Return to Transcripts main page

Laura Coates Live

DOJ Prosecutors Resigned in Protest Over Handling of ICE Shooting Investigation; Trump Pledges to Stop "Any Payments" to Sanctuary Cities; Senator Slotkin is Under Investigation; House GOP Threatens Clintons with Contempt Vote; Man Charged with Killing Wife, Man, and Conspiring with Au Pair. Aired 11p-12a ET

Aired January 13, 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]

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: I haven't heard about the hanging. If they hang them, you're going to see some things that -- I don't know what you're -- where you come and what your thought process is, but you'll perhaps be very happy.

TONY DOKOUPIL, CBS ANCHOR: What do you mean by that?

TRUMP: We will take very strong action. If they do such a thing, we will take very strong action.

UNKNOWN: And this strong action your talking about, what is the endgame?

TRUMP: The endgame is to win. I like winning.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ABBY PHILLIP, CNN ANCHOR AND SENIOR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: We are keeping an eye on that situation in Iran throughout the night, updates as we get them. And thank you very much for watching "NewsNight." "Laura Coates Live" starts right now.

LAURA COATES, CNN HOST AND SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Tonight, federal prosecutors walked out. A wave of resignations hit the U.S. attorney's office in Minnesota after the administration treats a deadly shooting like it's already settled. Plus, breaking news tonight, "The New York Times" reports Democratic Senator Elissa Slotkin says that she is under investigation. What the senator is now saying about the inquiry. And the Fed feud escalates. Trump ramps up his attacks on Jerome Powell even as several Republicans are getting the jitters. Tonight on "Laura Coates Live."

So, we're getting a firsthand look at what happens when the DOJ hemorrhages credibility. Something I've been warning about for quite some time. Because the Justice Department without trust is not an institution of justice. It's just an instrument of unchecked power. Because the trust you need to stand up and say that you serve and act on behalf of the people of the United States, see, that trust is gained in droplets. It's also lost by the bucket. And when you give people reason to believe that prosecutorial discretion is being used as an instrument of vengeance, not to serve justice, well, the whole bucket gets tipped over.

And tonight, we're told that at least six federal prosecutors in Minnesota may have refused to clean up that mess that they didn't even make and have now resigned. How? Well, over how the Trump administration is handling the ICE shooting of Renee Good. And these are big names. Senior prosecutors with decades of experience. One of them is Joseph Thompson, who is leading the prosecution of welfare fraud in Minnesota.

Now, if you want to understand why, let's look at what the DOJ is doing and what it's not. Exhibit A, it's refusing to open a criminal investigation into the ICE agent who shot and killed Good. Take it from the number two at the DOJ, Todd Blanche. Quote -- "There is currently no basis for a criminal civil rights investigation" -- unquote.

The DOJ's Civil Rights Division has also been told they won't be helping when it needs a probe. And if you've been paying close attention, you could have seen this coming from a mile away, right?

The administration has been saying, and I mean over and over, who they think is in the wrong. Spoiler alert, not him, they say. They have claimed that this shooting was justified which, by the way, is a legal conclusion they can't make without an investigation.

And they made that assertion practically right after it happened. I'm not exaggerating about the timeline here because Good was shot at 10:37 a.m. Eastern time. Mark that in your head. The way you look at this. It's the DHS announcement after the shooting saying the agent fired defensive shots after a -- quote -- "act of domestic terrorism." Now, look at the timestamp, 12:45 p.m., two hours and eight minutes after the shooting. And less than 30 minutes after that, we heard the DHS secretary, Kristi Noem, say this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KRISTI NOEM, UNITED STATES SECRETARY OF HOMELAND SECURITY: It was an act of domestic terrorism. They were attempting to push out their vehicle and a woman attacked them and those surrounding them and attempted to run them over and ram them with her vehicle. An officer of ours acted quickly and defensively shot to protect himself and the people around him.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Now, that is bureaucratic speed, in less than three hours from the time that Good was shot, which would have likely been even before a medical examiner would have had her body. The administration had locked in their version of what happened. And I can tell you what they could have done, right? What would have been done in, say, normal circumstances. Even if they wanted to pretend they were doing a genuine investigation, they could have hedged.

[23:04:58]

They could have put out a statement, performative at best, about standing behind law enforcement and saying that they would be investigated, and then giving people the courtesy maybe of a run around down the road. They didn't even do that.

