Return to Transcripts main page

Laura Coates Live

Government Shutdown Looms as GOP Defies Trump; The United States of America vs. Luigi Mangione; Fani Willis Booted from Trump Case; Music Royalty Dionne Warwick Joins Laura. Aired 11p-12a ET

Aired December 19, 2024 - 23:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

[23:00:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ABBY PHILLIP, CNN ANCHOR AND SENIOR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: New tonight, CNN is learning that Trump invited Amazon founder, Jeff Bezos, to Washington for his inauguration next month. This after Amazon announced a $1 million donation to Trump's inaugural fund.

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

LAURA COATES, CNN HOST AND SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Breaking tonight, the government barrels towards a shutdown with a new twist on this dysfunctional American tradition. Plus, Luigi Mangione brought to New York in dramatic fashion. The new revelations from his alleged notebook in the new federal legal fight that is only just beginning. And music royalty is in the house. Dionne Warwick joins me for a very special interview. Tonight on "Laura Coates Live."

The breaking news tonight, the nightmare before Christmas. America now just about 24 hours away from the government shutdown with no plan to avoid it. Yes, America, we have been here before. But not quite like this. Not when some of the main forces behind this whole mess aren't even elected members of government.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. ROSA DELAURO (D-CT): They got scared because President Musk told them --

UNKNOWN: Yeah, yeah, yeah.

DELAURO: -- President Musk said, don't do it, don't do it, shut the government down.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Well, Elon Musk got what he wanted today. You can see that old 1,500-page funding bill on the left that he said was chock full of pork and wasteful spending? Well, on the right, the new DOGE approved 116-page bill that went for a vote tonight. Now, it looks smaller, right? Sure. But the devil is certainly in the details. The new bill stripped out a ton of things, but kept disaster aid and funding to keep the government open for three months.

But it added one very important request from President-elect Trump, a suspension of the debt ceiling until January 2027. Only one problem with that, I'll let Republican Congressman Chip Roy explain what that is.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. CHIP ROY (R-TX): It's embarrassing. It's shameful. Yes, I think this bill is better than it was yesterday on certain respects, but to take this bill, to take this bill yesterday and congratulate yourself because it's shorter in pages but increases the debt by $5 trillion is asinine, and that's precisely what Republicans are doing.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: So, Congressman Roy was joined by 37 other Republicans to kill the bill tonight. In fact, only two Democrats voted in favor. In other words, nearly 40 Republicans tonight bucked President-elect Trump and Elon Musk, even with their threat of primaries. But the rest of the GOP, they aren't blaming their Republican colleagues. No. They're blaming Democrats.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

J.D. VANCE, U.S. VICE PRESIDENT-ELECT: The Democrats just voted to shut down the government, even though we had a clean C.R., because they didn't want to give the president negotiating leverage during his first term -- sorry, the first year of his new term.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: And to think the first bill included a pay raise for Congress, a pay raise.

Leading us off tonight is Democratic congressman from Ohio, Greg Landsman. Congressman, thank you so much for joining. You have said in the past, but you are amenable to less spending, to greater efficiency. You voted no here. Explain why.

REP. GREG LANDSMAN (D-OH): So, it's clear they want to shut the government down. I mean, this is the problem, is that we have this agreement, and then Trump, after Musk, said, I don't like this --

COATES: Uh-hmm.

LANDSMAN: -- they both tweeted out, and their tweets are kind of how they govern. And clearly, Musk is calling the shots here. They said, shut it down, shut it down until Trump is inaugurated. So, it's a 30, 35-day shutdown, is what they called for, and that meant that Republicans walked away from the bipartisan agreement that we had, which would have kept the government open, would have funded disaster relief, funded our farmers, a whole host of things.

COATES: Uh-hmm. LANDSMAN: And it would have passed overwhelmingly in the House. In the Senate, they killed that. And then today, I think that was just for show. I think they're just -- they're trying to shift blame from themselves. But they have said this is what they want. They want to shut the government down.

[23:05:00]

So, they --

COATES: What's the endgame there? I mean, to shut the government down and hope that the American electorate sees that as an exclusively Democrat problem and cause might be a fool's errand.

LANDSMAN: Yeah.

