicans work with Democrats to keep health care costs down or they'll be the ones explaining those higher premiums when voters head to the polls in 2026.

I want to start off with a Democratic House lawmaker who says he is a no on this compromise. Congressman from Massachusetts, Jake Auchincloss, joins me now. Congressman, this has been quite a 40-day- plus period. You say that Democrats must stop playing by the old rules in a broken Congress, but the senators who broke with the Democrats say the last 41 days got you nowhere. What have the last 41 days gotten, you or the American people?

REP. JAKE AUCHINCLOSS (D-MA): Further evidence that Republicans who control the White House, the Senate, and the House of Representatives have no plan to lower costs for the middle class. And the middle class, Laura, has been very clear in the elections in 2024 and then again in the elections in 2025 that their number one issue is the price of housing, of health care, of utilities, and you either lower prices or you perish. And so, Democrats need to be laser-focused on how do we get a win for the middle class when this whole fight starts up again in January.

COATES: So, what should Democrats be doing instead?

AUCHINCLOSS: Laying out a series of ways to get to yes with Republicans, which is what I did before this shutdown, where I put forward a vote on tariffs or reversing the worst of the Medicaid cuts or funding the public safety measures that Republicans defunded in March. I think it is a mistake to take an all or nothing approach on one issue. Rather, what we say is, here is a few ways that we think we can deliver a win for the middle class, now come to the table in good faith and get to yes with us.

Let me give you an example, uh, back with health care. We could do a one-year extension of the Affordable Care Act enhanced subsidies, uh, reduce them for the highest earners, as some Republicans have said they want to do, but then at the same time, establish the parameters of negotiations for strengthening the ACA so that when these enhanced subsidies expire, it's not another cliff. So, for example, expanding community health centers, uh, expanding the use of employer grants to employees to be able to purchase ACAs on the exchanges.

There are good policy ideas out there. They don't need to be coded Democrat or Republican. They can just be good ideas. We can get to a place where we strengthen health care access --

COATES: Yes. But, congressman, the Republicans who are in the majority -- excuse me, I don't want to cut you off, but the Republicans who are in the majority, you've got the speaker not committing to voting and extending ACA tax credits, you've got Republicans not coming to the table to even give the extension you're speaking of. Do you trust the Republican majority to be able to entertain the ideas that you have said, let alone make them happen?

[23:10:02]

AUCHINCLOSS: Laura, my second day in Congress was January 6, 2021. I do not trust Republicans farther than I can throw them. What I do want to do, though, is present to the American public that Democrats are here to negotiate in good faith, to keep the government open, and to lower prices, because it's a false choice that Speaker Johnson and John Thune are presenting to the American public that you have to choose one or the other. What I don't want to do is have an all-or- nothing proposal that we cannot deliver for the American public.

If they're willing to give a vote on the tariffs, for example, I think we should entertain that. These tariffs have been the biggest tax hikes in American history. And a vote that shows where the people's representatives are on this unilateral tax hike from the president that is not going to re-industrialize this country but is going to raise the price of housing and electricity is an important step forward for the middle class. So, we have to lay out this portfolio of options ahead of January and decide on the strategy.

COATES: So, today, what would get you to yes to reopen the government?

AUCHINCLOSS: If -- if any of the issues I laid out seven weeks ago were addressed, funding the cops' grants, reversing the worst of the Medicaid cuts that's going to raise long-term health care premiums, a vote on the tariffs, a vote to release the Epstein files, even I would entertain. But the middle-class cares about cost of living, they care about public safety, and they care about rule of law. And we have to deliver a win for them because they're the ones funding this government, and Donald Trump has used them as a punching bag for the last 10 months.

COATES: Congressman, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer is facing calls to resign. President Trump says that Republicans broke him. Should Schumer step down? Is he no longer effective?

AUCHINCLOSS: That's the business for the Senate caucus. What I would say is Democrats in Congress --

COATES: But what he does, does impact the House.

AUCHINCLOSS: It certainly does cascade into House issues, and we need to have strategic decision-making as a caucus in both the House and the Senate, which is to say when we align on our asks for the January funding deadline, they need to be things that are impactful for the middle class, and they need to be deliverable for the middle class.

