Return to Transcripts main page
Laura Coates Live
Trump Signs Epstein Files Bill; DOJ Admits Full Grand Jury Never Saw Comey Indictment; Immigration Crackdown Leaves NC Cities on Edge. Aired 11p-12a ET
Aired November 19, 2025 - 23:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[23:00:00]
ABBY PHILLIP, CNN ANCHOR AND SENIOR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: -- in Italy somewhere, on a hill where no one can find me. I would just there and drink wine. All right, everybody, thank you very much. Thanks for watching "NewsNight." You can catch me any time on your favorite social media X, Instagram, and on TikTok. "Laura Coates Live" starts right now.
LAURA COATES, CNN HOST AND SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Tonight, the bill forcing the release of the Epstein files officially becomes law. President Trump says he signed the Epstein Files Transparency Act. You know what's not clear? What Bondi will release and when? Plus, is this real life? The prosecutor who charged James Comey reveals to the judge she didn't actually show the final set of charges to a full grand jury. You know, before she said that they indicted the former FBI director? Is the case about to completely fall apart? And Trump's immigration crackdown puts a new state on edge. Tonight is North Carolina. Tonight on "Laura Coates Live."
Well, he signed it. President Trump posting a lengthy, and I do mean lengthy, message to Truth Social a short time ago. One of the key lines, "I have just signed the bill to release the Epstein files!" But I'm not going to gloss over the rest of this message because there was -- well, his remaining thoughts were revealed. He went on a rant against several prominent Democrats he claims are deeply associated with Epstein. He says, "Perhaps the truth about these Democrats, and their associations with Jeffrey Epstein, will soon be revealed." He went on to call the whole thing a hoax that will -- quote -- "backfire on the Democrats."
Now, to Jeffrey Epstein survivors, of course, this is not about politics, let alone some kind of hoax. In this moment, it's a huge relief for all of them. It's not enough to say they were fighting for this since this current saga exploded over the summer. No. They've been demanding answers, some for decades. And now, they're one step closer to getting them.
But while the Sharpie ink may be drying on the signature line, not a done deal yet in the sense that nothing moves fast in Washington. We have now entered another waiting phase in the already frustrating game of hurry up and wait. Don't -- don't bother refreshing your feed, looking for the files to be suddenly tagged on our own page. The DOJ now has 30 days to actually release the files. And the attorney general, Pam Bondi, she got peppered with questions today about exactly what is coming next.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PAM BONDI, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL: And we'll continue to follow the law and to have maximum transparency.
UNKNOWN (voice-over): What are you doing here over the next 30 days as we understand it?
BONDI: We will continue to follow the law with maximum transparency while protecting victims.
UNKNOWN (voice-over): When you say "follow the law," Madame Attorney General, do you mean that you will provide all the files by 30 days?
BONDI: We will follow the law. The law passed both chambers last evening. It has not yet been signed. But -- but we will continue to follow the law again while protecting victims, but also providing maximum transparency.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: That last question, that was a lot like a yes or no kind of question, right? Instead, there was no real clarity on what following the law or maximum transparency would actually translate to in terms of the actual documents and files.
So, let's -- why don't we look at what following the law has meant in this case before? We can go back to that infamous case closed memo, the one from the DOJ and the FBI in July. Is that July? Wow. It declared an exhaustive review of 300 gigabytes of data and physical evidence. That also said this: Quote -- "We did not uncover evidence that could predicate an investigation against uncharged third parties." That was then.
But as of just last Friday, the DOJ launched a new federal investigation that was related to Epstein. This one examining his ties to well-known Democrats, the same Democrats that Trump mentioned in his post tonight, namely Bill Clinton, Larry Summers, Reid Hoffman. So, what suddenly changed? You know what? Bondi was asked that very question.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNKNOWN (voice-over): What changed since then that you launched this investigation?
BONDI: Information that has come forth -- information.
[23:05:00]
Um, there's information that -- new information, additional information. And again, we will continue to follow the law, to investigate any leads.
(END VIDEO CLIP) COATES: A whole mouthful of information. Does she mean this information? The Trump post demanding Bondi investigate links between Epstein and those Democrats? And I should point out, Democrats who are political enemies of Trump, she took the ball and ran with it. She announced the U.S. attorney in Manhattan would lead the review just four hours later.
And once you've got an investigation, the ballgame changes. You got to give a reason to keep records out of public view because you know, and I've been saying this time and time again, what the DOJ policy is, is to stay quiet about anything that might jeopardize a case, and they construe that quite broadly.
