Return to Transcripts main page

Laura Coates Live

New Evidence Connect Luigi Mangione To CEO Shooting; Rage Deepens As Wanted Posters Target CEOs; Drone Mystery Sparks Concerns In New Jersey; Diddy Accuser Breaks Silence In CNN Exclusive. Aired 11p-12a ET

Aired December 11, 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]

GERALDO RIVERA, JOURNALIST, FORMER FOX NEWS HOST: But it's impossible to understate how frenetic, you know, it is between Ohio and Michigan. I mean, Ohio State.

ABBY PHILLIP, CNN ANCHOR AND SENIOR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: Yeah.

RIVERA: I mean, it's crazy how intense the fans get.

UNKNOWN: Yeah, it's incredible.

RIVERA: And when that unfolded, it seemed so wacky to watch it.

JULIE ROGINSKY, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: How about you make that illegal?

RIVERA: -- use mace. You can use mace to break them up.

PHILLIP: Make what illegal? Oh, the fighting.

ROGINSKY: The fighting. How about that?

RIVERA: That's illegal.

ROGINSKY: But that's my point.

RIVERA: It is already illegal.

ROGINSKY: You don't need to worry about it. By the way, this is inciting. Planting a flag is inciting these poor kids to violence. They would never have gotten violent. Were they not looking at a flag that offended them?

PHILLIP: Yeah.

ROGINSKY: Like, what? Are you kidding me?

PHILLIP: It makes no sense. Everyone, thank you very much. And thanks for watching "NewsNight." "Laura Coates Live" starts right now.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR (voice-over): Two major forensic breakthroughs.

UNKNOWN (voice-over): Perhaps the most damning evidence yet.

BLITZER (voice-over): Fingerprints and shell casings all point toward the suspect.

UNKNOWN (voice-over): A to-do list on how to carry out a killing was found.

THOMAS DICKEY, ATTORNEY FOR CEO SHOOTING SUSPECT LUIGI MANGIONE: The burden of proof is always on the government.

UNKNOWN (voice-over): His mother reported him missing.

ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST (voice-over): She'd been trying to reach him repeatedly.

DICKEY: He's irritated, agitated about what's happening to him.

UNKNOWN (voice-over): The CEO murder suspect praised the Unabomber.

UNKNOWN (voice-over): Posters were put up, praising Thompson's murder.

UNKNOWN: Our hero, our vigilante.

UNKNOWN: If you're an executive saying, get me more security guards, wrong answer.

ALVIN BRAGG, MANHATTAN DISTRICT ATTORNEY: Celebrating this conduct is abhorrent to me. We will be vigilant.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LAURA COATES, CNN HOST AND SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: The suspected CEO killer was arrested in McDonald's with a hash brown in his hand. Now, what the assassin bought at a Starbucks is tying Luigi Mangione to the scene of the crime.

Good evening and welcome to "Laura Coates Live" on this Wednesday night. The NYPD is saying that they have matched Mangione's fingerprints to a discarded water bottle and a Kind bar wrapper near where Brian Thompson was murdered. Now, you probably remember the pictures of the suspect at Starbucks, right? Buying those items about 30 minutes before the shooting? He was barehanded. No gloves at all.

And those fingerprints are not the only connection that puts Mangione, apparently, at the Midtown Manhattan sidewalk.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JESSICA TISCH, COMMISSIONER, NEW YORK CITY POLICE: We got the gun in question back from Pennsylvania. It's now at the NYPD crime lab. We were able to match that gun to the three shell casings that we found in midtown at the scene of the homicide.

(END VIDEO CLIP) COATES: That gun, along with the shell casings and the words deny, defend, and depose that were written on them are going to be the key to the prosecution's case.

Well, now, Mangione's lawyer says that he still hasn't personally seen the evidence. He says his client will plead not guilty. And there's something else he's addressing. Remember that outburst from Mangione yesterday?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LUIGI MANGIONE, SHOOTING SUSPECT: It's completely out of touch and an insult to the intelligence of the American people. It's lived experience!

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Well, his attorney is trying to explain why that happened.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DICKEY: He's irritated, agitated about what's happening to him and what he's being accused of. He never had any legal representation until he walked into that building yesterday. And I talked to him. Whatever you want to interpret that as yesterday was a lot of the frustration of being a young man thrown in jail and being accused of very serious matters.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Well, how is that moment going to play against him? Will it come into play in the case against him? We'll have to wait and see. But right now, New York prosecutors are trying to piece together some very important questions like, why Mangione cut off contact with friends and family? Where was he staying?

