Return to Transcripts main page
Laura Coates Live
Dem Blowback Over Biden's Pardon of His Son; Trump Picks MAGA Loyalist Kash Patel to Lead FBI; Musk to Pitch Capitol Hill on His DOGE Cost-Cutting Plan; Daniel Penny's Defense Puts Key Question to Jurors. Aired 11p-12a ET
Aired December 02, 2024 - 23:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[23:00:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
ABBY PHILLIP, CNN ANCHOR AND SENIOR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: Breaking tonight, an unfortunate development for one of the world's legendary pop stars. Elton John has announced that he can no longer see.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ELTON JOHN, BRITISH SINGER-SONGWRITER AND PIANIST: I haven't been able to come to many of the previews because, you know, I've lost my eyesight, so it's hard for me to see it. But love to hear it. Boy, it's sounding good tonight.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: The 77-year-old, who retired from performing last year, blamed the development on an infection he contracted over the summer.
Well, thank you very much for watching "NewsNight." "Laura Coates Live" starts right now.
LAURA COATES, CNN HOST AND SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: President Biden getting plenty of criticism over his decision to pardon his son from his own party. Well, one Democrat who's congratulating his decision is my guest tonight. Plus, he's Donald Trump's pick to run the FBI. He wants to turn the agency's headquarters into what he's calling a deep state museum. So, who is Kash Patel? And what would the FBI look like if he were in charge? And the defense in Daniel Penny's subway chokehold trial makes their final case to the jurors. The one key question that they want them to hear before they start their deliberations. Tonight on "Laura Coates Live."
So, Democrats are finding themselves once again in a bind over a decision or choice from President Joe Biden. Now, first, it was his choice to run it all, frankly, in 2024, only leave the party scrambling in the wake of his, well, disastrous debate performance. Well, now it's the pardoning of his son, Hunter, after publicly insisting personally and through the White House press secretary that he would not.
Look, many Democrats say that they are totally sympathetic to the idea of a father who is protecting his son, but what they're not sympathetic to is Biden saying one thing and doing another later on. I mean, imagine a politician doing that.
Here are some of the words being thrown around by Democrats. Wrong decision, a mistake, unwise, wrong. And they say it's such a very bad standard that a president should not choose his family ahead of the country. Senator Michael Bennet says it erodes Americans' faith in the justice system.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. MICHAEL BENNET (D-CO): It just gives the American people a sense that there's one system for the rich and powerful and another system for everybody else, which is one of the reasons why we haven't been able to keep Donald Trump from coming back here again for a second term.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Well, Congressman Glenn Ivey predicts it's going to give Trump some fuel for his attacks against his enemies.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. GLENN IVEY (D-MD): This is going to be used against us when we're fighting the misuses that are coming from the Trump administration.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: I mean, he's not wrong about how it's going to be used. I mean, Trump is already on the offensive. He's calling the pardon a -- quote -- "miscarriage of justice." That's pretty interesting because that's the same language Joe Biden used in his statement announcing the pardon. He said that Hunter was unfairly prosecuted and that type of federal tax and gun charges that he was always facing are almost never brought to trial.
Now, Trump himself has given his own controversial pardons. He has also made it clear he wants to take a sledgehammer to the Justice Department and has suggested pardoning January 6th defendants, all, by the way, long before this Hunter Biden pardon.
So, is it really the precedent Democrats are worried about? I mean, it has been answered from multiple sources tonight and officials who worked for Joe Biden that they never actually believed a pardon was off the table. I mean, you'd be naive to think that it wouldn't be good to be the king, right?
But one ex-official says it was -- quote -- "extremely, painfully obvious that this was where things were indeed going to end up." Sources telling CNN that Hunter Biden would not have ever agreed to plead guilty without the expectation of clemency from his father.
Now, the White House claims the final decision was reached only this weekend. But saying one thing and doing another is why a lot of Americans are fed up with Washington, D.C., period. The Democratic senator, Tim Kaine, was quick to point out.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. TIM KAINE (D-VA): He didn't need to tell the American public, I will not do this. And he did. And when you made a promise, you got to keep it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: I want to have the senators holding for both Democrats and Republicans. I want to bring in Democratic Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett from Texas. She serves in the House Oversight Committee. Glad to have you here. Congresswoman, I'm eager to get your take on this because, look, I mean, you have actually congratulated President Biden.
REP. JASMINE CROCKETT (D-TX): Yeah.
COATES: You seemed to be, at least publicly, in the minority among Democrats in the House.
(LAUGHTER)
Why do you think you are in the minority here and is it sincere?
[23:05:00]
CROCKETT: Um, first of all, it is sincere. And, you know, I can't say why my colleagues are acting the way that they are. I can say that the American people are tired of us bringing a butter knife to a real fight, a real war. And the reality is that, you know, a lot of my colleagues, even if they are lawyers, they've never practiced law, they've never actually been in a courtroom, something that you've done before. And Laura, you and I haven't rehearsed this. I'm not supposed to do this because you know we're never supposed to ask a question you don't know the answer to.
