Return to Transcripts main page

Laura Coates Live

New Drone Sightings Spread In Northeast, Put Residents On Edge; New Twists In CEO Murder Investigation; Duke Lacrosse Accuser Admits She Lied; WNBA Owner Fuels New Caitlin Clark Controversy. Aired 11p- 12a ET

Aired December 13, 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]

KEITH BOYKIN, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST, FORMER CLINTON WHITE HOUSE AIDE, AUTHOR: I don't want to have to have my day end before it's even five o'clock and the work hasn't ended.

PETE DOMINICK, PODCAST HOST: So, you support this Trump policy?

BOYKIN: I support having a consist -- no, he wants to get rid of daylight savings time. I want to have daylight saving time all year round.

DOMINICK: Odd that he knows the difference between daylight saving time and standard time.

BOYKIN: You're probably right.

DOMINICK: One of his oligarchs --

(CROSSTALK)

ABBY PHILLIP, CNN ANCHOR AND SENIOR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: I was trying to end on a bipartisan note. I think that this would be one of the most popular things if Trump could get it done. Congress sure knows they've been trying.

Everyone, thank you very much. And thank you for watching "NewsNight." "Laura Coates Live" starts right now.

LAURA COATES, CNN HOST AND SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Tonight, paranoia setting in as the drone mystery widens. Donald Trump offers his suggestion as the head of Homeland Security comes on CNN to try and end the hysteria. Plus, the FBI reveals a key tip they got before the suspected CEO killer's arrest, as Luigi Mangione gets a high-profile New York defense lawyer. And the confession, years in the making. The woman who lied about the Duke lacrosse rape, now admitting in public that it was all made up. Tonight on "Laura Coates Live."

The drone mystery is starting to get out of hand. Donald Trump, the incoming commander-in-chief, is now suggesting to shoot them down if the government truly does not know what's going on. And this is no longer limited to New Jersey anymore. Reported drone sightings are in New York, they're in Connecticut, Pennsylvania, and Maryland. Governors are getting louder. The public wants answers. And the few we got today, they didn't come in a briefing and said they came right here on CNN when the head of Homeland Security came on to try to calm people down.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEC. ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS, HOMELAND SECURITY: We have not seen any unusual activity. We know of no threat. We know of no nefarious activity. It is very common for individuals who think they see drones to actually see small aircraft, and we have a case of mistaken identity. Also, we have six different people reporting what they think is a drone, and all of a sudden, we have reports of six drone sightings. So, there are some duplication.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Hmm. Now, multiple things can be true at the same time, right? Maybe these sightings are actually manned aircraft. Maybe they are duplicated reports. But this has gone on for weeks now. The drones are often said to be big, not the -- what did they tell me? Not the RadioShack kind. The reports aren't just coming from online conspiracy theorists and the tin foil hat types either.

Take New Jersey Senator Andy Kim. He went out with police last night and posted what they saw. They even used a flight tracker app to help distinguish the drones from the airplanes. They often saw multiple lights at a time at low altitude. The app showed no aircraft nearby. And Kim says they were moving in ways that planes do not.

So now, we appear to be in a kind of Jersey pickle. The federal government said it's nothing. State and local officials are not convinced at all. They're launching their own investigations, and they're demanding to hear a whole lot more.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. JOSH GOTTHEIMER (D-NJ): I agree with the assessment, based on the briefings I've had from DHS and the FBI, that there is no reason to believe these drones pose any immediate credible threats to public safety. However, they have a responsibility, the FBI, who's the lead agency here, and DHS. These are our federal partners who are responsible for their space with the FAA to brief the public more thoroughly.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Others, though, are coming up with their own theories.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. NICOLE MALLIOTAKIS (R-NY): Especially, I think it's -- potentially, our own government may be doing some sort of surveillance or counterterrorism. But then be honest. Be honest with the public and let people know because right now, we feel like a bunch of characters in "War of the Worlds." We deserve to know the truth.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Now, Trump, as I mentioned, sounds like he's running out of patience. He says the government either needs to release what it knows or shoot them out of the sky. That might not end well if they actually are, of course, manned aircraft or if one lands on someone's home. But until the answers are clear, a lot of New Jersey will be acting like Ray Liotta's character from "Goodfellas," looking up at the sky, paranoid that something is flying overhead.

Joining me now, Middletown, New Jersey mayor, Tony Perry. Mayor Perry, thank you for joining us this evening. Mr. Mayor, Secretary Mayorkas is saying tonight, there is no threat or nefarious activity. As of today, knowing that there have multiple reports, maybe a mistaken -- I guess you'd call it identity, what do you make of his statements?