You know, CNN is getting a clearer picture of when he dropped off the radar. A law enforcement official says that his mom last spoke with him on the 1st of July. Nearly five months later, November 18th, she reported him missing to San Francisco Police. She says that she had been calling him repeatedly, that his voicemail was full. Now, police say it was just six days later, November 24th, when the suspect then got to New York City. And then 10 days after that, on December the 4th, was when Brian Thompson was gunned down.

Joining me now, Jillian Snider, a former NYPD officer and lecturer at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, Thomas Chittum, retired ATF associate deputy director and SVP of Forensic Services for SoundThinking Inc., and Josh Skule, former FBI senior executive and president and CEO of Bow Wave LLC. Glad to have all of you here.

I'll get with you, Jillian, because look, the NYPD is saying today they were actually able to match the ammo they found on the scene of the killing with the gun that was found on the suspected killer as well, by the way, as a matching fingerprint.

[23:05:03]

So, talk to me about how critical this is for the investigators.

JILLIAN SNIDER, FORMER NYPD OFFICER, LECTURER AT JOHN JAY COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE: Thank you for having me. So, we don't just have one piece of evidence. We don't have one confirmatory piece of evidence that puts this suspect at this shooting. We have multiple things. We have spent rounds, that the striations are matching what was fired from this gun, as well as having matched fingerprints.

Now, what we're hearing initially is that it looks like the fingerprints were from both the water bottle as well as the protein bar. Those were most likely latent prints that were matched. The NYPD has an excellent fingerprint unit. That will take a lot of time, make sure they have their most seasoned officers on standby to make sure that they can match those fingerprints against the suspect.

COATES: Explain what you mean by latent fingerprints.

SNIDER: So, there's a difference, obviously, between a fingerprint that you use on an electronic scanner or an ink print. Latent prints are prints that are left by oils on the skin. So, if you touch a bottle or if you touch a wrapper and you are not wearing gloves, as we know the suspect was not, his oils from his natural body oil will leave an invisible fingerprint.

COATES: Thomas, let me go to you here. I want you to break down for us about the way in which law enforcement conducts this type of forensic investigation. Of course, defense counsel will try to attack the credibility of the investigation and beyond, certainly with the gun itself. How do you -- how do these investigations work?

THOMAS CHITTUM, RETIRED ASSOCIATE DEPUTY DIRECTOR AT ATF, SVP OF FORENSIC SERVICES AT SOUNDTHINKING, INC.: When a gun is fired, there's a lot of impact and pressure, and that causes the harder metal of a firearm to leave impressions on the softer metal of the cartridge casing.

During the manufacturing process for firearms, each firearm picks up unique, microscopic, individual characteristics, and it's those markings that are left behind on those softer cartridge casings in the bullet as it travels down the barrel.

So, a forensic firearms examiner will use the evidence recovered at the crime scene, the fired cartridge casings, maybe even the projectiles if they are intact (ph), and will compare them to a test- fired sample from the recovered firearm. And looking for those unique characteristics, they can compare and match the two.

COATES: Is this more difficult, when you've got a 3D-printed even piece of a weapon?

CHITTUM: So, what I'm showing you here is a commercially-made Glock. This is, of course, a firearm under the law. This is a commercially- made frame of a Glock. It also in and of itself is a firearm under the law. The other parts to that firearm like the slide, like the barrel, those are not regulated by law. And the gun that was recovered in this case had a 3D-printed frame, but the other components were metal, so it will not be an impediment to a firearms examiner matching them.

The thing that it might thwart is being able to identify where the firearm came from, and I think that raises an interesting question here. There's some belief that perhaps he used a 3D-printed firearm because he didn't want to leave a trail connecting himself to it. But that begs the question, why he still possessed it when he was arrested five days later?

COATES: Josh, I know that's something you and I have talked about in that particular point. We're also learning today about the fact that his mother had reported him missing over some time. And so, trying to reverse engineer and work backwards here. You've got this gun, you are gone from this period of time to this period of time. That's where investigators are going to probably hone in on, what was taking place at that moment.

JOSH SKULE, FORMER SENIOR EXECUTIVE, FBI: Well, Laura, as we talked about the other day, what we're seeing is NYPD develop their timeline. They're doing a great job of communicating with the public. They're taking now -- they can slow this down. He's in custody. Threats -- threat is no longer to the American public. And now, they will piece together his whole life.