COATES: Senator Angus King, another senator, obviously, believes that Republicans are going to get a whole lot of pressure from constituents who largely benefit from ACA subsidies. As you rightly pointed out, it's not a Republican or Democrat issue in terms of who benefits from the ACA. He hopes that the pressure is going to force them to act over the next month. I'm sure he has the same trust issues you do. Do you trust that the constituents of Republicans will apply the necessary amount of pressure to compel Republicans to do something now with the ACA?

AUCHINCLOSS: No, I don't think Republicans are going to be responsive to their constituents on this. I'm on the Committee of Health Care. I debated for 27 hours this summer the draconian cuts that Republicans implemented with their one big beautiful bill to Medicaid. And I -- I -- I see their stream of logic, and I see how they spin it for their constituents.

COATES: Hmm.

AUCHINCLOSS: You want to talk about health care and the cost of health care, they will spin it to talk about immigration and they will claim that health care is being allocated to illegal immigrants. It isn't true, but it's a talking point that they feel comforted by because the president has been clear that he has no plan on cost of living, and every time prices go up, he tries to look for somebody to blame.

COATES: Won't this help you campaign on this issue, though?

AUCHINCLOSS: As Democrats, you're saying, won't help Democrats campaign the issue?

COATES: Yes. I mean, obviously, you said earlier --

AUCHINCLOSS: Yeah, I don't think --

COATES: -- that the elections were beneficial in part because of what's going on. The American people have said loud and clear what they wanted in terms of affordability, health care, and beyond. I mean, does this move by the Senate Democrats now hurt the momentum your party got from those elections?

AUCHINCLOSS: I think the scarce currency in politics in my generation is trust, and the party that builds trust with voters is the one that can have a generational majority to govern with. And you don't build trust with voters by pointing out pain and doing nothing about it. You build trust with voters by delivering on lower prices, on public safety, on improved education. So, I don't think Democrats need --

COATES: Hmm.

AUCHINCLOSS: -- should be looking to win elections by scoring points off of the pain that the middle class is going through. I think we should win elections by demonstrating that where we have power, we deliver.

COATES: Congressman, you write in a new op-ed that the departure of Congressman Jared Golden of Maine, who will vote to reopen the government, is a -- quote -- "wake-up call for Democrats." Can you explain how?

AUCHINCLOSS: Jared is my roommate in Washington for the last five years.

[23:15:01]

He's a close friend of mine. Jared's district voted for Donald Trump by nine points. My district voted for Kamala Harris by 20 points. So, you can imagine that Jared and I diverge on important issues, but we have become real political friends and allies, and I think have made each other better legislators by seeing issues from each other's perspective.

And Democrats govern better when we have that stereo vision, when we take off the ideological blinders and encompass people from all walks of life who see things differently, and critically, about Jared, have the courage to buck party orthodoxy to stand up for what they think is right.

And what Jared has dealt with over his tenure in Congress has been vitriol and venom not just from MAGA which, of course, has cascaded over him and his family, but also, Laura, from the left, from activists, from Democratic elites who have condescended to him, who have derided him when, in fact, he is a majority maker for our party and -- when he has brought new voters into the fold.

And what we have to do going forward is bring candidates like Jared into the House caucus and into a political office throughout this country. That means candidates like Rebecca Cooke in Wisconsin and that means sitting members like Marie Gluesenkamp Perez in Washington.

COATES: Congressman Jake Auchincloss, thank you for joining.

Still ahead, a sweeping new set of pardons for Trump's allies who tried to keep him in power back in 2020. But might this effort be about sending a message for, say, 2026? We'll explain. Plus --

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LAURA INGRAHAM, FOX NEWS HOST: Why are people saying they're anxious about the economy? Why are they saying that?

TRUMP: I don't know that they are saying it. I think polls are fake.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Is that really the economic message Trump wants to be taking into the midterms? And later, a diamond is forever, and in Trump's world, a mortgage maybe, too. His new plan to offer home buyers a 50- year-term, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:20:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: It's 2025, almost the end of it, frankly, but President Trump is turning the clock back to 2020 again. Remember what was happening five years ago this week? President Trump and his team launched an all-out effort to overturn the election result or at least make you question them. Rudy Giuliani made his infamous appearance at Four Seasons Total Landscaping, and he appeared with Sidney Powell, cranking out conspiracy theory after conspiracy theory about the election, attempting to stop the vote count in several states, arguing that Trump was the victim of voter fraud.

