Return to Transcripts main page

Laura Coates Live

DOJ Investigates Powell; Minnesota And Illinois Sue To Block ICE; Kelly Hits Back; Ex-Husband Arrested In Ohio Dentist Double Murder Case. Aired 11p-12a ET

Aired January 12, 2026 - 23:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

[23:00:00]

MARC SHORT, FORMER WHITE HOUSE LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS DIRECTOR, FIRST TRUMP ADMINISTRATION: There are few things that would be less distracting. A teenager with a cellphone will not be distracted at all by any of alien environment. I think that would be amazing to them.

ABBY PHILLIP, CNN ANCHOR AND SENIOR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes, they'll be able to see how quickly they can scroll through Instagram and TikTok and everything.

All right, everyone, thank you very much. Thanks for watching "NewsNight." You can catch me any time on you favorite social media X, Instagram, and on TikTok. "Laura Coates Live" starts right now.

LAURA COATES, CNN HOST AND SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Tonight, from punishment to pressure. Fed Chair Jerome Powell accuses the president of using a new page in an old playbook. Not for vengeance, but for leverage. Plus, Minnesota and Illinois suing to stop Trump's ICE surge. The federal government says that's our lane. So, how do the states get a judge to step in? You know what? I'll ask Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison. And Senator Mark Kelly hits back at Pete Hegseth by suing over his threats to demote him. All tonight on "Laura Coates Live."

So, you know President Trump has never hidden his desire to go after his political enemies. I mean, he campaigned on it. And one, I might add, he has promised retribution and revenge. And now, he says it's to right the ship, of course. But undoubtedly, for him, it seems to be just about punishment, a score to settle. We saw at least the attempt of it with the likes of James Comey and Letitia James. And he has been unapologetic about focusing on the rearview mirror.

But now, Trump appears to look through the windshield and targeting a familiar foe with a brand-new goal. This time, it's pressure. But not pressure over what happens next. Leverage over his own agenda. And the guy he's going after? Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell.

Now, Powell says it's not just some political grudge match. No, this is about financial policy, your mortgage, your credit cards, your car loans.

The DOJ is now investigating Powell over his testimony before lawmakers this past June for allegedly misleading Congress about the $2.5 billion renovation of the Fed headquarters. Now, we do know that it's running $700 million over budget.

But Powell claims this isn't about a building. He says it's about interest rates or who controls them.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JEROME POWELL, CHAIRMAIN, UNITED STATES FEDERAL RESERVE: This unprecedented action should be seen in the broader context of the administration's threats and ongoing pressure. This new threat is not about my testimony last June or about the renovation of the Federal Reserve buildings. The threat of criminal charges is a consequence of the Federal Reserve setting interest rates based on our best assessment of what will serve the public, rather than following the preferences of the president.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Now, that president says he has no idea about it. But the bad blood, I mean, he knows all about that.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Jerome, too late. You know, he's too late. His nickname is too late.

He's a stiff. He's a knucklehead.

This guy is a numbskull. He keeps the rates too high.

UNKNOWN (voice-over): Do you expect the Fed to listen to you?

TRUMP: Yes.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Trump even jabbed Powell over the cost of the Fed renovations. Remember that during that tense tour of the headquarters?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: It looks like it's about $3.1 billion. It went up a little bit or a lot. So, the 2.7 is now 3.1.

POWELL: I'm not aware of that. You just added in a third building, is what that is. That's a third building, including the Martin building.

TRUMP: Well, I know, but it's a building that's being built.

POWELL: No, it was built five years ago.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Here's your receipts. Take them back. We'll look at that again. Because if Powell wasn't having it then, he's definitely not having it now. In fact, you know what? It could cause Powell to dig in, because even though his tenure as Fed chair ends in, I think, May, because even though he's not the chair come May, his term on the board isn't over until 2028 and Trump can't easily fire him.

I mean, just ask Lisa Cook, one of Powell's colleagues on the board of governors, who Trump also wanted out. The Supreme Court is going to hear about her case next week.

Federal Reserve Act says the president can only remove a Fed governor for a cause. Remember that phrase. If you're wondering what that phrase actually means, it's a great question because the Federal Reserve Act doesn't actually define it.

[23:05:00]

So, lawyers look to different precedent. The Supreme Court benchmarked 1935, for example. That one is about the Federal Trade Commission. It's often cited as the classic for cause test for independent agencies.