COATES: Let me ask you one question before you continue. Is it in the -- is it in the investigator's best interest to now be fully transparent now that they have a suspect or are they going to keep some things close to the vest for investigatory purposes?

SKULE: They will keep some things clearly away from the American public. But I think the commissioner is doing a great job. There's a lot of interest. There's public interest to this. But they will not reveal all of their prosecutorial information. They will not reveal everything in the investigation.

COATES: And you were going on to talk about that investigative window they have with that timeline. That's really important right now.

SKULE: That's hugely important, and what was he doing for the 10 days in New York City. In addition to that, we will see other pieces of evidence get matched. There will be DNA matches. There will be hair and fiber matches. There will be other things that come out of this. That take a little bit more time scientifically to come out in order to solidify the prosecution, but they will continue down this path.

[23:09:58]

COATES: Jillian, we still don't know what actually caused this rift for lack of a better word between the Mangione family and him for their distancing and where he was living just before the shooting. How important is it to get those outstanding answers?

SNIDER: They're not only going to look at what he was doing for the 10 days that he was in the city, they're going to look at the last two, three years of this person's life. They're going to want to know everyone he was friends with, everyone he spoke to, what was the rift, like you said, between him and his family, what drove him to do the things that he did.

So, I don't think that we're just going to concentrate on the last 10 days or two weeks. We are going to want to do a deep dive into his life to understand what he was thinking.

COATES: I've got the perfect person to do just that. Thank you, everyone. I want to bring in Mary Ellen O'Toole. She's a former senior FBI profiler and special agent.

Mary Ellen, you know, we're wondering who the man behind the mask was. Now, I want to know the man behind the eyes that we're seeing and get into the mindset. The detail that we're getting tonight of Mangione, having no contact with his mother since July despite her attempting to contact him over and over again. What does this revelation add to the profile of this suspected killer?

MARY ELLEN O'TOOLE, FORMER SENIOR PROFILER AND SPECIAL AGENT, FBI: Well, it certainly suggests that there was possibly some social isolation that was taking place, which could be a real problem. And what I mean by that is he separated himself from his family and even friends said that they hadn't heard from him for months. And just that social isolation where he pulls away from people that were very important to him at one time or another can actually cause a certain amount and, in some cases, a great deal of depression.

So that would tell me that something else was going on with him mentally at that point where he decided to pull away from people, and investigators are going to want to find out what that was. Was it related to a health issue or was it in addition to a health issue? And perhaps, the reason that mother called and filed a police report is because she already knew that he was missing. They're going to be looking for any kind of prior attempts at suicide as well.

COATES: You know, it's important to contextualize the why they want to know this, not as an investigator with an eye to excuse his behavior, but to try to build an understanding of what went into this, the planning and, of course, they have a burden of proof that they've got to address to a curious jury.

Mary Ellen, you worked on the infamous Unabomber case. Mangione's notebooks have multiple references to Ted Kaczynski. He does have one note in there where he says he opted not to use a bomb in the attack because it could kill "innocents," his quote. Shooting to him was more targeted. That distinction he draws, what does that say to you?

O'TOOLE: It tells me he's a little bit naive or maybe a whole lot naive because the devices that Ted Kaczynski built were really pretty complicated and they were extremely effective. You have to know what you're doing if you're going to build a bomb. You have to have some background, some knowledge, some experience. You have to have the components, you have to have a place to do it, you have to know what you're doing. And that, just considering that, was probably pretty overwhelming. And yes, granted, a bomb can end up killing other people, but I just think the complexities of building a device were probably a very compelling reason for him not to do it.

COATES: That strikes me as a curious point here. When you've got people who are, as it seems that he is, looking to somebody notorious like the Unabomber, we hear the word copycat come to mind for some people, but what do you know about the people who look to these figures and idolize in some way?

O'TOOLE: And we've seen that certainly in other cases where people that are contemplating carrying out a similar act will look to prior crimes, and where we really see it is with mass shootings. But here's what's interesting. The majority of our mass and school shooters are young males under the age of 30. And when you go back and you look at their writings or their diaries, you see where they look to and they aspire to other prior shooters.

And that's not something that you see in other criminal behavior. You don't see bank robbers or people that go out and do jewel heists. They don't look to other people to say, I want to emulate or be like them. So, it's -- it's really something that we see in those cases, oftentimes committed by young males that will look for other shooters, and they will aspire to be like them or be inspired to be like them.

