Return to Transcripts main page

Laura Coates Live

CNN Provides an Update on Wisconsin School Shooting; Judge Won't Throw Out Trump's Hush Money Conviction; Trump on Drone Sightings: "The Government Knows What is Happening"; Public Donations Surge for Accused CEO Killer; Trump Vows New Lawsuits Against the Press. Aired 11p-12a ET

Aired December 16, 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]

ABBY PHILLIP, CNN ANCHOR AND SENIOR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: From the highest court in the land to one of the highest stages in the country, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson made her Broadway debut over the weekend.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

(MUSIC PLAYING)

PHILLIP: Yes, that is a real-life Supreme Court justice singing a Backstreet Boys song. She took the role in jukebox musical "& Juliet" on Saturday night, and the justice wrote in her memoir that it has been a lifelong dream to be both a Supreme Court justice and a star on Broadway.

Thank you very much for watching "NewsNight." "Laura Coates Live" starts right now.

LAURA COATES, CNN HOST AND SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Tonight, sadly, another place in America is grappling with what no community should experience. But, frankly, far too many already have. Madison, Wisconsin is now having to mourn the victims of a deadly school shooting. This one happening at a private Christian school called Abundant Life. Two people were killed. A teenage student and a teacher. Six others were injured, including two students who are still in critical condition.

Moments ago, police gave us an update on the shooter. Shockingly, it was a 15-year-old female student of the school. They've identified her as Natalie Rupnow. She died of a self-inflicted gunshot wound, fired before police got to the scene. Authorities are speaking with her parents, who are cooperating and have searched the home where she lived in Madison.

All of this happened just before 11:00 this morning, inside a study hall classroom with students from different grades. Here's how the police chief says the call came in.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SHON BARNES, MADISON CHIEF POLICE: A second-grade student called 911 to report a shooting had occurred at school. Let that soak in for a minute. A second-grade student called 911 at 10:57 a.m. to report a shooting at school.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: That is sinking in for so many of us out there. A source telling CNN the shooter planned the attack in advance. And she used a 9-millimeter pistol. We still don't know her motive or how she got the gun. But the lives of everyone touched by this tragedy will forever be changed, including the 420 students who attend the school, kids like this sixth grader.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNKNOWN (voice-over): Did you hear gunshots?

UNKNOWN: Yeah.

UNKNOWN (voice-over): Tell me what happened.

UNKNOWN: We heard them. And then some people started fighting. And then we just waited until the police came. And then they escorted us out to the church.

UNKNOWN (voice-over): How many gunshots did you hear?

UNKNOWN: I heard two.

UNKNOWN (voice-over): And what were you thinking? What are you thinking now?

UNKNOWN: I was scared. Why did they do that?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Why? Just a sixth grader. I have a sixth grader. And I can't imagine what their parents are thinking about this evening, trying to process any of this, or the parents of this second grader.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNKNOWN: I was getting ready for lunch, so it was basically lunch time. And then I just heard sobbing. And there was a teacher, and she was screaming like, ah, my leg! Help! Help!

UNKNOWN (voice-over): Do you know that teacher well?

UNKNOWN: Uh-hmm.

UNKNOWN (voice-over): What was it like to hear that?

UNKNOWN: I was --

UNKNOWN (voice-over): Were you scared? UNKNOWN: I was really scared, and I was really sad.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Look at this little girl with a popsicle. You can imagine someone trying to give that to her to try to give some comfort of what she must have seen and heard. She was asked about how she's feeling about all the other kids from her school, and she says she wants them to have happiness.

Do you realize this is the 83rd school shooting this year? Eighty- three. In this chart, it tells the story. It's the most in a single year since CNN began even tracking them, surpassing 2023, which surpassed 2022, which surpassed 2021. It's an upward trend. Going back more than a decade.

Let's talk more about the investigation with Tony Pustizzi. He was the police chief in Coral Springs, Florida during the deadly shooting in Parkland back in 2018. Also, here, Neill Franklin, retired Maryland State police commander.

Tony, let me begin with you here because police say that the shooter is a 15-year-old female student. How rare is it for women and girls to be active shooters and what does this tell you about this investigation?