COATES: What is the endgame of trying to shut the government down for over a month? Just to hand Trump a victory to immediately reopen when he comes in?

LANDSMAN: Yeah, it's not clear what their endgame is. I mean, we had an endgame, we had a plan --

COATES: Uh-hmm.

LANDSMAN: -- this bipartisan agreement that had been negotiated for weeks, if not months. And Republicans in the Senate, Republicans in the House, Democrats in the Senate, Democrats in the House, they all agreed that this was the best way to keep the government open and fund these other major priorities. And then Musk said no. And then the bill today had a bunch of things taken out, including language around China --

COATES: Hmm.

LANDSMAN: -- which is going to raise a ton of questions. Why was this language taken out? It was language that said, we are, you know, in our attempt to be more competitive with China. We are going to stop investments in China from our companies. Outbound investments, they're called. That language was strangely removed from this bill.

COATES: Who wanted that out?

LANDSMAN: We don't -- I mean, it's going to be probably one of the most important questions of today. I mean, outside of the fact -- outside of the question, what's going to happen next? Why was this language removed? Who wanted it removed? And why did Republicans remove it from their own bill?

COATES: You know, that is a big question and one of many as to why it was consolidated and things taken out and who seeks to gain from it. A shutdown does not really serve the American public, as we know. There has been a lot of complaints, though, about where President Biden is in all of this.

LANDSMAN: Yeah. COATES: How are you feeling about his response or lack thereof to what's happening on Capitol Hill?

LANDSMAN: I mean, I've been frustrated for a while, so it's not going to be news to anyone that I'm frustrated about his response here or the White House's engagement. But I have to tell you, I've watched Hakeem Jeffries as our leader over the last two years get Speaker McCarthy and then Johnson out of some jams, and he had helped them get out of this jam. They had negotiated a deal and a funding agreement that was about to pass. I mean, we're talking moments from it coming to the floor --

COATES: Right.

LANDSMAN: -- and getting 300, 350 votes. Elon Musk said no, and he's the person now in charge. This is why they're saying, hey, President Musk --

COATES: Hmm.

LANDSMAN: -- and then it's Vice President Trump, and I don't know where that leaves J.D. But this isn't how government works. This is not what the American people want. A government shutdown will hurt workers, our folks. I mean, 85% of the federal workforce is out in districts --

COATES: Sure.

LANDSMAN: -- all across the country and it will hurt the economy, cost the economy billions. It's so reckless, what they're doing. But I don't think they care because it's not going to hurt their people, it's not going to hurt Musk, not going to hurt Trump or all those donors. These are multi-millionaires, billionaires. They're fine. It hurts our people. It's terrible.

COATES: Well, we will see if cooler heads prevail.

LANDSMAN: Yes.

COATES: Congressman Landsman, thank you so much.

As we mentioned, some Republicans are bucking the president-elect, and by the way, explaining why.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. ERIC BURLISON (R-MO): When I ran for office, I said that I would not vote to raise the debt ceiling. And so, I've never voted to raise the debt ceiling. And -- I mean, I love Donald Trump, but he didn't vote me into office. My district did.

MANU RAJU, CNN CHIEF CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Do you want to shut it down?

BURLISON: I'm not afraid of a shutdown.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Joining me now, congressional reporter for Politico, Olivia Beavers, former senior adviser to the Trump 2024 campaign, Bryan Lanza, and CNN political commentator and former senior spokesperson for Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign, Karen Finney. Glad to have you all here. Bryan, let me ask you, 38 Republicans voting against it even after being threatened to be primaried. Is this an indication that Trump is not maybe omnipotent in D.C. so far?

BRYAN LANZA, FORMER DEPUTY COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR FOR TRUMP 2016 CAMPAIGN, FORMER SENIOR ADVISER FOR TRUMP-VANCE 2024 PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN: No, listen, I think it's an indication that Speaker Johnson is failing at his job at delivering some type of C.R. that Republicans get behind, and he has done a poor job of communicating that to President Trump. That's what this indicates.

I think he -- you know, I think the buzz is around Mar-a-Lago, around West Palm Beach, is that, you know, he has been less than transparent with President Trump with everything that's going on. He told the president that this is likely a good package that's going to pass. It failed miserably. You know, he told President Trump, you know, we're going to pick up seats in the November election. We lost -- you know, at the end of the day, we lost two seats under his tenureship.