And if you look at the bill, one of the exceptions allows for withholding files based on active investigations or ongoing prosecutions. But, even with that, Congressman Thomas Massie, a co- sponsor of the bill, he's confident that the way he wrote the bill means that the attorney general cannot keep everything under wraps.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. THOMAS MASSIE (R-KY): Our bill, the law that she says she's going to follow, says that the exceptions for ongoing investigations have to be narrowly tailored to the investigation. They have -- they would have to jeopardize the investigation, and they can only be temporary. So, she doesn't have carte blanche to withhold a whole tranche of files.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Hmm. I wonder. Let's get with somebody who is never shy to share her opinion, CNN commentator and host of the "On" and "Pivot" podcasts, Kara Swisher is here with us. Good to see you, Kara. I, you know --
KARA SWISHER, CNN CONTRIBUTOR, OPINION CONTRIBUTING WRITER FOR THE NEW YORK TIMES, PODCAST HOST: Good to see you, Laura.
COATES: Color me skeptical, but the president --
SWISHER: Yeah.
COATES: -- says that this -- his quote -- "This will backfire on Democrats." Why are you so convinced that it's actually going to be the other way around?
SWISHER: I don't think it's either the other way around or one way at all. I just don't think he -- you know, either he has seen the evidence and knows things and, therefore, probably should have released it and prosecuted these people, or he just doesn't know what he's talking about and he's trying to use it as a political cudgel.
I mean, one of the things that's hard here is that a lot of these files have not been seen by everybody and they may come out redacted, right? That's the great worry. The other worry is, of course, that they will get rid of them in some fashion, like you're in some movie, you know, where they destroy them.
I think one of the things that I pay lot of attention to is evidence and also the kind of enthusiasm his base has for this. And I don't think they particularly want to get Democrats. I think -- I mean, they certainly had focused on Bill Clinton for a while, but they do want to just get someone, right? They have these ideas, whether it's QAnon or the very far, you know, the more conspiracy-minded MAGA people. They want to stop this thing. And they have had obsession with it, which means it could more come to bite him than anybody else. And I think it has already. And we'll see how they conduct themselves going forward. But this has not been positive for President Trump.
COATES: When you say someone, they -- my impression overwhelmingly when people have been invested in getting these files, they don't want to give any cover to potential predators.
SWISHER: Uh-hmm.
COATES: They want them to be brought to justice.
SWISHER: Right.
COATES: At least name.
SWISHER: Correct.
COATES: And we know the president has repeatedly denied any wrongdoing. He has not been criminally charged.
SWISHER: That's right.
COATES: But coming back to haunt him. I mean, this is a man -- he has been impeached twice. He has had more than his fair share of charges and trials even before he was re-elected.
SWISHER: Uh-hmm.
COATES: Why do you think this presents what some might be a straw that would break the camel -- MAGA camel back?
SWISHER: Well, I think you've already seen some people pulling away like Martin. You wouldn't have ever imagined Marjorie Taylor Greene or
COATES: No.
SWISHER: -- even Thomas Massie pulling away like this. These are -- these were committed early MAGA people, right, who were very much with President Trump. And so, I think this -- if you go into any of these online groups or if you see how they talk about it, this is a foundational principle beyond Donald Trump, right? This is something that -- that they will -- they will suck up anyone into this conspiracy. Some of it is in a conspiracy. Obviously, terrible things happen with this --
COATES: Uh-hmm. SWISHER: -- with -- with Jeffrey Epstein. And so, the question is, you know, I don't know how he can declare that Reid Hoffman, for example, which seems just -- it's just -- it's not true.
COATES: Why do you think that?
SWISHER: Because we don't have evidence of it. I think if there's evidence of -- if they had evidence, they should have been prosecuting them, say, in the Trump administration or the Biden administration. And so, just like by declaring people, he's just saying look over there. And I think When you start to do that, you have a real problem that it might sort of point to you. And he's also the president of United States, right?
[23:10:01]
That's why people are so interested. If he was just anyone else -- and if there are photos or videos that surface which I -- I can't imagine -- there was always a video and a photo, Laura, in the new digital age, right? It could be really -- it was already a problem with these emails that were just given.
And these were by Jeffrey Epstein who was either -- you don't have to believe him necessarily, but it caused a lot of -- it forced this, right? If just words are going to force this, imagine if, you know, some videos or photos surface of any of them. It's going to be -- you know, Larry Summers is out of a job.
COATES: That's true. He's stepping back. But, you know, look at -- look at the idea of Trump being photographed with Epstein --
SWISHER: Correct.
COATES: -- or Prince Andrew, for that matter, with Virginia Giuffre.
SWISHER: Uh-hmm.