COATES: Mangione's attorney told us his client's outburst that we saw outside the courthouse is because he was -- quote -- "irritated, agitated about what's happening to him and what he's being accused of."

[23:15:01]

Is there a sense that he might be disassociating himself from the crime that he is suspected of committing?

O'TOOLE: Well, it could be. I mean, it could be that he is angry. It could be a number of things. And what -- the only way you can make that determination is you have to go back and take a look at, for example, what was his demeanor in the car, what was his demeanor when he was sitting in the jail prior to his court appearance. Has he had outbursts like that before when he has been irritated?

So, there's no way to accurately interpret that single outburst yesterday and hope to be accurate. They really have to do a comparison because it still is possible that he pulls up in the vehicle, he looks across the street, and there are cameras and media there, and he decides he's going to put on a little bit of a show.

I'm not saying that that's the right answer, but I'm saying that you have to go back and take a look at what -- what has he done in the past, what did he do 10 minutes before, and what did he do, you know, right after his arrest, and has he had outbursts like this before. That's when you can accurately decide to put a label on what he did yesterday.

COATES: And maybe with an eye towards what he's accused of doing a little over a week ago. Mary Ellen O'Toole, thank you so much.

O'TOOLE: You're welcome.

COATES: So, what will Luigi Mangione's defense look like with all the evidence that the law enforcement says they have against him and continues to pile up? Well, someone who represented another high- profile suspect, the infamous D.C. sniper, is here to run us through the strategy of defense.

Plus, a look at the national conversation taking place over the gunman and his motive, the rage, the sympathy, and the condemnation. We invite you all to weigh in and join the conversation tonight by sending us your comments on X and Instagram @thelauracoates.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:20:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: Forensic evidence is mounting in the case against Luigi Mangione in the killing of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson, according to law enforcement. And Mangione's attorney is already raising a lot of questions about it, trying to cast some doubt.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DICKEY: What we're talking about is fingerprint evidence and some ballistics. Those two sciences in and of themselves have come under some criticism in the past.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Well, joining me now, criminal defense attorney Mark Petrovich. He represented D.C. sniper Lee Boyd Malvo, who was convicted for shootings that took place in and around Washington, D.C. in 2002. We all remember that quite well.

Mark, I'm glad you're here. I wanted to get into the mindset of a defense attorney. I know you're not representing this person, but you have the law enforcement and the court of public opinion saying you got a mountain of evidence against this guy. You see the online reaction, a lot of sympathy. Take me to the strategy of how you would try to get ahead of this case.

MARK PETROVICH, REPRESENTED D.C. SNIPER LEE BOYD MALVO: I think in a case like this, it's a high-profile case, there's a lot of media coverage, there are a lot of rushes to conclusions by the general public, by the media, I think you want to slow that down a little bit, you want to control the flow to the media as best you can.

Obviously, the investigators, the prosecution has fired some media salvos to get their case in the public's eye immediately. And that seems -- you always try to fight that instinct. But sometimes, it's important for the defense to get its own word out to the general public, to get information out to the media, to make sure that their perspective, that mitigation aspects are also presented to the general public and get into the media and get on T.V. and social media.

COATES: Yeah.

PETROVICH: So that's the first aspect you want to try to control. As far as defense strategy, it's too early to determine for sure what the defense strategy is. You have to accumulate all the reports, all the information, the forensics, the discovery. You have to analyze those aspects. You have to see what truly is the strength of the prosecution's case.

COATES: Hmm.

PETROVICH: It seems very strong. We all know that. The media has projected it as being very strong. We know that as well.

COATES: Yeah.

PETROVICH: But there's a lot to this and there's a lot before that kind of information makes it to a courtroom becomes admissible evidence --

COATES: Including, of course, psychological evaluation, potentially, of the defendant.

PETROVICH: Well, that's true.

COATES: -- extradition. What his offense might be might be contingent on that very notion.

PETROVICH: That's correct. One of the aspects that jumps out in this case is the potential for psychological issues and defense based on psychological issues, which would be a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity.

We can't tell, but this is a situation where you had a young man with a lot of promise, with a lot of strong educational background, with a lot of things going for him in the future, seemingly, and he was a very bright young man. What would cause him to do this? What happened? There's nothing in his record indicating he would be possibly inclined to do anything like this, but all of a sudden, he committed this violent act.

COATES: Uh-hmm.

PETROVICH: So, there had to be something that happened inside his functioning, inside his psychological functioning, that led to this situation. So, that's something you're going to be pursuing as well.