Instead, they're doing something else, which gets me to exhibit B. The administration wants to investigate Good, her widow, and others who may have been involved in ICE protests. Let's put aside the fact, and it's a fact, that investigating Good and her widow would have nothing to do with whether the act of the shooting itself was a justified use of self-defense.

But what is it exactly they're looking for? "The New York Times" is reporting the DOJ is investigating possible ties to activist groups protesting Trump's immigration enforcement. This isn't coming out of nowhere. The vice president all but said the same thing last week.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

J.D. VANCE, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: That woman is part of a broader left-wing network to attack, to dox, to assault, and to make it impossible for our ICE officers to do their job.

UNKNOWN (voice-over): Who do you think is behind this broader left- wing network?

VANCE: Well, it's one of the things we're going to have to figure out.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Ah, did you hear it? Is that out loud? They're going to have to figure it out. Now, how would one go about figuring something out? It's an investigation, right? Where you look for answers and conclusions after data is provided and searched. So, that's part of the investigation.

But when it comes to the ICE agent who actually pulled the trigger, well, there's no need for an investigation or to figure anything out, even to validate what you've already said in the public eye, even if it benefits the agent who I'm sure wants to have a conclusive exoneration, as opposed to one that people will view as the administration turning a blind eye.

And speaking of evidence, I bring you exhibit C. State investigators say the FBI has blocked them from looking at any of it. And in a case like that, don't you want more than one set of independent eyes? Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey, he's putting it like this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MAYOR JACOB FREY, MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA: If you're not hiding from anything, then what are you hiding from? These are experts. They're not like radicals. These largely are law enforcement officers and attorneys. It's deeply concerning that you've got an administration conducting investigation that apparently has concluded the outcome of the investigation before it's even commenced. (END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Add all that evidence and all those statements and all the queries that are undoubtedly there. And I wonder if we do have perhaps some idea of why these six prosecutors walked away from their careers. We'll have to hear from them, won't we?

But my first guest is one of the foremost experts on an investigation just like this. Kristen Clarke led the DOJ's Civil Rights Division under President Biden, and she joins me now. Not only did you lead it, you also were an attorney in the Civil Rights Division as well at one point. And I have to ask you about this process or maybe the lack thereof because the deputy attorney general, Todd Blanche, he says he doesn't think there's any evidence to support even a civil rights investigation into the ICE officer who shot Good. What's your assessment?

KRISTEN CLARKE, FORMER ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY, CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION: Yes. Well, a rush to judgment. I want to first acknowledge the tragedy here, right? A woman has lost her life and there is -- their children being raised without their mother. What I can tell you is that this is a case of intense national interest, and it is precisely the kind of case that the Civil Rights Division would investigate carefully, fully, and fairly.

These kinds of investigations take many months, right? You want to make sure you're interviewing all of the civilian and law enforcement witnesses who are present at the scene. You want to review forensic evidence, look at the autopsy, look at the body cam footage. All of these takes time. So, I am surprised.

COATES: And you're thorough because?

CLARKE: This is one of the most solemn duties and responsibilities of the Justice Department, investigating officials who potentially violate the law and violate our Constitution while acting under color of law. So, here, we have an ICE agent who dons a badge and a gun, and he has a duty to adhere to the Constitution. The statute that the Justice Department uses to carry out these investigations is as old as the Justice Department itself, 18 USC 242.

[23:09:57]

This is a reconstruction era statute that the Justice Department has enforced for well over a century. And it is about making sure that officials acting under color of law in our country are respecting people's constitutional and civil rights here, Ms. Good's Fourth Amendment right to be free from excessive and deadly force.

COATES: And it's not as if every investigation is synonymous with a criminal prosecution. The DOJ, the Civil Rights Division, they have taken a lot of heat over the years as well for determining at the end of a comprehensive investigation that criminal charges are not warranted or that the color of law implications have not been front of mind here. So, why do you think the absence of an investigation might, really, in some cases, fatally undermine the credibility of the DOJ maybe going forward? CLARKE: Yes. I mean, these cases at the end of the day are about

justice and accountability and public trust. When the public loses trust and faith in our law enforcement agencies, the entire system collapses.

I will tell you, you are right, I have personally met with many grieving families to share the news at the end of an investigation that the Justice Department declines, but I've only done so after the team of seasoned career prosecutors inside the Civil Rights Division have carried out their duty, leaving no stone unturned, taking the time necessary to fully and carefully review the facts and figure out if there's a violation of law. I'm not sure that has happened here.

