Return to Transcripts main page
Anderson Cooper 360 Degrees
Trump: Judges "Shouldn't Be Dictating What You're Supposed To Be Doing"; Interview With Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN); Justice Department To Drop Corruption Case Against NYC Mayor Eric Adams; Elon Musk Leads Offer To Buy OpenAI For Nearly $100 Billion; Elon Musk Moves Forward With Plans To Shake Up Federal Government With Trump's Blessing; Trump On Hamas Threat: "Let Hell Break Out" If Hostages Not Returned; Latest Israeli Hostages Released During Ceasefire Appear Gaunt, Pale; Greenlanders On Trump's Attempt To Take Control Of The Island. Aired 8-9p ET
Aired February 10, 2025 - 20:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
ERIN BURNETT, CNN HOST: Just incredible, though, just usual it is for the Kremlin not confirm this, even though Trump has made it clear he's had a conversation with Putin, he says to talk about ending the war in Ukraine.
All right, well, thanks so much to all of you for joining us. As always, we'll see you back here tomorrow night. It's time now for AC360 with Anderson Cooper, which starts right now.
[20:00:18]
ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST, "ANDERSON COOPER: 360": Tonight on 360, federal judge rules that members of the Trump administration are defying his court order as the president and vice-president raised concerns that he might make a practice of it. We're keeping them honest.
Also tonight, breaking news, the Justice Department telling federal prosecutors to drop the bribery case against New York Mayor Eric Adams.
And later the president talking about acquiring Greenland. Our Donie O'Sullivan goes there to find out what the people there think of it all.
Good evening. Thanks for joining us.
We begin tonight keeping them honest with the president and vice- president both sounding like they're getting ready to defy federal court orders, and one judge today saying they already are. Now, this is important because this judge's next step could be to try to hold members of the administration in contempt.
And then the fear is, the president could simply tell the attorney general to order the US Marshal Service, not to enforce the contempt citation.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) GEORGE CONWAY, CONSERVATIVE ATTORNEY: I mean, we are on the edge of a dark precipice where the rule of law doesn't exist, at least at the federal level. And that, I don't think people fully understand that yet.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COOPER: That's conservative lawyer, George Conway laying out a scenario that would have seemed far-fetched until recently, but its taking on fresh significance given this judge's determination that the administration already is defying his orders and is accused in a second case involving suspending USAID workers of also defying a court order.
In this case, though, Rhode Island Chief Federal Judge, John McConnell, Jr. has already made his determination and issued a warning in the form of a citation at the very top of today's ruling, it reads, "Persons who make private determinations of the law and refuse to obey an order generally risked criminal contempt, even if the order is ultimately ruled incorrect."
And this is what he says members of the Trump administration are doing -- disobeying his temporary restraining order, which blocks the administration's freeze on disbursing federal grants already allocated by Congress.
Now, Judge McConnell writes, "The defendants received notice of the TRO, the order is clear and unambiguous and there are no impediments to the defendants' compliance with the order."
The judge then orders the administration to immediately restore the frozen funding and any funding pause and, "Immediately take every step to effectuate the temporary restraining order." He does not, however, say what will happen if the defendant on the president's order simply says, no, make me, which not even Richard Nixon did during Watergate, but which this president's statement suggests is a possibility. Here he is on a radio broadcast tonight.
(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP (R) PRESIDENT-ELECT OF THE UNITED STATES: Judges should be ruling. They shouldn't be dictating what you're supposed to be doing.
(END AUDIO CLIP)
COOPER: The president saying judges should be ruling, but somehow not saying anything in their rulings about what the people they're ruling on should do. Here he is talking with Fox News for a taped interview which aired last night.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: The day you're not allowed to look for theft and fraud, et cetera, then we don't have much of a country. So, no judge should be -- no judge should frankly be allowed to make that kind of a decision. (END VIDEO CLIP)
COOPER: Well, this follows a tweet by Vice President Vance which reads, "If a judge tried to tell a general how to conduct a military operation, that would be illegal if a judge tried to command the attorney general and how to use her discretion as a prosecutor, that's also illegal. Judges aren't allowed to control the executive's legitimate power.
Well, in a moment, we'll talk to Senator Amy Klobuchar, who sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee. She joins us to weigh in on that and there's plenty more to talk about, including this from four years ago. JD Vance's advice to Donald Trump should he become president again, namely, "Fire every civil servant in the administrative state," he said and then dared the courts to stop him.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JD VANCE (R) VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: And when the courts, because you will get taken to court, and when the courts stop you stand before the country like Andrew Jackson did and say the chief justice has made his ruling, now, let him enforce it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COOPER: Well, that was JD Vance in 2021. President Jackson's declaration is believed to be apocryphal. On the other hand, Trump's public statements on Executive power superseding the courts they were made on camera and go back to his first term.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: I have an Article II where I have the right to do whatever I want as president.
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS, ABC NEWS: When the president does it it's not illegal.
TRUMP: I'm just saying a president under Article II, it's very strong. Read it. Do you have Article II? Read it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COOPER: Article II, lays out the power of the Executive Branch, which are considerable and which only grew with the Supreme Court's ruling in the immunity case United States v Trump.