COATES: So, would you be independently, as a defense counsel, try to figure out -- I mean, it's part of the why. Was he physically injured? Was there some physical health malady he was experiencing? Even though the prosecution doesn't have to actually prove motive necessarily, you as defense counsel would think to yourself, I got to figure out how to build the why in a way that encourages the jury to say no.

PETROVICH: This is true. There have to be evaluations. [23:25:01]

There have to be neurological evaluations as well, as you refer to. This could be based on some kind of injury. We've heard he has suffered severely from back issues. There are a number of things that you have to pursue to see what would cause this.

COATES: Uh-hmm.

PETROVICH: And then you would devise your strategy accordingly. And all during the same time period, you're always pursuing, obtaining, and investigating all that you can with regard to mitigation if and when there's a sentencing proceeding because that's important as well to cover the backside of the case.

COATES: You know, one of your previous clients was a juvenile, Lee Boyd Malvo, when -- at the time of the D.C. sniper incident. There is not the same degree, but there was some sympathy towards his age, his power dynamic relationship with the other defendant in that matter. This particular suspect has an outpouring of support. Now, whether you agree with that support or not, a very different conversation, but how does that impact the way in which a defense attorney would approach their defense?

PETROVICH: Well, I think one thing that's very important, a couple things come to mind. First of all, with regard to the outpouring and the support in the media, that's what I was referring to earlier. The prosecution side is flooding the media with what they have, he's guilty, and this is why. Now, you have some sympathy coming in from the other side, also through the media. So, you have some things to balance that off. That way, the jury pool is not specifically poisoned in one direction or the other.

With regard to the support that he has received and that we've heard about, money. Financial support is important. We've heard that there are people committed to supporting him financially. Money provides the opportunity to pursue all these things that we're discussing. Expert opinions, all kinds of expert analysis, investigations, that all costs a lot of money. And when you have that kind of public support, that's very important.

COATES: Wow! There's a lot ahead. Thank you so much. Mark Petrovich, thank you so much for joining. Still ahead, there are bounties on CEOs. We're talking about wanted posters plastered on buildings as some rally around the government, as we've discussed, even those calling for his freedom. Well, tonight, we'll take you inside the dark rage surfacing across the country.

And later, the drone mystery in New Jersey that's quickly getting out of hand and about to get the attention of the White House.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:30:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) COATES: The explosion of fury unleashed by the shooting of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson isn't going anywhere any time soon. In some ways, it's only growing. Wanted posters showing a red X over the photo of Thompson on a poster around Wall Street. Other posters showed the photo of another CEO. In Baltimore, where the suspect attended prep school, someone unfurled a banner reading deny, defend, depose. Investigators say they found those three words also on the bullet shell casings at the murder scene. And outside McDonald's in Altoona, Pennsylvania, where he was arrested, someone held up a sign saying, corrupt insurance CEOs have got to go.

The C-suite is feeling the outrage. One security firm telling CNN that it has received 70 requests for help in the first 36 hours after the shooting. It's advising executives to delete their digital footprint, including floor plans to their homes and information on where their kids attend school. The threats are very real. And Manhattan District Attorney is warning people to stop making them.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BRAGG: Celebrating this conduct is abhorrent to me. It's deeply disturbing.

And what I would say to members of the public, people who, as you described, are celebrating this and maybe contemplating other action, that we will be vigilant and we will hold people accountable. We are at the ready.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Well, we're about to have a conversation on what's driving the outrage. While we have this conversation, we'll actually see some of your reactions on the side of the screen. You can join in on Instagram and Twitter @thelauracoates.

Joining me now, Steven Brill, author of "America's Bitter Pill: Money, Politics, Backroom Deals, and the Fight to Fix Our Broken Healthcare System." He's also the CEO of NewsGuard. Stephen, thank you for joining me.

We have seen these social media posts. We've heard the frustration from family and friends. Outrage is the way to describe, not empathy. What is driving that outrage against the health insurance industry?

STEVEN BRILL, AUTHOR, CO-CEO FO NEWSGUARD: Well, you've identified the health insurance industry. I think if you step back and think about it, you know, you talked about the C-suites, there hasn't been outrage at the C-suites of the hospital CEOs who are -- who are making, um, you know, all kinds of exorbitant profits, you know, for supposedly nonprofit hospitals or the drug company CEOs.

And there's a reason for that. When we get healthcare, we touch basically three kinds of people. We see our doctors and we like them because they make us healthy. If we go to the hospital, we like the hospital because typically, we come out of the hospital a lot better off than when we went in. And then we get the insurance bill.