COATES: I'm not suggesting that Prince Andrew somehow is -- is innocent, but the photo did present the opportunity for people to question what was going on. What -- you mentioned Marjorie Taylor Greene. I'm really interested because -- you're right, I didn't have a bingo card. Marjorie Taylor Greene would be called a traitor by President Trump.
SWISHER: Uh-hmm.
COATES: But what do you make of this sort of rebranding that she is hoping for?
SWISHER: You know -- you know, on my recent book -- I mean, my "Pivot" tour we just had, I said, I feel like she has been visited by three ghosts overnight. It feels like a scrooge-like change --
COATES: Oh, my goodness.
SWISHER: -- in a lot of ways. I know it's funny. I don't know. I think this is, of course, at the heart -- if it's the heart of this group in MAGA, she's at the heart of that. So, I'm not surprised that she would be insistent on the Epstein files. The rest of it, I suspect she has looked -- she has looked at the polling and what she was doing wasn't working, and linking yourself.
I do think she's genuine on this topic. I think she's genuine on affordability. The rest, I don't know, right? We'll wait and see what happens to her. But at this point, she sounds and feels like a Democrat, which seems odd. So that's how far it is with these people, right? That it really is. They're committed to this particular topic.
And he has so many vulnerabilities here. And, as you said, there's photo after photo after photo and mention after mention. He clearly had a strong relationship with this guy. I don't know how it ended or anything else. But it's very -- it remains unclear. And so, what has to happen is these files have to be released so we can see exactly what happened. I don't -- I don't even think we're going get total clarity even after that.
COATES: Do you have concerns? Some people believe -- they're concerned that there will be insufficient redactions. Others believe that there will be too many redactions, specifically with an eye towards people who are named but not implicated and not being able to --
SWISHER: Uh-hmm.
COATES: -- un-ring that bell of just the association of being in --
SWISHER: Yes.
COATES: -- this sick man's orbit. How do you think that's going to play out?
SWISHER: Well, you know, I think that -- look at Larry Summers, right? There's no indication he did anything wrong. He just got dating advice from Jeffrey Epstein. And that's enough to have pulled him out of Harvard. He's not teaching in Harvard. That was just tonight. He had to come off the board of Open AI. The affiliation alone is problematic.
And so, if there's stronger affiliation of exactly when Donald Trump -- and again, it's because he's the president. He's like, why are they looking at me? I'm like, because you're the president. Like, you're not just anybody, you're the president the United States, and you clearly had a significant relationship with this person at some point. And, you know, it's through the videos. They are hanging out. Like it's not -- it's not a little relationship. It's a -- it's a relationship. And even if he cut it off.
And so, I think -- you know, Larry Summers is -- is essentially finished at this point because of just emails. So, that's why, you know, we'll see where it ends up. And I think we should all wait and see what the evidence. I'm always like, let's wait and see what the evidence is.
COATES: Yeah.
SWISHER: If they don't redact enough, it's the victims. Possibly innocent people, right? The implications are harder for them. But, at this point, I think because they dragged their feet so much, a lot of this is just going to come out one way the other.
COATES: You know, the idea of people being finished as a result, there was an attempt to censor Delegate Stacey Plaskett. She got a lot of criticism for texting --
SWISHER: Yeah.
COATES: -- with Jeffrey Epstein while, by the way, questioning Michael Cohen at a congressional hearing.
SWISHER: Uh-hmm.
COATES: There was a vote to censor her. It did not pass.
SWISHER: Uh-hmm.
COATES: There has been a lot of conversations around this since that censure discussion. Do you think that this might infiltrate even into Congress and communications as well, or this is more the private sector being impacted?
SWISHER: I don't know. I just don't know. It depends on the level. I mean, I think the summer stuff was pretty surprising. What a close relationship they had after it ended, right? When he went to jail the second time, right? When he started to really be in real trouble. The first deal was a sweetheart deal, obviously. But I think -- I don't know. I just don't know how do people feel about people if they're just having a meeting with someone or texting.
COATES: Hmm.
SWISHER: I don't know. Should -- I don't know. You know, I think it'll just depend on the public.
[23:14:56]
But I think if there's significant indications that Trump's relationship continued with this guy after -- after a certain amount of time, there's -- there's a real problem there, right, obviously for him after the first arrest, even the first --
COATES: Yeah.
SWISHER: -- the first -- what was it, an arrest? I don't know. Whatever. The first plea --
COATES: Or the sweetheart deal or anything else. Well, then, tell me, how do you think -- given -- I'm going to use your analogy of scrooge. You got the ghost of Christmas past, present, and future.
SWISHER: Uh-hmm. Yeah. COATES: Democrats are looking to the future and the midterms. So are Republicans. But they know that they've got some albatrosses from what has happened in the past --
SWISHER: Uh-hmm.