[23:05:01]

MAYOR TONY PERRY, MIDDLETOWN, NEW JERSEY: Well, it was very clear, I heard the secretary's comments, and I have to say, as one of the mayors and elected officials that are on the ground, obviously, here in the state of New Jersey, it shows you just how out of touch the secretary and Washington, D.C. truly is from the executive side of our government.

Because just as I'm sitting here, you can see clearly three drones sitting outside of our town hall, hovering over what could be our reservoirs, our electrical grid system, and most importantly, our military installation that calls Middletown home, and for Secretary Mayorkas to diminish that and call it duplicates is just irresponsible on his part.

COATES: So, what are you hearing from your constituents? I mean -- and again, there could very well be some duplicates in reporting. That could be true. It could also be true, as you identify, that there are some sorts of drones that are flying that need to be identified to put you, lawmakers, the residents, America at ease. How anxious are your constituents today?

PERRY: Well, you know, we started spotting these drones just last week here in Monmouth County and in Middletown. You know, they had started up in Morris County, up near the Picatinny Arsenal, another military installation here in New Jersey. And my residents are really fed up. They are tired of the inaction by the federal government. They are concerned to their safety and security.

And as elected officials, it's our responsibility, first and foremost, to provide a safe place for them to live and for their families. And right now, seeing that in action, you can't help -- you can't blame them for their concern, their serious concern, at the fact that these drones continue to fly over their homes and our critical infrastructure here in Monmouth County.

COATES: So, what would convince you that the right hand knows what the left hand is doing and that there is certainty that there is safety?

PERRY: Well, I guess, first and foremost, it would be nice if the federal government and the White House would come here to New Jersey, come to the ground. The president has raised money here in Middletown several times but maybe he should step aside from the campaigning part of things and come to the governmental part of his job and perhaps put some of those resources that the federal government has on the ground here, because right now, it's our county sheriffs, it's our local police departments, it's our state police that are at the front lines.

Yet the federal government has the jurisdiction. When you have incidents like hurricanes or super storms, the federal government is on the ground in a matter of minutes. And right now, when you have a concern that a foreign adversary potentially may be flying drones over top of your town, over top of military installations, you would think that the federal government would be in a little bit of a rush to get on to the ground and understand what is exactly happening and use all the resources that are in their possession.

COATES: Totally unsettling, to say the least. Mayor Tony Perry, thank you so much for joining.

PERRY: Thanks so much for having me.

COATES: I want to bring in an eyewitness who spotted drones flying over New Jersey just last night, Joel Anderson. He's also a counter- drone expert. Joel, welcome. You say they're out there. Tell us what you saw and how do you know it was a drone and not a plane as some have described or maybe some other manned aircraft?

JOEL ANDERSON, SAW DRONES IN NEW JERSEY SKY: Sure. Well, drones are pretty classically identifiable. You've got a couple different types. The primary ones are quadcopters, the traditional ones you might see at a retail store with the four propellers on them, and then fixed wings that do look a little bit more like a traditional aircraft with a wing and a single propeller in the front.

What we saw just recently, my own team coming back from a counter U.S. demonstration, were very much so loitering drones, which another good key giveaway is when they can sit still in the sky or loiter, you know it's a drone.

COATES: So, the fact that there's no movement in any direction would alert you that it's not maybe a plane flying overhead. But who do you think could be piloting these large objects? Some of them are pretty big in size, I understand. Some have speculated it could be a foreign actor. The government says there's no danger. What do you say?

ANDERSON: Yeah, look, I think the thing that we need to remember is that the cost of drones and accessibility has gotten so low and so widely accessible that it could be anyone. And even if it was our own country performing tests on a need-to-know basis and not disclosing that, it does highlight that our local authorities and federal agencies have a massive capability gap in their ability to detect, track and defeat, if necessary, drones that are in the sky.

COATES: So, you built something called counter-drone systems. First of all, what is that? And also, with the technologies available, why can't we figure out what these are, who's controlling them? [23:09:58]

ANDERSON: Yeah, so, we build with ZeroMark a counter-drone system that is kinetic, meaning we use small arms or firearms to actually defeat drones in the sky with very precise shots and auto-aiming capabilities.

Other attempts or methods to deal with drones to deny their ability to fly can include complicated solutions like electromagnetic things, jammers, spoofers (ph), things of that nature. But they become very expensive and they're easily thwartable, whereas bullets are relatively cheap and the collateral of them is very easily managed, just the same way they would be with the EW (ph).