[23:34:56]

So, the third party in that system is the insurance company which, ironically, is paying the same bills we're paying. And the prices are, you know, absolutely through the roof. The typical hospital in the United States will charge three or four times for an MRA what a hospital in France or Germany or anyplace else will charge.

But the only people we touch in that system who we have a bad experience with typically are the insurance companies. And that's at the root of this. But, you know, the insurance companies are stuck paying the same bills we're paying. Now, that's obviously not to excuse them. They do everything they possibly can. They hire all the consultants they can to, you know, figure out ways to deny claims.

COATES: You make such profound points to remind people about just that chain of contacts and what can make people perhaps, um, have a catalyst for the rage in the target. As you mentioned, in Kaiser fund, the healthcare costs and sort are 24% for a single person and more than 50% for a family. And so, these costs, extraordinary for so many people.

But as you said, this has been an issue for a long time. People have been mad at insurance companies for a very long time. So, why is it so visceral now and the targeting of --

GRILL: Because it keeps going up. Because it keeps going up. You know, the book I wrote about, you know, the healthcare system and Obamacare, was 10 years ago. And since then, the costs have far exceeded the rate of inflation. The fact is that Obamacare did nothing to lower costs. It just gave people more access to the health insurance that we're talking about.

And at the same time, during that period, misinformation and disinformation about healthcare has sprung up, so people are even less trusting of the system that they're living under. And even --

COATES: But even that, Steven, to go from the less trusting to now a political or violence as an aspect of it -- I mean, it's one thing to lament, to lobby, to criticize. There is a discussion about a kind of an erosion of norms where people are accepting -- I mean, just the support this -- this suspect has gotten shows you a deterioration of our values of what violence ought to be used for, if any.

GRILL: Oh, absolutely. You know, I don't mean to be excusing any of that. It's absolutely horrible. But I think, you know, the root causes of it are in part the insurance companies.

One of the things I did for my book was I interviewed the CEO of UnitedHealthcare, the parent company. And when I went to interview him, I took an explanation of benefits that I had recently received, and I took it out of my pocket, and I handed it to him and said, you know, I don't understand what this -- exactly what this means here, would you be able to explain it to me?

He looked at it for a minute, looked at it for another minute and said, I have no idea what this means, I don't know why they sent it to you. And I said, well, aren't you they? So, you know, that's the frustration with the system.

COATES: And just to be clear, when you interviewed the CEO of UnitedHealthcare, it was not Brian Thompson, correct? You interviewed somebody else.

GRILL: No, it was the CEO of the parent company.

COATES: Steven Brill, thank you.

BRILL: Thank you.

COATES: Up next, it's a bird, it's a plane, it's a mystery drone. Dozens of bizarre sightings reported all across New Jersey. People worried, scared, and patience now running out as some call to shoot them down. The FBI is even getting involved. FAA and DHS as well. And yet, very few answers tonight. So, what on earth is going on? Well, a New Jersey state senator who was briefed on the matter and is now calling for a state of emergency is live with me next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:40:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: Mystery in the skies, dozens of reported drone sightings across New Jersey and multiplying by the day. Governor Phil Murphy revealing nearly 50 reported sightings in a single night over the weekend, though multiple people have may have reported the same object. Since mid-November sightings have spread across 10 counties over the Garden State.

Authorities saying these unmanned objects have been spotted above police departments, critical infrastructure, military installations, and more. And yet there's no conclusive answer to what this inexplicable activity is all about nor who is behind it. Well, one congressman from New Jersey has an idea to help find out.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JEFF VAN DREW (R-NJ): These drones should be shot down.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Governor Murphy saying tonight he would not be opposed to that idea. Congressman Jeff Van Drew went on to claim, crediting anonymous sources, that an Iranian mothership is behind these drone sightings, prompting, of course, the Pentagon to quickly dismiss the allegation.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SABRINA SINGH, SPOKESPERSON, PENTAGON: There is no Iranian ship off the coast of the United States and there's no so-called 'mothership' launching drones towards the United States.

(END VIDEO CLIP) COATES: Well, my next guest is calling for a limited state of emergency until questions over these mysterious sightings are resolved. Republican State Senator Jon Bramnick from New Jersey joins me now.

Senator, thank you so much for being here. You were actually at a briefing with state officials and law enforcement earlier today. What did you learn?