[23:05:00]

TONY PUSTIZZI, POLICE CHIEF DURING 2014 PARKLAND HIGH SCHOOL SHOOTING: Well, first of all, thank you, Laura, for having me on tonight. It's very unusual. It has happened in the past. But, usually, girls are not the offenders in these cases, especially a 15-year-old. This is definitely going to be one we're going to look into a lot in the future, the FBI, just try to figure out how a 15-year-old get her hands on the gun and actually be that -- plan on this, and nobody recognizes at home.

COATES: That's such an important point because we often look at these cases to figure out how to prevent them in the future. And so, any outlier or otherwise can change the way in which you prepare or try to prevent as well.

Neill, police say that this attack was planned in advance, and they are reviewing writings where she discusses certain problems. What does that indicate about a possible motive? Anything?

NEILL FRANKLIN, RETIRED MARYLAND STATE POLICE OFFICER: Uh, well, certainly -- I'm certain they will find out what that motive is. This is usually the case that, when we have these types of school shootings where students are involved, there usually is a lot that goes unnoticed. You know, writings, drawings, conversations on social media, maybe little tidbits with their friends via social media and otherwise that people just don't become aware of or pick up on.

As Tony said, this is very rare with a young female, young people. I think it was Michigan. Ethan Crumbley. He was 15 years old also. In Michigan. You know, we just recently had his parents being held responsible along with him for the shooting that occurred there. In Wisconsin, I don't know what laws they may be looking at regarding the parents. First of all, we don't know, I don't know how she got -- obtain access to the firearm.

COATES: Right.

FRANKLIN: But if it was obtained from home, I do know in Wisconsin right now, if you're under the age of 14 and that child gains access to a firearm in the home, then the parents can be held accountable. I know there's a current law in the books right now in Wisconsin for that.

COATES: Yeah.

FRANKLIN: But she's 15.

COATES: The chief did say that there is no indication that the parents have committed any crime at this time. We'll certainly continue to follow where that leads. But I certainly take your point about how we look at other instances such as this. Let me ask you a question about this though, Tony, because police say that they are aware of a manifesto floating around the internet, but they have not been able to authenticate it. What would police need to do in order to confirm if that manifesto is legitimate or not?

PUSTIZZI: You know, every year since Parkland, it has gotten worse and worse with the internet establishing itself as a main source of news. So, the police are really going to have to take a step back on this and really look into where that manifesto supposedly came from and the authenticity of it.

But moving forward, I always try to tell whenever we have a shooting like this that you got to give it time. I know everybody wants answers right now. It could be an actual manifesto that was actually leaked inappropriately, obviously, or it could just be somebody just throwing out fake news.

So, I have to tell you, I'm very impressed with the Madison Police Department. I do believe they did a very good job in this case. I think they're on top of it. I think their investigators are spot on, and they're releasing information. Remember, Laura, they probably have answers to certain things right now that they just will not divulge, maybe till tomorrow or the day after, because they don't want anything out that, you know, is time-sensitive.

COATES: I certainly understand that. Tony Pustizzi, excuse me, Neill Franklin, thank you both so much. We'll continue to look for answers.

Joining me now, Melissa Agard, county executive for Dane County, Wisconsin where Madison is, of course, located. Melissa, no one wants to be in the position of anyone in Madison. No one wants to be a part of this sad club that seems to be far more pervasive than anyone would ever want. There are two families who lost their loved ones just a few days before Christmas. Melissa, I don't know if she's there with us right now, but we're going to continue to talk in just a moment. But I want to be clear, whenever I'm thinking about these cases and, frankly, I've covered far too many of these mass shootings, we've all been learning more and more about them, I often ask the question of, where is the motive?

[23:10:01]

When I say motive, it's not justification. It's not some explanation that justifies the violence or the cruelty that is enacted. We're left asking why. Why? And here we are a few days before Christmas, and Melissa, I wonder how your community is coping tonight with wondering why, how could this have happened.

MELISSA AGARD, COUNTRY EXECUTIVE FOR DANE COUNTY, WISCONSIN: Yeah, you know, I think that is a very fair question, and we don't have the answer to that for anyone in our community. But what I do know is that people are absolutely wrecked. We have children that experienced unimaginable violence. We have children that were at schools, surrounding this school, that were wondering if they were safe as they were learning about the school shooting.

We have parents who were devastated and couldn't get to their kids, didn't know if they were victims of this violence, school teachers that were on the front lines, first responders, 911 officers, police officers, firefighters that were on the front lines and hearing the fear and terror in people's voices.