COATES: -- and possibly what's going on right now. So, how should Democrats play this and how should Republicans be playing this given that there was almost unanimity in terms of getting this bill for transparency out there? And now they can say, listen, we've done all that we can right now. It's up to the president. He's now signed it. Now with the DOJ, well, we will let you know in 30 days, just, by the way --
SWISHER: Right.
COATES: -- before Christmas to extend your analogy further.
SWISHER: Right.
COATES: How do they play it?
SWISHER: Right. You know, I think let's just see where the evidence leads it, right? Let's see if they do what they say they're going to do, which is not play games. I mean, Pam Bondi just continues to play games like all the time. Meanwhile, what a mess up over with Lindsey Halligan. I mean, it's just --there's -- there's a lot of game playing. And she kept saying, we'll follow the law. I'm like, well, that would be great. You know, it'd be great over there and great over here. So, it makes it feel they don't have credibility in that regard. I think that's what you were indicating.
I think one of the things that's critical here, and you know I like to talk about digital, but this is a digital -- this is a digital phenomena, the Epstein issues. And so, there's going to be a lot of back and forth there. And it will have a lot more impact. That is what I'm really paying attention to.
COATES: But what do you mean by that digital phenomenon? What do you mean by that?
SWISHER: How quickly these photos get around the world, how quickly the information gets around. And in this case, it started as a conspiracy theory, right? And then some of it is real. And so, I think the power of digital is really going to spread this far. It used to be a very different way of getting information. And now, it's easily available. I think if she tries to redact too much or hide things or cover up or try to just focus on Democrats, I think someone will leak them. I think there's absolutely no question.
Again, if they're -- we're a visual culture now because of online, right? We have always been a visual culture. But online, these photos rock it around the world and everybody sees them. If there is any kind thing like that, hold on, hold on for everybody because I think it will -- it will -- it will metastasize in a way that is probably both good and bad, I guess. COATES: In some ways, it already has. Kara Swisher, thank you so much.
SWISHER: All right. Thank you so much, Laura.
COATES: Up next, a man who has been at the center of a political scandal, who also knows the legal system in and out, Nixon's former White House counsel, John Dean. Is he -- does he think that you can trust Pam Bondi's Epstein investigation? Plus, we just mentioned Lindsey Halligan. That's the EDVA prosecutor who maybe indicted James Comey. Well, that is all in question after what the admission she made today made the judge tell her to sit down. I'll tell you more next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:20:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: Quote -- "follow the law." That's what the attorney general says that she will do in her Epstein investigation and with the disclosure of any documents, the one that the president ordered her to start, which is focused on Democrats and his political enemies. So, what is the priority here? Is it what she says, following the law, the leads, or is it all political? And can we trust what the Department of Justice releases.
You know what? I'm going to ask that question for and to the CNN contributor and former Nixon White House counsel, John Dean. John, I have to tell you, you know -- you know that I am an alum of the Department of Justice and a former federal prosecutor. So, the idea that I would entertain a question of whether you could trust what they handed over is quite telling based on the state of affairs today. But you yourself have your own opinion about whether you think Pam Bondi and the DOJ is even going to release all of the files. Do you think they will? Do you trust the process?
JOHN DEAN, CNN CONTRIBUTOR, FORMER NIXON WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL: Well, Laura, I am also an alum of the Department of Justice.
COATES: Uh-hmm.
DEAN: That's where I started in the executive branch before I went to the White House.
COATES: Yes.
DEAN: And so, I've watched this closely. I must say, as I've said publicly before, this is very sad, what has happened to the department. I read where one commentator called it a brain drain has gone on there. And I think that's a pretty accurate description, the way they have fired and removed people and others have left because they don't want to be part of what's going on. So, can you trust the Department of Justice? I don't think you can right now. It's sad, but it's the fact. COATES: And that's such an unbelievable statement that I think is like a lightning strike for many people. And it's not just matters like this. I mean, the DOJ -- certainly, the media is focusing on, America is focusing on these extraordinarily high-profile cases and, of course, this investigation. But the DOJ as an entity has so many different matters and so many different cases, most of them unrelated to the politics of today and what's happening.
[23:25:00]
But that lack of credibility or trust might send a ripple effect all the way down the line.
DEAN: Very possible. Judges across the country are questioning the Department of Justice and some of the frivolous arguments that are being made in defense of clearly improper actions by the executive branch and by the President. So, this is not limited to the Epstein case.
COATES: Uh-hmm.