COATES: Hmm.

LANZA: I think Speaker Johnson has a record of failing, and that failure is now starting to affect President Trump. I think the caucus is going to have to look at it and say, you know, we need to make sure we don't derail the president's agenda going forward, and Speaker Johnson may be the impediment because he just doesn't know how to win at this point.

[23:10:05]

COATES: I have a little bit of whiplash because of how people have changed their perception of Speaker Johnson. And you -- there is some kind of a heated conversation on the floor today, I understand. What's his prospects?

OLIVIA BEAVERS, CONGRESSIONAL REPORTER, POLITICO: I mean, he was talking with Freedom Caucus members like Chip Troy, who really cares about spending. The majority of Republicans who voted against this were Freedom Caucus members. And they met before the vote and they met after the vote. And I was sticking up both at their meetings. And they are angry.

I went from covering Republicans who are as big as critics saying, I'll probably support Mike Johnson in January, and then after the first C.R. came out and after this second C.R. failed, they are now changing their tune. More and more Republicans are talking about potential jailbreak. They're talking about a harder whip count. But the one thing that some of them are actually caveating is, how are we going to stand up to Trump? We're going to have a harder time pushing against Trump's guy if that is Mike Johnson. Some are just questioning if Mike Johnson is still Trump's guy. COATES: Well, they're also questioning this bromance between Musk and Trump. They're calling -- President Musk. Obviously, a slight towards President-elect Donald Trump. The blame game, though, is already here. People are thinking about Democrats being the problem. How do they manage that?

KAREN FINNEY, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Democrats need to continue doing what they've been doing, and that is they tried to help where they could, they stayed out of the way, and let the Republicans show the chaos. We're going to see a repeat of this, I think, many more times. Frankly, it's a repeat of what we saw with the immigration legislation where Donald Trump, you know, injected himself into the process.

But here's the thing I think Americans should be concerned about. You have an unelected billionaire who literally has financial interests in what goes into the budget. Let's think about the defense spending. Just as one example.

COATES: Hmm.

FINNEY: By the way, he gets tax credits from the Inflation Reduction Act. So, he's the one now driving the bus on what is or isn't in the budget. I mean, if Trump can't control him and Elon Musk is going to be helping to govern by tweet, that's exactly what Americans hate the most, is the idea that the wealthy and the well-connected -- I mean, for $260 million, he bought himself a president, and this is what we saw play out.

COATES: What's your reaction?

LANZA: He didn't buy himself -- listen, Donald Trump is a billionaire. He didn't get bought by Elon Musk. He didn't get bought by Washington D.C. Listen, Elon is a character in Donald Trump's play, and he'll continue to remain a big character in Donald Trump's play.

COATES: Does Elon Musk know that he's a character in Trump's play, Bryan?

(CROSSTALK)

LANZA: I suspect Elon Musk has watched television for the last eight years and realized there's only one executive producer in this show, and that's Donald Trump. And Elon is an actor. And what do executive producers do to actors? They fire them and they hire them. And Elon Musk is no different than every other big actor in this place, whether it was Steve Bannon, whether it was Kellyanne Conway. Everyone plays their role. But at the end of the day, there's one executive producer and there's one CEO in this country, and that's President Trump.

COATES: Olivia, did the Republicans see Elon Musk as this, to your words, big character in the play?

BEAVERS: I mean, I think there was actually some frustration because Musk was tweeting things that were actually incorrect, talking about a 40% pay raise of members that they were actually like, no, that's not actually the case. But because Elon Musk was weighing in, it completely changed the conversation. Musk was probably what gave a lot of green light to Republicans who were unhappy with the C.R., suddenly becoming very publicly known.

COATES: Hmm.

BEAVERS: So, he changed a lot, just becoming public.

LANZA: I would add, you know, listen, Republican members, House members are frustrated with Speaker Johnson, right? Elon Musk going forward, he sorts of opened up a dam (ph) for people to express that frustration with Johnson. We're going to see more and more. I think Republican Caucus is looking to see what President Trump does. Does he (INAUDIBLE) Elon and say, no, Johnson is my guy? Or does he let him loose? And if he lets him loose, there's no way this guy makes it to speaker in January.