And it is our job as a community to make sure that we are wrapping a blanket of support around people as they navigate this unimaginable and horrific tragedy, and that includes the family of the perpetrator in this case. It is absolutely devastating and the time of the year, especially since this was a Christian school, is not lost on me.

COATES: We are collectively mourning. Can you share any information about the victims yet?

AGARD: We are not in the position right now to share details of the victims. They were transported to our amazing hospitals here, those that needed emergency services. And we as the county and our public social service providers were on the front lines providing support to the kids and families as they were reunified. Our law enforcement officers are still combing through the reality of the carnage that occurred here, just up the street from where we are right now --

COATES: Hmm.

AGARD: -- in the city of Madison in Dane County. It is a very active investigation. And what we need to know is that, as a community, if there are people that are hurting, they need to call and reach out for help. We have resources available. And that would be a call that I have for people across the nation. We are not alone in this.

It is unfortunate, as you had been talking earlier, that this is a reality for too many communities in our nation. And not only do we need to address gun violence in our communities, but we need to make sure that people that are most impacted by it have adequate support so that they can heal as much as possible, and that is my job right now.

COATES: Melissa, as a mom, you and I both are, the fact that it's a second grader, a second-grade student who made the first call to 911 about the shooting, what goes through your head when you hear that somebody as young as that had the wherewithal to do this?

AGARD: Yeah, well, first of all, what a brave child.

COATES: Yes.

AGARD: Excuse the trains. We have trains here in Wisconsin. What a brave child for having the wherewithal to think that calling 911 was the right thing to do and being able to hold it together. I will say I'm a mom of four and my own child, who is a high school student here in the city, a different school, but a high school student, was texting me as this was going down and saying, mom, am I safe?

It is something that hits you in the gut as a parent. I know that there are families right now in Dane County that are wondering if it is okay to send their children to school tomorrow. And our schools should be the safest place for our kids to go, to be able to learn, and to become good people in our communities. It is just heart- wrenching to know that people don't feel that our schools are safe right now.

COATES: Melissa, this conversation is happening across households all across this country, trying to help our youngest people, our bravest, even the second grader, feel safe. Melissa Agard, thank you so much.

AGARD: Thank you.

COATES: Still ahead, Judge Juan Merchan rejecting Donald Trump's bid to throw out his hush money conviction. The major ruling tonight and what it might mean for the legal fight over his sentencing. And later, conspiracy theories growing by the day over those alleged drone sightings.

[23:15:03]

Can the White House put an end to it? A member of Congress trying to get answers joins me tonight.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: Brand new tonight, Judge Juan Merchan denying President-elect Donald Trump's request to throw out his 34 felony count convictions for falsifying records to cover up a sex scandal, saying the evidence presented in the case was not related to Trump's official conduct and therefore not covered under the Supreme Court's immunity decision, keeping Trump's criminal conviction. That is for now, at least.

Joining me now is CNN senior legal analyst Elie Honig. Elie, good to see you. Look, the Trump team is saying, in a statement, that it's a direct violation of the Supreme Court's decision on immunity to hold this way. Is it? ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Well, we don't know, Laura. I mean, it's not a surprise that Judge Merchan came out this way. He has really ruled against Donald Trump on virtually every issue of importance. But the important thing to keep in mind is the immunity decision actually came down after the whole trial was over. So, what we are trying to do here, what the judge and the parties are trying to do here, is apply that Supreme Court ruling sort of backwards.

[23:19:59]

What Trump said is, well, some of the evidence introduced against me at that trial had to do with my time as president, conversations I had with Hope Hicks. And Judge Merchan today, he said -- I think in a perfectly reasonable ruling, he said, yeah, but that wasn't official actions, that was your own political business, that was your own personal business, therefore, it doesn't count under the Supreme Court's decision.

COATES: So (INAUDIBLE) for sentencing?

HONIG: Yeah, well, there's one other hurdle that prosecutors still have to overcome for sentencing. Trump is making a separate argument that none of this can go on as long as I'm now president-elect. On that issue, Judge Merchan has, not yet decided. But if Judge Merchan rejects that and says, no, we can continue, we can sentence you while you're a president-elect, then theoretically, the next step is going to be sentencing.

But watch for this, Laura. If that happens, Donald Trump is going to go to federal court. He's going to say, absolutely not, I'm the president-elect. You, federal courts, need to block this state judge from dragging me in for sentencing.