The Supreme Court, though, already signaled back in May the Fed may be especially protected. It says a commissioner though can be removed for efficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office. In other words, for a cause means something seriously wrong, serious wrongdoing. Disagreement over interest rates? Does that count?

Up until now, a policy feud has not been enough for Trump to give Powell the boot or try to, officially, which brings us back to this DOJ investigation, because a potential legal case, well, I wonder if that will give Trump the pretext he might need.

But here's the thing. His track record for using the DOJ as a personal sword, well, it does speak for itself. The indictments against James Comey and Letitia James, those have been dismissed. The DOJ is struggling to revive them, of course.

And turning the DOJ into a tool not just for punishment but for pressure doesn't just risk a legal defeat, it actually could burn the DOJ's remaining credibility. And bullying the Fed at the expense of the Justice Department's integrity may prove to be an immeasurable cost.

After all, there will be future presidents and future attorneys general and future prosecutors arguing cases. And you know who bad law helps? Exactly no one.

I have the perfect first two guests who know the ins and outs of the Federal Reserve and, of course, the DOJ. I've got Attorney Norm Eisen representing Fed Board Governor Lisa Cook as she fights Trump's efforts to fire her, and chief economic correspondent for "The Wall Street Journal", Nick Timiraos. What an intersection we have here. Let's get right to it.

I first want to just orient the conversation because people might be wondering, just thematically, why target Powell at this juncture knowing his tenure ends in May? What is the advantage of doing so?

NICK TIMIRAOS, CHIEF ECONOMIC CORRESPONDENT, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL: That's a great question, Laura. I was shocked last night when this came out in part because, one, the Fed has been cutting interest rates not as fast and not as much as President Trump wants, but Powell actually led the Fed to cut interest rates at the last three meetings of the year over growing opposition. And, as you said, he's basically a second semester senior in high school, he has four months left on his term. So, that's surprising.

And then you add in that you have the Department of Justice of the United States investigating the central bank. That is a sort of thing you see in Banana Republics. And then, finally, I was surprised because, as the video you showed of Powell there, he hasn't done anything like that up until this point as chair.

COATES: Why do think he did now?

TIMIRAOS: Well, this is a very -- this is very different from being called nicknames like "too late" or an idiot, tweets. You know, that's one thing. This is different. This is -- you know, he's no longer beating around the bush. He's saying -- he's calling out what's happening here, which is this isn't about, you know, building renovations or cost overruns, this is about who gets to control monetary policy in the United States.

COATES: In many respects, it seems to me he wasn't going to trust the process would be fairly represented in the long run, perhaps, to want to get in front and share his -- what he views as his truth. Does this suggest to you in any way the case has legs?

NORM EISEN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST, ATTORNEY, FORMER HOUSE JUDICIARY SPECIAL COUNSEL IN TRUMP'S FIRST IMPEACHMENT TRIAL, CO-FOUNDER OF "THE CONTRARIAN": The case has no legs whatsoever. Laura, this is the latest in a series of retaliatory strikes that Donald Trump has tried. They've failed. You pointed out the two biggest flops of all, two of the individuals who he considers to be his principal adversaries, Tish James, Jim Comey. Those cases were tossed out of court.

At the Democracy Defenders Fund, we pioneered the legal theory of the invalidity of these phony Trump U.S. attorneys. That included, first, Alina Habba. We litigated that. We filed briefs in the James and Comey cases because there was no there there. When they tried again, even a grand jury -- you were a prosecutor. You know how rare it is that the grand jury would not reinstitute that Tish James case. So, what you have --

COATES: But Tish James, James Comey, obviously, adversaries and outspoken ones about Trump's policy and himself. Powell is distinct in that he is about his economic plan --

EISEN: Even worse because there's even less of a there there than with James or Comey. It's even more obviously a policy dispute, as Nick points out.

[23:10:02]

It has nothing to do with -- nobody believes it's about cost overruns at the Fed. They're turning the mere act of testifying in Congress into grounds for investigation. It's just reprehensible. And I think Chairman Powell felt that in this day and age, you can't allow that kind of outrageous transgression of democracy to go unrebutted. He absolutely did the right thing, to speak up.

COATES: Why do you think the markets didn't react?