COATES: They're not allowed to shoot these down willy nilly in places like Jersey, right? You have to have the other countermeasures available. What is the resource for doing that?

ANDERSON: Well, the reality is other countermeasures don't work on hardened drones, and we see that in Ukraine. I think that -- I hope that this opportunity is -- really opens the eyes of Congress to change laws to enable the right authorities to actually do something about these drones and equip them with technology to let them do so.

COATES: Joe Anderson, thank you so much for joining.

ANDERSON: Thanks for having me.

COATES: We'll continue our conversation with CNN military analyst, retired Air Force colonel, Cedric Leighton, and CNN senior law enforcement analyst and former deputy director of the FBI, Andrew McCabe. When both of you were in the studio, I know something is really happening.

(LAUGHTER)

By the way, I'll begin with you, Colonel Leighton. There may be some false sightings, as they described. Senator Andy Kim, though, posted on X that he saw drones while on patrol with officers. They had a flight tracker, distinguished it from airplanes. And here's what he said. We saw a few that looked like they were moving in small clusters of two and four. We clearly saw several that would move horizontally, and then immediately switch back in the opposite direction in maneuvers that planes can't do. Is there reason for concern in your mind?

CEDRIC LEIGHTON, CNN MILITARY ANALYST, RETIRED AIR FORCE COLONEL: Oh, I think it is pretty clear that what Senator Kim saw is very much a drone or a series of drones. and what this looks like to me is that there's some kind of a drone swarm or at least the beginnings of a drone swarm being possibly practiced, the maneuvers being practiced, the operations being practiced.

And swarming technology is something that, you know, is really indicative of future warfare preparations, but it's also something that can be done for intelligence gathering purposes. So, this could be that. It doesn't mean that it is, but the maneuvers certainly indicate that A, it's a drone, B, that they're probably on some kind of a reconnaissance mission, and maybe they're practicing a dry run for something.

But it could be our side that's doing something, you know, like the congresswoman from New York mentioned, or it's something that an actor that is not a U.S. actor is doing, and that's something that we really need to know.

COATES: It strikes me that, with all the uncertainty, there's a gap in what we ought to be able to determine and what we ought to regulate and what we actually do regulate and fail to determine. There's a lot of gray area here, right? It's legal to have drones, but it might be very shocking to know that you can't actually account for all this. Homeland Security is saying that they're limited. Law enforcement is limited in what they can do. There's a weakness here.

ANDREW MCCABE, CNN SENIOR LAW ENFORCEMENT ANALYST, FORMER FBI DEPUTY DIRECTOR: There's definitely gaps in this system. And I think before we -- in the middle of an episode like this where people are clearly nervous and they want more information, we need to think about those calls for -- well, we should know who's flying every drone and who's controlling them and for what purpose, and we should have the ability to take those drones out of the sky if we're not comfortable with what's going on here.

All of that requires complicated legal authority and operational authority that the FBI and DHS don't currently have.

COATES: Should they have it?

MCCABE: Well, that's a good question. Before we start arming them, so to speak, with all of this very aggressive counter-drone authority and technology, we have to ask ourselves, is that something we want? Do we want the FBI to now be in charge of drones in the sky and have the ability to take those things down?

Right now, the legal structure around these sorts of flights is very limited. You're not allowed to fly them in restricted airspace, which is declared and on maps provided by the FAA. But other than that, you can -- as long as you comply with the rules for hobbyist and recreational drone pilots, you can pretty much fly them where they want.

You've seen reports about mayors complaining that they're flying over critical infrastructure like reservoirs and bridges. Those are not the sorts of things that we protect with restricted airspace.

COATES: How about military installations? That's part of it.

MCCASKILL: Military installations, we do. The White House. Large crowds like outdoor events, sporting events, the inauguration, the National Mall, things like that during special events. We absolutely prohibit flight from drones or manned aircraft in those times.

But again, we need to be a little bit more thoughtful about how restrictive we want the skies to be. I'm the law enforcement and intelligence guy at the table. Yeah, I'm happy with all that. You want to give us more authority, go for it. But --

[23:15:00]

COATES: Be careful what you wish for.

MCCABE: Yeah, exactly.

LEIGHTON: Well, the other thing is, you know, as we were talking about military areas, the military does have counter-drone capabilities, the type that Joel mentioned earlier, and those can be used. But if you talk about shooting them down, you also lose potential intelligence value because if you don't take them down intact, then you may lose how they communicate. You may not be able to understand how they communicate. You may not be able to understand what type of cryptographic algorithms they use. All of those kinds of things are important for future counter-drone capabilities.