COATES: Speaking of the grieving families, there is indication that they were going to the DOJ, wanted the six prosecutors in that U.S. attorney's office in Minnesota to investigate Good's widow as part of their investigation. Now, we know that she had been on the scene. There were reports that she had said something like, they've just shot my wife. That's how we were alerted pretty quickly that this woman was, in fact, married and that this was now the widow, sadly.

But is there some reason to focus on the widow who is not the one pulling the trigger and was not viewed at least by the officers, it seems, as a threat?

CLARKE: You know, I led the Civil Rights Division for four years under the last administration. I was a line prosecutor during the Bush administration. I have never seen the Justice Department carry out an investigation like this where there is victim shaming or victim blaming or some effort to discredit the victim and suggest that the victim's beliefs warranted the conduct that is the focus of an investigation. I've never seen that during my time at the Justice Department.

What should happen here is a full and fair investigation of the facts, and that takes time. And every American should be concerned about the departures that we have seen from the Civil Rights Division and the U.S. Department of Justice. Without those trained personnel, we can't trust that the Justice Department is able to faithfully execute.

COATES: By the way, one of them is a former acting U.S. attorney, Joseph Thompson, who led the investigation into welfare fraud in Minnesota, very significant work that the president has heralded as important. But finally -- let me ask you quickly. Trump has been criticizing a group of U.S. attorneys and that they weren't moving fast enough to prosecute political opponents. You've already talked about the complexity of cases. What is the real issue with an accelerated pace of investigations, particularly those proposed (ph)?

CLARKE: You know, lawyers take an oath to follow the Constitution and enforce the laws fully and fairly. When you force government lawyers to carry out their job at lightning speed, they can't carry out that duty to uphold the Constitution. So, I'm not surprised by the fact that we've seen resignations.

At the end of the day, in the United States, we need a Justice Department that we know will again fully and faithfully carry out the law, free from partisan interference, free from partisan influence and bias.

COATES: Well, that ought to be the day. Kristen Clarke, thank you so much.

CLARKE: Thank you for having me.

COATES: The president vows to continue his crackdown, posting on Truth Social today -- quote -- "Fear not, great people of Minnesota, the day of reckoning and retribution is coming." Well, some of the retribution appears to be withholding federal funds for sanctuary cities like Minneapolis.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: Additionally, starting February 1st, we're not making any payments to sanctuary cities or states having sanctuary cities because they do everything possible to protect criminals at the expense of American citizens.

[23:15:05]

It breeds fraud and crime and all of the other problems that come. So, we're not making any payment to anybody that supports sanctuary service.

(APPLAUSE)

Our ICE operation in Minnesota, for example, is finding hundreds of killers, violent predators, and child rapists, some of the worst criminal offenders anywhere in the world, murderers all over the place. All we want to do is get them out. We're also going to revoke the citizenship of any naturalized immigrant from Somalia or anywhere else who is convicted of defrauding our citizens. We're going to get them the hell out of here.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: The Democrats are making their own funding threat. Many want to withhold funding for ICE in the next spending bill. That bill, it got to pass by January 30th or the government could shut down again.

Let's talk to one Democrat on the Hill, Minnesota Congresswoman Kelly Morrison. Congresswoman, thank you for being here. All eyes are on our home state, and I wonder what you think of Trump's statement, what he means by a day of reckoning and retribution for Minnesota, and how do you intend to respond to that threat?

REP. KELLY MORRISON (D-MN): I have no idea what he means by that, Laura, but I will tell you that there has been what feels like just a constant escalation since ICE has descended upon the Twin Cities specifically but Minnesota at large as well.

We have masked agents roaming our streets, terrorizing our communities, sowing fear. We have people staying home from school, closing businesses, closing restaurants, avoiding medical care, afraid to leave their homes. We've seen, of course, Renee Good lose her life, and I think this is another one of these examples of the administration asking us to not believe what we are seeing with our own eyes.

The president is now escalating his threats against our entire state, withholding USDA funding, withholding SBA funding, and now with a nonspecific threat to withhold all federal funding to Minnesota.

This is hurting -- you know, Republicans live in Minnesota, too. We are a state of Democrats, independents, and Republicans. So, doing war with one state to have our federal government practically go to war with one of these great United States flies in the face of everything that we should stand for in our country.