What the president does not mention, though, is the responsibilities laid out in Article II, including that he shall, "Take care that the laws be faithfully executed," which you would think excludes defying court orders.
And one of the top members of the House and Senate both, both of them Republicans, make of this. Well we asked off camera by CNN's Manu Raju, whether the administration should comply with court orders, Senate Majority Leader John Thune merely said that the courts have got, "an important role to play." And House Speaker Johnson did not say.
Once again, a lot to start off the week. CNN's Kaitlan Collins joins us from Washington. So what, if anything, is the president signaling tonight about how he'll respond to these federal court orders?
[20:06:17]
KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN ANCHOR AND CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: It's not clear yet. Of course, the legal option here is to appeal this, Anderson, and to continue with the legal recourse here. But the question is, is he adopting this strategy of what you're hearing there, what we are hearing from two of his top advisers, the vice- president and Elon Musk, about potentially defying these orders.
Now, there is some nuance in what each of them is saying and this is something that I've been hearing from my sources and from people all day, which is the difference here and JD Vance's tweet that he posted saying about, you know, generals being fired or the attorney general is using her discretion to prosecute who the Justice Department believes should be prosecuted.
What he said in that last sentence of that tweet where he said "legitimate power" there, the "Executive's legitimate power," that is the word that is, you know, underlined and emphasized here because when he argues that it is their legitimate power, he's saying, therefore, the judge does not have jurisdiction over this and cannot tell them what to do.
What Elon Musk is saying is that this judge who put this freeze on, he and his aides being able to access this sensitive data at the Treasury Department, should be impeached for his ruling.
Now, those are two different things. JD Vance is not that far behind Elon Musk there. But the question here is how the White House plans to handle this going forward, and whether or not they are going to continue to just try to appeal this in the courts, maybe make it up to the Supreme Court, potentially within a matter of weeks for some of these matters, or if they are frustrated with the Judiciary blocking what Trump is trying to do via executive action with the federal government, what that next step is.
It's not clear yet from the White House what they are going to do and what the strategy is going to be here, whether or not they will continue to simply appeal it. But Trump tonight, in a new interview, was also complaining about the Judiciary getting in the way of what the Executive Branch is trying to do.
COOPER: And the president signed some executive orders in front of cameras today, and it was initially listed as a closed press. He didn't get any questions about these court cases during the photo op. Did that surprise you?
COLLINS: It is surprising because obviously this is the main story here in Washington today, which is what is going to happen here, because Trump has not really faced any resistance since he has retaken power just a few weeks ago, as he's been signing executive orders every single day. Some of them smaller and less consequential to everyday Americans.
Certainly some of them very impactful and carry a lot of weight. And as he's been going through that, really it is only the courts that we have seen start to step in, whether it comes to offering federal workers buyouts or trying to overturn birthright citizenship, or as we are here when it comes to Elon Musk and his employees' purview and just how expansive it is and what this looks like with all of these other matters and executive orders that he signed.
That's the question here of what this is going to look like going forward, because Trump has come into office emboldened in a way that he really has never been before, facing almost no resistance on Capitol Hill, certainly not to his Cabinet nominees or for many Republicans, not really anything from Democrats, only from the Judicial Branch as he's facing any of those obstacles and challenges.
The question is how he views that and his purview and how he can respond to that. Certainly, we are seeing a lot of critics of this White House suggest that they are on the cusp of a constitutional crisis, depending on how they handle this.
COOPER: All right, Kaitlan, thanks. We'll see you at the top of the hour on "The Source."
Joining us now is Senator Amy Klobuchar, Democrat from Minnesota, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Senator, I want to talk to you about the cuts to public health research. But first, just regarding the presidents statements. Does it sound to you like he's preparing to defy court orders?
SEN. AMY KLOBUCHAR (D-MN): He's making it sound like that and we know in the past there have been court orders in his first presidency, for instance, on immigration and other cases where they did follow the orders.
So, he likes to play a game. I think we all know that. But in the end, being held in contempt, and of course, this would go up through the courts to the highest court of the land. It's my understanding they are already appealing this to the First Circuit.
But in the end, and I know your legal experts have looked at this, there's a reason this judge made this order. Congress made the decision to allocate these funds on a bipartisan basis. We passed a law that was signed into law.
If they want to work with us on the next budget and on making decisions that make the government more efficient, we're glad to work with them. But right now, what they're doing is a unilateral power grab, and it is unconstitutional and the thought that they are violating the law -- and by the way, Anderson, I happen to know that not everyone is still getting their funds, that some of them are frozen.
Some have asked me not even to say it because they don't want to be identified, because they fear retaliation from this administration in the future.
So, there is a reason that this judge again reminded them that they had to follow the order and let those funds and grants go to the recipients. So, that's the case that will be going up to the First Circuit, and yes, there's the power of contempt. There's also --judges do have an inherent power of contempt to enforce it. It is rarely used because the Justice Department takes care of it and the presidents comply with the law. But that is where we may be headed if they refuse to comply with the law.