Well, today, President Trump is pardoning Giuliani and Powell and more than 70 others who were part of that effort. None, by the way, faced federal charges which, of course, the president only has power over federal cases, not state ones.

But the DOJ says that their pardons are part of a process of -- quote -- "national reconciliation." That includes pardoning more than 1,500 people convicted or charged over January 6, paying $5 million to the family of Ashli Babbitt, who broke into the Capitol and lunged into a sensitive area before Capitol police shot her, oh, and it includes Trump seeking $230 million from his own government for alleged damages caused by federal probes from January 6th and other investigations.

One state politician who stood up to those efforts to stop any steal, well, she joins me now, Jocelyn Benson, the Michigan secretary of state who refused to stop counting the votes in 2020. Secretary, thank you for being here this evening. Why -- why do you think President Trump issued these pardons now? What -- what's behind it?

JOCELYN BENSON, SECRETARY OF STATE, MICHIGAN: Oh, well, it clearly sends a signal. It gives a green light to those who might in the future seek to use lies and conspiracy theories to disrupt, attack or undermine free and fair elections. And we're already seeing that light come to fruition. I mean, those same falsehoods are now being amplified by current candidates for governor for Senate in the State of Michigan.

And, you know, it strikes me as so interesting that this reconciliation, it's packaged as being about reconciliation. Reconciliation is about telling the truth. And the truth is that every election, including that in 2020, has been free and fair and an accurate reflection of the will of the people. So, let's tell that truth instead of giving a green light to conspiracy theories that could be used just to continue to undermine the fair and free elections of the future.

COATES: For so many, that phrase, reconciliation, conjures up images of post-apartheid South Africa and beyond. And certainly, a very different context to use that phrase right now. But I'm curious because, as you know, these pardons only apply to federal cases, not state ones. And there are still cases pending in Wisconsin, in Arizona, and Nevada. Your state is appealing decision to even toss charges in Michigan. So, I'm wondering if these pardons at the federal level might invite pressure to drop cases at the state level.

BENSON: Well, I certainly hope not because while these -- these pardons do send a signal, that it's suddenly okay, the president will have your back if you use lies to undermine fair and free elections. What's very clear is that states and state officials still have unique and independent authority to pursue charges against the illegal acts of election interference and other illegal attempts to overturn free and fair election results.

[23:25:00]

And so, there has never been a more important time for governors, for secretaries of state, for attorneys general to be standing firm in the truth of these to protect our democracy. We stood firm in 2020. It's one of the reasons why I'm running for governor now in Michigan, to stand firm again against these federal attempts to undermine our elections. State officials have never been more important as we seek to hold the line and continue to seek accountability for these attacks on our democracy.

COATES: And yet, as you personally know, I remember you were threatened, your family threatened. It was a very difficult time for you and so many other officials who were holding a particular line. The deterrent is not or the idea of I've got your back is not just for those who might commit acts, but it might actually cool people like you or others from wanting to participate as a part of the democracy. Is that true for you now?

BENSON: Oh, no. Actually, these threats, I mean, you know, after the 2020 election, armed protesters showed up outside my home -- COATES: Yes.

BENSON: -- demanding that I block well of the people from coming to fruition. Those attacks only made me and so many others in my position bolder, more determined to ensure free and fair elections continue in our states and throughout our country because we see firsthand how fragile our democracy can be, and that in moments like that, it's only the voters, the citizens, and the state officials, the local officials, who can stand in the way of these attacks.

So, it may chill some, and certainly we've seen many leave the profession of election administration over these last five years, but far, many more have both stayed or come to this profession in a bipartisan way to protect the will of the people because we know that's the foundation of everything else in this country.

So, I'll probably continue to do that as secretary of state and, hopefully, as Michigan's next governor so that we can ensure that even in the midst of this very dark moment, that state officials hold the line proudly and see it as our duty to do so.

COATES: Well, he has the right to pardon. The question is, should he and what will be the consequence? Secretary Jocelyn Benson, thank you.