COATES: So, should he wait for that moment or appeal now?

HONIG: Yeah, I think he's got to wait for that moment. I think the appeal would be premature right now, not ripe, I guess, as we lawyers say. So, you got to wait till you lose to appeal, and I expect Trump would do that.

COATES: Oh, we can't give him legal jargon at 11:00. Elie Honig, just messing with you, my friend. Nice to see you. Thank you so much.

(LAUGHTER)

HONIG: Good to see you, Laura. Thanks.

COATES: Well, President-elect Trump just about accusing the government of a cover-up over those mysterious drone reports. Members of Congress now about to get a classified briefing. So, is it really all nothing? We will take you inside the efforts to track down those answers.

And later, more than $135,000 raised for Luigi Mangione's defense. The man behind the crowdsource fundraiser joins me tonight as we get exclusive new reporting on the support now reaching Mangione behind bars.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:25:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT-ELECT: The government knows what is happening. I think they'd be better off saying what it is. Our military knows and our president knows. And for some reason, they want to keep people in suspense. Something strange is going on. For some reason, they don't want to tell the people. And they should.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: President-elect Donald Trump weighing in on the mysterious drone sightings occurring across the northeast. When asked if he has received a classified briefing, Trump succinctly said --

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: I don't want to comment on that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Well, the House Intelligence Committee is set to receive a classified briefing tomorrow. The White House reiterating tonight, there is no national security threat.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOHN KIRBY, WHITE HOUSE NATIONAL SECURITY COMMUNICATIONS ADVISOR: All the leads and the analysis we've done, we believe that these are commercial lawful drones or law enforcement drones, hobbyist drones. I can't rule out the fact that we might find some sort of illegal or criminal activity, some nefarious activity. All I can do is tell you that right now, we see none of that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Joining me now, one of many lawmakers demanding answers, Republican congresswoman from New York, Nicole Malliotakis. Thank you for joining us this evening, congresswoman.

You know, I spoke with Admiral Kirby this morning, and he mentioned the need for more legal authority to address and also manage what he's calling the air traffic flow. Congress needs to approve that. Would you be in favor of expanding that authority?

REP. NICOLE MALLIOTAKIS (R-NY): Well, I think we absolutely need to discuss how we get our airspace under control. As far as I know, already, there are very much restriction in place on recreational as well as commercial drones. And it really begs the question, why, if these are recreational or commercial, they're flying over military installations and sensitive infrastructure as well? I think that's a key question that I have for these agencies.

It seems that we can't get answers. I've also requested classified briefing. I was told that they could not accommodate one. And I'm in a district that is most affected by this drone activity. For me, that is absolutely unacceptable. So --

COATES: Have you ever heard of an instance, congresswoman, when you have been -- you've asked for a classified briefing and you've been told they can't accommodate. Have they given you any reason as to why you can't get those answers?

MALLIOTAKIS: To be honest, no. Usually, we are accommodated, we are able to get answers to our questions. And in this case, it's just very odd, because the answers that they've been providing to the public just don't make sense. If these are recreational and commercial drones, why are they flying over sensitive infrastructure and military installations?

I still believe that this is a government operation and perhaps they're testing new equipment, perhaps they're giving some type of a drill related to counter-terrorism, perhaps you're looking for something. But they should be honest with the public and let us know. I feel like every day, it seems the story is changing, and it's not making much sense to me and so many others that they serve within the House of Representatives.

COATES: Now, they are having a briefing, I think, for the House Intel Committee. I know you're not a member of that. But it does beg the question as to whether this ought to be conveyed to more than that particular committee if there are so many questions that have been asked. There have actually been some drone sightings in your own districts. I wonder, is Speaker Johnson telling you anything? Do you have any insight as to this perhaps being a government thing going on?

MALLIOTAKIS: No, the speaker has not indicated that much. I'm only -- I'm only basing this on the information that I received today and trying to put the pieces together.

[23:29:56]

I've also requested from our intelligence chairman that I'd be weaved on to the committee and be allowed to participate in that briefing tomorrow, being that I represent Staten Island, New York, which has been one of the areas we've seen the most drone activity.

You know, these are densely-populated communities. We have high-rise buildings in New York City, as you know, and, you know, any type of accidents, any explosion, any -- anything, any crash, could be very detrimental and life threatening to the people I represent.