[20:10:25]
COOPER: But forcing it, what is that involving US Marshals through the Justice Department?
KLOBUCHAR: Let's wait to see, first of all, if in fact they're going to comply with this law when push comes to shove, because right now some of the money is going out through the grant. But it's my understanding that some of them isn't.
And one of the things that is most important here is JD Vance and Donald Trump know better, they know what the law is. They know those Supreme Court justices. We know they know them. They appointed a good number of them.
But the point is, the Constitution is the Constitution and if they start running amok with this, we will be in a crisis. But I am not yet ready to say that because a tweet is not the same as failing to comply with the law and actually saying to a judge, no, you've held me in contempt and I'm still not going to release the funds.
That is a whole different level of disdain for the Constitution than simply doing a radio interview or a tweet, or saying something on Fox News.
COOPER: A federal judge in Boston today halted, at least temporarily, cuts the administration ordered to funding for public health research. I know the order will only apply to 22 Democrat-led states that filed suit against the White House.
Your GOP colleague, Senator Susan Collins said today shell vote to confirm more of Kennedy, Jr. as HHS Secretary, she said that she extracted a pledge from him that him that he'll, "reexamine cuts to public health."
Do you think RFK, Jr. if confirmed, is going to care what federal judges say he can and can't do?
KLOBUCHAR: I would hope that he would. I have serious concerns about this nominee. I'm not supporting him because of his views on vaccines and other public health issues. But that aside, today was an example, Anderson, of a victory when the state attorney generals and I will note its Democratic attorney generals.
And right now, the important cancer trials and the like have only been funded, will only continue to be funded in the states that have the Democratic AGs. What this judge ordered was -- hey, you, 22 states came before us and we are willing to take on Donald Trump so, your funding continues until the hearing on February 21st.
And I've got to stress what this is. This is cancer trials. These are universities and doctors and researchers. One mom wrote my office and said, you know, three kids at home and this is her only hope, and she's doing better and better with these cancer trials.
These are the kinds of things that we are hearing in our own states, and what they're basically doing, my view, and a lot of others is they want to fund this $2 trillion for the wealthy tax cut coming up over $2 trillion. They're looking for money under every corner. They don't care if it's your kid's cancer trials. They don't care if its Head Start.
They're going to look for that money and do it off of your back. And so, one of the cases the attorney generals are making is that this is serious harm. They're winning. They're winning before Trump judges. They are winning before judges appointed by Democratic presidents, and this isn't a partisan thing. This is the rule of law and our Constitution is very clear that Congress in Article I were first before the Executive Branch has the power of the purse and that's what they're looking at. And that's what this judge used to enforce the law and apply the law to the facts before him.
COOPER: All right, Senator Klobuchar, thanks very much. I appreciate it.
KLOBUCHAR: Thank you.
COOPER: Joining us now, former federal prosecutor and bestselling author Jeffrey Toobin. His latest book, out tomorrow, is "The Pardon: The Politics of Presidential Mercy." Can you put this order from the federal judge in Rhode Island in perspective?
JEFFREY TOOBIN, AUTHOR AND FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: It's important to separate this case from all the others. You know, all the other cases are about challenging whether the Trump administration is doing the right thing? Whether its birthright citizenship or firing public employees.
What's different about this Rhode Island case is that he has already ruled that the Trump administration was wrong to withhold these funds, and now he's saying they are not obeying my order to restore the funding.
And so, the issue in this case, which is really more important than the underlying issues about whether the money should be paid or not, is whether a federal court order should be followed.
You know, going back to 1803, in the famous case of Marbury Versus Madison, the Supreme Court said that it's the courts that ultimately decide that have the last word on what is constitutional and what is not.
It's not up to the executive. It's not up to Congress. It's up to the courts.
COOPER: Which is not what JD Vance is saying.
TOOBIN: Which is exactly what he is not saying, which is saying that, you know, the risk here is that the executive can just do what he wants without regard to the Constitution. And that is a situation we've never been in. I think you mentioned earlier, you know, when the Supreme Court told Richard Nixon in 1974 to turn over the White House tapes, he didn't want to do it, but he did it because the Supreme Court told him to.
The Trump administration is appealing this order, which is certainly -- they have every right to do. But if the order stands and they defy it, we are in an area that we have literally never been in before.
[20:15:45]
COOPER: Is there an enforcement mechanism in that case?
TOOBIN: You know, I'm going to give you a ringing answer of, I don't know, because, yes, in theory, the answer is, you know, there is a contempt power that is enforceable by the United States Marshals, where the United States Marshals could go out and their usual job is to enforce contempt, whether it means making someone show up to court. That's how it usually is.
COOPER: Who runs the US Marshals?
TOOBIN: The Department of Justice. You think Pam Bondi is going to tell the Marshals Service to enforce an order against Donald Trump? And how does a court tell the president of the United States to, you know, to honor a judicial decision?
I don't know how that would work. Could he impose fines? He's certainly not going to lock up the president. I mean, but it just shows what an unprecedented situation this is when you have at least the possibility and also if you listen to what the president and vice- president are saying, it certainly suggests that it's a real possibility that they'll simply ignore what the court says.