COATES: The attorney general in Minnesota, Keith Ellison, is bringing a lawsuit. Other states are joining as well on the days to come, we are told. But the idea that the unduly burdensome nature of ICE agents, I mean, over outnumbering even the number of police officers in Minneapolis and St. Paul combined.

But more officials are set to come. You've got the head of the operation, the Border Patrol commander, Greg Bovino, vowing that hundreds more federal agents are going to come in the next few days alone. What is your message to him?

MORRISON: Well, that's exactly the opposite of what local law enforcement is asking for. You've seen our Minneapolis police chief, Brian O'Hara, who has been doing an outstanding job in really challenging times. This surge of federal agents is making it difficult for he and his officers to keep the public safe.

There are examples of people calling 911 because agents are banging on their doors, and they're terrified and they don't know how to respond. There are abandoned cars in the streets. One car was left, it was not in park, so it continued to drive and crashed.

So, officers are being deployed in ways that have nothing to do with enhancing public safety. All of these is making our communities less safe.

COATES: Well, we know that 53 percent of Americans, according to a new poll, do not believe the shooting of Renee Good was justified. You know there are protests all across the country about the increased surge of ICE officials and the tactics that are being used. But the same poll shows 57 percent of people do not approve of the way ICE is enforcing the laws.

Some Democrats on the Hill, they want to suspend funding. They want to make sure that that power of the purse is wielding a lot of influence until there are some pretty significant reforms. That could mean another government shutdown. Do you support that? What's on the horizon?

MORRISON: This is all going to be up to congressional Republicans, Laura. They at some point, and I specifically call on my Republican colleagues from Minnesota, they at some point have got to stand up to this president and say this is too far.

Clearly, there need to be reforms in the way the Department of Homeland Security is conducting its immigration enforcement. I think it begins -- there are some ideas. Let's start with unmasking these agents. Let's have them have proper identification. There needs to be so much more transparency.

[23:20:01]

And I made this plea -- you know, I and two of my Democratic colleagues went to the Whipple detention facility to do our legal rights and congressional duty of oversight. They let us in very briefly, and then abruptly told us that we had to leave, so we were not able to speak with any of the detainees or have a tour.

But I made a plea to the commanding officers there, ICE agents. I said Minnesota has been through so much over this past year. We have had the shooting of Melissa Hortman, my dear friend and former speaker of the Minnesota House. We had a mass shooting in Annunciation Catholic School. And now, we are having this surge of ICE agents and the death of Renee Good.

It would do so much to have some transparency, to have a complete investigation to bring down the temperature and to reassure Minnesotans that justice is being done.

COATES: Will they hear your plea? Representative Kelly Morrison, thank you so much.

MORRISON: Thanks for having me.

COATES: Still ahead, breaking tonight, a sitting senator telling "The New York Times" that she is now under investigation. But why, is the question. Could it possibly have anything to do with this message from Senator Slotkin?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. ELISSA SLOTKIN (D-MI): You can refuse illegal orders.

REP. CHRIS DELUZIO (D-PA): You must refuse illegal orders.

SLOTKIN: No one has to carry out orders that violate the law or our Constitution.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:25:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: Breaking news tonight, "The New York Times" reports that Democratic Senator Elissa Slotkin says that she is under federal investigation. She says the office of D.C. U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro reached out to her team to seek an interview.

Now, we have no idea what the nature of this investigation is, but Slotkin pointed out that she did appear in that video urging military members not to follow illegal orders. CNN has previously reported that the FBI was seeking to schedule interviews with the Democrats in that video.

We have reached out to both Pirro and Slotkin for comment. This all comes as Pirro is defending another probe, this one into Fed Chairman Jerome Powell.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JEANINE PIRRO, U.S. ATTORNEY FOR WASHINGTON, D.C.: I'm curious to those who claim, oh my gosh, this is a terrible thing, even in our own party. What do you suggest? Are there certain people that you cannot investigate? Are there certain people that we look the other way and throw complaints in the drawer?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Certainly not. Pirro claims that Powell stonewalled her office's request for information for months. Pirro's appearance on Fox tonight comes as sources tell CNN the White House officials are blaming her for blindsiding them with the investigation into the renovation at the Fed.

But if the president is at all upset with her, he's really not showing it. In fact, you know what? It's the opposite. He continued to attack Powell today for being too slow to lower rates again.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: He's either corrupt or incompetent.

DOKOUPIL: But on this direct question about political retribution, what it looks like, sir, what's your response?

