Return to Transcripts main page

Laura Coates Live

Suspected D.C. Pipe Bomber Breaks Silence To FBI; Boat Targeted By Second Strike Not Headed For The U.S.; Rep. Adelita Grijalva Speaks Out After Confrontation With ICE. Aired 11p-12a ET

Aired December 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]

ABBY PHILLIP, CNN ANCHOR AND SENIOR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: You can catch us any time on social media and our round table show, "Table for Five" tomorrow morning at 10 a.m. Eastern right here on CNN. "Laura Coates Live" is waiting for you right now.

LAURA COATES, CNN HOST AND SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: A suspected D.C. pipe bomber breaking his silence to the FBI and reportedly revealing his views in the 2020 election. Was it the motive for his alleged actions on the eve of January 6th?

Plus, a significant detail emerging in the Pentagon's deadly boat strike that questioned not only the kill order, but the entire premise of the military's campaign.

And new tonight, Congresswoman Adelita Grijalva says that she was pepper-sprayed by ICE as she questioned agents during a nearby raid. So, what exactly happened? She will join me tonight to discuss on "Laura Coates Live."

So, we knew he was reclusive, antisocial, living in a well-to-do suburb right outside of Washington, D.C., and yes, he wore red Crocs. But what we didn't know and might not know about this suspected D.C. pipe bomber was why he allegedly did it. Why would he plant bombs outside the DNC and RNC headquarters the night before January 6th, according to the investigators?

Well, tonight, we may be closer to finding out just why. Sources tell CNN that Brian Cole, Jr. told investigators he believed the 2020 election was stolen. Yes, the same conspiracy theory pushed by President Trump to this very day. The suspect, apparently, bought into it. We learned that new detail right before his first court appearance today.

But the U.S. attorney in Washington, DC, Jeanine Pirro, alleges his anger was not aimed at just one side.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JEANINE PIRRO, U.S. ATTORNEY FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: He was disappointed in various aspects of the election. But this guy was an equal opportunity bomber. He put a bomb outside the Republican National Committee and the Democrat National Committee. He was disappointed to a great deal in the system, both sides of the system.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Now, we don't know much more about his motivation beyond that. But if you told the FBI he was a 'stop the steal' believer, could his attorney try to use that to get him out of the charges he's facing?

Bear with me. You got to remember. Trump pardoned or commuted the sentence of literally everyone involved in the January 6th Capitol riot, right? Blanket clemency for more than 1,500 people tracked down and prosecuted by the DOJ. That included 10 former Proud Boys and Oath Keepers that were convicted of seditious conspiracy, 170 people charged with using a deadly weapon, 150 people accused of theft or destruction of federal property. All people Trump described like this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Those J6 warriors, they were warriors, but they were really more than anything else. They're victims of what happened. All they were doing is protesting a rigged election.

They had to release the J6 hostages. They've suffered enough. They had to release them.

If I run and if I win, we will treat those people from January 6th fairly.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: So, if that's the pattern, the next step is asking whether those mass January 6th pardons would cover Brian Cole, Jr. Well, I want to look at the fine print here. It called for the dismissal of all pending indictments for conduct related to the events at or near the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021.

Now, prosecutors, they could try to argue this wasn't at or near the Capitol, or that it happened on January 5, not January 6, or that Trump's order does not apply to any new prosecutions. But his attorney general -- his attorney, excuse me, for the defendant could very well argue otherwise.

And here's a wild card. Could the president actually consider offering him a pardon? I mean, look, I get it. It may sound crazy on its surface, on its face, but not when you consider what the president has done recently. He pardoned a former entertainment exec this week who was indicted by his own DOJ in July. He pardoned 77 people for their efforts in trying to overturn the 2020 election, including Rudy Giuliani, Mark Meadows.

[23:05:00]

He's trying to pressure Colorado's governor into pardoning Tina Peters, the only Trump ally currently in prison for 2020 election crimes. The reason Trump can't do it himself? State charges, not federal. You get where I'm going with this, right? He supports and frees election deniers and believes that they were victims of their own beliefs that the DOJ weaponized against them. That's the premise. And he's willing to undermine his own prosecutors.