COATES: Uh-hmm.
CROCKET: But chances are, I'm going to go out on a limb and say, you've never prosecuted anyone who was a drug addict, and they filled out an application to get a gun before.
COATES: Correct.
CROCKETT: Okay. All right. So, in my experience, because I did practice criminal defense for almost 20 years, both in state courts as well as federal courts, I've never seen a case like this before. So, you know, when we look at this and as somebody who serves on Oversight, I saw it up close and personal. Listen, this was gamesmanship. They were going after his only son so that they could try to get at him. This was all about politics. And at the end of the day, when the president said that he had no intentions of pardoning his son, I absolutely believe that he believed that in that moment. I also -- COATES: Well, why would he have done that, congresswoman? I mean, in the grand scheme of things, as he wrote out in that statement, for the reasons you've suggested, these charges alone, the accusations alone, normally would not have given way to a trial.
CROCKETT: No.
COATES: But Biden truly would have not -- he himself, by the way, was a defense attorney for a time --
CROCKETT: Yeah.
COATES: -- in his earlier career.
CROCKETT: Yeah.
COATES: He himself would have known how this all works, so to speak. Why wouldn't he have given himself some room to even equivocate? Why would he have said so definitively if that might have been in the future?
CROCKETT: I can't tell you why he did it. I can tell you that at the time that he said it, though, he was, number one, the Democratic nominee to go after a second term. And circumstances have changed. Not only did he not end up becoming the Democratic nominee to go into a second term, we know that Trump and his administration -- you were just talking about in your lead-in about Kash Patel --
COATES: Uh-hmm.
CROCKETT: And so not only is it that we lost, but we now know that we have someone who is a convicted criminal that is going into the White House and seemingly is surrounding himself with questionable figures. And the retribution that he has talked about seeking on the trail, you know, I think that the president is taking him at his word, and he has decided that he is going to protect his only son. And honestly, I think that it was the right move.
Listen, anybody that has a problem with a pardon, let me be clear about this: The only way you get a pardon is if you've been in trouble in some way. And so, you know, at the end of the day, there are really bad folk that Trump decided that he would pardon when he was going through his first presidential -- you know, when he served in his first presidency.
Listen, at the end of the day, I need people to really recognize that we are living in some different times. And I applaud the president because the American people have been so upset with Democrats not fighting back and not fighting with the same tools that the Republicans have been fighting with. And we know that the Supreme Court has done what? Given immunity. His own lawyers argued to the Supreme Court that he should be allowed to have SEAL Team Six go out and kill somebody. So, for people --
COATES: Well, they have given some -- they have said that there is some form for official conduct and acts. Really quickly, though, Democrats have been accused of seeking the moral high ground even at their own expense.
CROCKETT: Uh-hmm.
COATES: Are we seeing a shift now where Democrats are no longer bringing that sort of butter knife and are just going to say, listen, we're going to fight in the way that perhaps they expect Republicans to?
CROCKETT: I don't see the shift. You just said I'm in the minority. I think --
COATES: My question was about you being sincere. It wasn't whether you were sincere. But are there others behind closed doors who actually feel just like you do and are saying in front of cameras, this is unbelievable, I can't imagine this ever happening?
CROCKETT: No, I think that others that feel the way that I feel, they're actually quiet. I think the ones that are out front saying what they're saying, they really believe what they're saying.
COATES: Why are they quiet?
CROCKETT: Um, you know, everybody comes from different districts. So, a lot of people are always concerned about how will my district take this? But for me, listen, I'm fearless.
COATES: Hmm.
CROCKETT: At the end of the day, I do believe in democracy. If my district ever feels as if I'm not representing an authentic voice for them, then they will vote me out. But one thing I can't do is not be myself.
COATES: I see. Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett, always a pleasure to see yourself in this studio.
CROCKETT: Good to see you.
COATES: Well, the White House says President Biden will issue more pardons before he leaves office. But the question tonight is whether Biden would entertain the pardon idea that's being floated today by Senator Joe Manchin, all in the name of balance.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MANU RAJU, CNN CHIEF CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: I want to get your reaction to this news involving the president giving his son a pardon.
[23:10:03]
He had said for months that he would not do that, and now he is. What's your reaction to that?
SEN. JOE MANCHIN (D-WV): I just -- as a father, I don't know. A father that would have done the same thing. It was not a criminal. I mean, it wasn't violent crime, it wasn't sexual crime. Now, with that, he'll have to pay, I guess, restitution. Whatever he owes you, this or that thing of that sort. But I wasn't surprised from that standpoint.