STATE SEN. JON BRAMNICK (R-NJ): Well, if that was a briefing, then I don't need any briefings because the state police have no idea what these are. They know their drones. They don't know where they're coming from.

[23:45:00]

They don't know the intent of these drones. I've got to tell you, the colonel of the state police who I like, Colonel Callahan, he was frustrated. You know, this is an issue that needs to be dealt with by the Department of Defense.

New Jersey doesn't have the resources to follow drones and understand exactly what the drones are doing. We just don't have that technology. So that's why I said, bring in the Department of Defense, shut down the airspace until we figure out what are these drones doing in New Jersey. I can tell you what they're not doing. If they're Martians, I guarantee you, they're not staying because the taxes are way too high. I'd know they'd be in Florida.

(LAUGHTER)

COATES: Well, then we can rule that out.

BRAMNICK: That's what we have to do.

COATES: That possibility --

BRAMNICK: You want to get the -- you want to get -- want to get the drones out of here? Just let them look at the taxes. They'll be gone.

COATES: Yeah, I'll (ph) tell you. Well, your governor, Governor Murphy, says that he'll actually speak with the White House about the situation tomorrow. So, is that the message you want to send and have him give the president the idea of shutting down the airspace and referring us to the Department of Defense?

BRAMNICK: Well, we met with Homeland Security. All due respect to Homeland Security, they don't have the technology. All due respect to my friends at the state police, they don't have the technology. And they tried. They put a helicopter in the sky. What are they going to do? You need the sophisticated technology of the Department of Defense.

COATES: You know, the former chief of the FBI's counter-drone unit, they have one of those, Rob D'Amico, said this. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ROB D'AMICO, FORMER CHIEF OF COUNTER-UAS PROGRAM, FBI: And frankly, drones can fly over these areas. They're G-rated except for over military bases or airports. Secret Service may put one up over Trump's golf course if he's going to be up there and it's a temporary flight restriction. But I think they're just self-imposing this height. And even if someone was flying a drone, there's really not anything illegal about it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Well, if that's the case, should there just be more restrictions for the use of drones so you don't lead into conversations about what's going on, the drain on resources? Should that just be the way to handle this? Assuming it's local.

BRAMNICK: Well, first of all, we're not talking about a drone from RadioShack.

COATES: Hmm.

BRAMNICK: Today, we learned from the colonel of the state police there was a drone the size of an SUV that was flying under a state helicopter, and that the state helicopter owned by the state police, when that moved towards the drone, the drone shut its lights off, and then left the area. This is not some sort of prank. This is not some hobbyist. This is -- whatever it is, it's people who are seriously involved in drones. So, you can't dismiss this stuff.

COATES: Uh-hmm.

BRAMNICK: And we're not hearing from people who see a Bigfoot. We're not seeing -- we're not hearing from people who see the Loch Ness Monster. We're hearing from really smart people who see these large drones coming in, multiple drones at a time. You know, you can try to dismiss it. This is not -- this is not some kind of joke. This is serious.

COATES: Oh, I indeed think it is. It's very unsettling, frankly, to think about what sort of concern this has sparked not only in New Jersey but what this could spark outside of the region as well. Particularly, Governor Murphy says that he wouldn't be opposed to shooting down the drones, but there is a jurisdiction issue we're talking about. Would you support the state shooting down the drones if he did?

BRAMNICK: Well, first, the state is not permitted under federal law to shoot down anything. There are limited federal agencies that have that ability. That's why it's important that the federal agencies come in now. So, you know, this shooting down drones, first of all, if the Defense Department came in, they'd be able to determine where these drones came from.

COATES: Uh-hmm.

BRAMNICK: Right now, we don't even know where these drones have come from. Think about this. We as Americans think that, well, on the East Coast of New Jersey or the East Coast of America, we suspect that we're protected. Well, I'll tell you, if these are coming from offshore or they're coming from some nefarious group, that's pretty scary because we don't have any information.

COATES: State Senator Jon Bramnick, there a lot of questions. Who's behind it, what are they doing, and what will they do with the information they may be gleaning? Really serious questions. Thank you for joining today.

BRAMNICK: Thank you for having me.

[23:49:58]

COATES: Up next, a CNN exclusive. A Diddy accuser speaking out for the first time, detailing his claims of assault. And tonight, we have a new part of that interview that has not been seen before. It could, frankly, spell some problems for someone other than Diddy.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: Tonight, a CNN exclusive. One of the people suing music mogul Sean "Diddy" Combs for alleged sexual assault, speaking out for the first time. A man working private security at one of Diddy's white parties says that Diddy drugged and raped him.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOHN DOE, SEAN "DIDDY" COMBS ACCUSER: The effects were so far beyond what two drinks would have been.