But even with Trump's history of some would call head-scratching pardons, if he actually were to consider one for Brian Cole, Jr., assuming he indeed turns out to go through the entire process and remains a suspect, it would be extraordinary, because his own team has been out there celebrating the police work that it took to catch this person.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PIRRO: In my mind, they were on the right path when it was clear that the cellphone was pinging in the exact locations where we had the video of the suspect walking along the area. Everywhere he walked, his cellphone was pinging at the cell tower. So, it is unmistakable that he was the guy who was walking along and placing those items.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Let's begin with a former top DOJ prosecutor, Mike Gordon, who prosecuted some of the most notorious January 6 cases until he was suddenly fired by the attorney general, Pam Bondi. Mike, thank you for being here. So, what do think? Is Brian Cole, Jr. a candidate for a pardon?

MIKE GORDON, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: Well, Laura, thanks for having me on. It certainly what I would argue if I was his defense attorney. The first thing I would do in this case is try to file a motion to dismiss on that ground. The pardon language is expansive, the way it was written. As you pointed out, it is supposed to cover all crimes related to the what happened at the Capitol on January 6th.

Here, the pipe bombs drew law enforcement resources away from the Capitol. Remember, the bombs weren't discovered on January 5th when they were placed. They were discovered on January 6th as all of the chaos was unfolding in front of the Capitol. So, law enforcement had to deal with that and couldn't respond to the riot that was happening. So, there's no argument. And I'd make it, if I was his defense attorney, that his crime was related to the Capitol.

COATES: So, could the president of the United States, given that they have --- he has the absolute power to issue pardons, commutations, and beyond, could he give it and then take it away and limit it in a nuanced fashion with respect to a case like this?

GORDON: Well, it's going to ultimately be up to a judge to decide whether or not the pardon applies. The pardon is -- you know, it's a law, essentially (INAUDIBLE) effect of a law. And so, what will happen is a judge will have to decide whether or not that language applies to Brian Cole's case. Essentially, unless the president decides to pardon Brian Cole himself, it will be up to a judge, not the president, to decide. COATES: Now, that's fascinating. And I wonder if that's revelatory right now to those who are a part of the law enforcement community who were announcing that a suspect had been located. A virtual cold case five years later, only to have this question confronting them based on the president's own statements and grants of clemency to all the January 6th defendants. How do you think the public ought to view this particular case, given that clemency?

GORDON: Well, it's extraordinarily frustrating, right? This puts a point on why it's dangerous to write pardons with such expansive language. And it's characteristic of the way the administration has approached these things.

Typically, pardons are things that are the result of careful deliberation over long periods of time that are handled with individual attention, right, that are -- where you're analyzing a specific person. I don't know that I'm aware of a grant like this ever before in our history to 1,500 people. And when you paint with such a broad brush, this is the risk that you bring in, the risk that you're going to inadvertently cover someone like Brian Cole.

COATES: We've seen draft dodgers be covered. Of course, Carter is one example. But I hear your point that the idea that anything related to a particular day not tied to a particular action that was already specified and explicitly laid out with the full benefit of hindsight, very different here.

Republican Senator Markwayne Mullin telling conservative influencer Benny Johnson that lawmakers plan to reveal more about this case. Listen.

[23:10:00]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. MARKWAYNE MULLIN (R-OK): We're being very methodical on how we rolled it out. But we'd love to have something out on that. You know, early spring, if we're ready to go. But it's a very big case that has been covered up by the previous administration.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Where is this headed? I mean, because a lot of the investigators would have been carryovers or people who may have been a part of, as career, either prosecutors or career investigators, a part of or underneath the Biden administration and tenure. They could have been under the previous Trump tenure as well. Where do you think this is going when they're talking about a cover-up now involving facts that they say were in existence at the time that Biden was still president?

GORDON: I just don't believe that, Laura. I've, you know, known hundreds of FBI agents in my career. And without, you know, exception, they are among the most diligent, careful, intelligent investigators I've ever encountered. And this has been a high priority, a top priority of the Justice Department since the day it happened. This investigation has taken five years. And now, they have a suspect. And to be clear, Brian Cole is only alleged at point. He hasn't been convicted of anything. But I can't for a moment believe that there were FBI agents or prosecutors who covered anything up. It's not in their DNA.

COATES: You know, you hear me talking about the case. And the prosecutor in me, the lawyer in me keeps talking about alleged and injecting that language, not because I want to persuade anyone, but because the reason you've just said, and that is we are so in the infancy of an investigation that was a cold case 24 hours ago.