TRUMP: I can't help what it looks like.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Here with me tonight, CNN political commentator and former DNC communications director, Xochitl Hinojosa, and Republican strategist Lance Trover. So, Xochitl, I want to start with the breaking news on Senator Slotkin, who says that she is now being investigated, telling the Times that this is meant to intimidate her. What do you see as the main motivation here, even knowing we don't know the full scope of the investigation as it is?

XOCHITL HINOJOSA, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, FORMER DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS AT JUSTICE DEPARTMENTL; FORMER COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR FOR DNC: We don't know the full scope. But from what we know and what we know of Senator Kelly and what we believe is happening with the people in the video that essentially asked and told the military that they should not follow illegal orders is that we think that she's being investigated for speaking out.

And listen, this is her job. She's part of the Armed Services Committee. Congress has a role when it comes to oversight of this administration. And she was simply saying, follow the law, follow the Constitution, and it's as simple as that. And so, I think what is potentially happening here is they're going in to question her.

What I find remarkable is during that Fox interview, the U.S. attorney, and you know this, when there is an ongoing investigation or where there is a preliminary investigation, we are the Justice Department. You do not go off and go on television or even confirm that investigation. And the simple fact that they are trying to potentially spin this very early on is unprecedented and just makes it seem like it's political.

COATES: What's the impact if this has happened to a sitting senator, a second senator who has really been, if not officially investigated, under the umbrella of investigatory behavior?

LANCE TROVER, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST, FORMER SPOKESPERSON FOR DOUG BURGUM'S 2024 PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN: Yes. Look, I don't know that she has committed any crimes here. I will say that. But I'm glad people are asking questions because I think this video -- what role do they have? I mean, we have the greatest military in the world. We have the great -- they know what they are to do and what they are not to do. They are very well trained in what they -- what was the point of this video?

I think this video was one of the most atrocious things that any city member of Congress could do because the veiled -- the veiled commentary was essentially saying you're doing something bad by bombing those boats in the ocean when there has never been that type of adjudication.

So, look, again, I don't know if there has been any criminal activity, but I'm just glad people are asking questions. I think she should own up to more as to why did they feel the need to do what they do when our military knows what they need to do.

COATES: Well, we remind people all the time of their obligations and duties. I mean, the idea that -- I don't believe that you think this is the most atrocious thing the senator could possibly do.

TROVER: I think -- I personally find this to be an atrocious behavior on the part of these senators. They knew exactly what they were doing. It is a veiled commentary to our military when they know -- our military knows what the right thing to do is and what not.

HINOJOSA: We also don't know what information the Armed Services Committee has.

[23:30:00]

And working in the federal government, I'm very aware that there are constantly whistleblowers going to Congress because there are whistleblower protections. And you don't know if they bear a potential whistle.

TROVER: Maybe that's what we can get to the bottom of the investigation.

HINOJOSA: You don't know.

TROVER: I know.

HINOJOSA: There are whistleblower protections. And Congress has a responsibility to protect those people and also conduct oversight. And so, if they believe that there is a problem or there are illegal orders, again, we don't know what the Armed Services Committee knows, but they have a responsibility to make sure that the federal government is following along.

TROVER: Military operates on a chain of command. When you make that type of veiled commentary to people, you were essentially trying to disrupt our military chain of command. I personally just could not see.

COATES: What I heard you say was you support a thorough investigation to answer inquiries, and I think that's a good thing, and we'll leave it at that, especially when it comes to things that involve people who are in law enforcement and chains of command. I'll hold you to it.

Let's move on to Powell at this point in time because Trump is saying he can't help what this looks like. And, obviously, he's no fan of Chairman Powell. This is not even like breaking. But with the idea here that he has been publicly saying that he wants Powell out, questioning his credibility, his competence, whether he is corrupt, is there any world, though, do you see, Xochitl, where this investigation would have been brought had Powell been a 'yes' man when it came to the federal rates?

HINOJOSA: From what it looks like, absolutely not. I'll say that Donald Trump is strengthening Powell's hand every single time he opens his mouth and criticizes him.

COATES: How so?

HINOJOSA: And this was the same thing he did with James Comey and Tish James. It is very clear that people that Donald Trump does not like and his potential enemies are people that are being targeted by the Justice Department.