What I would have done differently, my recommendation as a council would have been, why don't you go ahead and pardon Donald Trump for all his charges and make it -- you know, it had been -- it had gone down a lot more balanced, if you will.
RAJU: Pardon him for the -- everything?
MANCHIN: Well, I mean --
RAJU: He has been charged. He hasn't been convicted on the federal -- on the federal cases.
MANCHIN: I'm just saying, wipe them out rather than going through all these court cases and getting -- you know, the president has to be the president for the next four years. Fighting all these criminals and all. This other stuff is coming after him. Just clean that slate up. Let's get this behind us and move forward. That's what I would do. I mean, that has been my recommendation.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Hmm. Well, joining me now, CNN political commentator and Republican strategist Brad Todd and Democratic strategist Chuck Rocha. Glad to have you both here. Brad, let's start there. Should Biden clean the slate and extend a pardon to Donald Trump?
BRAD TODD, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: He should have already done it.
COATES: You think so?
TODD: He should have done it before the election. And I think Donald Trump should have said he'd pardon Hunter before the election, to tell you the truth. I think both these men, this is the one way they could have actually grown outside the caricature they've become of each other. It's one of the few ways they've made up some people take a second look at them.
COATES: Well, interesting to hear that because Trump intimated or suggested at one point that, you know, he wouldn't rule out the possibility of pardoning Hunter because he felt as though he was treated badly by the Justice Department, which is odd given his response to now the pardon issued by Biden. They seem to be on a similar page. Should he have done that? Should he have issued or should he now, if you're Biden, say, I'm going to pardon Trump?
CHUCK ROCHA, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST, FORMER SENIOR ADVISER FOR BERNIE SANDERS'S 2016 AND 2020 PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGNS: I wouldn't have, but I'm one of those lefty Democrats who don't think he should pardon anybody. If nobody is going to do any pardon, we know who has done the most pardoning, and that is Donald Trump. It is just like this decision with Biden. I'm kind of like the congresswoman. I'm glad that he did it. He should lean into it. I don't like the fact that he lied about it. Like, that's something that as a political consultant, I'll have to deal with for a year or two as people yeah, yeah about that. But it's his son. He should have -- handlers are in him. I've run a presidential campaign. You tell them, when they're going to answer that question, you can pivot away from that. I'm not going to put my hand on a scale. I'm going to wait till justice. So, that's the piece that aggravates me. And kind of the sanctimonious letter, I didn't like that as much either. I have no problem with the power of pardon.
COATES: Some people are saying he didn't lie. I think it was Jamaal Bowman earlier today with Abby on her show. He was saying he didn't lie. I'm paraphrasing the congressman. He didn't lie. Circumstances changed such that it was now appropriate to make a different decision. Now --
TODD: That's complete bunk. And, of course, Jamaal Bowman, we wouldn't expect anything but that from him. I mean, they said it 10 different times.
COATES: Why do you say that?
TODD: He's a noted hyperbolist. He's frivolous. Ten different times the White House categorically denied he was going to pardon him. Now, he's his son. Everyone gets that. I mean, if you wouldn't do everything you could for your own son, then I'd question it.
COATES: Uh-hmm.
TODD: But Joe Biden should have said, I'm going to pardon him. And yes, he thinks the Justice Department is out of control. I think that's something everybody should all be able to agree on. The DOJ politicizes too many prosecutions and it's time for reform.
COATES: Well, this is the question I have. What is more important, it seems, for the critics? Is it the fact that he pardoned his son or the fact that he first said that he wouldn't pardon his son and then did so? When you look at the balancing of these two -- quote-unquote -- "offenses," which is more problematic for you as a strategist?
ROCHA: It's the part that you brought up a while ago with the congresswoman, when a lot of Democrats, not me, have said that we are better than Republicans. We're better than Republicans because they do this thing, makes us more Democratic. We're better than kind of talking down to them. I can have a (INAUDIBLE) talk about the Democratic Party, talking down to folks with cowboy hats. I'm just saying that that's the part that gets me. That's the part that bothers me the most.
Like I just said, I gave you my opinion on the pardon. It's the part about when we say that we're better than them, and then we do what he did. And I'm glad that he did it. I'm going to say it again. That's the part that bothers me.
COATES: Well, Charlamagne tha God had a statement about this very notion of moral high ground today and the Democrats needed to get off it. Listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) CHARLAMAGNE THA GOD, RADIO HOST: I just want Democrats to stop acting like they are on this moral high ground politically, when they have shown us they're not. You know, whether it's skipping the primary process when Biden stepped down and things like Biden pardoning his son. Stop acting like you all are the pure party and Republicans aren't. And it also shows me elected officials can do whatever they want as long as they have the political will and courage to do it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Does he have a point?