And now, there's a suspect that is named. And we're hearing all sorts of things about the process of the investigation, including that now FBI Deputy Director Dan Bongino himself, who was a private citizen not long ago, talked about a different conspiracy, an inside job narrative. He's acknowledging that he said what he said then because he was being paid to give his opinions. And now, he's not in that capacity. Does that impact the trust that can be bestowed upon the investigators now?

GORDON: I mean, not the line investigators, but certainly, I think, should influence the public's perception of Deputy Director Bongino. He essentially said that when he was paid to make outlandish statements, he did so, not based on facts, but that's because that's where the financial incentive for him was. And then now that he's in the position he's in, now he won't make such statements because, you know, he's paid to deal in facts.

That's disturbing and frustrating. But I don't think that it should impact the public's perception of the work of the line FBI agents who, you know, aren't in that same position.

COATES: You know, I've said it before, Bongino may not have ever been privy to information. That is what they have now. Obviously, one would not expect a private citizen to have the same access information as the deputy director of the FBI. Perhaps that's where the epiphany has come from as well. Throwing out a credibility lifeline, if you will. Mike Gordon, thank you so much.

GORDON: Thank you, Laura.

COATES: Still ahead tonight, a new twist in the story over the Pentagon's deadly double tap strike as we learn where that drug boat was actually headed. And tonight, it's raising even more questions about why the strike order was even given. Plus, a new crisis tied to the CDC. A panel voting to change a recommendation to the hepatitis B shot. And now, the president says there are more changes to come. The governor of Hawaii, Dr. Josh Green, will join me next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:15:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) COATES: HHS Secretary RFK Jr.'s hand-picked Vaccine Advisory Board now paving the way for major change for childhood vaccines, voting to do away with the universal recommendation for the hepatitis B shot for all newborns. Instead, they only recommend it for infants born to women who test positive for the virus.

Tonight, President Trump is praising that decision, writing in part, the vast majority of babies are at no risk of hepatitis B, a disease that is mostly transmitted sexually or through dirty needles.

The change has rattled many in the medical community who say the decision was political and dangerous.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DR. CODY MEISSNER, MEMBER, CDC VACCINE ADVISORY COMMITTEE: We've heard, do no harm is a moral imperative. We are doing harm by changing this wording.

DR. JOSEPH HIBBELN, MEMBER, CDC VACCINE ADVISORY COMMITTEE: This has a great potential to cause harm, and I simply hope that the committee will accept its responsibility when this harm is caused.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: My next guest is an outspoken critic of HHS Secretary RFK Jr. and the CDC's recent vaccine guideline changes. I'm talking about Democratic governor of Hawaii, Dr. Josh Green. He joins me now. In fact, in 2019, he responded to the deadly measles outbreak in American Samoa, a crisis, he says, was fueled by RFK Jr.'s efforts to discredit the vaccine in Samoa.

Governor, we have spoken about this in the past, even for his confirmation. And now, one of the big concerns I believe you had, realizing in certain ways, because the CDC will essentially leave this decision we've discussed up to parents. Why is this revision flawed, in your view?

GOV. JOSH GREEN (D-HI): Well, it's a flawed decision because instead of celebrating vaccinations, they're demonizing vaccinations. And hepatitis B is no joke. Right now, there's already 640,000 Americans living with chronic hepatitis B, and that will often progress to real terrible liver damage, liver failure, cancer of the liver.

[23:20:04]

And so, anything we can do to prevent these cancers and prevent these problems, we should. The decisions have become more political than science-based, and that's the wrong way to go. That's why I'm against their approach.

COATES: You know, governor, the hepatitis B decision is laying the groundwork for more scrutiny of childhood shots more broadly. And tonight, you know, the president is even questioning the efficacy of the current vaccine schedule and fast tracking a review. So, what if it doesn't stop here? What's the implications of more changes? GREEN: Implications are more people get sick. I felt for a while they were going to target vaccinations like the HPV vaccine. That's the human papilloma virus vaccine, which prevents cervical cancer in young women. And, of course, we already have an outbreak of measles.

And so, if they make it more difficult to get vaccinated, we'll have, you know, people suffer the consequences of very serious viruses. God forbid we see rates drop even further, and then you see outbreaks like polio. So, I don't understand why they continue to push down on vaccinations. It's a mistake.