COATES: President-elect Trump for now. Again, all this is happening before he is inaugurated as number 47. Thank you, everyone.

A police show of force like you've never seen. Luigi Mangione officially extradited to New York, he is the one in the orange, surrounded by armed officers and even the mayor. The new charges he's facing and new revelations from his notebook, that's next.

And later, Fani Willis disqualified from prosecuting Donald Trump, but not quite giving up yet. A close friend of hers will join us tonight.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:15:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: Suspected CEO killer Luigi Mangione quite literally touching down in New York City today, flanked by dozens of officers with long guns and bulletproof vests and the mayor of New York, Eric Adams. All there to escort Mangione to a federal courthouse where he learned of new charges against him. This time, federal charges. Two counts of stalking, a count of murder through the use of a firearm, and a firearms offense. That murder charge, by the way, that could carry the death penalty if prosecutors indeed seek it. So, we're keeping track. Mangione is now facing federal charges, New York state charges, and Pennsylvania state charges.

And that's not all. Federal prosecutors are revealing more passages from the notebook that was in Mangione's possession. They write in their complaint, the notebook entry also stated that the target is insurance because it checks every box, and that he intended to -- "wack" -- the CEO. The support from Mangione remains. Just look at the "free Luigi" fans who gathered outside the courthouse today. And his legal defense fund currently north of $160,000.

[23:20:02]

Let's get to John Miller, CNN's chief law enforcement and intelligence analyst, Mary Ellen O'Toole, a former senior FBI profiler and former FBI special agent, and Jeremy Saland, a former Manhattan prosecutor and a criminal defense attorney.

I'll begin with you, John, this evening. Mangione's perp walk. Officers usually do go to great lengths to avoid the cameras and attention. That was the opposite of what happened today. Why was this so visible?

JOHN MILLER, CNN CHIEF LAW ENFORCEMENT AND INTELLIGENCE ANALYST: Well, two reasons. First, the NYPD policy on this is long-running and well-worn and old-written, which is the department -- I can recite it from memory. The department neither encourages nor discourages the photographing of defendants in public areas. And that's because we, the media, have complained over the years about certain people being snuck out the back door for different reasons.

So, basically, the policy is, if he's going to be in a place where anybody else on the street can see him and that doesn't matter who' the suspect is, if the press asks, the NYPD will tell them when and where that's going to be. That has been the habit.

But let's get back to reality. The SWAT team is there because they're worried about a groundswell of people who are saying, we should free Luigi. So that's part of the security around it. Why is the mayor and the police commissioner there? They're there because this is allegedly a guy who tried to commit the perfect crime and get away with it, and maybe commit it again, and they were there to meet those cameras after this walk and say, it's important to note this is not the way to do this, this is not the answer, you can't kill people as a matter of protest, and if you think there's a perfect crime, we're going to show you different, you're going to face justice.

COATES: Mary Ellen, let me bring you in here because Mangione is obviously this individual, he's 26 years old, he has been handcuffed. Frankly, the charges he's facing, very, very serious. He's flanked by the officers, as John has articulated, who was there and why. The question, though, is, given the sympathy he seems to have garnered online and beyond, would this visual actually increase that sympathy?

MARY ELLEN O'TOOLE, FORMER SENIOR PROFILER AND SPECIAL AGENT, FBI: Good evening. It certainly could. And it certainly could reinforce some people that he's not being treated fairly, he's a hero he's a revolutionary, and look how he's being treated. So, so it certainly could. There's no way to predict that.

But as John said, that show of force, I think, in a case like this can be very powerful to let people know you're not going to break them away, you're not going to break them out of the courts, and we take this very seriously. So, it is a two-edged sword.

COATES: You know, it's a good point to think about perspective and perception and what we're all seeing in this instance here. Jeremy, let me bring you in here because Mangione, as you know, is now facing cases in two states, also a federal case. Break this down for us. How this will go in terms of the order of things? Who would have the biggest priority? Is it New York State here followed by Pennsylvania maybe, although those charges are much less serious compared to what's going on in New York and the federal government is more of the backstop?