And so, either way, there needs to be a limit to this type of activity. It cannot continue the way it has over the last few weeks. It is -- it is so -- it is so crazy. I can't even describe. You know, they filmed "War of the Worlds" in my district 20 years ago, in Staten Island. And that's almost what it feels like in the evening with all these helicopters, all these aircrafts, these drones, noise, and it's just -- it's ludicrous and there has to be --

COATES: Congresswoman --

-- some type of control to the situation.

COATES: Excuse me, I want to ask you this. On the one hand, and I'll play devil's advocate for a moment, on the one hand, it must be impossible to prove a negative. On the other hand, I wonder what the White House would need to say to give you some solace or your constituents convincing that what is this is really benign? Is there anything in particular? Is there information that you're looking to get? Are they withholding that specifically or is it just the basic of they're not telling you anything?

MALLIOTAKIS: Look, I don't -- I don't believe that there is a foreign nexus here. I believe that we have the intelligence and military capabilities to intersect something like that despite what has happened previously, you know, with the Chinese spy balloon and all those things that people felt that the government, including myself, felt that the government did not respond in a way that preempted what occurred there, which they may not want to, for national security reasons, reveal the details --

COATES: Of course.

MALLIOTAKIS: -- but they do need to say something.

COATES: Well, Congresswoman Nicole Malliotakis, we will see what they eventually say. It has been going on for weeks. I suspect they believe they've given enough answers for now. Thank you so much.

MALLIOTAKIS: Thank you.

COATES: Up next, brand-new information on the outreach to Luigi Mangione behind bars. A public fundraiser for his defense now jumps to a goal of half a million dollars. The man behind that effort joins me tonight. Plus, will Mangione's defense rely less on disputing the physical evidence and more on a mental evaluation? My legal experts will weigh in next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:35:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: "Laura Coates Live" exclusively learning tonight that Luigi Mangione has received 32 emails and two pieces of mail in prison so far. That's according to the prison that's detaining him. And he could be about to receive a whole lot more than words. More than $135,000 has been raised for Luigi Mangione's legal defense fund. It's a crowdfunding effort started by a group called the December 4th Legal Committee. Their total fundraising goal as of now, $500,000. They just might get there.

The organizers alluding to the date UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson was gunned down on the streets of Manhattan. But they say it's not about the violence from that day. They write, "This is a preemptive legal fundraiser for the suspect allegedly involved in the shooting of UnitedHealthcare CEO. We are not here to celebrate violence, but we do believe in the constitutional right of fair legal representation."

But as for the people donating, well, some of them are full on celebrating Mangione's actions. And the donations are coming in at all sorts of amounts, from the highest at $1,300, some as low as $5.

One person writes under their $10 donation, I'm quoting here, "The shot heard around the nation. We cannot let it be in vain. You made the first stand. Thank you." Another person donated $500 writing this. "I hope this entire event leads to a rethinking of the wealthy people running this country. Health insurance has been a scam for far too long and it needs to change. Stop talking about it and do something."

I want to bring in Sam Beard. He is the spokesperson for the December 4th Legal Committee and the host of "Party Girls" podcast. Sam, thank you for joining this evening. How many donations have you received this far? Are you surprised to see the level of support for someone who is a murder suspect?

SAM BEARD, PODCAST HOST, SPOKESPERSON FOR DECEMBER 4TH LEGAL COMMITTEE: Laura, thank you for having me on and for covering this important topic. So, so far, we have received, uh, over forty-seven hundred individual donations, averaging about, it seems, $15 or so, uh, at the median there.

And to be honest, I'm really not that surprised that all this widespread support has sort of risen up in this moment for this young man alleged to have taken an action in this way. I think Americans are fed up with the way of the -- that the health insurance system operates.

COATES: When you think about the, you should take an action in this way, he is accused of having committed murder. You've gotten people who've donated to the fund who are embracing and celebrating that murder of this man, Brian Thompson. What do you say to your critics who think this fundraiser is co-signing that murder?

[23:40:02]

BEARD: Well, at the end of the day, every American has a right to a fair trial. And I think for every person who might be exhibiting some sense of joy, there are 10 people sort of asking the question, well, who's the real murderer in this conversation? You know, we're talking about the largest and most successful private health insurance corporation in the history of humankind, which is successful precisely because they generate profits by denying claims, among other things.