COATES: You know, many physicians are critical of this move, yourself included, but also a former high-ranking CDC official, who is saying Americans should not listen to the agency's vaccine advisors anymore. That is stunning to think that that is a former high-ranking official at the CDC now essentially saying it cannot be trusted. What is the consequence if the CDC cannot be relied on by the everyday parent person, potential patient?

GREEN: Well, there'll be more confusion. And the problem with confusion in vaccinations is as the vaccine rates drop down, say, under 95%, you'll see outbreaks because we won't have herd immunity. So, confusion is our enemy in this case. I think people are going to have to turn to their pediatricians, and they're going to probably have to rely on the American Academy of Pediatrics. That's a much better approach in general.

Look, I'm not trying to be political. I'm not even spoiling for a fight. I just -- that vaccinations and childhood health should be off limits when it comes to politics. And obviously, it is right now at the center of politics, and that's disappointing.

COATES: You know, I was so scared when I had my children because you have so much information. You're pregnant. You're trying to grapple everything from whether you can eat cold cuts to how you can set your children up for success when they are born, let alone in utero. And to not be able to know that whatever recommendation has previously been given or that has been a part of our society for decades and decades, if not longer, is suddenly removed from the equation, it's very scary as a parent to have that uncertainty and not really know where to look.

And you're a governor. There's a governor -- there's a senator as well, Bill Cassidy, who you also know. He's calling this change a mistake, and he is saying that the acting CDC director should not actually approve that. But, of course, Cassidy did vote to confirm RFK Jr. Does that mean that his criticism is literally a day late and a dollar short?

GREEN: Yes, Cassidy blew it on this one, and I think he knows it. You know, it would have been better to have RFK Jr. serve as an advisor to the president on nutrition or chronic disease or environmental issues. I actually agree with him on lot of those issues, pesticides, but not on these public health issues.

And Senator Cassidy really should have known better. I don't mean to be cruel, but I was there during the hearings, and he had the opportunity to influence the president to put Bobby Kennedy in a place where he was better suited to help the country.

Right now, when you scare moms and dads, you're doing them an incredible disservice. And it's really all about money. You know, a lot of the hearings that I've been to, and I was -- you know, I was the minority testifier at one of those big hearings, it was all about cashing in on the lawsuits against vaccinations. It was cashing in on supplements against the proteins that came out of the COVID-era concerns. I mean, it was really, really gross.

And we should not be capitalizing on people's illness. We should not be scaring parents. We should be caring for them. So, we have to really hope that they reverse this process and just start supporting vaccinations.

COATES: I'm concerned about the trajectory. They certainly have the power to make these recommendations. Governor Josh Green, thank you so much.

GREEN: Thank you. It's an honor.

COATES: Still ahead, what Trump is really doing with these boat strikes. A powerful essay by a former Marine Corps veteran who will join me tonight. Just as we learned that the boat the Pentagon struck, it wasn't even headed to the United States.

Plus, imagine you run one of the world's biggest sporting events. You got to make sure the president is on your side. How do you do it? The village people singing YMCA, a peace prize, and a medal.

[23:25:00]

Inside FIFA's flattery clinic, straight ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: Tonight, we have exclusive new details on the deadly strike on a suspected drug boat in the Caribbean. For months, the White House maintained that that boat that was hit on September 2nd was headed towards the United States.

Now, two sources with direct knowledge say that Admiral Frank Bradley told Congress that boat was headed to the small South American country of Suriname. That's just east of Venezuela.

[23:29:55]

Drug enforcement officials say that smugglers who go through Suriname are usually headed toward Europe, not the United States, and the survivors were seen waving at something in the air before the second strike. But it's unclear they were surrendering or asking for help.

All of these raises many more questions about the legality of the deadly strike. But sources also confirmed that Admiral Bradley consulted the uniformed lawyer who was on duty before approving that second strike. This explains those 41 minutes.

However, one Marine veteran of the Iraq War says a greater moral dilemma is at stake with these strikes. And he writes about it in "The New York Times." Quote -- "Barbaric behavior tarnishes all who wear or once wore the uniform, and lust for cruelty turns a noble vocation into mere thuggery."