JEREMY SALAND, FORMER MANHATTAN PROSECUTOR: Yeah, so let's sort of work backwards here. Pennsylvania is way out in the outfield, not to say it's not consequential or relevant because it certainly is, but what's really important is the New York case. And I think the federal case is somewhat of a charade because they got left out of the party and they want to be a part of the action. This is a state case. You don't see the federal government pursuing domestic violence abusers who cross state lines and commit crimes and kill people, which happens, and having mayors walk behind them as well. This is really a state case.

That being said, the federal government has indicated, as I understand it, that they're going to pause in time. They don't even have an indictment yet. So, it's going to be hibernated or stop briefly and back to the state, meaning New York City, and they will prosecute this homicide, this murder, and presumably assuming it withstands a motion to dismiss before a judge, either that murder two or the murder one.

COATES: You know, that's the important thing about that order. And we do know that the idea of New York State, that trial, if it's set, would go before the federal. There's some advantages and disadvantages to that, and we'll play out, seeing how it will go. John, Mangione's notebook, what else did we learn about it in the federal complaint?

MILLER: So, we learned about notes that were in this spiral notebook, which was the planning book, but there is this incredible passage. This was one and a half months. This investor conference is a true windfall. And most importantly, the message becomes self-evident. And he goes into a description of his intent to -- quote -- "wack" the CEO of the insurance company, the largest insurance company at its investors' conference.

[23:24:58]

You know, what you glean from that is his message is, doing it at the investors' conference and killing the CEO, his message is this is the center of greed where people are actually counting their dividends from their stock on the profits of this company.

But there's something else here, which is, you know, he shows up as this hooded figure in the pre-dawn darkness with a gun and a silencer, talking about whacking people. It sounds like something out of the sopranos. In his note, he refers to these executives as mafioso who need to be stopped. It's what Mary Ellen O'Toole would call a variation on the pseudo-commando. He had created this hitman character for himself.

COATES: Well, Mary Ellen, how do you see those writings?

O'TOOLE: Yeah, I agree with John. And as I read through them again tonight and did an analysis of it, what I think I'm reading here is that he actually decided to commit the crime, and then he started to look for a victim. So, his decision was, I want to be an assassin, a revolutionary, a hero, and then he started to go through and look for the most worthy target, because he does write in his notes that although he procrastinated, it was a good thing, and then he settled on the insurance company because they checked off all the boxes. So, to me, the order of things was this is what I want to do, this is how I want to be famous, now I have to find a victim, then he found the victim, and then things fell into place.

And one other thing that he said, he started off saying just to the feds, I worked -- I did this by myself, which is something he probably learned from the Unabomber's manifesto, because we did struggle with that originally, thinking that the Unabomber could have had some help, and this guy wanted to make sure, no, no, it's all me.

COATES: Hmm. I wonder what that says about his psychology, of course, thinking about this. Really quick, Jeremy, he could face a death penalty if found guilty in the federal murder charge. See that happening?

SALAND: Yeah, I don't see that happening. Well, for two reasons. First, it's bifurcated, assuming he's convicted of that charge in federal court, not state court. Then there'd be a second proceeding to see whether or not, assuming there's approval from the attorney general, to pursue. And ultimately, that jury says, yes, we want that death penalty. We know in New York State, this is not a death penalty state, though it would be a federal charge and allow for it, the constituents here, the jurors, that make up that jury in federal court, are the same jurors that would make up that jury in a state court. So, they would have to approve it.

This is not going to be a death penalty at the end of the day, but life in prison is almost certainly not the equivalent but sort of functional equivalent to a life late wasted for this tragedy that occurred to Brian Thompson.

COATES: Thank you so much, everyone, for your analysis this evening.

Up next, Fani Willis disqualified from prosecuting Trump, but she is fighting back. Her close ally, Judge Glenda Hatchett, joins me next. Plus, the legend, the icon, Miss Dionne Warwick is here.

(MUSIC PLAYING)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:30:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: Tonight, the legal soap opera in Fulton County, Georgia is taking another turn. Fulton County D.A. Fani Willis plans to appeal the decision to disqualify her from prosecuting Donald Trump in Georgia. The split appeals court decision ruled her relationship with former special prosecutor Nathan Wade tainted the case. The majority, writing -- quote -- "While we recognize that an appearance of impropriety generally is not enough to support disqualification, this is the rare case in which disqualification is mandated and no other remedy will suffice to restore public confidence in the integrity of these proceedings."