COATES: But can you do those things without having it in your possession? Can it be up in the sky and you're monitoring for those facts?

LEIGHTON: What you would use is you would use electronic warfare capabilities to go after the drone, take it down, in other words, spoof the signal, bring it down, capture it, reverse engineer it, and then you can better understand exactly what that drone is capable of doing and who it's connected to.

COATES: This is the stories of Hollywood, yet it's in Jersey, everyone. Colonel Cedric Leighton, Andrew McCabe, thank you both so much.

Still ahead, the dramatic new twist in the case against the suspected CEO killer. A powerful new attorney just hired to represent Luigi Mangione, you might just recognize her, as we get word that he might be about to give up his extradition fight. Plus, the new questions about Mangione's family after reports emerged that police knew his identity days before the arrest.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:20:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: A lot of new details tonight on the CEO killer investigation. The FBI in New York office saying today they got a tip from the San Francisco Police Department about the suspect's identity. The Chronicle in San Francisco reporting an officer in the SFPD Special Victims Unit recognized Luigi Mangione as being the suspect on December 5th, a full four days before he was arrested.

Now, you remember, Mangione's mother had reported him missing to that police department back in November 18. The FBI says they passed that tip along the NYPD. We don't know if or when the NYPD reviewed it. But we do know more about what will happen next for Mangione. The Manhattan D.A., Alvin Bragg, suggesting he could be in New York a lot sooner than expected.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ALVIN BRAGG, MANHATTAN DISTRICT ATTORNEY: Indications are that the defendant may waive. But that waiver is not complete until a court proceeding which, my understanding from of court officials in Pennsylvania, cannot happen until Tuesday. So, until that time, we're going to continue to press forward on parallel paths, and will be ready whether he is going to waive extradition or whether he's going to contest extradition.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: And just in tonight, "The New York Times" reports that Mangione's escape was not what police originally thought. The Times reports he actually took a subway train to Penn Station before leaving the state.

Let us break this all down with my panel of experts. Joining me now, Pete Lapp, a retired FBI special agent, Joey Jackson, a CNN legal analyst and defense attorney, and Scott Bonn, a criminologist and producer and star of "Serial Killers with Dr. Scott Bonn," which he's touring in the country right now.

Joey, let me begin with you here. Look, couple of this news from Bragg with this. Mangione has hired a high-profile New York attorney to rep him in that state, former CNN contributor Karen Friedman Agnifilo. Your takeaway, and what does it mean for his extradition to New York?

JOEY JACKSON, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Yeah, good evening, Laura. I think it is a great development. Certainly, she is skilled in the process. She was a former Manhattan assistant attorney, chief of a division, my former office, and certainly, she comes to it with certain qualities, I think, that will bode well for him.

Ultimately, though, the evidence and facts are what the evidence and facts are. They seem to be very compelling. Now, she and any attorney, right, will wait discovery in New York. We have what is called open file discovery. That is as soon as he gets back and is arraigned, prosecutors have 15 days to get all the discovery. They can get another 30 if it's voluminous, which I think they will do.

On the issue of extradition, though, I think, as it stands now, the district attorney is presenting the case to a grand jury. We know, right, Laura, that a grand jury doesn't decide guilt or innocence. They simply decide whether there's reasonable cause to believe that a crime was committed and that this defendant committed it. And a simple majority have to do that.

And so, that process will play out. Whether he waives extradition is an open question. He has a right to challenge it. And you heard there, D.A. Bragg said he may waive, but have to wait till Tuesday, and that's because any waiver of a fight to be released in New York has to make sure that the defendant voluntarily and knowingly knows he has a right to do that.

And so, you know, it's a challenging case by any stretch of the imagination, no matter who defended or represented him, but I think the introduction of Ms. Agnifilo is certainly a solid development for him.

COATES: Well, you know, I want you to listen to this, Scott. Some of the analysis that Karen gave about this case earlier this week alone. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KAREN FRIEDMAN AGNIFILO, ATTORNEY REPRESENTING LUIGI MANGIONE: And so, it'll be interesting -- you know, it'll be interesting to see where the opportunities are for him to defend himself, and it's looking more and more like I think he's going -- he could potentially mount a psychiatric defense.

[23:24:52]

You know, I think what -- you know, what Marianne (ph) was just saying is exactly right, because the -- because, you know, what's he playing to the cameras --

UNKNOWN: Uh-hmm.