Phil Klay is the author of that very, very compelling piece, and he joins me now. He's also a novelist and professor at Fairfield University. Phil, thank you for being here and, of course, for this piece. When I read it, it floored me to hear from somebody who obviously is a Marine Corps veteran, what your perspective is today, hearing about all that's unfolded. How do you think the strike reflects?

I think we lost him just for a second, but we're going to get him back because I really want to know how he, in particular, thinks about this. I want to know because one of the things he talks about, if I can go a little bit further on your piece before we talk on this issue, is he goes into -- the wounding of the national soul was hard for him to watch. That's what he's talking about. And that 20 years ago, when he joined the Marine Corps, it was because he thought that military service would be an honorable profession. Its honor derives from fighting prowess and adherence to a code of conduct.

Now, just thinking about that in context of where people are discussing this issue, and not just in the present time of whether this is a congressional investigation still, but in terms of how this might reflect on the military, can you expand a little bit on how you think the strike reflects on that?

PHIL KLAY, IRAQ WAR MARINE VETERAN: Yes. I mean, as you mentioned, I'm a Marine Corps veteran, and I'm very proud of that. And I think the honor of the military and the prestige that we hold the military is not simply about the fact that they're, you know, an incredible fighting force, right, and not simply about the fact that they're lethal, though obviously that's important, that's something the military needs to do, but if you're a member of the military, you need to abide by a code of conduct, right?

COATES: Yes.

KLAY: And one of the things that military training is very much about is not just about tactics, but character formation, right? You learn these core virtues when you join any branch of service, right? Honor, courage, and commitment as well as a sort of whole host of

other virtues, that are deeply important, and that distinguish the profession of being in the military from being a mere killer, right?

And so, it is deeply disturbing to me to see the armed forces engaging in things that look very clearly like war crimes. It's also deeply disturbing to me to see the rhetoric that the administration uses around this where there seems to be a real sort of delight in cruelty, right, a delight in violence, which is not simply something that you see in the Venezuelan boat strikes, but you see it when they talk about, you know, post images of weeping migrants or videos of migrants being shackled or, you know, Cabinet secretary in front of prisoners in notorious prison, right?

That there is often in these attacks a real positive information around why we're doing it, how it's actually related to U.S. national security, and a lot of focus around the kind of spectacle of crime, cruelty, and violence, which is antithetical to, I think, a lot of those core virtues that are really important for distinguishing military.

COATES: You know, it strikes me, just as you're discussing, that it's a very difficult statement to even be discussing your fellow service members in the same paragraph, word, essay as war crime. That's a very difficult proposition to even explore.

KLAY: Yes.

COATES: I can feel that difficulty as you're speaking. And I wonder, I mean, I've never served. I hold in very high regard and deep reference for those who have and thank them for their service. I don't know, and that's why my question is pure. Have you ever encountered an order you disagreed with?

[23:34:56]

And when it comes down to a close call or having to consult with the attorney who was on staff that day to discuss it, what's happening in those rooms? This is not split second. This is contemplative.

KLAY: Yes. I mean, so, look, there are orders that people disagree with. There are all sorts of realm of disagreement from policy. I served in wars where -- you know, I served in the Iraq War.

COATES: Yes.

KLAY: I have throughout my career been extremely critical of many aspects of military policy. That's I think the -- that's about often about policy, right? There are wrong choices that people can make that are disastrous, right? That cost human lives. But choices where you understand that the people making those decisions are coming from a place of serious moral deliberation, right? And I think that is what seems to so clearly be lacking here, right?

And don't get me wrong. I've been -- I've written about war under many different presidents, and I've been very critical of many different presidents of both parties, right? And the thing, whenever you criticize a current president, there's always somebody who will say, well, did you criticize -- did you criticize Biden? If I'm criticizing Biden, did you criticize Trump? The answer for me is yes. Right? There are disagreements about policy.

And then there is whether you can trust the moral character of the people who making those decisions. And I think that the issue with these strikes and the things that are so disturbing is, look, we have the questions around the second strike.

COATES: Yes. KLAY: It looks very clearly like war crime. Shipwrecked people have long been a kind of case study of people you're not allowed to attack, right, in war. Clear cases of war crimes. Then you have the question of, is this even a war in the first place, right?

The president is supposed to not engage in hostile activities beyond 60 days if he doesn't have congressional approval. We don't have that. We don't even have a serious case for why there should be a war. And then --

COATES: And then there are questions about the double tap strike and the prudence of it.