Just to quote one donor here directly. Quote -- "We do not condone murder. And for that reason, we cannot condone the actions of UnitedHealthcare. Luigi was standing up to a systematized murder of millions of Americans at the hands of a broken healthcare system." COATES: When you hear that, of course, first of all, I'm a former prosecutor, everyone deserves a proper legal defense and, frankly, he is presumed innocent at this point in time. They have a burden of proof that they have to carry out.

But when there seems to be the equivalence drawn between gunning somebody down in the streets, and again, he is presumed innocent, but somebody gunning him down in the streets, and then the idea of a health insurance company behaving in the way that has led to, you believe, the deaths of people as well, are you concerned that that sort of equivalence is going to instigate further harm?

BEARD: Yeah, that's a good question. You know, um, as a moral matter, it's horrible when anybody has their life cut short by another person, especially when it could have been prevented, right? But that same logic has to apply both ways. A CEO had his life short, a world- renowned CEO for being very effective in his field, mind you, but he was effective because he profited from denying people's claims, which cut their lives short.

So, we can't just apply a simple moral rule without acknowledging that we're in an immoral system that degrades the value of some lives while elevating the value of others. And I think what sort of playing this day at this point is challenging that is above all a political act. And when we treat it only as a -- as a moral act, I think we're plugging our ears to its political meaning.

COATES: I certainly hear the political consequences in conversations that are going on. This will be dealt with in the criminal court system. So, the idea of how it'll be addressed will be quite distinct from now for all conversation. I'm learning though that one of Mangione's lawyers told my network that he would not accept the money. So, what would your group do with it?

BEARD: So, I'm wondering if that's the conversation that happened about a week ago. I'm not sure.

COATES: Uh-hmm. Has there been a recent development that you think he will take the money?

BEARD: No, but there has been a recent development in terms of sort of an expanded legal team. So, I would imagine there's different decision makers in that process. We have yet to establish a two-way communication with their newest legal team. We have contacted them via telephone, email, and good old-fashioned snail mail.

COATES: Well, we'll see what happens. Thank you so much for joining us, Sam Beard.

BEARD: Thank you.

COATES: Well, Mangione is expected to be in court next week. We're not exactly sure how his lawyers plan on defending him specifically, but we are getting some clues. I want to bring in Charles Patrick Ewing. He is a board-certified forensic psychologist and a distinguished professor of law emeritus at SUNY, Buffalo. Also, here with me, Joey Jackson, CNN legal analyst and defense attorney. Glad to have both of you here.

Joey, let me begin with you. Can you first quickly explain to us why Mangione has a second-degree murder charge as opposed to a first- degree charge in New York?

JOEY JACKSON, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Yeah, Lord, good to be with you. So, what happens is, is that in New York State, first-degree murder is reserved for the killing of a police officer, a peace officer, a judge, a correction officer, a first responder. You don't generally get first-degree murder unless it pertains to one of those issues.

The only other conceivable way that it could be first degree is if it's in furtherance of some act of terrorism, which could be a viable charge, depending upon, of course, what authorities continues to find with respect to his, that is Luigi Mangione's mind, state of mind, mindset as it relates to the actual crime.

Murder in the second degree, however, is preserved for everything else, and that is intentional murder. And so, generally people who are charged in New York State with murder are charged with murder in the second degree, absent one of those delineated consequences or actions that I noted before.

COATES: Really important to get that distinction. Thanks, Joey. Let me turn to you, Charles. We're getting some hints as to what Mangione's defense could possibly look like.

[23:45:03]

A former CNN contributor, Karen Agnifilo, just signed on to represent him a few days earlier. Here's what she told CNN.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KAREN FRIEDMAN AGNIFILO, ATTORNEY REPRESENTING LUIGI MANGIONE: And so, it'll be interesting -- you know, it will be interesting to see where the opportunities are for him to defend himself. And it's looking more and more like I think he could potentially mount a psychiatric defense. You know, I think what Mary Ann (ph) was just saying is exactly right because the -- because, you know, what's he playing to the cameras versus is he having some sort of psychiatric event happening, right, as we speak --

UNKNOWN: Right.

AGNIFILO: -- and are we watching it in real time on T.V.? Those are some of the things that will come into play, I think, in this case.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Charles, how hard is it to get this kind of insanity plea or an extreme emotional disturbance plea, if he gets offered a plea at all, to have this line of thinking?