And exactly what Powell will do if there is an indictment is he -- this only strengthens his argument, not only when it comes to messaging and in public, but also in court because he will be able to say that this was retribution. He did not -- the president -- he didn't do exactly what the president wanted. And he did not -- and that Trump did not want the Fed to be independent. And, therefore, this is why they're investigating and prosecuting him.

COATES: Let me leave the court and go to Wall Street because we have seen Republicans say this is a bad idea. We've seen Wall Street actually responded as well. Jamie Dimon today, for example, said it will have the reverse consequences, it will raise inflation expectations, and probably increase interest rates over time. Should Trump be listening?

TROVER: Well, of course, he should be listening. But, I mean, if you listen to the president, he said he had nothing to do with this. Jeanine Pirro -- look, my question is, why didn't they not just respond to her when she came to them months ago and said, hey, what's going on with the spending?

Can you just -- I mean, you're a lawyer, I'm a lawyer. I mean, when the Justice Department or somebody comes to you and says, hey, can you just help us out here and tell us what's going on, which is what she says they did, they ignored her. They didn't even respond. They ignored her. I mean, there's a lot of smart people over at the Fed. I don't think that's how you would typically handle a U.S. attorney coming to your office saying, can you help us out?

So, it makes me wonder, are they just think they're too big that they don't have to respond to U.S. attorneys? Is that where we are now with our independent agencies or did they want this subpoena?

HINOJOSA: I think --

TROVER: That's my question.

HINOJOSA: -- at the Justice Department.

TROVER: Right. So, you just ignore and don't respond. That goes back to my larger point of so, we'll just ignore the U.S. attorney now if we don't want to talk to her. That's crazy.

COATES: So, you just support subpoenas being followed by Republicans, too?

TROVER: Yes. I think anybody should follow what our Justice Department -- if they call you -- my point with them is, why did they just not respond in the beginning when they called in the first place before it even had to get to a subpoena?

COATES: Well, we'll see what independence looks like. Lance, Xochitl, thank you both. Up next, speaking of subpoenas, see my segues. Bill and Hillary Clinton defied the congressional subpoena in the Epstein investigation. Could they actually be at risk of being held in contempt? Not theoretically, but really.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:35:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: Invalid, legally unenforceable, and unprecedented. Those are the exact words Bill and Hillary Clinton are using as they defy subpoenas to testify before the House Oversight Committee in their Epstein investigation, a move that now puts them at risk of being held in criminal contempt of Congress. But that's not stopping the former president and secretary of state, who today sent a letter to Republican Chairman James Comer saying -- quote -- "You will say it is not our decision to make. But we have made it. Now you have to make yours." Well, this was Comer's response.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. JAMES COMER (R-KY): We will move next week in the House Oversight Committee markup to hold former President Clinton in contempt of Congress. To my knowledge, former President Clinton has never answered questions about Epstein. And we just had questions. Because, again, I think anyone would admit they spent a lot of time together while Bill Clinton was president and post presidency.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Now, to be clear, Clinton has never been accused by law enforcement of any wrongdoing related to Epstein. Tonight, some Democrats like Congressman Jared Moskowitz are pointing out Comer's hypocrisy. As two of the congressmen standing behind him, Andy Biggs and Scott Perry, well, both defied congressional subpoenas themselves from the House January 6 Committee in 2022. Remember that?

Joining me now, CNN legal analyst and former federal prosecutor, Elliot Williams. OK, we have a game of legal chicken going on right now.

ELLIOT WILLIAMS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: Yes.

COATES: The Clintons saying they don't have to follow because it's an invalid subpoena, it doesn't have a legislative purpose, and they are seeking testimony not connected to a federal investigation.

WILLIAMS: Right.

COATES: Is that enough?

WILLIAMS: It technically, by the letter of the law, it's enough for them to get out of it, but we'll see what happens in the courts.

[23:40:01]

Now, that no valid legislative purpose language is very important in congressional oversight. I dealt with that when I worked on the Hill and at the Justice Department. Congress can engage in oversight of pretty much anything it wants of the federal government or of industry or whatever else if they have what is called a valid legislative purpose.

Now, that doesn't have to be just for passing a law, it just has to be something legitimate for Congress. The Clintons are saying this is all politics and not really tied to Congress's legislative oversight authority, and so they say it's invalid.

COATES: They didn't go to the courts for this, though.

WILLIAMS: They did not go to the courts for this.

COATES: They could have. Move to quash the subpoena. They could have.