COOPER: Jeff, stay with us. I want to get Jeff's take and some others on this late word from federal prosecutors have just ordered to drop the corruption case against New York's Mayor, Eric Adams. We'll talk about that in a moment.
Also later, Kara Swisher on Elon Musk's growing reach within the federal government and the confrontation brewing between him and the federal courts over some of his agenda.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[20:21:03]
COOPER: More breaking news tonight. It landed just moments after we learned that the president had pardoned disgraced Illinois Governor, Rod Blagojevich, who did time on federal corruption charges. I spoke with Blagojevich several years ago, just after he'd been released, and he made quite a bunch of claims.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ROD BLAGOJEVICH (D), FORMER ILLINOIS GOVERNOR: I am a political prisoner. I was put in prison for practicing.
COOPER: Wait a minute, you're a political prisoner? Nelson Mandela was a political prisoner. Political prisoners have no due process and are unjustly jailed. You had a jury convict you. You had appeals courts look at your sentencing and you even -- you even appealed to the Supreme Court twice and they refused to hear you.
So, you're hardly a political prisoner.
BLAGOJEVICH: Well, first of all, Nelson Mandela went to before a court. He was convicted in a court of law. I had nearly eight years to read books --
COOPER: -- by a racist apartheid government.
BLAGOJEVICH: That's correct --
COOPER: -- and Nigeria disputes this --
BLAGOJEVICH: That's correct, and if you were to ask him -- I bet you if you were to ask Nelson Mandela whether he thought the process was fair back in the early 60s in South Africa, he would say, what I'm saying today.
I didn't know how corrupt the criminal justice system was until it did it to me and that was a wake-up call.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COOPER: Well, the president -- the interview went on for a long time. The president tonight called him, "A very fine person." So, now he's pardoned.
A short time later, CNN obtained a memo sent by acting deputy Attorney General Emil Bove instructing New York's southern district to dismiss corruption charges against New York's Mayor, Eric Adams.
His case was the first prosecution of a sitting mayor in New York's history. It was scheduled to go on trial this spring.
Jeff Toobin is back also, along with his former federal prosecutor, Jessica Roth. She currently teaches at New York's Cardozo School of Law and CNN chief law enforcement and intelligence analyst John Miller, who was deputy commissioner of the NYPD and he served under Mayor Adams. So, Jeff, is this surprising?
TOOBIN: This is one of the most bizarre situations I have ever seen. I mean, here this guy is indicted and, you know, by a very respected office, he makes complaints that he was politically targeted.
COOPER: Right, he says because he complained about immigration under the Biden administration, he was targeted.
TOOBIN: Which there is absolutely no evidence of. And the Justice Department now, under the new Trump administration, dismisses the case against him, but says, well, we don't know whether he's guilty or not, but we want him to fight crime. I mean, this is what happens in authoritarian --
COOPER: He's essentially -- they essentially are saying that this -- fighting these charges takes away from his ability to pursue help the Trump administration with immigration.
TOOBIN: Correct and this is what happens in authoritarian countries that, you know, the rule of law is not applied equally. It's only applied to how the leader wants it applied. And Eric Adams has ingratiated himself with the Trump administration. And now, he gets --
COOPER: He went to Mar-a-Lago. He went down to the Inauguration.
TOOBIN: Right and that's not how the legal system is supposed to work. Especially, when the Justice Department acknowledges that there -- that the case may well be legitimate.
COOPER: And Jessica, I mean, how weird is it to have a directive from the leadership of the Department of Justice?
JESSICA ROTH, PROFESSOR, NEW YORK'S CARDOZO SCHOOL OF LAW: It's extremely unusual to have the leadership of the Department of Justice reach out to a US Attorney's office and tell them at this stage to drop a case.
There may be consultation before a case is brought, but once it's been brought, its generally left to the prosecutors who are handling the case to see it through its duration. So, it's highly unusual and as Jeff said, particularly because of what's set forth in this highly unusual memo, which essentially says we are not taking any opinion on the merits of the case or the legal theories, that's not why we are directing you to drop the charges.
It's because we want Mayor Adams to be able to pursue the president's immigration policies unfettered by worrying about this prosecution, and also because we think that the prosecution itself was in some ways politically tainted when it was brought from the outset.
But the document reads, as a very political document, there's a citation and a footnote to something that President Biden did, exchanging Viktor Bout with somebody else who had been prosecuted by the Southern District of New York, who was released in a prisoner exchange under President Biden.
So, there's a sense in which there's this sort of like laying out old political concerns with respect to the prior administration in a document that's supposed to be about the case of Eric Adams.
[20:25:20]
COOPER: John Miller, as somebody who knows the history of New York. How weird is this in the history of New York?
JOHN MILLER, CNN CHIEF LAW ENFORCEMENT AND INTELLIGENCE ANALYST: Well, first of all, it's so shocking that there is literally nobody who didn't expect exactly this to happen. And we shouldn't pretend. In fact, I think you and I sat here in December and went through the theory of what was coming, which came, which is that the Justice Department would probably move to dismiss it rather than pardon it based on the strength of the case, which they actually don't address in the memo.