FRIEDMAN AGNIFILO: -- versus is he having some sort of psychiatric events happening, right, as we speak --

UNKNOWN: Right.

FRIEDMAN AGNIFILO: -- and I'm watching it in real time on T.V., that those are some of the things that will be -- that come into play, I think, in this case.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Scott, a psychiatric defense. Do you see that?

SCOTT BONN, CRIMINOLOGIST: Possibly. And this is an individual who we know is very intelligent, very highly educated and, by all reports, functioned extremely well, extremely highly until recently.

And over the last couple of years, he increasingly withdrew, first from his job, later from friends, and finally from family, and that certainly indicates a diminishing of his cognitive state and his mental state. But does that mean that he truly spiraled into clinical or legal insanity? I think that is really a stretch. Was he a troubled young man? Is he a troubled bright young man? I definitely believe that is the case.

I also highly suspect that he's narcissistic and has delusions of grandeur. I think in his own mind, he's something of almost like a batman character, a vigilante, a do-gooder like -- he seemed to admire Ted Kaczynski, the Unabomber. So, diminished capacity, possibly. But true clinical or legal mental illness, I think that's a real stretch. COATES: A really good point, just saying that somebody has a psychiatric need is not the legal standard. Can he appreciate the crime that took place? Is he competent to stand trial? These are things that need to also unpack.

But Pete, let me get to you here, because the identity tip from the San Francisco Police, how does that tip go from the FBI to the NYPD? Because no one was revealing a name, of course, until after the arrest. And the chief detective said Mangione wasn't even on their radar until that arrest. What's going on here?

PETE LAPP, RETIRED FBI SPECIAL AGENT: Well, from my understanding, the tip comes from the family in the sense that they reported him missing, and then it's the San Francisco Police Department that looks at the photo, I assume, that the family gave of their missing son, looked at the photo that the NYPD released, and the detective said, hey, this looks like a match. And then they get that information from the San Francisco FBI to New York FBI and back to NYPD. It takes a while to do that. And you have to remember, there's a lot of information coming in these investigations. His name, his identity is important.

But, frankly, even if NYPD had the identification, his actual name, what's really almost more important at that point in the investigation is where is he and how do we locate him, because NYPD, if they had that information, they'd have to make a very calculated decision as to whether to release that name to the public or hold on to it for investigative needs and trying to maximize the secrecy of it, if you will, before it became public, either intentionally or from a leak.

COATES: Does it strike you as odd, Joey, that the NYPD is telling "The New York Times" that they have not spoken with the Mangione family?

JACKSON: So, you know, there certainly would be, pursuant to an investigation, some outreach to the family. And so, I don't know what those efforts were. Certainly, they didn't bear any fruit to the extent that they did not speak to them, but that would be a source of plentiful information.

We do know, though, that there was a disconnect of some time period. His mother filed a missing person report for him. There being indications he hasn't spoken to his family since July. There being other indications, Laura, about people, his friends looking for him, he had commitments to a wedding, etcetera.

So, whether or not the family was aware of his whereabouts, what he was doing, it seems unlikely. However, they would have tremendous background information and knowledge with respect to him. So, it would be rich and resource to go and to confront and to speak to them if they can. And, of course, the family doesn't have to be cooperative, but that doesn't mean you don't make those efforts necessary to do so.

COATES: Gentlemen, something tells me we are just scratching the surface of where the investigation will ultimately end up in this case and all that the grand jury will have to see. Thank you so much for joining us tonight. Still ahead, the infamous Duke lacrosse lie. The woman who fabricated the rape claim now coming forward to confess that she made the entire thing up. The investigative journalist who wrote the book on this sensational case joins me next.

And later, the WNBA owner who just sparked a brand-new controversy over Caitlin Clark.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:30:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: The woman who accused three Duke lacrosse players of rape back in 2006 is now admitting that she lied. It was a story that captivated the nation. Crystal Mangum, an exotic dancer, was hired to perform at a house party the three players attended. Afterwards, she claimed that David Evans, Colin Finnerty, and Read Seligmann raped her. The players were arrested and charged with sexual assault.

But here's the thing. There was no DNA evidence. The three men maintained their innocence from the beginning as well. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DAVID EVANS, ACCUSED OF RAPE: I'm absolutely innocent of all the charges that have been brought against me today. That Read Seligmann and Colin Finnerty are innocent of all the charges that were brought against them.