KLAY: Yes.

COATES: Your piece is so compelling because it really -- it describes in detail the contemplation surrounding this particularly controversial issue --

KLAY: Yes.

COATES: -- but from the perspective of somebody like yourself with such expertise. Thank you, Phil Klay. You know, while Washington debates whether the administration committed a war crime in the Caribbean, President Trump was rewarded for his efforts to reach global peace.

FIFA, the international soccer organization that runs the World Cup, gave Trump the inaugural FIFA Peace Prize. FIFA praised Trump's -- quote -- "extraordinary actions for peace" that have -- quote -- "united people across the world."

So, if we're going to create an award out of the blue, I have my own handout. I have the inaugural "Laura Coates Live" Peace Prize, and whoever is the most peaceful panelist, peaceful panelist at the end of this discussion, wins a surprise gift.

So, let's meet tonight's contestants. I've got CNN senior political commentator Scott Jennings and CNN political commentator Jamal Simmons. Both of you really, really want that award. I don't know about a peaceful panelist, but one that's respectful. All right, Scott, I'm starting with you. Is it --

SCOTT JENNINGS, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, FORMER SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH, SALEM RADIO HOST: Wait. You invited me to a peace contest? OK.

(LAUGHTER)

COATES: Rock, paper, scissors wasn't available on a Friday night. That's the true challenge, Jamal. A peace --

JAMAL SIMMONS, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: A peace of what, is the question.

COATES: You know what? (LAUGHTER)

I know how this is going to go already. I'm to split that flamingo in half. OK, is it hypocritical, Scott, to award Trump the Peace Prize when the U.S., obviously, is in the back trap of carrying out these lethal strikes on suspected drug boats in the Caribbean?

JENNINGS: No, I don't think so. First of all, he's got a great track record of solving conflicts around the world the United States is engaged in many places and brought countries that were in conflict to a peaceful resolution. That's good number.

Number two, I think one of his greatest accomplishments, bringing home the living hostages from Gaza, getting a ceasefire there in the Middle East, trying to expand the Abraham Accords. That's a great thing.

And number three, even on Venezuela, I mean, look, we're attacking people that are doing the opposite of bringing peace to families in the United States. I mean, when we let this poison into our country, we're effectively letting in terrorists who have materials that want to kill the American people and have to the tune of hundreds of thousands over the last few years. He's policing our own hemisphere, and we're going after people who wreak havoc on families in our country and in other countries, in our hemisphere and around the world.

[23:40:05]

So, I think the president believes deeply in peace. I think he has a track record of it. I think the FIFA guy came up with a great idea. And it's great for our country that we're having the World Cup. I'm glad the president is leaning into it with the head of FIFA.

COATES: Jamal, what's your take on this? Obviously, I know you're not going to debate the horrors of drugs entering into the country. It's horrific. But the idea of the strategy of the FIFA president, this is hardly the first golden gift that he has received in returning to office this year. I mean, there's just some of the gifts from Germany, Apple CEO Tim Cook, South Korea. There's a lot. What do you make of the tactic?

SIMMONS: You know, my six-year-old daughter today asked me, I don't know why she asked me this, but she said, daddy, what's the meaning of the word utter ridiculousness?

(LAUGHTER)

She watched something on television.

COATES: What is she watching? What's Elmo saying these days? What? OK.

SIMMONS: I know. Utter ridiculousness. I showed her a picture of this because this is the definition of utter ridiculousness. I don't really understand why it is, someone would just come up with a random Peace Prize, let alone -- maybe it's just because they run T.V. show at night and they want to have some fun. But other than that, I don't know why they're doing it. And -- or they want to make up and kind of ingratiate themselves to the president of United States who seems to like gold, who seems to like awards. He has been --

COATES: What's the benefit of that ladder? What's the benefit of the ladder? I mean, obviously, there is a -- there is a reason one would do this. It might (INAUDIBLE) their benefit.

SIMMONS: Look, I mean, you talk about peace. Donald Trump likes a piece of the action, all right? And so, every time someone comes to United States, it seems like he wants to find some way to kind of get cut in on the deal. We know he's getting an airplane for $400 million. He's going to be able to take it with him when he leaves office. He's going to build a ballroom that will probably have his name on it.