Instead, they say it interfered with the mayor's ability to run the city. It makes reference to weaponization of government --
COOPER: It says, "It cannot be ignored that Mayor Adams criticized the prior administrations immigration policies before the charges were filed."
MILLER: And it cryptically talks about, you know, the recent actions of the former US Attorney Damian Williams, who brought the case, which is called for, he's created a website that, for all intents and purposes, has the appearances of being some kind of early stage of a campaign website.
And, you know, they are accusing him of using this case to kind of jump start his career in politics. But again, only between the lines.
So, as has already been stated here, the memo, which is usually Justice Department memos, are dry, legal and declarative, it's dripping with politics and it is as it appears.
Now, there are legitimate arguments about the strength of the case, the lack of a quid pro quo for the alleged bribe, which is the top count, and the timing of the case, but it sure is different.
TOOBIN: But there's a way to challenge a court case, which is to go to court and tell the judge to dismiss the case for --
MILLER: A motion was made by the defense, which was a very compelling --
TOOBIN: It was a very good motion.
MILLER: And it was dismissed by the judge. So, for the prosecutor to be directed basically to go make a motion against their interests is really strange.
And remember, it's coming from Emil Bove. This is the same individual who is the acting deputy attorney general who comes right from the very same office that brought this case, but who was Donald Trump's criminal lawyer in some of these matters --
COOPER: Jessica, I mean, could charges be brought at the state level?
ROTH: I'd have to think about what those would look like. I mean, these are charges that were brought under federal statutes -- based on a federal statute that governs bribery when somebody is working for -- if it's particular to -- organizations and cities that receive a certain amount of federal funds, it's a wire fraud statute. So, we'd have to look and see what state theories might be available.
COOPER: It seems unlikely.
ROTH: Yes.
COOPER: Very. Yes, I appreciate it. Thank you.
Up next, more on Elon Musk clash with the court system. Tech journalist, Kara Swisher joins us for that.
Plus, more breaking news tonight, this time involving the release of Israeli hostages and what President Trump said to Hamas a short time ago. My conversation with Rachel Goldberg, next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[20:32:26]
COOPER: Revisiting our top story, the collision course. The Trump administration appears to be on with federal courts, including Elon Musk. Among the many cases, one for the second time now delays the deadline for those so-called buyout offers that went out to federal workers. The deal is very similar to one that Elon Musk offered when he took over Twitter.
Joining us now, someone who has a long history reporting on Musk, Kara Swisher is back, co-host of the Pivot podcast and author of "Burn Book: A Tech Love Story". I'm not sure it's still a love story, but what do you make of the problems that President Trump and Musk are running into in federal court so far?
KARA SWISHER, "PIVOT" PODCAST: Well, it's not surprise.
COOPER: Because, I mean, is Musk accustomed to being told he can't do something?
SWISHER: Yes, he is. He does it all the time, whether he's with the SEC or different things. He's always told it and he takes it to the mat. He really does. He's always in litigation with, you know, whatever government agency, regulatory agency, he often crosses lines.
He did it in San Francisco. He's done it with the severance around Twitter people. He did it with a sign in San Francisco. He does it with his SpaceX stuff. This is common for him to just roll right across courts and just keep going.
COOPER: The theory, I guess, being that you do what you want to do and it just takes a while for things to go through the court system. It's expensive.
SWISHER: Right.
COOPER: He has a lot of money. He can fight it for as long as possible. SWISHER: Yes, that's correct. And I think he's feeling the same way here is once -- by the time they stop us, it'll be too late, essentially. I think that's the attitude, is let's, you know, let's hardcore it through. I mean, you've heard those -- that language from people like this. It's hardcore. It's we move fast and we break things. And that's sort of the attitude here.
COOPER: On social media, he attacked the judge who temporarily blocked DOGE from accessing the Treasury Department payment system. You've also gotten negative headlines about the people who are working for him. It seems -- I mean, does he relish drama? Is this an --
SWISHER: I don't know.
COOPER: Is this going back for a long time?
SWISHER: What do you think? I mean, you know --
COOPER: He seems do.
SWISHER: -- any drag queen in Provincetown in the summer has less drama than Elon Musk. I don't know what to say.
COOPER: Wow. Wow.
SWISHER: I just -- sorry, but you know what I mean. He loves this. He loves whether it's everybody is -- you know, he recently called Scott Galloway and I cruel, mean, and I don't know, something else. You know, he called the reporter who wrote on it cruel and disgusting.
You know, who does this remind you of someone attacking a judge? Huh, that someone else does that quite a bit. So it's one of his, you know, when the arrows in his quiver is to attack people personally or to accuse them of things. And, you know, it's just -- he loves drama. He loves attention. He loves people looking at him.
COOPER: Does he want to be liked ultimately? I mean, he sort of has this persona of like, he doesn't care what people think. Do you think that's true?
[20:35:04]
SWISHER: Yes. No, I think that's -- anyone who is like that cares deeply what people think. You know, I think he likes the attention. He likes making trouble. He -- when we were speaking, he used to laugh about it.