DEAN: You know, she says she's going to follow the law. Laura, she's already ignoring the law. There's a subpoena that was served on her by the House Oversight Committee in July. It's actually more comprehensive than this new law the President just signed. But she's ignoring it. She's really stiffing them. Piecemeal stuff, but not really honoring the subpoena. So, she's not going to follow the law. She's going to avoid everything that will be any problem.
COATES: Which is exactly what the bill says she's not allowed to do. But she still has discretion about ongoing matters, new investigations, of course, as well. You know, the president is saying tonight that this will all backfire on Democrats. This, of course, after he instructed Bondi to investigate some pretty high profile and prominent Democrats, including a former president. What's your thoughts on the dynamic between the president ordering the attorney general to do so and four hours later, voila, you've got a U.S. attorney investigating him?
DEAN: I think the president has a serious problem. Laura, this goes back -- 20 years this has been going on. That's when a 14-year-old girl went into the police department and said she'd been molested in Epstein's mansion, and that's where it starts. And it just goes on and on and on. It's a horrific crime. A thousand women involved in sex trafficking as minors. It just doesn't get any worse. This is way beyond just your typical Watergate scandal or --
(LAUGHTER)
-- Monica Lewinsky or any of those events. This is -- this is serious crime. And we don't know the answers. And somehow, Donald Trump got himself on the wrong side of something in this, and he is clearly worried about it unraveling.
COATES: You know, Epstein appeared to be very powerful in whatever support and resources he had. I think the heart of these Epstein files will help to get people to understand the extent of those resources and who might be held to account to explain. John Dean, thank you.
DEAN: Thanks, Laura.
COATES: Up next, was playing out in the court for the Comey case better than law and order right now or horrible for law and order right now? From a crucial admission that could be the nail in the coffin for the entire case to the DOJ's insistence that Lindsey Halligan is -- quote -- "not a puppet." We'll talk about it all next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:30:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: You know I love a good legal drama. "The Firm," "A Few Good Men." But the drama that played out today in a federal courthouse in Alexandria, Virginia, even I have really seen that. In that courtroom, Judge Michael Nachmanoff summoned Trump's hand-picked U.S. attorney, Lindsey Halligan, to his bench. Why, you ask? He wanted to know if the full grand jury saw the indictment against James Comey.
Now, see, the grand jury initially rejected the first indictment on charges that Comey lied to Congress in 2020. So, Halligan dropped one of those charges. The judge started to ask Halligan about it, saying -- quote -- "Am I correct?" But Halligan cut him off, "No, you're not," and she began to read from the grand jury transcript explaining the fourth (ph) person. And one other juror saw the altered indictment, not the full grand jury, which isn't the rule. The judge responding -- quote -- "I'm familiar with the transcript" and told Halligan to sit down.
The judge then asked another federal prosecutor to confirm, the new indictment was never presented to the grand jury for approval? Prosecutor Tyler Lemons responded -- quote -- "I wasn't there, but that is my understanding."
Well, with me now to help all of our understandings, Adam Klasfeld, editor-in-chief and co-founder of All Rise News, who is in the courtroom today. Also here, former federal prosecutor Brendan Ballou, who worked on January 6 cases and resigned earlier this year.
First of all, let me -- let's just underscore this. People think it's very secretive. It's supposed to be the grand jury process. But not to have the grand jury or a full grand jury see the indictment they're purported to have signed off on, that's not even a rookie mistake. That's a huge problem.
BRENDAN BALLOU, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: It's a huge problem. It's something you don't even have to be a lawyer to think the grand jury probably needs to see the indictment to sign off on it. Now, let's be clear. If this were essentially a ministerial error, that the second indictment was the exact same as the first, just with a section cut out, you know, maybe this would be a sort of forgivable error.
[23:34:57] But you couple that with all the mistakes that Lindsey Halligan has made in this case, the fact that she misrepresented Jim Comey's constitutional rights, the fact that she apparently suggested that the grand jury could rely on information that it hadn't actually seen in inferring that the government might be able to make a good case, the fact that they potentially relied on privileged information in assembling the case in the first place --
COATES: A five-year-old warrant.
BALLOU: Exactly. A warrant that, you know, probably wouldn't have been a basis for continuing this investigation. All this means that, you know, what could be a forgivable mistake probably becomes an unforgivable one.
COATES: So, talk to me about what happened in that courtroom. What was that moment like when there was the admission to this court that, yeah, they haven't actually seen what they signed off on?
ADAM KLASFELD, EDITOR-IN-CHIEF AND CO-FOUNDER, ALL RISE NEWS: Even the act of summoning Lindsey Halligan to speak at that moment was a break in the expectation because she has been silent throughout most of this process. During -- during James Comey's arraignment, she merely said her name, two words. Everything else, she has been silent. The judge calls her up, and she makes that admission. The courthouse was stunned. And we have to -- there's another courtroom color moment that happened that preceded all this.