BENSON: Thanks for having me.

COATES: Up next, Trump starts throwing out new economic ideas. How about a $2,000 tariff rebate check? How about a 50-year mortgage for that home you're trying to buy? Makes sense to you? Well, Kevin O'Leary, Bill de Blasio, they're going to be live to debate it and more, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:30:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: Tonight, President Trump defending his proposal to create a 50, 5-0, year mortgage. Why? To help Americans secure the dream of owning a home.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: It's not even a big deal. I mean, you know, you go from 40 to 50 years and whatever it is you pay, you pay something less, from 30 that -- some people had a 40, and then now they have a 50. All it means is you pay less per month, you pay it over a longer period of time. It's not like a big factor.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Well, the dream of owning a home seems to be out of reach for many. You know, the average age of a first-time home buyer today is now 40 years old. And that's up from 33 just five years ago. And economists are sounding the alarm on Trump's 50-year, he says no factor, mortgage proposal. Simply put, math isn't math-ing.

On a $415,000 home, buyers may save on their monthly mortgage payments, $1,800 for a 50-year mortgage compared to $2,000 for a 30- year mortgage. Okay. Look at the interest. Look at the interest. You'll pay nearly double the interest for a 50-year mortgage compared to a standard 30-year. Hmm.

Let's talk to two experts about this, a businessman and a politician. Kevin O'Leary, chairman of O'Leary Ventures and a Shark Tank judge. Also, Bill de Blasio, a former mayor of New York City. Glad to have both of you here. Kevin, let's start with you. What do you think? Good idea?

KEVIN O'LEARY, CHAIRMAN OF O'LEARY VENTURES: No. No, I don't think that's going really change the metrics for people. What's happened in the mortgage market over the last four years is we had this extraordinary period where interest rates were sub 4%, so mortgages were 3.8 to 4.2, which is extraordinary over a 50-year metric, because we've got to remember, mortgages in America have been 7% forever, and many people bought homes who were successfully ending up owning all the equity in them at 7%. We even went up to 17% for a while.

But during this really strange period, rates went down below four. And people yearn for that. But now, this is just kind of a financial engineering because the amount of interest you're going to pay over 50 years, you'll never own the home. That's the problem. It's the same as renting, in my view. So, I don't like the idea.

COATES: What do think, mayor?

BILL DE BLASIO, FORMER NEW YORK CITY MAYOR: I find myself in the enviable position of agreeing with Kevin. This is a -- this is a bipartisan moment here. I think it is a giveaway to the banking industry, the lenders.

[23:34:56]

I think it's going to create an immense amount of financial stress for working people trying to achieve that dream, and they end up in a situation where they're stuck with a horrible mortgage long-term. It's going to lead to a lot of financial failure.

I think the big news here, Laura, is another example of Donald Trump being out of touch with the lives of everyday Americans. And this is part of why, if you look in the poll, he was very consistent these last months. The American people have lost faith in him on the economy. If he says to people with a straight face, oh, a 50-year mortgage is going be better for you, people aren't dumb, they know they're going to pay a huge amount more interest. And that just goes into the pockets of folks who are already wealthy.

So, that's a really bad idea. I actually think it's going to cause people to have less faith in President Trump.

COATES: That also means for 50 years, your income has to be stable enough so you don't get your house foreclosed in the end, which would be the opposite, of course, of any American dream and as far as reality for so many people.

I'm going ask you this question because meantime, the president is floating a $2,000 dividend from the tariffs. It's unclear, by the way, if Americans will actually get a check. Kevin, let me ask you, because I've interviewed somebody who actually took the issue to the Supreme Court, and he talked about millions of dollars, millions of dollars that he had to sacrifice in order to be in line with the tariffs. This $2,000 check seems quite like chump change for him. Is this a gimmick?

O'LEARY: You know, I don't show for politicians. I've told you these countless times. I'm a policy guy. I don't want to send checks to people. I want to use those dollars to reduce the national deficit. The promise of tariffs to be reciprocal against VAT taxes, which are applied in countries like Italy and France and Switzerland and Canada, we don't have consumption taxes here, so we call them tariffs, but the idea was if they're reciprocal, why not take those proceeds and apply them against the debt? The long-term prosperity --

COATES: That's what he says he wants to do, Kevin. He wants to do that. He says that he wants to take whatever is left over. It'll go towards paying down the debt. But Trump has said that that was the purpose of the tariffs. So, why not use all the tariff revenue for that same purpose then?