What shall I do today that's naughty so that people will -- you know, he did that once before an event, right, I had with him where I interviewed him and he was trying to figure out what joke to tell about the shape of Jeff Bezos' rockets. And he thought that was hysterical.
And then on stage, he did just that. Now, fine by me, but, you know, he likes to do that. He likes to be, you know, troublemaking and seen that way. So it's his preference. COOPER: So also today, we learned that Musk is trying to lead a bid to take control of ChatGPT's parent company, OpenAI, for nearly $100 billion. OpenAI --
SWISHER: Yes.
COOPER: -- is run by Sam Altman, who says he's not interested in Musk's offer. They had a tweet exchange. I think Musk --
SWISHER: Yes.
COOPER: -- ended up calling him a swindler.
SWISHER: Swindler, he's done that several times already.
COOPER: Yes. And they've clashed before. President Trump recently highlighted Altman at this White House event --
SWISHER: Indeed.
COOPER: -- and going to give the -- who said he's going to give the AI economy a major boost. Is -- what is going to happen with this? Because, I mean, obviously, Musk was involved with OpenAI from the get-go, early on.
SWISHER: He was. They were very close. And actually, what happened is he tried to take it over. And then when they rebuffed his kind offer, he stormed out. And then he's been mad since they've been -- he's been -- they've been lapping his efforts for a long time.
He was early to this stuff, let me be clear. But some of these excuses today that he wants to help humanity, these people don't invest $100 billion to help humanity. I'm sorry. Especially it's the people that are doing the investing, if you look at the list. They enjoy profits quite a bit.
And, you know, he's just -- he's in litigation, and this is part of the litigation efforts. It's the same lawyers. These lawyers have been pressing on what they're doing. It's very complex, but they're changing it from a non-profit into a for-profit corporation.
COOPER: Right.
SWISHER: And he's trying to prevent that, even though there are emails showing that he wanted to do it himself. And so he's trying to sort of cosplay the hero of safety, open source AI, but he doesn't do that himself with his own company. And so, you know, it's just -- he wants -- this is part of the litigation, and it's unlikely.
You saw Sam's response, which was very funny. I'll offer to buy Twitter for $9.74 billion, precisely. Microsoft's not even commenting. I think they think this is a clownish legal move from their perspective.
COOPER: Just in terms of what happens here, I mean, the people that Musk is working with, do you know any of these people? I mean, why they're doing a -- have been doing a lot of, you know, remarkable reporting on some of them.
SWISHER: They have. I don't know all the high school -- just recently high school graduated engineers, I'm sorry. I just don't. But they're young people. He wants to -- he wants young people because they'll do what he says, and they revere him probably on some level.
And so he wants to have people he can really, you know, get going and working hard. I suspect a slightly older engineer would have some questions, although he has those, and he's got some very sophisticated lawyers. But everything he does, whether it's this Sam Altman, this whole open AI thing, he's doing it to slow them down.
Because instead of just competing, he wants to slow them down by litigation. This is very familiar to him. Same thing with these young men that are doing this. They may be violating. We don't know. We just don't know, and he wants to keep it that way.
And so, he will do anything to slow people down, and he has numerous tactics to do so. And so, he'll just keep doing. These are among his many tricks, not paying people, waiting for people to sue him, using the court system, attacking people personally. This is the same.
You know, just like Trump has his bag of tricks, this is his bag of tricks.
COOPER: Yes, very similar tricks.
SWISHER: And let me say this Sam Altman thing, I think Scott Galloway had the best line tomorrow on our podcast. He said it's a rich guy's version of invading Greenland. That's really what it is, so. Although Greenland's much more valuable in any ways.
COOPER: Yes. Well, we're about to -- we'll have a story from Greenland coming up in a second.
Kara Swisher --
SWISHER: Oh good.
COOPER: -- it's good talk to you as always. Thank you.
SWISHER: All right. Thank you.
COOPER: Coming up, more breaking news, President Trump's threat to Hamas. Plus, I'll talk about the fate of the remaining Israeli hostages with the mother of one hostage who was murdered in captivity. Rachel Goldberg joins me next.
And later, we know the President wants Greenland. We were just talking about that. What does Greenland want? Donie O'Sullivan went there to find out.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[20:43:29] COOPER: This breaking news. A short time ago, President Trump had this warning for Hamas if it follows through with its threat to postpone the next hostage exchange over what it says are Israeli violations.
(BEGIN VIDEOCLIP)
DONALD TRUMP (R), PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Well, I would say this, and I'm going to let that because that's Israel's decision. But as far as I'm concerned, if all of the hostages aren't returned by Saturday at 12:00, I think it's an appropriate time. I would say cancel it and all bets are off and let hell break out.
(END VIDEOCLIP)
COOPER: The next hostage release is scheduled for Saturday, but it comes at a particularly fraught moment of the deal after these images of the three most recent hostages from the October 7th attack were released, all looking incredibly frail and thin.
Ohad Ben Ami, Eli Sharabi and Or Levy are back with family. In reaction to their condition, the parents of Hersh Goldberg-Polin, an American-Israeli hostage killed by Hamas took to Instagram and made a direct appeal to President Trump and his top envoy. Hersh's mom, Rachel Goldberg, asked them to try to speed the process along.