TIMIRAOS: OK. There are a few reasons. One is that Trump sometimes does back down, right? So, it's hard for the market to price in this sort of extreme event of a captured central bank, and they know Trump may back down. Two, you have the Senate and you had Senate Republicans today coming out saying they're not on board with this, Thom Tillis most notably. And then, finally, you do have the courts. I mean, this is happening just days before the Supreme Court is going to hear oral arguments in the first case for Lisa Cook.

And so, you know, the market has to kind of look ahead and say, well, is this really going to be the end of an independent central bank? And they -- you know, you can kind of get yourself comfortable with one or some of these guardrails kicking in.

COATES: I want to play some sound because we have some reaction from Republicans who -- it ranged from troubled to thinking the president is trolling. Listen to these.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOHN KING, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: I know Chairman Powell very well. I will be stunned, I will be shocked if he has done anything wrong.

SEN. JOHN THUNE (R-SD) (voice-over): It's hard to jump to any conclusions but, as I've said earlier, I think it's really important that it get resolved quickly and -- and that there not be any appearance of political interference with the Fed or its activities.

SEN. ROGER MARSHALL (R-KS): I think this is the president throwing out one more -- maybe he's even almost trolling here as well. We got bigger issues to go after than this one.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: I want to come back to you on a point, Norm. But, Nick, does this essentially explain in part why the markets didn't react because they were -- maybe aware of the boy who cried wolf but wanted to get ahead of it as well?

TIMIRAOS: I think that's right. And I think what you're seeing here is this sort of move could backfire on the president. You're going to have --

COATES: How so?

TIMIRAOS: Well, you're going to have a new Fed chair when Powell's term is up in May. How does that person now have to prove a negative, prove that you're not going to be controlled by Trump? Would you be willing to do what Powell has done here, which is to, you know, to risk prosecution? You have the Senate now putting its back up and saying maybe they're not going to confirm the next chair.

And then, as you noted, if you try to push Powell out here by creating all this pressure, you may actually push him in, you lead him to stay at the Fed until January of 2028. You know he has been there for 14 years. I don't think he really is looking to stay any longer once his term as chair is over.

But you do things like this. This is somebody who does care about the central bank being independent. And so, he's going to have to think even harder now about whether he's going to give Donald Trump his seat on May 15th when he's no longer the Fed chair.

COATES: These are undoubtedly some of the concerns that will be raised about the chilling effect of the president's or the DOJ's attempt to investigate. Will that be part of one of the legal arguments that will be raised to suggest that it's intended to not only chill behavior now and the future, but also to coerce behavior?

EISEN: I don't think we're ever going to see these allegations against Chairman Powell rise to the level where they're going to be in court or they're going to be raised. I would be surprised if they made it through grand jury. We've seen extraordinary grand jury independence around the country. If it makes it to court, it's going to meet -- yes, it will be raised there as an example of retaliatory prosecution. Selective or vindictive prosecution is the way you would raise this in court.

But I tend to think that this is more of a feint. It's no less worse, however, as a democracy matter, whether you're headed to court or not. It's just wrong.

COATES: There's also a burden of being prosecuted or a threat of investigation. It's very cumbersome. It's financially burdensome as well, which is the point. Well, we'll see what happens. Norm, Nick, thank you both so much.

Remember when the mayor of Minneapolis told ICE to get the "F" out of his city? Well, tonight, the state's attorney general is taking an action in court to try and make that happen. No "F" bombs, though. He'll be my guest next. Plus, new reporting tonight that federal investigators are looking into whether Renee Good was part of an activist group. Is that even a fair line of investigation about whether the use of force was appropriate? The attorney general will respond.

[23:15:01]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KEITH ELLISON, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MINNESOTA: The deployment of thousands of armed, masked DHS agents to Minnesota has done our state serious harm. This is, in essence, a federal invasion of the Twin Cities and Minnesota, and it must stop.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison slamming the federal immigration crackdown and surge in Minnesota tonight, announcing the state is suing the federal government. Ellison alleges the crackdown is an unconstitutional and politically-motivated invasion by federal agents and it's causing severe harm to residents.

But if he's hoping for a slowdown in troops arriving to the Twin Cities, he'd be out of luck. Sources tell CNN an additional 1,000 federal agents are expected to deploy there in the coming days.

[23:19:58]

All these following the deadly shooting of Renee Nicole Good. Now, DHS is in turn slamming the lawsuit, accusing the attorney general of -- quote -- "prioritizing politics over public safety."

Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison joins me right now. Attorney General, thank you so much for being here. Everyone is combing through this lawsuit, trying to unpack and figure out where you go realistically from here.

And a couple things really piqued my curiosity. One, of course, is that you believe that you should get the courts to stop this tremendous surge of ICE agents cracking down in Minnesota, including what you say is trying to coerce the states into carrying out their enforcement objectives. Among other things, trying to ensure that what happened to Ms. Good would not happen to anyone else, requiring them to not have masks, having body-worn cameras, just to name a few.

Tell me about the substance of the argument that you think will ensure these outcomes.

ELLISON: Well, our causes of action have to do with the government, the Trump administration and ICE violating the Administrative Procedure Act, violating the sovereignty and equal sovereignty provision that Minnesota should be able to expect.

Our lawsuit has to do with violation of various portions in the Constitution, which ultimately add up to the government being required to act rationally, fairly, and respecting the sovereignty of the state of Minnesota and not to try to commandeer the legal processes of our state. That's what it boils down to.

Quite honestly, we need ICE to just do what ICE is supposed to do, which is immigration enforcement. They're not doing that. They're doing far more than that. They're exceeding that limit by harassing people, by using excessive force on a routine basis.

COATES: The DHS is responding to some of what you have said tonight. And I want to read to you what they're saying. I'd like you to respond. They're saying in part, sanctuary politicians like Ellison are the exact reason that DHS surged to Minnesota in the first place. If he, Tim Walz, and Jacob Frey had just done their sworn duty to protect the people of Minnesota, to root out fraud, and get criminals off the street, we wouldn't be having this conversation in the first place. What is your reaction to those statements?

ELLISON: Well, that's just absurd. I mean, the fact of the matter is the crime is at a historic low in Minnesota. All categories of crime matter are at a historic low. And what are -- what is surging paramilitary force going to do to help Minnesota reduce fraud? I mean, obviously, everyone wants to stop fraud. That is clearly something that we all agree should not happen and that's why we prosecute fraud and hold people accountable for it. But if they want to help --

COATES: You're obviously pointing back to the Somalian -- what they believe was Somalians who were engaged in fraud at a greater rate than U.S. citizens in your home, in our home state, which you have pointed out in previous interviews with me in particular, that there is an imbalance in the way that they are being portrayed as the defendants in those actions.

ELLISON: That's right. But let me just say, if you want to stop fraud, let's just say that's their claim and that's their premise, then what we need is accountants. You know, we don't need armed paramilitaries harassing students at Roosevelt High School. We don't need them going to grocery stores, Target stores, and throwing people to the ground. That's not what we need.

COATES: You have some significant legal hurdles, though, that need to be mentioned in this. And that, of course, is that there is pushback from the administration. There'll be -- there'll be concerns over whether a court would find that you have the authority at the state level to remove a federal agency from participating in the immigration space. How do you plan to address what will be their immediate defenses?

ELLISON: Well, first of all, our lawsuit is very conventional, the causes of action that are in our lawsuit. We plead -- pled those many times and won many times. So, it's not unusual.

And let me also say that we're not trying to stop ICE from having any presence in Minnesota. We're trying to say that -- do they really need 3,500 ICE agents in the state of Minnesota? Do they really need 3,500? Do they need -- we only -- we have about 600 police officers in Minneapolis and about 600 in St. Paul.

[23:25:00]

They're overwhelming -- they're over -- they outnumber our local police by several fold. What's the purpose of that? It can't be justified on the number of people here who are undocumented because many other states' comparable size has way more than we do. So, it can't be -- that can't be it.

And they're saying that -- they're saying that they're here because of allegations of white-collar fraud. Well, that would mean -- that would -- that would mean that they don't -- they don't need all these people that they claim to sit here.

So, I don't think we have -- I think our lawsuit is very meritorious, well within the space where we should win. It's very clear that they have exceeded their numbers.

We're not here because ICE is here. We didn't have a lawsuit before ICE quadruple the number of people that were here before. We're doing this because they have dramatically increased the numbers to the point where Minneapolis police are responding to 911 calls. We're spending an inordinate amount of money because of ICE on overtime because people are calling and the police have to respond. So, they are draining local resources away from things that need to be done.

COATES: I want to ask you, finally, "The New York Times" reports that federal investigators, they're looking into Renee Good's possible ties to activist groups protesting the administration's immigration efforts. Do you believe that that inquiry is a fair line of inquiry for them to pursue?