O'LEARY: Because sending checks to people is inflationary. And really, what we need long term is to reduce deficits. So, forget about the $2,000 sent out to everybody. Just apply it against the deficit of the country. We have massive, massive debt. We don't have a balanced budget yet. And so, even if we're bringing in all this money on tariffs, which is the equivalency in balancing out these VAT taxes, value added taxes, we call them tariffs, apply it to the debt.

I mean, look, I'm being very pragmatic here. We've sent so much money, helicopter money, through the pandemic into the economy.

COATES: Hmm.

O'LEARY: We still have north of 3% inflation. The mandate of the Fed is 2%. So, we're still a long way away from the mandate. Sending out more cash into the market? No.

COATES: Bill is nodding in agreement.

O'LEARY: How about reducing debt?

COATES: What do you think about that, Bill?

DE BLASIO: Yeah. Well, I think it's a bad idea for a different reason. I think the tariffs, the way the president is using the tariffs, arbitrarily, by the way, changes his mind, it seems like, every week on what tariffs will go on what country, creating chaos in the economy. You talk to business people, particularly small business people, have been devastated because they can't make decisions. It has anything to do with trade with other countries. They don't know whether to invest, not invest, keep their employees, lay people off. The tariffs have been a disaster, and they're undermining the economy. So, my argument would be he's talking about these rebates as a way to justify that somehow the tariffs were worth it to begin with. Talk to farmers, talk to people in the industrial Midwest. They are not feeling good about tariffs. So, I'd say keep your rebates. For most families, they're not going to do enough to make a difference. People are hurting a lot more than $2,000. Fix the economy by not having a reckless tariff policy, actually have a coherent trade policy. That's the best thing for working Americans.

COATES: But the president today addressed the economic concerns just tonight. He basically said, there's nothing to worry about. Listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: I don't know that they are saying it. I think polls are fake. We have the greatest economy we've ever had. We have -- we will have over $20 trillion come into our economy, and it's largely because of my election, but it's also largely because of tariffs.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: I've heard him say fake news. Now, it's fake polls. Kevin, is that a fake insight into the economy?

O'LEARY: You know, it's interesting because the strength of the economy is measured by the earnings of the company inside of the economy. So, S&P 500, we're going to have increased earnings by about 14%.

[23:40:03]

So, the indices are near record highs. That's true. That's a fact. But the tariffs have to be fine-tuned a little bit. Let's give you an example. If you don't make potash, which is fertilizer, you have to hire -- buy it from other countries. Why put a tariff on it? If you don't make it yourself, don't put a tariff on it. You've to fine-tune these tariffs a little bit. What about bauxite that makes aluminum? You don't have any bauxite. Don't tariff that. You bring it into America. So, they'll will be fine-tuning there. Steel, aluminum --

COATES: -- Supreme Court wants it -- isn't entertaining, whether the fine-tuning should include Congress being involved in tariffs to have those policy discussions. I'll give you the last word. Mayor Bill de Blasio, tell me.

DE BLASIO: Yeah, I think it is time for Congress to actually acts like the Congress. I mean, they have been deferring to the president on war in Venezuela. They've been differing to president tariffs. They've been deferring to him on everything. It is time for the Congress to stand up again, actually do their job and say, no, wait a minute, these tariffs are reckless, they're hurting economy, they're hurting working people, we, the congress, will make these decisions.

It has really gotten out of control. And I actually think this is going to be a big deal in the midterm election where you're going to hear more and more Americans say, if Congress doesn't do their job, they're going to throw the incumbents out.

COATES: I think neither of you get into a $2,000 check. But thanks for coming here. Kevin O'Leary, Mayor Bill De Blasio, I appreciate you both. Up next --

DE BLASIO: Thank you.

O'LEARY: Take care.