Levy, one of the hostages released Saturday, sheltered in the same concrete bunker as her son, and both were captured at the same time. I spoke to Rachel Goldberg just before air.
(BEGIN VIDEOCLIP)
COOPER: Rachel, just days ago, you and Jon made a plea to President Trump and the new Mideast envoy, Steve Witkoff, to speed up the process or to try and speed up the process and essentially get the rest of the hostages' home as quickly as possible. Do you think that's actually possible?
[20:45:03]
RACHEL GOLDBERG, MOTHER OF MURDERED HOSTAGE HERSH GOLDBERG-POLIN: I think anything is possible. And, you know, we saw these three men released on Saturday, and that really just -- it was very difficult to see what they look like. And, Anderson, I think that you realize that Or Levy, who was one of the hostages released, we know about Or because of the video that you shared with us.
Or, Elia, Alon, and Hersh were all kidnapped together. They are all in that video. They are all on the same pickup truck. And we know that they were held together, at least for a little bit, the four of them. And we know that the three of them were still being held together until extremely recently. And we know that the conditions are horrific.
COOPER: My understanding is after Or got out, that he was unaware that Hersh had not made it out, that Hersh had been killed. GOLDBERG: Correct. When he came out on Saturday, one of the first questions that he asked Michael, his brother, was, how is Hersh doing? And that was after he had been told that his wife, Einav, had been killed in the bomb shelter. He did not know that.
COOPER: Wow.
COOPER: You know, they have a three-year-old son who's been basically like an orphan for the last 400 and what was 91 days. When his son saw him, he hugged his father and he said, Daddy, it took you such a long time to come home. Because they had kept telling him, we're looking for him, we're looking for him.
Or can take all the time that he needs to be surrounded by his family and his community and his friends and his loved ones. And when he is ready, if he's ready ever to talk with us and share what he knows about Hersh, obviously we would be open to hearing that. But we're very respectful of his healing process. And that's not something that we need right now.
COOPER: When you see the before and after photos of the hostages, as you were talking about, who were just released and we're putting it now, I mean, it is -- it's obviously -- it's just horrific to see. I know Hersh, I mean, Hersh was 6 feet, I think he was 115 pounds at the end.
GOLDBERG: Correct. I mean, this is what -- what's hard for us is that people are saying, oh my gosh, look at these three men. And it is, that is horrific. I mean, Eli Sharabi is unrecognizable completely. And we might -- and I should mention, he's the gentleman who's all the way on the right side of the screen.
He did not know when he was on the stage before his release, Hamas said to him, you're going home to your wife and daughters. He was married with two teenage girls and they had been killed on October 7th.
So when he walked into the hospital on Saturday, expecting to see his wife and his two daughters, he was greeted by other people who had to tell him that they had been killed already for over a year and four months.
And they -- what's hard for Jon and me and the families that Hersh was killed with, you know, the families of the people with whom Hersh was killed, is that exactly what you're saying. When they were brought out at the very end of August, they were all emaciated skeletons who were filthy. They had the coroner assess that they had not been bathed in months.
They were bullet-ridden and they were very bloody, but they were completely emaciated. And we were screaming our heads off as much as we could to try to tell the world, this is what the situation is.
COOPER: You believe that the administration, the U.S. now, Trump administration could -- that there's a chance of just trying to accelerate everything and that, bottom line still, that is your message. The time is now to just try to get everybody out.
GOLDBERG: I don't think it benefits anyone to have this stretch any more than it's already stretched. And now that we see that, I don't think that those hostages can last more than a few days or a week. I don't see them being able -- if this is the most healthy ones are being released first, how are other hostages going to survive if this is what the situation is?
[20:50:03]
COOPER: Well, Rachel Goldberg, thank you so much for talking to us.
GOLDBERG: Well, thank you for keeping this, you know, really highlighted. And remember, we have 76 more hostages, including six Americans who are still being held. And we really feel strongly every single person has got to come home and all of the suffering in this region has got to stop.
(END VIDEOCLIP)
COOPER: Rachel Goldberg.
Still ahead, the President's interest in taking over Greenland. Donie O'Sullivan travels there to see if any Greenlanders he finds support the Trump plan. We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COOPER: President Trump's interest in acquiring Greenland is being treated as more than just a fantasy. This Wednesday, a Senate committee will hold a hearing to, quote, "Examine the strategic significance of Greenland to the American economy and national security".
Greenland has made it clear it's not for sale. But CNN's Donie O'Sullivan traveled there to see how Greenlanders feel about it all. And here's what he's found.
(BEGIN VIDEO TAPE)
[20:55:05]
QUPANUK OLSEN, GREENLAND ELECTION CANDIDATE: I really want this statue gone.
DONIE O'SULLIVAN, CNN SENIOR CORRESPONDENT: Why?
OLSEN: Because why should he be up there? Why isn't it a Greenlander up there?
Trump wants to buy my country, Greenland.
O'SULLIVAN (voice-over): This is Qupanuk Olsen.