TODD: I think he does. And I think one thing we're not talking about yet is that this is not just a pardon for two crimes. This is a pardon for everything he did in 10 years. I think it's going to open the door to a lot more investigation into Hunter Biden because Joe Biden knows there's something else he needs to pardon Hunter for, besides the two things that he has been charged with. That's going to -- Hunter no longer needs the Fifth Amendment to protect him from future prosecution. He's now pardoned.
[23:15:00]
He can be compelled to cooperate. He can tell us his co-conspirators. He could tell us other people he did business with. He could tell us people he bought drugs from. There's now a window for Hunter to open up about everything that was on that laptop. Who helped him? Did Joe Biden help him? Did he ask for any favors? That's where we are now because Biden chose to overreach with a 10-year pardon.
COATES: Is there an appetite for it? That's the question for the American people and whether, in fact, it is. If they believe Biden's statements about this being a miscarriage of justice. I wonder if they'll think about that. Surely, I doubt it's the end of the story. Please stand by, though.
Up next, will Christopher Wray wait to be fired or will he step down to make room for Trump's new and controversial choice to lead the FBI? Plus, we've got new reporting about Pete Hegseth's alleged past that resurfaces and the allegations, and includes claims that question his ability to lead the organization like the Pentagon. So why aren't some senators interested in even asking him about it? That's next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:20:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KASH PATEL, FORMER CHIEF OF STAFF TO ACTING U.S. SECRETARY OF DEFENSE IN TRUMP ADMINISTRATION: I'd shut down the FBI Hoover Building on day one and reopening the next day as a museum of the deep state. And I take the 7,000 employees that work in that building and send them across America to chase down criminals. Go be cops. (END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Donald Trump's pick to lead the FBI, Kash Patel, in his own words, describing his dream plan to remake the law enforcement agency. Joining me now, someone who has been singled out by Patel as a member of what he calls the deep state, CNN senior law enforcement analyst and former deputy director of the FBI, Andrew McCabe.
I wonder what wing of the deep state museum they would put you in, Andrew, at this point, if he actually is the FBI head. Let me ask you, though, just, you know, look, the former AG, Bill Barr, wrote in his memoir that Patel would become the FBI's number two over his dead body. His words, not mine. Now, there's a real possibility that he could actually lead the FBI. So, what would that really look like?
ANDREW MCCABE, CNN SENIOR LAW ENFORCEMENT ANALYST, FORMER FBI DEPUTY DIRECTOR: Well, that's a great question, Laura. We don't have a really precise answer to that question because Kash Patel, beyond the absurd hyperbolic comments he has made on a few podcasts, has yet to articulate any distinctive vision for the FBI, how he thinks he would make it more productive or better, you know, more accessible to the American public and more responsive to the demands of national security.
Um, if we just -- if we just go by those podcast claims that he seems to be quite focused on, eliminating head FBI headquarters and greatly reducing, uh, the number of people who work there, I think it's really important that people should think about that in the context of how we got to where we are and the evolution of the FBI in the post 9/11 era, responding to the realization that we failed to connect the dots, um, on the intelligence that could have prevented the attack on 9/11, partially because we didn't disseminate intelligence well. We had 56 field offices all working independently, not sharing information in the way that we needed to protect the country.
And so, a lot of that consolidation at headquarters took place in the years after 9/11 in an effort to work terrors and threats more effectively and to protect the American people. So, if his proposal is to eliminate headquarters and to push 7,000 people to work as cops, he should explain how he thinks that's going to impact, how he thinks that's going to make Americans more safe. My argument would be it would not.
COATES: That's got to be one of the first questions if he were to go through a confirmation process about continuing that particular thread on that issue. But just taking a step back for a second, you know, Trump is the one to have appointed Christopher Wray, by the way. He once called him a man of impeccable credentials. Now, he wants to fire him. Remember, directors, they have a 10-year term. They're supposed to outlast presidential administrations. Should Wray stay put knowing that he has someone in mind to replace him and wait to be fired, a la Jim Comey, or should he step down?
MCCABE: You know, that's a tough one, and I can't profess to know how Chris Wray thinks about that. My personal opinion is that there is an important -- there is an important point to make here, by the way he handles this decision. And I think not letting the president-elect off the hook, so to speak, remaining in your position, forcing him to take that unconventional action of firing a director for some manufactured reason, I think that's an important step. It's an important marker for the record of history. I think it would be important to the men and women of the FBI.
Now, that said, I don't -- you know, for my short time working with Director Wray, I don't see him as someone who's really inclined to those sorts of bold, very public moves. But, you know, it's a matter of personal style and what he thinks is important. And I suppose in the next few months, we'll find out.
COATES: Well, weeks at this point. Andrew McCabe, thank you so much. I'm curious about what the morale must be like right now, thinking about who might lead. Thank you so much for joining.
Brad Todd and Chuck Rocha, they are back with me.