CHARLES PATRICK EWING, BOARD CERTIFIED FORENSIC PSYCHOLOGIST: It's extremely difficult to make out an insanity defense, especially in New York State. In New York State, the burden of proof is on the defendant to prove, first of all, that he was suffering from a mental illness or from a mental defect, as the law says, which would be the equivalent of an intellectual disability. That's just the beginning.

Once you have that, then you have to establish to the jury's satisfaction that you either did not know the nature and consequences of your acts or you did not know that your acts were wrong. That's a tough sell.

COATES: Uh-hmm.

EWING: About maybe somewhere less than 40% of all criminal cases that go to trial go to trial with an insanity plea. And among those cases --

COATES: I want to -- I want to hear that point. Go ahead, Charles. Excuse me. Excuse me.

EWING: They almost never result in a finding of insanity. It's so difficult to get that finding from a jury. And, you know, without speaking to the merits of this case in particular, because I don't want to do that, but I will say that it's a virtual certainty that his lawyer will consider insanity defense and will have him examined by a forensic psychologist or psychiatrist, maybe even more. But given what we know from what is currently in the public domain --

COATES: Uh-hmm.

EWING: -- it will be extremely difficult case to get a judgment of insanity.

COATES: Joey, let me turn to you. I assume it will be a kind of a battle of the experts on this kind of point. This was seemingly a well-organized or planned shooting, irrespective of what happened in the end, in terms of it being caught. But could either of these psychiatric defenses be compelling, considering the fact that there was apparently significant planning?

JACKSON: Yeah, I don't think so, Laura. I don't think that that's something that's viable at all. Why? Because of what you just noted. This is a person who apparently had some kind of vendetta, whether he was insured or not, right, by United Healthcare. Apparently, he was not. His family wasn't. Didn't matter, right? He was going to target the face of that. It was clearly well planned. He had his weapon planned. He came, he lied in wait in doing it. He had his manifesto. So, I don't know that that occurred.

What's interesting to me, though, is that this might be a case of what we call, and you know very well as the excellent prosecutor you were, jury nullification, right? I know it's crazy to say that. Just to explain, jury nullification is when a defendant did commit the offense but a jury excuse it. We're living in bizarre times. Have any of us seen social media? He celebrated as a hero like Robinhood. He saved the day. Can't believe it.

Your last guest was speaking to that issue. UnitedHealthcare is evil. You know, these people deny claims. It's amazing. And so, we have a circumstance where forget about the insanity, the plea, forget about the extreme emotional disturbance that he could argue, right, at a trial. This might be a case where you rail against the injustices of UnitedHealthcare and a jury says, hmm, you know what? That makes sense. They're selling things about him. There are shirts that say, St. Luigi, on them.

COATES: There are.

JACKSON: There are gadgets for Christmas. I'm like, are you kidding? And so, this might be a case, as hard as that is to believe and as hard as it is for me to say that, notwithstanding the compelling evidence, that he might have a shot.

COATES: Well, Charles Patrick Ewing, Joey Jackson, we will continue to rely on both your expertise. Thank you so much for joining this evening.

EWING: Thank you.

JACKSON: Thanks, Laura.

COATES: Up next, Trump sues the press.

[23:50:01]

The president-elect putting an Iowa pollster and her paper on notice, threatening a new lawsuit, and vowing legal action over certain coverage. The message she's sending and how the courts might react this time around, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: Tonight, President-elect Donald Trump renewing his fight against the media over critical coverage with new threats of litigation.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: I'm doing this because I feel I have an obligation to. I'm going to be bringing one against the people in Iowa, their newspaper, which had a very, very good pollster who got me right all the time. And then just before the election, she said I was going to lose by three or four points. In my opinion, it was fraud and it was election interference. We're filing one on "60 Minutes" you know about that, where they took Kamala's answer, which was a crazy answer, a horrible answer.

[23:55:03]

And they took the whole answer out, and they replaced it with something else she said later on in the interview.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: This, as ABC News has agreed to pay $15 million to a presidential foundation and museum to settle a defamation suit brought by Trump against the network and George Stephanopoulos. This after the anchor inaccurately said Trump had been found civilly liable of -- quote, unquote -- "raping E. Jean Carroll." The jury had actually found that Trump is civilly liable of sexual abuse. Trump is appealing the verdict and denies wholeheartedly her claims.