ELLISON: I think it is smearing the victim. I think that that's what it is. And it's also trying to impugn some negativity to First Amendment activity. I mean, people are allowed to be part of civic organizations in America. Now, what -- what interests me is we're being told that the U.S. Department of Justice civil rights, which is responsible for use of force investigations, has not been included in any investigation yet.

COATES: Interesting.

ELLISON: They're saying they're doing an investigation, but U.S. -- but DOJ civil rights is not involved in any investigation, and they're blocking local authorities from access to the file to investigate. This smells like cover up to me. So, you want to talk about what they should be doing?

Trying to delve into irrelevant matters like Miss Renee Good's background, you know, doesn't matter because if it wasn't known to the officer, it's legally irrelevant, because the officer can operate on what was known to the officer at the time. He discharged that weapon into her body. But going back into some group she might have been a part of, that's not even going to get in front of the jury under any circumstance because it is irrelevant.

So, I mean, why it's done? Why? For the purpose of trying to suggest to the public that she deserved what she got, which is what the president, the vice president, and the head of Homeland Security have already said.

COATES: A tragedy of her own making was the vice president's comment. Indeed. Your last thought?

ELLISON: And domestic terrorist is what the secretary said.

COATES: Attorney General Keith Ellison, thank you so much.

ELLISON: Thank you, ma'am.

COATES: Still ahead, the answer from the White House that turned quite a few heads as the administration continues to crack down on anyone daring to protest ICE. And later, why Secretary Pete Hegseth may very well regret his effort to punish Senator Mark Kelly. We got the brand-new lawsuit that just filed today.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:30:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: The nationwide outcry over the killing of Renee Nicole Good sparking massive protests in cities across the country this past weekend, demanding both accountability and an end to the Trump administration's hardline immigration crackdown. But when asked about the protests today, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt had this to say.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KAROLINE LEAVITT, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: And I think it's very striking that all weekend long, you had agitators and violent American citizens out in the streets of Minneapolis protesting. Protesting what exactly? Apparently, they are protesting the removal of heinous murderers and rapists and criminals.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Or the killing of a woman. OK. With me now, former senior adviser of Trump's 2024 campaign, Bryan Lanza, and the former Democratic congressman from New York, Joe Crowley.

All right, Bryan, I mean, look, I understand a rhetorical question just like the next person, but what was your reaction to the approach that she took or the administration about the protests themselves? I mean, it is dismissive to suggest what are they protesting about. It is clear.

BRYAN LANZA, FORMER DEPUTY COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR FOR TRUMP 2016 CAMPAIGN: I think you're going to have multiple protests throughout the entire Trump administration. We learned that in Trump 1. He won. You have protests. He does accidents. He has protests. I think it's better to ignore them. You know, it's just my view. You're sort of putting more fire to a fire that doesn't need to be yours, right?

I think it would have been very easy to say, you know, what the -- you know, why these people are protesting is to eliminate ICE actions, is to keep open borders, is to keep, you know, illegal aliens coming in rather than just sort of that dismissive way. But, you know, her style works for the base.

COATES: The protest is about the overreach as well of ICE and, of course, the killing of Renee Good. And she was -- and, of course, her life and the immediate response by the administration to determine whether use of force was appropriate.

[23:35:04]

What do you think -- what's your reaction? LANZA: I want to say that I had time to think about it. You know, you want to think about it. And I think part of the reason the administration went out so fast and sort of defended this officer, this agent, is because if they don't do that, you're going to have the left that's going to try to define the course of the conversation. You're going to say, you know, that is what we see now. You're going to say the left calls him a murderer now. They call them all these other things.

And it is sort of -- you know, there used to be the day where politicians would say there's an investigation, I can't comment on an investigation. I was a Bill Clinton supporter. He used that line better than anybody else. There was a special counsel investigation. I can't comment.

But I think, now, it has gone to the point where the left and the media are looking to assign (INAUDIBLE) really fast, really quick. It almost forces politicians to come forward and say, you know, what they're saying and trying to defend --

COATES: They assigned (INAUDIBLE).

LANZA: Who's that?

COATES: The administration?

LANZA: Yes, they did assign (INAUDIBLE).

COATES: Right.

LANZA: But I think their response is to assigning (INAUDIBLE) was to the pushback that the media and the left are going to start assigning (INAUDIBLE) to this person individually fast. And so, that's why they step forward.