[23:24:58]
Brad, I mean, morale aside for a second, let's talk about the nomination process. There are some Republicans who have ultimately praised this nomination of Kash Patel. There are some Republicans who have ultimately praised this nomination of Kash Patel. There are others who are a bit more equivocal about the entire thing. Do you think that Hunter Biden's pardon might grease the wheel here, in any way?
TODD: Well, you have three camps, I think, of Republicans. There are some Republicans who enthusiastically like Kash Patel and know him. There are some other Republicans who think a president ought to be able to have the ability to staff his administration.
COATES: He should.
TODD: Some of those Republicans voted for a lot of Joe Biden's nominees, by the way. Lindsey Graham being one of them, who sits on the Judiciary Committee. So -- then there's another group that I think the jury is still out on. I think Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski, everyone expects that they could be (INAUDIBLE) Kash Patel.
I'm watching Chuck Grassley and John Cornyn. They both sit on the Judiciary Committee. It's possible they're both serving their last term in Washington. Chuck Grassley came out with a tweet yesterday and said, I'm interested to hear Kash Patel's plan to reform the Department of Justice, and he's got to come make that case to the Senate Judiciary Committee. I thought that was an interesting comment because he's looking for not just a rhetoric, but he's looking for a plan. And I think that that would also imply that he's reserving judgment on how he might vote on the nomination.
So, if you can't get every -- all but one Republican senator on the Judiciary Committee, then you won't make it out to the floor. And if you can't get those on the Judiciary Committee, you probably can't pass on the floor.
COATES: Hmm.
TODD: So, I think this nomination still has a way to go. But one thing is certain. Whoever heads the FBI, whether they're confirmed or whether they're acting directors, they're going to be a reform head of the FBI.
COATES: Well, one of the things that in that same vein, when Patel has been talking about some of his plans, and again, these are not things he has said now in front of the Committee for confirmation, but listen, Chuck, to some of the things he's also saying about what these plans might look like.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PATEL: We will go out and find the conspirators, not just in government, but in the media. Yes, we're going to come after the people in the media who lied about American citizens, who helped Joe Biden rig presidential elections. We're going to come after you. Whether it's criminal or civilly, we'll figure that out.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Now, of course, the FBI has directed not to go after purely First Amendment concerns. But let me just ask you. Trump has also promised to go after, in some vein, political enemies and adversaries. Is Kash Patel the vehicle?
ROCHA: Look, it's just -- as he talks, it sounds crazy to me, and I think the American people will see that. Speaking of the media, I don't reckon he's going to be in line for any of these CNN hero awards here at CNN this weekend. Congratulations on that.
COATES: I'll be hosting that on Sunday.
ROCHA: That's right. And I was thinking about that outside, because it was the same thing. I saw that commercial. I saw him. I was like, look, we are having these inspirational stories that you'll be talking about. At the same time, we're talking about a guy saying, we're going to punish the media, we're going to in reform, reform. I understand that and probably think everything could take some reform at some level.
But as a voter and folks who run elections, I think that this is going to be great for Democrats because you can contrast, but I just don't think it's good for the country as we go through this process in any shape, form or fashion.
COATES: I guess I think about what the role of the FBI is. And, you know, I know he will focus a lot on the so-called deep state, but there's a lot of important things the FBI does as a supplement to local law enforcement and beyond to do a lot of things. I just -- I shudder to think about it being falling to the waist.
Let me just turn for a second, Brad, to the idea of the defense secretary nominee, Pete Hegseth, because "The New Yorker" has now obtained a whistleblower report that details misconduct allegations. They are allegations during his time leading the Concern Veterans for America nonprofit. Some of them include being repeatedly drunk at events, taking staff to a strip club, sexually pursuing female staffers and on.
Senators Rick Scott, Brad, Mike Lee, Ted Cruz, and Cynthia Lummis have all said that they didn't discuss any of this in their meetings with Pete Hegseth, and they support him. Does that strike you as concerning, that they haven't asked questions about what these allegations say?
TODD: No. I think "The New Yorker" and this particular journalist in particular has a long reputation of running hit pieces on Republicans. This is the same reporter who said that the Russians stole 2016 elections, swung the 2016 election for Donald Trump. I don't think this report has any credibility with Republicans. It's not. And it's all -- it's all people who are anonymous, people who most of these Republicans know personally, who worked with Pete Hegseth that say it's not true.
COATES: Well, if that's true -- I don't have any confirmation of that reputation you talk about. But if that's true, simply a question of, look, let's just talk about it and get it out of the way. They're saying this, this, and this about you. What's your response?
TODD: I'm sure that -- I'm sure that those questions will be asked. I'm sure there will be senators who ask it. But the job of reforming the Pentagon is a pretty big job, too. And there's only so much time in a meeting. And I would say that if I were a U.S. senator, the first question I would ask, how are you going to handle this job?