COATES: Uh-hmm.
KLASFELD: We were here today to discuss the vindictive prosecution motion. After that ended, Tyler Lemons, her assistant, was about to step down. Nachmanoff said, I have a few more questions.
COATES: Uh-oh.
(LAUGHTER)
KLASFELD: That was the lead-in to that. And that's when he elicited all this information. That became the day's story. That became the bombshell. That there's this Schrodinger's indictment. Was he indicted or wasn't he?
COATES: Well, let's take a step back from that because the court has to weigh whether this is a selective and vindictive prosecution and what they have to prove in terms of whether it is, is very different. But if there's no actual indictment, then there is no prosecution to which he needs to defend himself against.
BALLOU: Exactly. And that's what Jim Comey's lawyers were raising, that there actually wasn't an indictment in their eyes given the procedural flaws that were here. You know, one thing we were talking about a little earlier is at this point, there are any number of procedural way reasons why this case could or should get dismissed.
COATES: With or without prejudice? BALLOU: Well, I'm a lawyer, so I'm going to say it depends.
COATES: Yeah.
(LAUGHTER)
COATES: And we will all go, yes, it depends.
BALLOU: But some of these are, you know, just incredibly serious. You know, misrepresenting Comey's right to not testify in his own defense, you know, that is a really serious error. Again, suggesting that the grand jury could rely on evidence that it didn't see but could infer the government might produce, that's a huge error. So, you could really see this getting dismissed with prejudice. If I can just add one more thing.
COATES: Yeah.
BALLOU: Which is, you know, there are all these procedural ways that this case could get kicked at this point but, you know, the core problem of this case is that it was brought for political purposes. You know, Donald Trump said that he wanted Jim Comey indicted. He installed the interim U.S. attorney or, you know, purported U.S. attorney to accomplish that result. And so, I worry a little bit that if this case gets kicked for procedural reasons, the lesson that the administration is going to learn is to just hire more competent partisans.
COATES: Well, you know, the interesting part about this, and there's many interesting parts, too, there's also Letitia James who is arguing whether she believes Lindsey Halligan is an authorized U.S. attorney because she's an extension of an interim and has not gone through Senate to confirm. But also, the idea here that there is a statute of limitations at play. There is a deadline and a clock that's involved in this case. It's not there for other ones. How is that playing in?
KLASFELD: Well, it plays indirectly to this day's development because government has argued that the indictment told the statute of limitations clock. It stopped it. And so, it didn't lapse because there was that indictment. But if there isn't an indictment, if Comey's lawyer is correct, if Michael Dreeben is correct, and that there is no indictment that Mr. Comey is facing, then the statute of limitations has lapsed, this is over.
COATES: Which means whatever statements he made to Congress are untouchable now?
KLASFELD: The -- his statements to Congress were in September of 2020. We are now in -- we are now in November of 2025. It would be over.
COATES: We're also in a bit of la-la land, the Wild West here in terms of this being in many ways unprecedented. Let's talk about this combination of these vindictive prosecution discussions and, of course, this because judges, they want ownership of what they're doing. They're -- they're not drinking violets, and they want to be in control, hence the robe.
And yet I'm guessing that they want somebody else to decide a case if they can't avoid the political scrutiny. If you can decide this case, there was no indictment, then you need not reach the vindictive prosecution case, and that might impact other things. So, who comes first in this, chicken or egg?
BALLOU: Yeah, exactly. And that's what we were just talking about, is there are so many procedural ways to kick this case.
[23:39:58]
I think if you're a judge, you know, your instinct is to go for that. Why wade into the political waters of --
COATES: Or the merits fully, right?
BALLOU: Exactly, the merits of whether this is a vindictive prosecution, whether Halligan was rightfully appointed. I will say on that latter point, though, on Halligan's appointment, you know, we've now had multiple district court judges rule that interim or purported U.S. attorneys that were appointed in the way that Halligan was were not actually lawfully appointed. So, you know, there is some precedent that a judge could rely on here. They wouldn't really be stepping out on their own.
COATES: Let's talk about the grand jury records in and of themselves. You mentioned that there may contain privilege information which, of course, attorney-client privilege. That privilege belongs to the client and James Comey was not incorporated into discussions or filtering through what they could say, could have and not have. But the judge had no choice but to hand over the grand jury testimony, that's what they usually do at this stage, because he would need that to build his case about vindictiveness.
KLASFELD: Absolutely. And that's one of the rulings that Fitzpatrick, the magistrate, made. And within that ruling, we talked about the potentially privileged information.