[23:55:02]

It felt like the effects of maybe 15 drinks to the point where I couldn't even stand any longer. Sean Combs was waiting in the wings. He knew that this was going to happen to me, and he was waiting. He was acting like a concerned person at first in order to get my trust. And once I was in a helpless position and he was sure that he was in a position of power, then he took advantage of the situation. He held me down and sodomized me.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: That's not all. The John Doe also claims that an unnamed celebrity watched it all go down.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DOE: There was one, and I don't know if I can say that just yet. As I said earlier, I don't know if it's appropriate for me to say the individual yet. But, yes, there was one high-profile individual who saw what happened and actually found it very amusing. And that really hurts me because I was familiar with that celebrity and actually had some regard for them. So, it was just very disappointing for me personally.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: The lawsuit from John Doe is one of roughly 30 suits that Diddy is facing. But it's important to note that there were inconsistencies between the details that he shared with CNN and what was filed in his initial lawsuit in October.

Now, the suit claimed the assault happened in 2006, but the John Doe told CNN that it happened in 2007. Now, the suit also claimed that Doe wasn't married at the time, but he was. After CNN pointed out the discrepancies, Doe's attorney updated their complaint.

Representatives for Combs declined to comment on the specific allegations. But when the lawsuits were initially filed in October, an attorney said -- quote -- "Mr. Combs and his legal team have full confidence in the facts, their legal defenses, and the integrity of the judicial process. In court, the truth will prevail, that Mr. Combs has never sexually assaulted anyone, adult or minor, man or woman."

As you know, Diddy is also facing federal charges of sex trafficking and racketeering.

With me now, Neama Rahmani, a former federal prosecutor and president of West Coast Trial Lawyers. Neama, this accuser's story is graphic, it's disturbing, but he's remaining anonymous, like almost all the people who have sued Diddy so far. How do you address the issue of anonymity in a courtroom? What role would that play in this case?

NEAMA RAHMANI, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR, PRESIDENT OF WEST COAST TRIAL LAWYERS: Laura, the lawyers for Diddy and now Jay-Z have tried to unmask these plaintiffs because they think that they have the right to know who they are and the public does as well. At least some of the judges seem inclined to grant those requests.

Now, certain states like California, New York and others, they do have state laws that allow for sexual abuse survivors and victims to remain anonymous. But it is not necessarily the case in federal court. There's this balancing act.

So, it's going to be interesting to see if that defense strategy works because we're seeing it time and time again by Diddy and the others who are accused.

COATES: Of course, the issue is fairness, that they're talking about, how can I defend myself against the virtual unknown and not be able to have all the information in my hands. That's what the judges are looking at to figure out whether it really is a matter of fairness or not.

Look, this accuser's story matches much of what we heard from other accusers. But there were inconsistencies, as I pointed out. The year and location of the assault. The accuser's marital state. How does that impact credibility?

RAHMANI: It can be a problem, Laura. So, on one hand, you know, to the extent that his story is consistent with the other accusers, you're talking about someone that says that he was given a drink, he was drugged, then he was sexually assaulted. That's helpful. Obviously, there's a whole public relations component that can put pressure on the defendants because this interview has gotten a lot of coverage.

But, of course, as a lawyer, you're always concerned about your client going on camera and giving an inconsistent statement because at trial, it doesn't matter what courtroom you're in. Every judge will give an instruction that says that if a witness is lying, jurors, you have a choice, you can believe that it's an innocent mis-recollection or you can disregard their testimony entirely if you believe that they're lying.

So, you got to be really careful when you're a lawyer representing one of these victims, but I'm sure Tony Busby has this as part of his PR strategy.

COATES: He also mentioned, Neama, an unnamed celebrity who witnessed the abuse he claims and found it -- I think the word was amusing. Could that person possibly be called as a corroborating witness if not named themselves?

[00:00:00]

RAHMANI: I'm sorry, Laura, I lost you there.

COATES: There was also a mention of somebody -- he mentioned a person, a celebrity who was bemused of sorts by what they were watching. I think we are missing his audio for a second. But suffice to say, the person that he is citing might ultimately be called to corroborate, if at all. More on this. Neama Rahmani, thank you so much. And thank you all for watching as well. "Anderson Cooper 360" starts right now.