COATES: They jumped that you think -- what's your reaction to this idea?

JOE CROWLEY, FORMER NEW YORK REPRESENTATIVE: I think the weight of the administration's reaction to this, it was full force. Maybe the exception of Homan initially, where he held back and said, let's weigh the evidence first. Not the president, not the vice president, not the Department of Homeland Security. No one. They were all saying that this individual is innocent of any wrongdoing.

And I think the protesters are protesting -- yes, maybe some are there because of the actions of ICE, but they're there because a young woman was killed.

And how can you have a real investigation when the determination of right or wrong has already been made by the president of the United States? He has said -- by the way, he has every right if he wants to pardon him.

But I think that even if someone kills someone and they're captured, they're entitled to a jury trial, even if it's in broad daylight, even if it's on camera, even if we have eyeballs and we can see for ourselves what happened. I think that's the big difference here.

You know, we're watching this on television. What if there were no cameras? How do we -- and the administration would say what it says? At least here, we have our own eyeballs. We can see for ourselves and make determination. But that's not all the evidence. We haven't seen. And we may never ever see all the evidence, quite frankly.

COATES: One way to buttress one's credibility is to be honest about what you know and don't know as opposed to just saying, definitively, here is what everyone must believe. This would be the first time really in political history that Congress or the administration decided to say this is the time that I'm not going to allow everything to unfold, I'm not going to be cagey about something like this. I find it surprising.

But I do want to hear your reaction to this, Bryan, because from the beginning, you know the administration had been promising to target -- the phrase was the worst of the worst, right? The worst of the worst. But you are seeing people with no criminal history and ties with legal status being targeted. And this is part of what has been fueling the protests across the country and even the reaction, negative reaction among even Trump supporters. Listen to what Mayor Jacob Frey had to say about that.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MAYOR JACOB FREY, MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA: Just last week, a group of our city's public works employees were stopped by ICE agents. Three of the four employees were not white. The ICE agents asked to see the IDs of the three non-white employees and didn't even bother to ask the white employee for the identification. Minneapolis is being treated, targeted because we stand up for our neighbors and we welcome immigrants because we believe in the law.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Racial profiling appears to be part and parcel to the tactic.

LANZA: I don't think so. I think a lot of it has to do with the focus on sanctuary cities where we know the vast majority of illegal aliens are living, right? In sanctuary cities, sanctuary states. You know, Minneapolis is a sanctuary city. So, I mean, they're protecting people who are breaking the law. They're protecting people who are there. And so, you go to target where these sanctuary cities are.

COATES: But his point is you're targeting people who you -- you're making assumption about who is legal or not based on external appearance? How are they looking at someone and saying, I think I'll ask for your I.D., without profiling?

LANZA: Yes, I mean, it's neighborhoods, right? Listen, I grew up in L.A. You know where the illegal aliens are in Los Angeles. You know they're at Home Depot. So, if you're at a Home Depot trying to solicit work, there is high probability it's illegal. So, there are areas, where these ICE agents have been in the past, that they know is a target-rich environment. And we also know that a target-rich environment tends to be sanctuary cities because where else are illegals going to go and find safe harbor? They're not going to find safe harbor in Republican cities where the mayors actually work with law enforcement to enforce the law. They're going to find -- they're going to have a target-rich environment in cities that are actually sanctuary cities where you have the city trying to protect people from breaking the law.

COATES: Well, there are people who are unlawfully here in cities all across this country. But that's not what Trump was campaigning on. It is the larger point people are raising, that he wasn't saying I want to go to the Home Depot or I want to go to different areas.

[23:40:01]

He was saying worst of the worst. And that's what seemed to unite people who wanted to pursue this president as the president.

CROWLEY: I would suggest that even majority of Americans think that something had to be done in terms of the border itself and securing it with the United States of America, not the United States of America and Canada and Mexico. So, I think our borders needed integrity. He gets some points to that.

But we have a situation in Baltimore where a young man died of cancer at Sloan Kettering. His mother was arrested by ICE. They don't know where she is. She's not able to be there for the funeral. The family wants to be deported with her, but they can't even locate her. So, you know, she was not a criminal. She's not able to attend her son's funeral.

That's the other part of this as well. There are events that are happening that are heart-wrenching. And to say that -- for Leavitt to say that these are all criminals, all murderers, all rapists is simply not true. They're entering into homes without warrants.