WILLIAMS: Maybe, maybe, because typically, what would happen in a congressional oversight proceeding is there'd be back and forth and negotiation long before you get to the point where you're litigating things.

And, in fact, the Clintons, if you read their letter, were very savvy in how they laid it out. They said, number one, all the things they've already provided to Congress. They said that we provided all the information we have. And number two, we are willing to have a public hearing. There are circumstances under which we would work with you, Congress, to get there. Why they did that was to get out of a potential contempt proceeding in front of it, right?

COATES: Yes.

WILLIAMS: Because they're saying, we have tried to negotiate in good faith with Congress, but instead of negotiating with us, Congress has just gone ahead and tried to subpoena --- tried to hold us in contempt.

COATES: And the Clintons actually argue this, suggesting -- they say -- quote -- "an attempt to embarrass them." They point to this Truth Social post from the president where Trump writes -- quote -- "The Dems are the ones who work with Epstein, not the Republicans. Release all of their names, embarrass them." Does that buttress their claim?

WILLIAMS: It does. The problem is that Donald Trump is not a member of Congress, right? And Donald Trump can say whatever he wants. What they would need is that comment from Jim Comer or someone in Congress.

But again, the big thing here is can the party, whether he's Bill Clinton or not or Hillary Clinton, say, we negotiated with Congress in good faith and tried to propose other options for our appearance?

If they can say that, the court can believe that they're not getting held in criminal contempt, even if this Justice Department chooses to charge them with it. It's hard to win if they've done anything to try to comply, which it seems like they have.

COATES: Imagine the precedent this might set. Elliot, thank you so much.

WILLIAMS: Thanks, Laura.

COATES: Up next, an affair, murder, and betrayal. Brendan Banfield is accused of killing his wife and another man and conspiring with the family's au pair to do it, all so they could be together. But today, that au pair is testifying against him. And the dramatic testimony that could seal the case, I have for you, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:45:00] (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: It's a trial that feels more and more like the plot of a chilling crime thriller with each passing day. Virginia man Brendan Banfield accused of conspiring with his au pair and mistress to kill his wife and frame another man in the process only to kill him, too.

Today, opening arguments kicked off in the double murder trial of the two victims, Christine Banfield and Joseph Ryan, where the prosecution offered a timeline and their theory of the case.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JENNA SANDS, PROSECUTION: Divorce was not an option for him. He didn't want to lose custody of Valerie. He didn't even want to share custody of Valerie. He thought Christine was a terrible mother. He wanted her out of the picture.

They would use Christine's email accounts to create a fake profile, to lure someone in who was into kinky sex, violent sex, and they would get this guy to come into the house and fake rape Christine. Brendan would be the hero of the day. He would show up, kill the guy, kill his wife, pretending that it had been that guy. That was the plan.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Now, the defense pushed back and gave a glimpse of what their strategy will be, discrediting the star witness and co-defendant, the au pair, Juliana.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOHN CARROLL, DEFENSE: The whole reason she was arrested was to flip her against my client. As the case went on, it became very clear that they wanted him so badly that they were willing to do anything. They made offers not as good as a misdemeanor. But as time went on, for a manslaughter, suspended time. But she had to testify against Brendan.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Brendan Banfield has pleaded not guilty to charges of aggravated murder and a firearm offense. He faces up to life in prison if convicted. Joining me now, GiGi McKelvey, who has been watching the trial closely for her podcast, "Pretty Lies and Alibis." Also here, CNN legal analyst and criminal defense attorney, Joey Jackson. He has also been covering this with me on our pop-up channels and streaming. Let's talk about this, GiGi, because the au pair took the stand today. She described her account of the murders. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JULIANA PERES MAGALHAES, WITNESS, BANFIELD'S AU PAIR AND MISTRESS: When I first saw that happening, I ran to the -- to the other side of the -- the -- the bed. And I was just crunching down on myself and covering my ears and covering my eyes. And a few times, I looked and I was able to see him stabbing her. (END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Note that she doesn't talk about trying to help that woman in any way. How crucial are those details to the prosecution's timeline of the murder as you see it, GiGi?

GIGI MCKELVEY, PODCAST HOST: I think it's very crucial. I mean, she is as guilty as he is, in my opinion. But if I'm sitting on that jury, I think she came across as very credible. She didn't stumble.

[23:50:00]

She spitted out the facts as she was asked. And I think it's going to be one of those deals where the jury is not going to like her because of her participation, before, during, and after the murders. But to me, I thought her testimony was solid and definitely does not look good for Brendan.