ROCHA: Is this the same reporter that came up with finding the letter from his mama saying that he was no good or is this a different reporter?
COATES: I see what you're doing there.
ROCHA: See that?
COATES: You're a reporter. I do.
ROCHA: I'm just saying, when I read up on the stuff tonight, I don't do a lot of reading, I ain't going to surprise nobody at home, but I read the stuff you told me to read, was going to talk about tonight.
[23:30:00]
When I read that, I was like, when you lose your mama -- like my mama has looked past a lot of things Chuck Rocha has done. Your mama is going to love you forever.
COATES: Hmm.
ROCHA: When your mama comes out, you got a problem. So, I think if your mama is not with you, the senator should have an easy confirmation.
COATES: She has come back --
TODD: Well, his mama said she should have written it, and she wishes she hadn't.
COATES: But she did write at the time, but now she (INAUDIBLE). I do want to read for you, though, what Hegseth's advisor told CNN, saying, we're not going to comment on outlandish claims laundered through the New Yorker by a petty and jealous disgruntled former associate of Mr. Hegseth's. Get back to us when you try your first attempt at actual journalism.
Hmm. That clearly wasn't meant for me. Let me ask you, though, on this point. "The New York Times" also obtained, as you mentioned, that email from his mother. But more broadly, I still go back to this. These are claims that are going to come up. You would expect senators who are going to be a part of the entire process to ask about the things, at least to take the wind out of the sails, to have some response that can be complete and fulsome. Why not just ask the questions? Why not just get the lay of the land? Why decide to ignore it? It's ultimately going to come up.
ROCHA: It makes no sense to me because as a strategist, if I'm the Republican, if it was a Democrat in the same way, I'd want to know how they answer it because I know the other side is going to ask the question. So, if I'm really with him, ride or die, as Bowman said tonight. I would want to know what the opposition is so I could try to give him other questions to help soften the blow because I know that the opposite party is going to send these questions. This is a lot of red beat.
TODD: He's going to be asked, and he'll be asked by the staff and the prep for the hearing. There will be more than a bunch of anonymous quotes in a New Yorker by the time this is over with, and we'll get to the bottom of it.
COATES: Well, we certainly will. We'll also see how DOGE and the Defense Department might be looked at in tandem for a number of reasons. Brad, Chuck, thank you both so much.
Look, Elon Musk is now just days away from talking DOGE up on Capitol Hill. And already, he has names of government workers that he wants to cut. A former federal employee who says she once faced Musk's public wrath, joins me on that next. And later, it could be the one question that decides Daniel Penny's fate in his manslaughter trial. Hear the defense team's final plea to jurors as they get ready to take the case.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:35:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: The Department of Government Ethics, also known as DOGE, will execute their first piece of business this coming Thursday. It's a trip to Washington, D.C. And once there, Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy will meet with congressional Republican leaders to lay out their vision. But already, Musk is previewing some of his ideas on X. What's he saying? Well, he is retweeting some supporters who are doxing federal employees, exposing their full names, their positions, where they work. It's a familiar tactic that Musk and his fans have used before.
It has actually happened before. In 2021, after the appointment of a new senior safety advisor at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Musk took to Twitter, responding to a tweet critical of the new hire, saying -- quote -- "objectively, her track record is extremely biased against Tesla" -- unquote.
Now, this employee was critical of Tesla's self-driving software. But after the Musk tweet, that employee received death threats, and they eventually deleted all social media and even had to physically moved from where they lived.
Her name is Missy Cummings. She's a former senior advisor at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. She's now a professor at George Mason University, and she was also one of the Navy's first female fighter pilots. Missy, good to have you here this evening. I want to ask you because your life was upended after Musk tweeted about you personally. I mean, accusing you of harboring bias against him. Bring me into that experience. What happened after Musk tweeted that?
MISSY CUMMINGS, FORMER SENIOR ADVISOR AT NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION, PROFESSOR AT GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY: Well, when people say their phone exploded, I didn't really know what that term meant until that happened. So, you know, my phone explodes, emails. People are calling me to tell me what's happening. You know, I really didn't foresee this coming. I had written a very actually boring academic paper that enraged Elon and his minions. And -- but, you know, you just don't realize how fast something can go out of control when there's an agenda of squashing any dissent whatsoever.
COATES: It must have been unbelievably startling, but also daunting to figure out how you come from underneath the weight of that particular moment and all the attention you never wanted to get. I do wonder, in the times that we're in right now, when Musk has engaged in behavior that is similar, identifying particular federal employees, what are you hearing from federal workers about his role, prospectively?
CUMMINGS: Well, since I work in D.C. now, even though I'm not working directly for the government anymore, I'm here, a lot of my friends are in various agencies, and people are afraid. There have been a few people I know that have resigned from their jobs. They're like, you know, that's it, I'm out.