[23:35:00]

These allegations are lies.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Apparently, he was telling the truth. The D.A. who brought the charges resigned after it was revealed that he withheld evidence, and he was ultimately disbarred. It wasn't until 2007, the North Carolina's then attorney general, now the governor, Roy Cooper, dismissed those charges, saying there was no credible evidence that an attack even occurred. Now, nearly 20 years after her initial accusations, Crystal Mangum is coming clean and asking for forgiveness.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CRYSTAL MANGUM, ACCUSER IN DUKE UNIVERSITY RAPE SCANDAL: I testified falsely against them by saying that they raped me when they didn't, and that was wrong. I hope that they can forgive me. I want them to know that I love them, and they didn't deserve that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: I should note, Mangum is currently in prison for a 2013 murder conviction for stabbing her then-boyfriend. I want to bring in William Cohan. He wrote the book on the Duke lacrosse scandal. It is called "The Price of Silence." He's also a founding partner of Puck, and he joins me now.

William, this story, the statements she has made now, truly mind- boggling. It has taken nearly 20 years for Crystal Mangum to admit that she made the entire thing up. What did you think when you heard she said that?

WILLIAM COHAN, AUTHOR, FOUNDING PARTNER OF PUCK: I was pretty shocked, Laura. You know, I met with her in jail in Durham, North Carolina in November 2012, so that was more than 12 years ago. You know, by then, the incidents involved here were -- have been resolved. He said -- state Attorney General Roy Cooper had dismissed the case and declared the boys innocent.

And so, I was in the process of writing this book, which is 600 pages long, about what happened. By then, she had already said that the boys hadn't raped her, but she still pursued the sexual assault and kidnapping charges, which is what Roy Cooper was investigating. So, when I -- of course, as I said, that had been resolved and decided in the boys' favor, that they were innocents, not just not guilty but that they were innocents.

So, when I saw her in November 2012, of course, I wanted to talk to her about it. She was in jail. She hadn't yet been convicted of murdering her boyfriend, which moved her into prison in Raleigh. But we were separated by plexiglass. And she lied to me, too.

COATES: And, of course, the impact, repercussions of those lies on the people that she falsely accused has been a cloud of sorts over their head, I'm sure, for the past 18-plus years. Here are some of what Mangum had to say on that podcast. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MANGUM: I hope that they can heal and trust God, and know that God loves them and that God is loving them through me, letting them know that they're valuable and that they didn't deserve that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: I mean, what has happened to the three men who she falsely accused since then?

COHAN: Well, I haven't followed them all for the last bunch of years. But, first of all, they reached a settlement with Duke that I revealed in the book. They got $20 million each, which is, you know, a lot of money back then and would still be today. And obviously, it doesn't relieve them of their pain and suffering.

COATES: You write in you book about the stain that this false accusation left in its wake, not simply with respect to the three, although you've noted that they certainly went on to lead some level of productive lives, but talk to me about the wake it created even outside of those three individuals. It had a ripple effect. COHAN: You know, Laura, this -- you know, you said you remember this.

COATES: Uh-hmm.

COHAN: This was a huge media event. It was a roller coaster ride, which is why I wanted to write this book. I'm a Duke graduate. You know, for the first six months of this case, the boys were declared, you know, guilty. Then the narrative began to turn. You know, at the end of 2006, Mike Nifong asked Crystal if she wanted to continue with the case after she could no longer remember whether she had actually been raped. And so, the rape charge was dropped.

[23:40:00]

Did she want to continue with the sexual assault and kidnapping charges? Because Nifong himself was leaving the case because he had to defend himself against the state bar charges against him. She said she wanted to continue. So, I don't know why she made that decision. That obviously was a very horrible decision in retrospect. And then it was turned over to Roy Cooper.

You know, this is one of the most amazing legal cases ever. This is, I think, one of the only times I know of where a grand jury indicted these three boys, they were indicted, and yet there was never any trial.

COATES: It truly is a fascination it had at the time. The intersection of race and class and privilege and gender and sexual assault, and it captivated a nation. And now, today, to learn that she says that she made it all up is stunning. William Cohan, thank you so much.

COHAN: Thank you, Laura.