I want to bring in CNN chief media analyst Brian Stelter and trial attorney Ken Turkel who represents a number of high-profile figures, including Sarah Palin and her defamation suit against "The New York Times." He also previously represented Hulk Hogan in his suit against Gawker.

Ken, let me begin with you here. Defamation suits like the one against ABC News are difficult to prove. Yet there seemed to be more and more of them. Why is that?

KEN TURKEL, LAWYER: I think it starts with the courts being more tolerant of letting a claim survive to trial. They go to trial now, Laura. You know, 30, 40 years ago, they really didn't. But there's a number that have gotten to trial recently.

I think a lot of it is that, as you know, you have to get a fact issued to get to trial, so usually these are tested on a motion or dismissed. And if you can survive that legal threshold attack, I think that the internet impact on media, on libel claims, is that fact issues are coming more frequently that can be framed to get them to trial. I think that's a large part of it.

COATES: I mean, he's accusing Ann Selzer, formerly of the Des Moines Register, and the newspaper of election interference and fraud, based in part on some negative poll data. Do you see merit in that claim or is it frivolous?

TURKEL: I think I missed the boat because I was getting ready. I analyzed it under a libel sort of framework. It would be a bizarre libel case because I don't even know that the statement being made is of and concerning Donald Trump. Right? It's a statement about a polling result that he just happens to be one of the subjects of.

COATES: Hmm.

TURKEL: So, there may be claims there. I don't really see a libel- type claim there, though. Now, if she got a result and then knowingly reported a different result than the poll had produced, well, yeah, I could see that, okay.

COATES: Interesting.

TURKEL: I'm interested to see what they come up with, though.

COATES: Let me turn to you here, Brian. Yeah, legal theory is when we are all waiting to hear more about -- you know, this might be a trend. Brian, you've got some reporting on the ABC News settlement. Why did they agree to this multimillion-dollar payout to Trump or the foundation? BRIAN STELTER, AUTHOR, SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT FOR VANITY FAIR: I was told by an executive at the network, we just needed to make this problem go away. ABC, of course, is owned by Disney, a giant company. And for these giant companies, sometimes, it is easier and better to pay $15 million and a million in attorney's fees to make a case like this go away. Perhaps there were embarrassing emails or text messages that came out through discovery and those were about to be, you know, come up in the deposition in the coming days.

That's the leading theory that I've heard, but it is clear that a company like Disney doesn't want to be in litigation with a president- elect about to take office. And this is about a wider chill that Trump wants to see and have in the air. It used to be, Laura, that Trump would file these nuisance suits against media outlets and they would almost always be thrown out. But the fact that ABC had to settle this and decided not to go to trial, it is going to embolden Trump and his allies.

And no longer is this about nuisance lawsuits. This is now about a systemic effort to chill the press, to tie journalists up in knots. For example, the Iowa case, it's using the Iowa Consumer Fraud Act. It's very unlikely that Trump will prevail in Iowa, but that's not the point. The process is the point. Having to go through the motions and pay all the money for the lawyers is the point.

I think lawyers are going to benefit from this effort, but everybody else is going to suffer because journalism, because newsrooms, because media outlets are going to be tied up as a result of this effort.

COATES: Ken, you seem to agree.

TURKEL: I don't. I agree with some of it. Um, the -- as to the ABC settlement, look, this is a unique situation. You've got a plaintiff who's about to become a sitting president. I have had a case in front of that judge with that defense team, with Davis Wright. And they are very good at what they do. Okay? I was very surprised. This never happens in my cases. I had Jason Miller's case there against Gizmodo in front of that very same judge. I don't know that it chill.

The circumstances, Laura, are very unique. This is -- had you -- have this case with a sitting president (INAUDIBLE) wasn't going to stray from the trial order, the scheduling order, and they were going to trial in April.

[00:00:01]

There could be some fear about what happens should he get elected. You know, there was not enough discovery for us to get information like we got in Dominion-Fox. So, I don't really know, you know, and I don't know about the chilling.

I do know this: He's aggressive. But he has also attacked more than many politicians have ever been attacked. So, you know, you've got to have some strategy to deal with it. There's no way to deal with it but the courts. That's the only way to regulate it. COATES: Well, we'll see if the chill remains in the air, as you mentioned, Brian, based on what has happened here. A lot to be seen here. Brian, Ken Turkel, thank you so much. And thank you all for watching this evening. Our coverage continues.