[23:40:00]
And the rest are just waiting to see, am I going to have to sell my house? Am I going to have a job? Is my agency going to be moved out of D.C.? And, you know, I think there's some uncertainty every time an administration changes, but I've never seen anything like I see the fear now. And certainly, my experience, you know, people know that. People know what he did to me. And, you know, the good news is that I had fighter pilot training. So, I was, like, bring it!
(LAUGHTER)
But, you know, not everybody has that kind of training. Not everybody has been to prisoner of war school, you know. And I feel bad for other people who don't have the training and just the resilience to pull from. So, it's a pretty bad situation.
COATES: What's your advice to those federal workers who are afraid, who don't have the same experience that you have had?
CUMMINGS: Get a good lawyer. You would be amazed at what happens when you start throwing a lawyer around. You know, it's not clear that what Elon says he's going to do as co-president is going to actually work. And so, you know, I think arming yourself with a good lawyer and also get out of your house.
I mean, when they started coming after me, the death threat, you know, the police were involved and, you know, it's a terrible situation when you have to leave your house. But I do -- this environment, especially after January 6th, we're just not -- it's just not clear what people are willing to do and how far they're willing to go. And so, the police told me that, you know, let this calm down. Once he put your information out there, you know, if you'll give it some period of time, things will calm down. But still, in that period of time, you just don't know what people are capable of.
COATES: Seems like a luxury for some, to be able to pick up and go. I wonder, you know, how long people have to wait and can wait for things to calm down. And yet, you know, one of the things that -- this all happened, of course, before he owned X. And now, he's got an even bigger platform, so to speak.
Bernie Sanders, though, he tweeted about some level of interest about certain parts of DOGE. And I wonder from your experience and your viewpoint, is your critique with Musk about him as a person or what he might be trying to do with the government?
CUMMINGS: I have never criticized him as an individual except for what he did to me personally and nor do I have any -- I haven't had any major opinion about what he wants to do in the government because I haven't seen any formal proposals. I'm a researcher who researches artificial intelligence safety, and that is my job, to look at technologies that are in the marketplace and assess whether or not they're safe.
I assessed his Tesla. They are not safe when they are being driven on autopilot and full self-driving. That is my professional opinion. I love SpaceX. That is one company of his that I can't get enough of. But in this very divisive culture that we live in right now, you can't hold those thoughts and not be a bad girl. You know, I can't like SpaceX, but -- you know, I actually like the Tesla vehicle itself, but I just don't like this one feature. But that's not enough for people. They feel like you have to be all in to support Musk or, somehow, you're evil.
COATES: Missy Cummings, thank you so much for joining.
CUMMINGS: Thank you.
COATES: Well, Daniel Penny's high-profile manslaughter trial nearing an end now as a New York jury gets ready to get the case maybe as early as tomorrow. Up next, the closing arguments from the defense and the one key question they want the jurors to now consider.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:45:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: Who would you want on the next train ride with you? That's the key question that Daniel Penny's attorneys put to New York jurors today during closing arguments in his fatal chokehold trial. Now, Penny's team hoping that very question will resonate with the 12 men and women who will ultimately decide whether Penny is guilty of second-degree manslaughter and criminally negligent homicide in the death of Jordan Neely.
The defense framing the question as kind of a choice, saying -- quote -- "The guy on the train with the earbuds minding his own business, who you know will be there for you if something happens, or you just hope someone like Neely never enters, especially when you're all alone" -- unquote.
Well, joining me now, criminal defense attorney, Arthur Aldala. I'm so glad that you're here to help unpack this from the defense perspective. That question that was asked, who would you rather have on the subway with you? Tell me, was that the right tactic to take with a jury like this?
ARTHUR ALDALA, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Well, besides being a lawyer in New York city, I am a very frequent subway rider, and especially this time of year. It's really the only way to get around New York City because of all the traffic. And I think that's a great question to ask because, you know, we -- many people who ride the subway, luckily, it has never gotten to this point most of the time, but there are people who are yelling and screaming and just intimidating you. And, you know, there I am in my suit and my tie and my fedora hat. I'm like, okay, I'm 57 years old. Like, I'm going to start tussling with some guy. But then you see them like going after older people or, on this particular case, there was a woman with a child.
[23:50:04]
So, I think jurors, those jurors who not necessarily ride the train every day but who are on the subway and have encountered someone who has been as disruptive as Mr. Neely is, I know how they would answer that question. I would rather have Daniel Penny who is sitting there listening to his earbuds, not having someone who's yelling and screaming and throwing down their jacket saying, I'm ready to rob, I'm ready to kill people. COATES: But that's not really going to be the ultimate question for the jury.
ALDALA: Correct.