COATES: Well, if you thought Donald Trump's Time cover was controversial, wait until you see the blowback tonight over Caitlin Clark's Athlete of the Year honor. A WNBA team owner now suggesting it shouldn't have been just her.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SHEILA JOHNSON, CO-OWNER, WASHINGTON MYSTICS: And I just don't like the singling out of one person because it hurts us all and it's not fair.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Sports journalist Christine Brennan live in studio to unpack all of it next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:45:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: Caitlin Clark continuing her triumphs with a new title, Time Magazine's Athlete of the Year. She is the first WNBA player to get that honor. But, of course, it's not a Caitlin Clark story without a little bit of controversy. Listen to this from Sheila Johnson, co- owner of the Washington Mystics.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOHNSON: Why couldn't they have put the whole WNBA on that cover and said the WNBA is the league of the year because of all the talent that we have? Because when you just keep singling out one player, it creates hard feelings. And so now you're starting to hear stories of racism within the WNBA. And I don't want to hear that. We have got to operate and become stronger as a league and respect everybody that's playing and their talents.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Johnson did say that something clicked with the NBA -- the WNBA this year, but says it's not just Clark, it's all this year's draft players like Angel Reese, Cameron Brink, Kamilla Cardoso. She's right that the league clicked. Attendance increased by 48% this year. Lots of people call that the Caitlin Clark effect. I guess you have to decide for yourselves.

Here to discuss, CNN sports analyst Christine Brennan. She's literally writing the book on Caitlin Clark. It's called "On Her Game" and it is out next summer. Christine, good to see you. Should other players have been included in this honor? Should she have had the cover solo? Again, it's not like it was voted on by all the fans or analysts. It's Time's decision.

CHRISTINE BRENNAN, CNN SPORTS ANALYST: You know, Laura, I am a big fan of Sheila Johnson. I know Sheila very well. She is a great role model, leader, owner. Terrific, successful, wonderful person. I have no idea why she said what she said.

It is, of course, the player or the athlete of the year, and it's not the league of the year or the team of the year. Caitlin Clark deserves that. There is no doubt to Caitlin Clark. The impact that she had on the league was extraordinary. The T.V. ratings, the attendance, the sell-outs.

Even Sheila Johnson's own team in the Washington Mystics moved their two Indiana Fever games from the 4,200-seat arena to the 20,000-seat arena, and in September had the biggest crowd in WNBA history because of Caitlin Clark. And Sheila Johnson knows that.

I understand -- as I've covered this story and continue to write it and work on it in the book, I understand the issues.

COATES: Uh-hmm.

BRENNAN: But -- and I understand the issues she's getting at. But why she chose that, where Caitlin has these great answers in the Time magazine piece? She talks about her adoration for and respect for the role models of Black women, the 70% Black league. She grew up idolizing Maya Moore with the Minnesota Lynx. As a girl, she went up there and watched her play and got a chance to hug her when she was a little kid. Talks about Maya Moore all the time. Caitlin has been nothing but great on this issue of the Black women who have made the WNBA what it is.

COATES: She actually talks about, in part, and people don't agree with that, what you said, that they think she's been gracious throughout. Some people really criticize her as perhaps disingenuous about that or that she was out of touch initially and did not have the right statements to make.

But then there was the comment she made that, I want to say I've earned every single thing, but as a white person, there is privilege. She goes on to talk about this very notion. Megyn Kelly called those comments condescending and fake. And then you have this moment from Sheryl Swoopes.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOSIAH JOHNSON, FORMER UCLA PLAYER: Your thoughts on Caitlin Clark saying she wants to use her platform to elevate Black women in the WNBA that have been instrumental, obviously, in building that league to what it is?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: I mean, I guess that says it all. But what kind of position is Clark in? Is it damn good she does, damn good she doesn't, or is there more that, as the -- as the platform that she has, does it dictate she must do more?

[23:50:00]

BRENNAN: Well, I think she has done a lot. And you made the point, yes, the people wanted to hear more early on, but she said it. I mean, it was in mid-June where she talks -- said, don't use me for the hate and some of the things that were out there on the internet. By the way, as we know, the cesspool that is Twitter, X, I'm certainly not saying it's okay, but it hits everybody. It hits you, me, Caitlin. Of course, Black players in particular were targeted on Twitter.

COATES: Yeah.

BRENNAN: That is a fact. Caitlin acknowledged that and said, cut it out. She said that in June. So, it wasn't just recently that she said it.

COATES: Let's go to September, though. I have to ask you because back in September, Caitlin Clark was caught in the eye by DiJonai Carrington. I remember. And you asked her about the foul after the game. You got criticism about your line of questioning. I remember that quite well. And in the Time interview, they addressed it. Clark told the magazine, never once did that cross my mind, that it was on purpose. I've been poked in the eye many times playing basketball. It happens. The whole line of questioning that Carrington got was inappropriate, and I did not like that.

BRENNAN: Uh-hmm.