And I come from a law enforcement background. My dad was a New York City detective. My grandfather was a New York City police officer. I grew up in that police environment. I understand it very well. But that is not the type of atmosphere that we're seeing in Minneapolis and around the country as well.

COATES: The Fourth Amendment still exists. And one could argue that the focus on those who are, like you described, the mother and beyond, is taking away from the resources of ICE agents going after what the president promised, the worst of the worst. We'll see. Bryan, Joe, thank you both.

Grave constitutional injury. That's what Senator Mark Kelly is claiming tonight in his brand-new lawsuit against Secretary Pete Hegseth. Kelly is officially hitting back in court over the Pentagon's efforts to punish him. Why? For telling military members not to follow illegal orders. Kelly's legal argument is basically that his free speech is being attacked, especially since he happens to be a sitting member of Congress with oversight over the Pentagon. Here's Kelly just last hour.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. MARK KELLY (D-AR): This is much bigger than me. What I really worry about are the other veterans out there, you know, that don't have a platform like I do, don't have the right to speak on the Senate floor. Where are they going to be with this administration if they decide to speak out? So, you know, that's really the reason for my action today.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Kelly is facing a potential demotion in rank and also retirement pay. And we asked the Pentagon for a response, but they told us they don't comment on pending litigation.

With me now, former DOJ prosecutor Brendan Ballou. Brendan, look, the senator, his filing says, "It appears that never in our nation's history has the executive branch imposed military sanctions on a member of Congress for engaging in disfavored political speech."

You're saying that it's so fair. He says it hasn't happened before.

BRENDAN BALLOU, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: It hasn't happened before. They might not even have the constitutional authority. They might not even have the statutory authority. You know, Senator Kelly was raising a lot of really interesting arguments here.

First one is the one that probably occurs to everybody, which is a First Amendment problem. You know, the idea that Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth was punishing Senator Kelly for protected speech.

But the next argument is a due process claim. The argument that -- by essentially prejudging the outcome of any inquiry. Secretary Hegseth denied Senator Kelly any sort of reasonable process that he was (INAUDIBLE).

COATES: Does due process operate differently in a military court versus, say, how everyone understands the court of law and the rest of the world?

BALLOU: Yes. You know, it's like a classic law school thing. You know, it's like -- well, you say, what's due process? Well, it's different in every circumstance.

COATES: Right.

BALLOU: But what the really interesting thing about what's the due process here is the procedure established by statute here, at least according to the plaintiff, says that it only applies to current military members, not former ones. So, it's not just a due process violation, it also might just be a violation of law.

COATES: I want to talk about a major firing at the Department of Justice, Brendan. The number two U.S. attorney, Lindsey Halligan, is out. And our sources tell us that there were questions on whether Robert McBride was aligned with what to do next about James Comey, Letitia James. That actually may help both of them if their cases somehow pan out.

BALLOU: Absolutely.

COATES: How?

BALLOU: At this point, James Comey and Tish James have their choice of how to get these cases killed. As you know, their initial indictments were killed because Lindsey Halligan was not properly appointed. At least according to one district court judge, that's now on appeal. A separate district court judge determined that James Comey, the underlying evidence was not properly collected, not properly stored, not properly accessed, so that could potentially be suppressed.

And now, you have the issue of potential vindictive or selective prosecution. This new person who was just fired, that could be a great witness for explaining what was the backstory on why these prosecutions happened.

COATES: Could they now be called for any reason? (ph)

BALLOU: Potentially. Yes.

[23:45:00]

COATES: Brendan, the plot thickens. Thank you so much. Still ahead, an arrest made in the shocking murder of a dentist and his wife after days of mystery. Police say it was the woman's ex-husband. How they say they cracked the case and what it will take to prove it in court.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: A gruesome murder mystery that gripped the country for days appears to be solved. A young couple killed. And tonight, police believe the ex-husband of the wife did it.

Michael David McKee appeared in court today. He was arrested on Saturday northwest of Chicago. And prosecutors believe he killed Spencer and Monique Tepe on December 30th in Columbus, Ohio.

Now, Spencer missed work that day, sparking concern about his safety. Eventually, the dentist and his wife were found dead inside of their home.