So, Donald Trump likes to get all the fluffy of, you know, being in office. And people have learned to compliment him, to give him gifts, and to play into his ego.

COATES: Well, Scott, he's getting ready to embark on a tour where he'll be talking to people about the economy, touting that. He hopes to wear the economy as a badge of honor. I wonder if his voters and those who support him or have questions about whether they want to continue to support him will see that same badge of honor in the economy. What do you think?

JENNINGS: I think it's good that he's getting out there. I mean, he did spend the first year a lot of it on foreign affairs. I mean, I think the big, beautiful bill was his big domestic accomplishment along with immigration. But he spent a lot of time on foreign affairs and had quite a bit of success.

But moving into an election year, the top issue is going to be the economy. He's the party's best spokesman, going out on the road and talking about what he has done, drawing a bright line between our plan, his plan verses the disaster that was the Biden years.

You want to go back to -- we're in a deep hole. We got -- he inherited a deep hole. You want to go back to the people with the shovels or do you want to go to the person and let the person building the ladder who's trying to get you out? That's kind of the argument that only, really, he can make on behalf of the party.

Just to go back to the gift for a moment. I don't know if either of you all have ever visited a presidential library of any kind. Go in there and look at some of the gifts that every president receives. You got everything in there, from trays to jewels to vases to swords to -- you name it. Presidents gets gifts all the time.

SIMMONS: You don't have airplane, Scott. You don't have airplane, Scott. You don't have $400 million airplanes. That seems to be one of the things --

JENNINGS: OK. Where is the airplane? Is the airplane that's hurting you in the room with us right now or is it -- SIMMONS: It's the Qatari airplane. Act like you know what we're talking about. I don't think you know what we're talking about.

JENNINGS: The president gets gifts. The president of the United States gets handed gifts all the time. It's one way that people deal diplomatically with each other. They're all over presidential libraries all over the country.

COATES: I mean, if I had a dollar for every time a man handed me an airplane, I would get my own award right now. I'm going to crown, though, right now Jamal. You get the award. You know why? Because you use the word "peace" in so many different ways. You were like a walking thesaurus just now. OK? So, you get the inaugural -- oh, look at that. It looks lovely on you. Scott, next time. Don't worry. Maybe use a couple more references to the word "peace." Thanks, guys.

SIMMONS: Thank you. Have a good night. Happy weekend.

COATES: Up next, a taco restaurant targeted by ICE in Arizona where things got tense as protesters showed up, including Congresswoman Adelita Grijalva, who says agents pushed her aside and pepper-sprayed her. So, what exactly happened? The Congresswoman is live with me next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:45:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: The federal crackdown on immigration showing no signs of slowing down. Surely not tonight. And the images you're looking at on your screen are from Tucson, Arizona today. Just the latest example of what has become all too common. You can see federal agents clashing with protesters during an immigration raid outside of a restaurant. It rapidly devolved into chaos. Now, DHS says several people were taken into custody. And the congresswoman who represents Tucson, Representative Adelita Grijalva, decided to confront these agents head on.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. ADELITA GRIJALVA (D-AZ): You guys need to calm down and get out. You need to get out. You need to -- you need to get out.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: And not too long after that, Congresswoman Grijalva says that she was pepper-sprayed by a federal agent. We've highlighted her in the video we're about to show you so you can make her out in the crowd.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

[23:50:00]

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: DHS responded in a statement. Quote -- "She wasn't pepper sprayed. She was in the vicinity of someone who was pepper sprayed as they were obstructing and assaulting law enforcement. Presenting one's self as a 'member of Congress' does not give you the right to obstruct law enforcement" -- unquote.

Democratic Congresswoman Adelita Grijalva joins me now. Congresswoman, obviously, you've heard that statement now. I want to give context because you say this was a mom and pop restaurant that you actually go too often, and that your staff and you happened to be there getting lunch when you saw this raid happen. Can you describe how things escalated so quickly, and why did you decide to get involved in the way that you did?

GRIJALVA: Well, part of it, oversight is not obstruction. And so, we were on our way to the restaurant. One of my staff members received a call from somebody that had been in the restaurant to say they were kicked out, that something was happening with ICE and there was a big situation right in front of the restaurant. We were literally turning the corner.

So, we got out of the car, went to go find out what was happening, asked if they had a warrant. I introduced myself. One of the members said, I don't care who you are, we were trying to get out of here.