COATES: Uh-hmm.
KLASFELD: He also said that that was the core of the evidence that they presented to the grand jury. So, the -- the flaws --
COATES: And they had one witness, right?
KLASFELD: They had one witness, and it was an FBI witness. And so, the flaws in this case, I kind of liken it to a patient who has been given several potentially terminal diagnoses. Which one of them is going to kill the patient first? And that's -- that's what we're facing. And the government is hoping, of course, that we'll survive it all.
COATES: Well, why couldn't this, let's play devil's advocate, why couldn't this just go to a trial jury? The grand jury's job was to decide probable cause, not guilt or innocence. BALLOU: Yeah. Well, you know, that is the role of a grand jury. The challenge that we've got here is, you know, to get past the grand jury stage, you need to, you know, show to the grand jury that it was more likely than not that you're actually going to be able to achieve a conviction at trial. And given that she presented, at least arguably presented information that she wasn't even legally allowed to present, she hasn't met that threshold.
COATES: Well, the DOJ is defending Halligan, as you guys know, tonight and saying that she did not mislead the grand jury and that it's the only kind of a ministerial difference without distinction. We'll see how the judge rules. They didn't do so today. Adam Klasfeld, Brendan Ballou, thank you both so much.
Up next, a city on edge, businesses closed, tens of thousands of kids missing school as immigration agents take to North Carolina, and they've already got their sights on their next city.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:45:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: You have most likely seen images like these over and over and over again. Mass federal agents targeting undocumented migrants, many with no violent or criminal backgrounds, and raids all across the country. We've seen it in Los Angeles, we've seen it in New York, we've seen it in Chicago. And the administration is making it clear they have no intention of slowing down any time soon. Take a look at what happened during one encounter in the latest city they've targeted, Charlotte, North Carolina.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNKNOWN: (SPEAKING IN FOREIGN LANGUAGE).
COATES: That man was briefly detained by federal agents. He says he has been a U.S. citizen for six years and showed officers his real I.D. before he was eventually released. DHS now claims he was -- quote -- "erratic and refused lawful commands."
(END VIDEO CLIP)
But that incident is just a glimpse of the fear and the chaos that these raids have provoked in North Carolina. Tonight, the administration is standing by their tactics.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GREGORY BOVINO, U.S. BORDER PATROL CHIEF: We carry on with the mission. And the U.S. Border Patrol, ICE, and those allied law enforcement partners, we go hard and we accomplish the mission legally, ethically, and morally.
(END VIDEO CLIP) COATES: And if we take them at their word, New Orleans may very well be their next target in just a few weeks from now. Well, my next guest is a Democrat, represents Charlotte in the North Carolina State Senate. Caleb Theodros joins me now. State senator, thank you for being here. These images, disturbing to many. The DHS says that more than 250 people have been arrested in the Charlotte raid since just last weekend. It's only Wednesday. What have you been hearing from members of your community?
STATE SEN. CALEB THEODROS (D-NC): Yeah, I mean, complete distrust and anything coming from the federal government. I mean, there has been just a consistent sense of panic and anxiety ever since federal forces have essentially descended on Charlotte. And so, there's been a constant sort of paranoia within the community because there's just a lack of transparency. We've had to resolve ourselves to going on Twitter to see if we can get any kind of information as to what kind of force will be in the city.
And, as you noted earlier, the second and third order effects, you see in the community already. You have Charlotte-Mecklenburg schools where just yesterday 20,000 students were marked absent. And you have to think about what that means, 20,000 students. Many of those students, they go to school for their only meal of the day. And so, the second and third order effects of the federal force being in Charlotte is still not felt within the community, and they're voicing that.
COATES: Twenty thousand children out of school.
[23:49:58]
And -- and the idea of transparency, are you saying the administration hasn't told even local officials who they've detained?
THEODROS: Not at all. We're not getting any kind of information from the White House, any other -- the Senate delegation in Mecklenburg County here. We've made repeated attempts. Our Department of Public Safety has made repeated attempts to get any kind of information as well, and we haven't heard anything.
Listen, policing and especially the local community is handled by the local community, by local elected officials, by the local police force. And the fact that ourselves and no one here has heard any kind of information from the federal government, is it a front to transparency and everything else that every other elected official is going to be running on when it's time to campaign?
COATES: You know, there actually is a revised number that I have here that might even surprise you, given what you've just said. The Charlotte Mecklenburg School District says over 30,000 students were absent on Monday, 30,000 on Monday alone. That's about 20% of the student body population. And I want to play for you what one teacher told CNN affiliate WCNC.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DAVID GILLESPIE, TEACHER, CHARLOTTE MECKLENBURG: I'm not sure which of my students I'm going to see again, whether that be because their parents were involved in detainments or whether that be because their parents have to perform a really unfortunate safety calculus of, is it worth it to send my student to school, to put myself at risk?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: These are the choices that parents are making. How is this impacting young people in particular?