COATES: You know, Joey, it can cut both ways, right? She is truly an accomplice. And the idea of even she describes Christine, who was the wife and mother of the little girl that she was charged with being an au pair for, as very friendly. She calls her welcoming and fair. But she also testified that Banfield thought his wife was a terrible mother, didn't want to share custody. Will she have to explain why she conspired in the first place if that's how she really felt about Christine? Is there other gap here?

JOEY JACKSON, CNN LEGAL ANALYST, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Significant gaps. Good to be with you, Laura and GiGi. She is going to be savaged on cross-examination, right? It's fair to say that you have a get out of jail free card. Is that right? What do you mean? Well, what I mean is that if you tell the prosecution exactly what they want to hear, you get to go home. Don't you? That's a fact. Isn't it? You made a deal. You didn't make a deal originally.

And, by the way, your story changed over time. And they really tried to go after you, the prosecutors, to offer you anything and everything they could so that you could say exactly what they needed you to say.

So, when you get her on cross-examination, you're going to savage her with respect to her self-interested motivation, Laura, to say exactly what's necessary to bury him and exonerate yourself.

Last point. By the way, you actually had a gun in your hand. You took the gun, you squeezed it pretty good, you aimed it at him, you did that, right? But my client didn't do that. You have the gun in your hand. You shot him, too. Is that right? That's fair?

So, I think that there's a self-interested motivation that the jury has to consider as they're evaluating her testimony and the motivation as to why she would give it. So, that is what I'm looking to see, if she continues the narrative, and yes, indeed, is the centerpiece in the prosecution's case.

COATES: They could try to also undercut that, though, and say there's a power dynamic at play. She's an au pair. She is in a different country. She also is much younger than him and perhaps impressionable, shall we say. We'll see how the prosecution deals with it.

GiGi, there was a dramatic moment today where Banfield appeared to tear up as he listened to audio, the 911 call that he made. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNKNOWN (voice-over): You said she's breathing normally. She's just not responding to you.

BRENDAN BANFIELD, ACCUSED OF MURDER (voice-over): She got a -- she got a very big hole in her neck.

UNKNOWN (voice-over): OK. Just keep applying pressure, OK? Yes, they're on the way. You should see them soon. They're pulling up outside right now. Let me know when you can see them, OK?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: GiGi, she was stabbed multiple times in her neck, significant esophageal damage. There was blood in her stomach. She had swallowed for over the course of it. She endured the suffering as well. You didn't see him crying at the moments he saw those pictures. But this leaves an impression of the jury, right?

MCKELVEY: I don't know. I didn't see a tear fall. That was me personally. He did a lot of wiping, but I just didn't see any wetness coming from those eyes. And what stood out to me even more, like you said, is as they are showing these autopsy pictures of his wife and the mother of his child, no emotion whatsoever.

The most emotion I saw out of him today that was genuine was when the au pair walked in the door to take the stand. He did not take his eyes off of her until she sat down. I mean, just a glare. And it made me wonder, you know, what is he thinking? But that -- to me, that was the most emotion I saw. Those tears, non-existent in my book.

COATES: GiGi, Joey, thank you both. There's a lot more to come on this. I'll pick your brains again. Thank you so much. Up next, we are remembering the civil rights icon you may not even know enough about, but you sure should.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:55:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: We end tonight with the passing of a civil rights icon, Claudette Colvin. She died of natural causes in Texas at the age of 86. But I want you to imagine her at 15 years old in Montgomery, Alabama. It was just months before Rosa Parks refused to give up her bus seat, March of 1955.

And Colvin was sitting in a different segregated bus. The bus driver called police to complain that two Black girls were sitting too close to two white girls. One of those Black girls moved to the rear of the bus when asked. The other did not. Claudette Colvin refused to move, and she was arrested at 15. Charged with violating the city's segregation ordinance and assaulting a police officer. Colvin's record was expunged in 2021. And on that day, she was asked why she refused to move on that bus. Colvin's answer, "My mindset was on freedom."

Colvin was never as well-known as Rosa Parks, but she was one of the main plaintiffs in the case that ended bus segregation. And her contribution to the civil rights movement cannot and will not be overlooked, the contribution of a brave 15-year-old young girl whose mind was on freedom. Tonight, we remember you, and thank you.

[00:00:00]