So, one of the things that I was asking people to do was, like, OK, well, let's deescalate this, let's try to move out of the way so ICE can leave. And that's where you hear me saying, OK, go ahead and go now, go ahead and go now, because people were moved out of the way.

But so many of those ICE agents, literally except for one, everyone else was very happy to be aggressive. You know, shooting people directly. We were not -- there was no -- there was no aggressive nature in the people that I was standing next to.

And the individual who was shot the worst right in my small little vicinity was a member of the media with clear credentials. He was not assaulting anyone, and his entire face was hit by the officer that we actually have a picture of. And so, I'm hoping to --

COATES: Just to be clear, congresswoman --

GRIJALVA: Sorry --

COATES: -- when you say shooting, you mean pepper sprayed? I want to be clear in language.

GRIJALVA: Oh, yes, pepper spray, bear spray.

COATES: OK.

GRIJALVA: There was no -- I mean, everyone had -- it looked like they had access to that kind of, you know, armory. But nobody was shooting in that regard. It was pepper spray. And there was some sort of gas that was shot directly right under me. But there was a lot of -- there was just a lot of aggressiveness. There was a lot of fear in a lot of members of the community, trying to figure out what was happening right down the street. Most of the people that were there, trying to find out what was going on. Protesting are members of that community that live there.

COATES: You know, one of our affiliates is reporting that the operation was part of some sort of years-long investigation into immigration, tax crimes at that restaurant chain. Do you know anything about that or anything specific about who might be in custody and is it related specifically to immigration or something else? Do you know?

GRIJALVA: I have literally -- I had no idea. That's what I was asking. Like, do you have warrants? What are you doing here? And they said, we don't have the authority to tell you anything.

COATES: OK.

GRIJALVA: I said, have you done what you need to do? Can you leave? Because they were literally in the middle of the street. And then shortly thereafter, we had Tucson Police Department who actually came and deescalated the situation, and people were moving on. But it was very jarring. I mean, it's one thing to hear about these situations. It's another thing --

COATES: Yes.

GRIJALVA: -- to be right in the middle of it and appreciate how fearful these unchecked -- you know, these unchecked ICE members are in our communities.

COATES: Why are they saying that you were obstructing? Use the term oversight. The way you've described it to me tonight seems to run counter to the statement they have issued. Do you have any pause as to why they're describing you differently?

GRIJALVA: Oh, because it's convenient to them to make it seem as if I was doing anything other than inquiring about what was happening. I literally asked one agent. There was literally one person that I could identify, had a little mask on and answered my questions in a calm tone. I said, what I want to know is where are you taking the people that you have detained that were protesting. They're, like, we're taking them to a federal prison. So, there isn't a federal prison nearby. Are you taking them to the detention, like the little detention facility underneath the federal courts? And that -- I believe that that's where they -- and he said, I believe so. And that was all.

But there were -- there were other people there that we have, you know, video of and pictures of, who were literally pushing people out of the way. It was very -- it was -- the ICE agents were actually escalating the violence purposefully.

COATES: Now that you have seen this unfold in person and are a sitting member of Congress, will it inform legislative initiatives or your actions on Capitol Hill to address it? GRIJALVA: The firsthand knowledge, I think, is very helpful. It's unfortunate. I wish I wouldn't have -- you know, that situation wouldn't have rolled out literally right in front of me.

[23:55:02]

But I think there's so much that ICE is trying to do to keep things covered up, including attacking specifically members of our media to try to stop them from reporting on any of it. So, we do have to have checks and balances. And right now, the Trump administration is not providing that check and balance.

COATES: Congresswoman Adelita Grijalva, thank you for joining me this evening and describing what you saw.

GRIJALVA: Thank you.

COATES: I want to thank all of you as well for watching tonight. Elex Michaelson picks up our coverage in just a moment. But before that, I want to tell you about one of my favorite events of the year, the CNN Heroes all-star tribute. It's tomorrow night right here on CNN.

I had the pleasure working with Anderson Cooper, and we were hosting a special, special night honoring the five extraordinary people that we have been profiling all year. We're going to announce the hero of the year, and you'll see appearances by Meryl Streep, Jon Batiste, just to name a few special guests who are going to be part of the show. So, join tomorrow night, 8 p.m. Eastern, right here on CNN.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)