COATES: -- custom-prepared meals, play time with a puppy, personal escorts to work out. It's a hard time, does it? We have the new allegations surrounding Ghislaine Maxwell's time in that new prison and the request she's now reportedly working on to get out of there. Plus, Congresswoman-elect Adelita Grijalva set to finally go from elect to congresswoman and be sworn in to deliver the decisive vote to release the Epstein files. What the Speaker Johnson now says is a -- quote -- "moot point." Is it, though? We'll ask one of the attorneys who has been on the front lines of this fight, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:45:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: Just when it seemed the backlash over Ghislaine Maxwell's highly unusual, and it was highly unusual prison transfer, could get -- couldn't get any fiercer, well, the top Democrat on the House Oversight Committee, Jamie Raskin, is now demanding answers from the president, citing a whistleblower who alleges that Maxwell is receiving special treatment in that prison that -- quote -- "Mark Ms. Maxwell more as a guest at a Trump hotel than a federal prisoner and child sex offender.

So, what kind of preferential treatment are we talking about? Well, according to Raskin's letter, the whistleblower alleges the following: That she has customized meals delivered to her by the prison staff. Her guests are allowed to bring computers when they visit, something that is described as unprecedented due to obvious security concerns. She's given a service dog and training to play with AKA a puppy, even though the other inmates can't even pet these puppies. They even alleged she is personally escorted by prison guards to work out after hours.

Whistleblower also telling Raskin that Maxwell has been so pampered that one official complained that he's -- quote -- "sick of having to be Maxwell's -- B-word." CNN has not independently verified all the claims made by the whistleblower to Congressman Raskin.

Joining me now, an attorney for Jeffrey Epstein victims, Spencer Kuvin. Spencer, thank you for being here. When you hear what I've described in the allegations there -- I mean, she was transferred already and given an upgrade, given her conviction for sex offenses. It's called a prison camp sometimes. It's now in the least restrictive type of facility in our prison system. How do your clients feel that on top of her just being there, she's being maybe treated better than the other inmates?

SPENCER KUVIN, ATTORNEY FOR JEFFREY EPSTEIN VICTIMS: Thank you for having me on. You know, it's just disgusting. I mean, that's really the only word I can put on it. Justice should not come with a VIP pass. But apparently, for Ghislaine Maxwell, it does.

You know, my clients, the victims of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, they have to live with trauma for the rest of their lives. And here, they're seeing Maxwell get an upgrade with puppies and computers. It's disgusting. It should never happen. And it makes everyone -- it should make everyone question what exactly is going on here and why this is happening.

COATES: You know, the whistleblower also told Congressman Raskin that Maxwell is in the process of applying for a commutation to her 20-year sentence. We know the Supreme Court has already pooh-poohed the idea of them looking at her case, but her only avenue would be a presidential pardon or commutation.

But not only that. It's who they say is helping her. They allege that the prison's warden is being used as her personal secretary who -- quote -- "is directly helping Miss Maxwell copy, print, and send documents related to this application."

[23:50:03]

Can you believe that?

KUVIN: It's disgusting. I mean, listen, this isn't punishment. This is privilege in disguise.

COATES: Hmm.

KUVIN: This is favoritism to a rich, wealthy, influential woman. She used her influence on the outside, and she's now being allowed to use it on the inside of jail after a conviction for sex trafficking and perjury, lying under oath. And the only reason that she's being given this privilege is because of who she is and the information she knows. And she's keeping to herself so that potentially, she could get a commutation or a pardon at the end of the day.

COATES: I have to think she'll rub elbows with the president somehow and that that might be advantageous to others around her. I just don't know what the motivation would be of, say, the warden if that's true. Let me ask you because Congresswoman-elect Adelita Grijalva, she'll be sworn in possibly this week. She should have been a long time ago, but it should happen this week. She'd be the final member needed to force a vote that would compel the DOJ to release all the Epstein files. Listen to what Speaker Johnson said earlier tonight.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOHNSON: She has the right. I mean, that's immaterial to us. It's now a moot point, by the way. The Oversight Committee has been delving in deeply to the Epstein investigation, and they've released 43,000 pages of the Epstein files, more to come. There's plenty of oversight. All of that information is going to be released to the public. The only thing they're redacting, Jake, is the names of the innocent victims --

JAKE TAPPER, CNN CHIEF WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT: Sure.