[23:50:03]

Their four-year-old daughter and one-year-old children were inside. They were not hurt. Just last week, detectives released the video of someone walking near the home with the hood pulled up. And according to CNN affiliate WBNS, investigators believe surveillance video tracks McKee to a vehicle that arrived in the Tepe's neighborhood just before the murders and left right after. McKee did not enter a plea today. He'll do that once he's extradited to Ohio. And he is expected to plead not guilty. Now, this surgeon is facing murder charges. Let's talk about it with former FBI special agent and senior profiler Mary Ellen O'Toole and attorney and legal analyst Monique Pressley. Glad to have both of you here. Now, Monique, the charges here were upgraded from murder to premeditated aggravated murder. What is it telling you about the case?

MONIQUE PRESSLEY, TRIAL ATTORNEY, LEGAL ANALYST: That they think they have a strong one. It's not just the video that is coming to light. They, obviously, have more evidence than we're seeing right now. But also, the fact that two adults were deceased and the children were unharmed mean that -- mean whoever entered the home had a plan, worked that plan, and left behind what they thought was not necessary for the plan. The entire thing, though, frankly, Laura, is sad, depressing, gruesome, and I'm so sorry for the family.

COATES: We all are. I'm thinking about the premeditation that seems to be implied with that upgrade, Mary Ellen. I mean, McKee was married to Monique Tepe less than two years. Court records show they didn't have any major conflicts when they got a divorce 10 years ago. What does that suggest to you about this suspect?

MARY ELLEN O'TOOLE, FORMER SENIOR PROFILER AND SPECIAL AGENT, FBI: What that suggests to me is we don't have the full picture of his personality. So, what that indicates, as a profiler, would be I'd be looking at the quality of that relationship. It's my understanding that she left the marriage physically after eight months living with him, and then the divorce was final two years later. So, that's indicative of problems.

We know in other cases, whether they be a mass shooter or cases similar to this, that (INAUDIBLE) ruminator. For years, they can think (INAUDIBLE) --

COATES: I'm having a little trouble hearing.

O'TOOLE: She left the marriage.

COATES: Mary Ellen, I heard your last point, the idea of somebody ruminating for quite some time. I'm thinking about that. I want to -- while we're listening to your sound, there's another high-profile murder trial that we are watching because tomorrow, opening statements are going to begin in the case of Brendan Banfield. Now, he is accused of killing his wife and another man, and conspiring with the family's au pair to pull it off.

Prosecutors say Banfield was having an affair with the au pair and wanted to leave his wife to be with the au pair. But she confessed, took a plea deal for her role in the murders, and is set to testify against Banfield. That complicates the defense, Monique.

PRESSLEY: Yes, it does. And the ruminating, just to what your other guest was saying, I agree 100 percent. And it's scary, frankly, Laura, that, you know, we as legal analysts, as former trial attorneys who do this for a living, we see it every day.

But there are people who are in the real world who are thinking I've made it out, I have survived whatever may have been domestic violence or just marriage gone bad, and then a decade later or in this case not that much later, you find an ex-spouse who is not over it.

And it's a question of mental health. It's a question of things that you can't determine at the time. But we're looking at a case now back to back where we see an ex who is not quite finished. But, thankfully, in this second case, at least the co-conspirator seems to be in a position where they're going to testify and give law enforcement what they need.

COATES: Mary Ellen, prosecutors accused Banfield of posing as his wife, Christine, on a sexual fetish website to lure a stranger, Jeremy Ryan, thinking that he'd have a consensual encounter with her. Instead, he was killed. This is going to be intricate, tawdry to say the least, let alone unlively sad. How will all that impact the jury, that nature of the claims against him?

[23:55:00]

O'TOOLE: Well, that's going to be a challenge. And here's what is really striking to me, is if the victim actually arranged this meeting herself, then she would have been expecting someone to come into her bedroom and they would have engaged in the agreed upon sexual behavior.

I would look at the injury pattern to the victim because I would not expect defensive injuries as opposed to if somebody else made those arrangement. Her husband, the au pair, if they said, we'll make arrangement, and she finds a stranger walking into her bedroom that morning, unexpected, you're going to see more excessive defensive injuries to her. That will come out during the course of the trial. And I think that's going to be a very important distinguishing factor, those defensive injuries.

COATES: Monique, Mary Ellen, you both have underscored the sadness of these cases and the prosecutors' hope to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. Thank you both for joining and unpacking.

And a reminder, I'll be covering this trial on CNN All Access starting tomorrow morning at 10 a.m.

Thank you all so much for watching. "The Story Is with Elex Michaelson" is next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)