COATES: What's your reaction to that?

BRENNAN: Yeah. Well, she has every right to say that. I've interviewed Caitlin Clark, talked to her, asked some tough questions. She never shies away from hard questions or questions that could be perceived to be hard or somewhat controversial. So, my experience with Caitlin is that she is very accepting of hard questions.

My questions to DiJonai Carrington were actually meant as a conduit for her to clear the air. Athletes know this. As a journalist, you ask. This was out there. It was a huge issue about what happened, why it happened. And I asked a specific question and a follow-up to give her that opportunity, as I have done hundreds of times, probably thousands of times with athletes.

And if I would ask a male athlete those two questions, Laura, why on earth wouldn't I ask a female athlete? This is a big-time sport. This is the national news. I take it very seriously. Respect these athletes. Respect DiJonai Carrington enough to ask those questions so that she can get the chance to answer it, clear the air, deal with the issue as she wants. And that's what we do as journalists.

For example, with Caitlin, she was then asked not long after, what did she think? Was it intentional or not? And she said, no, it was not intentional. Well, the only way we know that is because someone asked. That was not me. I think journalists provide that opportunity for these athletes. I did for Carrington. I've done, obviously, for Caitlin. And I would do it again, you know, anytime, always.

COATES: Well, the rookie season is now over. Here comes May. Christine Brennan, thank you so much.

BRENNAN: Thank you very much, Laura.

COATES: Still ahead, the new Trump pledge to end the most controversial ritual in America. Believe that giving is better than receiving, have we got some news for you. Here's CNN's Anderson Cooper with our CNN Heroes.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST: I'm Anderson Cooper. Each of this year's top five CNN Heroes proves that one person really can make a difference. And again, this year, we're making it easy for you to support their great work. Just go to cnnheroes.com and click donate to make a direct contribution to that hero's fundraiser on GoFundMe. You'll receive an email confirming your donation, which is tax deductible in the United States.

No matter the amount, you can make a big difference in helping our heroes continue their life-changing work. Right now, through January 5th, your donations will be matched by the Elevate Prize Foundation, dollar for dollar, up to a total of $50,000 for each of this year's honorees. CNN is proud to offer you this simple way to support each cause and celebrate all these everyday people changing the world. You can donate from your laptop, your tablet or your phone. Just go to cnnheroes.com. Your donation in any amount will help them help others. Thank you.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:55:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: Well, in case you missed it tonight, President-elect Donald Trump has a new pledge of sorts, and it's straight out of the "Veep" playbook.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNKNOWN: The daylight savings time-loving bureaucrats have been punching the clock on the taxpayer's dime for too long. Well, now it's time for me to punch a clock. With a hammer!

(APPLAUSE)

UNKNOWN: Oh!

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: I remember that episode. Well, minus the whole sledgehammer thing, of course. But Trump says he wants Congress to end the whole switching the clock routine. Quote -- "The Republican Party will use its best efforts to eliminate Daylight Saving Time, which has a small but strong constituency, but shouldn't. Daylight Saving Time is inconvenient and very costly to our nation." And not to mention confusing?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNKNOWN: Where have you been?

UNKNOWN: Why, did I miss the French toast dipping things?

UNKNOWN: You're two hours late.

UNKNOWN: That's impossible. I set my watch back for Daylight Savings Time.

UNKNOWN: Saving, not savings.

UNKNOWN: You set your watch the wrong way.

UNKNOWN: It's neither a plural nor a possessive.

UNKNOWN: No, it's spring. I spring backwards.

UNKNOWN: No, you spring forward.

UNKNOWN: Have you ever watched girls' gymnastics? That makes no sense.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Spring ahead, fall back. I get -- I'm with you. Look, a majority of Americans are on Jonah's side and kind of agree that we should stick to one time all year. Oh, wait, no. But not everyone, and especially not the cheers crowd.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNKNOWN: Two o'clock now, so which way does it go?

UNKNOWN: That's spring forward, fall back, Mr. Peterson.

UNKNOWN: All right, so it's 1:00.

UNKNOWN: One o'clock.

UNKNOWN: Set him up, Sammy.

(LAUGHTER)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

[00:00:00]

COATES: I mean, can I sleep a little bit longer? No? Seriously, though, the last time America tried to end this was 1974. It lasted all but 10 months until Congress reversed it. Turns out people just didn't like the dark. But hey, it's 50 years later. Maybe we can turn back time and give it another shot. Thanks for watching, everyone. Have a great weekend. High share. "Anderson Cooper 360" is next.