OLSEN: Today, Miko and I are having whale skin. O'SULLIVAN (voice-over): She's known as Greenland's biggest influencer, and she's running in the island's upcoming elections. She's a native Greenlander, and for her, this statue of an 18th century missionary is a daily reminder of Denmark's control of her country.
O'SULLIVAN: So you would like to be independent of Denmark?
OLSEN: Yes.
O'SULLIVAN: But that doesn't mean you want to be part of the USA?
OLSEN: No, I don't want to become a part of the USA. I definitely don't.
O'SULLIVAN: You don't want to be an American?
OLSEN: No.
O'SULLIVAN: Why not?
OLSEN: Why should I? Why should we just be taken by another colonizer?
O'SULLIVAN (voice-over): Native Greenlanders or Inuits make up almost 90 percent of Greenland's population.
O'SULLIVAN: Is all this interest in Greenland because of Trump, is it a good thing or is it a bad thing?
OLSEN: In my opinion, it's a good thing because it's speeding up our independence process, so I see it as a good thing.
O'SULLIVAN (voice-over): When the Nazis took over Denmark during World War II, the United States stepped in to protect Greenland.
O'SULLIVAN: Now, the U.S. military has had a presence here on Greenland for decades, but in the capital, one of the very few signs of the United States is this, the U.S. consulate, which was reopened by President Trump in his first term in 2020.
TOM DANS, FORMER U.S. ARCTIC COMMISSIONER: Americans died for this country. In my own family, my grandfather watched his shipmates die.
O'SULLIVAN (voice-over): Another sign of the U.S. here is Tom Dans, who was appointed to the U.S. Arctic Research Commission during Trump's first presidency.
O'SULLIVAN: When Trump first brought up Greenland, people treated it like it was a joke. People thought, that's crazy. But you're saying it's not so crazy.
DANS: It's not crazy at all. Greenland, due to its geographic position, is of kind of the front door for North America.
O'SULLIVAN (voice-over): The U.S. is jostling with Russia and others for Arctic dominance. Military bases here are prime real estate for satellite and missile detection systems.
O'SULLIVAN: So this is Danish Navy.
OLSEN: This is the Danish Navy, yes.
O'SULLIVAN (voice-over): Greenland currently relies on Denmark for security and financial support.
O'SULLIVAN: Do you think Greenland can survive without this, without the support of Denmark?
OLSEN: We will definitely need an agreement with another country, either with -- or still continue the agreement with Denmark, with military, or go with U.S. or Canada.
O'SULLIVAN (voice-over): Climate change is opening up new shipping routes in the Arctic that the U.S. want to control.
O'SULLIVAN: The Greenlanders, you've spoken to, excited about a close relationship with the U.S.?
DANS: Absolutely. I'm -- you know, I'm talking with businessmen, investors, entrepreneurs. Tremendous things are happening.
O'SULLIVAN (voice-over): And another appeal of Greenland for Trump is its many natural resources.
DANS: Fishing, tourism, mining, security investments, logistics. The hard thing is deciding where to start first.
O'SULLIVAN (voice-over): Tom Dans does not have a role in the current administration, but he did campaign for Trump in the last election, along with Greenlander Jorgen Boassen.
DANS: He's been known as Trump's son here.
JORGEN BOASSEN, GREENLANDIC TRUMP SUPPORTER: Trump's son here.
DANS: So papa.
BOASSEN: Papa.
O'SULLIVAN: I mean, maybe you could be.
BOASSEN: Yes.
O'SULLIVAN (voice-over): Jorgen has made multiple trips to the U.S. in recent months, even campaigning for Trump in Pennsylvania.
O'SULLIVAN: Do you want Greenland to be part of the United States?
BOASSEN: Not of 51 states, but best and closest ally with everything, with defense, mining, oil exploration, and trade, and everything.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: OK, we are here in Greenland with Don. Jr. O'SULLIVAN (voice-over): In January, another sign of the United States here. Donald Trump Jr. arriving on the plane dubbed Trump Force One. It's all a sign here for some that there's a lot more to come.
OLSEN: The feeling when I saw the plane was kind of excitement, but also, like, should I be nervous now? And, like, the realizations of Trump's words are no longer just words. Now they have become the reality.
(END VIDEO TAPE)
COOPER: Donie joins us now. So, did you find some people who wanted U.S.?
O'SULLIVAN (on-camera): No, nobody we met. There's 57,000 people, but we met a few of them. Nobody we met actually wants to fully join the United States. However, they are -- I mean, you know, the idea of a closer relationship with the U.S. isn't all that crazy.
Denmark has quite a dark colonial history there, so folks do want to be independent. But they have a realistic expectation which is a --
COOPER: And the concerns about defense for them are very real.
O'SULLIVAN (on-camera): Exactly. And Tom Dans, the American you saw that piece, he would argue that in practice, really, America is already providing a lot of security for the island.
COOPER: All right, Donie O'Sullivan, thanks very much. Did they understand your accent there?
The Source with Kaitlan --
O'SULLIVAN (on-camera): Low blow (ph).
COOPER: No.
The Kaitlan Collins starts now. See you tomorrow.