JOHNSON: -- and we insisted upon that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Is it a moot point, the discharge petition, and 43,000 pages out of how many?

KUVIN: That's silly. It's just comical to hear him say that. Forty- three thousand pages is absolutely nothing in comparison to what the FBI is currently holding in their custody. I have seen firsthand inside of Jeffrey Epstein's home before it was demolished in Palm Beach. He had video cameras throughout that home.

COATES: Hmm.

KUVIN: They also -- one of my clients saw video cameras in the Manhattan home, inside the home, in a master control room. The FBI has custody of these video tapes, these surveillance tapes from inside these homes, showing all of the people going in and out of the homes. Release the video, release the footage, show who's on them, show what was involved in this. If they don't release the video, they haven't released anything.

COATES: Even if it means a video might capture some of the horrors of the abuse?

KUVIN: Well, listen, at the end of the day, my clients as well as any other minor victims who were perpetrated in this sex trafficking crime should be protected. It's very simple. Television do it -- does it all the time. They blur out someone's face if they don't want to be identified. But only the victim should be protected. The people that are on these videos should be exposed to the world so that the world and the public can cast judgment on them for what they've done.

COATES: Spencer Kuvin, thank you for joining.

KUVIN: Thank you.

COATES: Well, tonight, the Supreme Court is saying no to a long shot effort to overturn its decade-old landmark decision to legalize same- sex marriage nationwide. The appeal was brought by Kim Davis, the former county clerk in Kentucky, who refused to issue a same-sex couple a marriage license back in 2015. She asked the court to reverse an order that require her to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for refusing to issue marriage licenses despite the court's ruling. Justices did not explain the decision to deny the appeal.

The man at the center of this watershed case, Jim Obergefell, says that while the justices did the right thing, he remains concerned today that this might not mark the end of legal challenges. Obergefell telling "The New York Times," "Do I think it's a pure victory and we have nothing to worry about? No, but I am taking the win today." Well, still ahead, another day, another indictment against professional athletes over betting this time as people asking, is baseball broken? Next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:55:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: It's almost midnight here on the East Coast, which means it is time to check in with our friend, Elex Michaelson, out in L.A. Hey, Elex, how you doing?

ELEX MICHAELSON, CNN ANCHOR AND CORRESPONDENT: I'm good, Laura. How are you? Good to see you.

COATES: Good to see you, too. Look, I mean, another betting scandal now rocking pro sports, this time in the Major League Baseball, two pitchers. The Cleveland Guardians indicted for allegedly conspiring to rig bets on games. This is a huge deal.

MICHAELSON: I mean, can we admit that there's just too much betting in baseball --

COATES: Yes.

MICHAELSON: -- and every sport?

COATES: Yes.

MICHAELSON: Every sport you watch and every league is in bed with all of these betting apps and everything is an ad for a different kind of bet. And maybe not everything should be a prop bet. Maybe you should not be able to bet, whether somebody is going to throw a ball or a strike on a particular pitch.

COATES: I agree. I mean, for me, it takes a little bit of the joy out. I mean, I know bragging rights. I'm -- I'm all for bragging rights. But I'm watching with my kids half the time and trying to explain to them why gambling is not for them at their age. And I -- I -- I personally do not want to have it there. But I will bet you $100 right now if I'm kidding.

(LAUGHTER)

But Bob Costas was on CNN earlier today, and he was asked if this actually could be bigger than Pete Rose.

[00:00:00]

Listen to what he said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BOB COSTAS, EMMY-AWARD WINNING SPORTSCASTER: It can become bigger because it's everywhere. You can't avoid it. And the leagues are in league with gambling operations. It should be said that the rules remain the same. The rules in baseball that these guys violated were exactly the same as the rules that have been in place since the Black Sox scandal of 1919, the rules that got Pete Rose banned.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: It's a lot. You agree?

MICHAELSON: I mean, how can you ever disagree with Bob Costas on something?

COATES: Good point.

(LAUGHTER)

MICHAELSON: His words are smart enough to say. He's always right.

COATES: Good point. And you know what's right? Your show right after this is going to be a good one, I hear. Have a good one.

MICHAELSON: Thanks, Laura.