THEODROS: Yeah, 100%. I mean, the constant paranoia. Listen, anxiety is not an abstract thing. This is an impact a lot of these students are going to have moving forward. I mean, just think about it. A potential federal force just up and kidnapping you with your family, not getting information of where you're going, the local community not getting information of where you're going. And as a child, all the anxieties and all of the sort of plights that our kids already have within our school systems. I mean, you've seen the stats within Charlotte Mecklenburg schools.
COATES: Yeah.
THEODROS: Roughly 15 students already, every day, have considered suicide. Just think about the constant mental health problem we have in society and think about how much worse it's getting now that we've introduced this federal force into the local community. And this goes for ours and across North Carolina and across this nation as well.
COATES: Well, this mother can't bear the thought of what that is doing to the mental health of those children, the anxiety. And I have even listed the ages of the students who were absent. But you had the DHS secretary, Kristi Noem, who says that Charlotte was chosen because of a high number of child abuse, trafficking, and neglect cases in the city. Is that an accurate assessment of what's going on in Charlotte?
THEODROS: No. Listen, this has been a consistent sort of political theater and excuses that are given on to bring the federal force here. At the end of the day, Charlotte continues to try to invest in public safety, but it comes from the state level.
If you look, North Carolina is the only state without a budget, the only state controlled by our Senate Republicans. And so, while we're seeing things within the entire state, seeing people's health care double and triple, seeing the lack of investments in public education, the lack of investments in public safety, all coming from Senate Republicans.
The excuse we're going to make is to blame it on a city like Charlotte in order to introduce this federal force. This political theater is consistently brought on by the failure of our Republican leaders, whether at the state level or even the national level.
COATES: State Senator Caleb Theodros, we'll continue with this story. Thank you so much.
THEODROS: Thank you. COATES: Up next, if you thought President Biden's advisors are done litigating what happened last election, you'd be wrong. Elex Michaelson has the scoop right after this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:55:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: It's almost midnight here on the East Coast. Let's bring in our favorite West Coast anchor, Elex Michaelson. Elex, good to see you. Listen, you had quite --
ELEX MICHAELSON, CNN ANCHOR AND CORRESPONDENT: I'm your only West Coast anchor, so --
COATES: You know what? I wanted it to feel more meaningful.
(LAUGHTER)
You know we love you.
MICHAELSON: Yeah.
COATES: And we loved hearing this interview because you hit it on the head in terms of the right questions to ask. We were all wondering the answers to this. You sat down with Biden's former senior adviser, Mike Donilon, and he didn't mince any words when it came to how Democrats handled Biden dropping out. Tell me what he told you.
MICHAELSON: Yeah. Here's -- here's a look. He is clearly still angry about what happened.
COATES: Hmm.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MICHAEL DONILON, FORMER SENIOR ADVISER OF PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN: I thought the Democratic Party lost its mind. That's what I thought.
UNKNOWN: Democratic Party lost its mind.
DONILON: Yes.
UNKNOWN: What do you mean by that?
DONILON: What I mean by that is I thought that Joe Biden was the best candidate. I thought what happened in the party was -- I thought it was -- uh, I thought it was disloyal. I thought it was an act of betrayal against the president. I thought it was undemocratic because it didn't respect the will of Democratic primary voters. And I thought it was politically stupid.
UNKNOWN: You think it was a mistake for him to drop out?
DONILON: I don't think it was a mistake. I think it was a mistake for the party to have a circular firing squad. That's what I think.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Wow. Tell us how you really feel.
MICHAELSON: Right. And most likely, that's the way that President Biden really feels about what happened here as well. We've heard so many people come out with their books, including Vice President Harris.
COATES: Yes.
MICHAELSON: We have not seen President Biden come out with his book yet, which he's writing. We have not heard very much from Mike Donilon in terms of the actual Biden view. And I think that's it right there.
COATES: Did he say who he thinks the Democrats' best bet is for 2028?
[00:00:00]
MICHAELSON: He said a lot of different names, including Kamala Harris. But interestingly, he said the most undervalued person is Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who he said could win the general election. So, it's a proof that the progressive Mike Donilon is backing one of the most progressive candidates, which is not necessarily the way a lot of people think of Joe Biden, but interesting that's the person he would choose.
COATES: Ooh, an interesting show ahead. Have a great one.
MICHAELSON: Thanks so much, Laura. Have a great night.