COATES: And that could be true, that many would say, yes, I prefer to have somebody who's not offending me in any way. But the prosecution is going to come back pretty strong and suggest, okay, maybe you even want this person to actually stop the person from acting erratically. But at some point, they had to stop before the person died. Can the defense adequately defend against that prosecution strategy?
ALDALA: Well, the prosecution, even today, in her summation, she was like -- it's very hard when a prosecutor goes up there and kind of says what the defendant here did was like the right thing until it became the wrong thing.
COATES: Hmm.
ALDALA: She said he was doing the right thing. She said he was trying to help, except he went too far. And under those circumstances where human beings, they always tell you, use your common sense, use your common sense, can really relate to the anxiety and the adrenaline of the moment. And look, they're all about how long did he hold him. As soon as the police came, he let go. But until the police came, he doesn't know if this guy has got a gun, he has got a knife. What he's going to do if he releases him?
So, it's really talking about, I think, 51 seconds. So, it's rare to have a prosecutor agree with the defense for a big hunk of what took place except for a couple of seconds. And New York jurors are going to do what New York jurors want to do. And there are probably going to be 12 jurors fighting in that courtroom over the next couple of days.
COATES: I mean, they're going to start to deliberate soon, and they've got to unpack those different aspects of it. You can bet the jury instructions are going to come into play. I would bet there is going to be more than one question about how to interpret them. You are friends with some of the members and personally know members of the Daniel Penny defense team. Are you hearing anything about how they feel about his chances of an acquittal?
ALDALA: No, I would never ask that to a lawyer on trial, knowing myself that I don't know what's going to happen because you get so emotionally involved. But, you know, jurors get emotionally involved as well. And I'm not saying they're not going to follow the law, but they are going to bring their own personal experiences into that jury room. Those interactions they've had on the subway or on the streets of New York with mentally ill people.
And look, there's a possibility here of a compromised verdict where you're charged -- he's charged with murder in the second degree -- I'm sorry, manslaughter in the second degree, which is most you could get is 15 years in jail, and then he's charged with criminally negligent homicide, which the most you could get is four years in jail. So, there is a possibility that some people say, I'll never convict him, other people say, I'll never acquit him, and they meet in the middle at the criminally negligent homicide, and then it's up to Judge Max Wiley to determine a sentence.
COATES: Well, speaking of the judge, I mean, there is a world in a universe where somebody without a criminal record could possibly not go to jail, maybe not in the circumstance. But do you think the judge, if he is convicted, would sentence him to jail time?
ALDALA: I know Max Wiley since the summer of 1990 when I interned in the Manhattan District Attorney's Office. I've appeared before him. If I had to make a small wager, I could definitely see myself making a wager that Judge Max Wiley does not sentence him to prison. But nobody knows.
COATES: Why?
ALDALA: Because it would have such a chilling effect, I think, to good samaritans and the good aamaritan statue of people saying, look, I'm not going to get involved anymore. I'll just take out my phone, stay afar. I'll take a video of it. And then after that person gets hit, stabbed, that kid on the train gets attacked, well, at least I'll have it on my phone and I can show it to the police and the detectives, and let them deal with it, so I don't have to worry about going to jail. And that's kind of a rough way for citizens in any community to live.
COATES: Arthur Aldala, we'll see what the jury thinks of all of it. Thanks for joining us tonight.
ALDALA: Always a pleasure.
COATES: Well, up next, an emotional moment for a music icon and his fans.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:55:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: It's not personal, it's just competition. These are the words of Houston Texan linebacker Azeez Al-Shaair, posting an apology on X for his controversial hit on Jacksonville Jaguar quarterback Trevor Lawrence this past Sunday. The hit forced Lawrence out of the game with a concussion. His team visibly angry, as you see there, right after the play.
Al-Shaair saying -- quote -- "My goal is to hit you as hard as I can, then I pray you're still able to get up and play the next play." Al- Shaair, though, has been fined multiple times this season alone for on-field incidents. Now, Lawrence, for his part, says he's home and feeling better. I'm glad to hear it.
And our best wishes continue with Elton John. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOHN: To my husband, who has been my rock because I haven't been able to come to many of the previews because, as you know, I've lost my eyesight, so it's hard for me to see it. But I love to hear it. And boy, it's sounding good tonight.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: That's the legend at opening night of his new West End musical, The Devil Wears Prada. The update to his health comes after John disclosed a severe eye infection this summer, which he says is still keeping him from creating new work in the studio.
And speaking of legends, well, "Moana 2" breaking box office records, grossing $389 million worldwide in its massive opening weekend.
[00:00:02]
So, of course, Disney is not done with the franchise. In just two years, you'll be able to watch a live action remake. And yeah, The Rock is in it. So, with all that, I'll leave you with a song from "Moana 2," some by The Rock himself.
(MUSIC PLAYING)
What I can say except you're welcome. Thanks for watching. "Anderson Cooper 360" starts right now.