It all started in January when one of Trump's co-defendants filed a motion to get her disqualified over the alleged affair. A judge held hearings in February and March, and both Willis and Wade testified. The judge ruled Willis could stay on the case only if Wade resigned. Even though there was a -- quote -- "odor (ph) of mendacity to their testimony," Wade resigned.

But days after that, Trump's legal team appealed, leading to today's decision disqualifying Willis. A spokesman for Trump saying the ruling -- quote -- "puts an end to a politically motivated persecution of the next president of the United States." Now, if Willis's office can't prosecute the case, a state special counsel will appoint a new prosecutor.

Joining me now, former chief judge of the Fulton County Juvenile Court, Judge Glenda Hatchett. She is also a friend of Ms. Willis. Good to see you this morning -- evening, Your Honor. You believe that she should not have been disqualified. Explain why.

JUDGE GLENDA HATCHETT, FORMER CHIEF JUDGE, FULTON COUNTY JUVENILE: Absolutely not. And I think, Laura, that the dissenting opinion sums it up best. It goes through the litany of the findings of the superior court in this case. And then it goes on to say, but in spite of that, they went beyond for the first time in the history of this state. An appellate court went beyond that and said, but yes, it doesn't appear to be one thing, but we think that it's a rare situation, as you just pointed out, where she should be disqualified. I don't think there's a good legal basis for this finding. I think that it is wise that this case is going to be appealed, and we'll see what happens.

[23:35:04]

COATES: It is being appealed. And this is not the end of the story. You've been a friend and mentor at different points of Fani Willis's career. When you look at the trajectory of the success of that appeal, how do you think she might fare?

HATCHETT: Well, I wasn't surprised by today's ruling. Unfortunately, I was not surprised by it. The Supreme Court will hear it. I mean, that's the next day in the -- in the Georgia Supreme Court. But what I can tell you is that I have known Fani Willis since she was a young district attorney assigned to my courtroom. And she is now what she's always been. Very prepared, very tenacious. And I am clear that this fight is not over, and that this will go on for as long as necessary, and the appeals may continue.

I don't know how it will fare, but if you read the law and you apply the law, it should not have been such that she should be disqualified. Not only is she disqualified, the whole office is disqualified.

COATES: Right.

HATCHETT: Now, the thing that the court of appeals did not do today, Laura, is that they did not throw out the case. So, the case is still pending. But, as you mentioned, if they don't prevail, then another district attorney could well be appointed to try this case, which may be doubtful. It really may be doubtful that that will happen. But I will tell you that she is standing strong. I've talked to her. She is determined to do what she was elected to do in this county, and she's not going to back away from that.

COATES: What about the nature of the appellate statement, and I'm paraphrasing here, about the inability to cure this matter, the inability to take away that appearance of an injustice or impropriety? Is there some weight that you would give to how this is viewed more broadly?

HATCHETT: I think it was an overreach, frankly. I don't think that this is a proper cure, and I don't think that it has been tainted to the point that the court describes such that this cannot be fairly prosecuted. And so, I don't think that that's a problem. I don't think this is a problem that they have described in this appellate decision. And I think had they looked and looked at what has historically happened, this has never, again, never happened in this state. In 43 years, as Judge Bland (ph) points out in the dissenting opinion, the court has never taken this approach.

COATES: But forget 43, Judge. How about 47? That's when he'll be the incoming president and there are legal issues, including challenge over presidential immunity. Would this be an exercise in his utility? Will this case even survive?

HATCHETT: It may not. It may not. But I also think that, as a matter of principle, the appeal has to go forward, and I think that there needs to be a correction about what happened with this case. As Bland (ph) points out in this dissenting opinion, there is a difference between what happens with the trial court, as you well know from your years of having practiced law and being a prosecutor.

There's a difference between what happens with the trial court and the discretion that the trial court has and what the appellate court's responsibility is in this case. And I don't think that they followed the guidelines appropriately in this case. And so, as a matter of principle, I do believe that this case needs to be appealed and that this needs to be corrected.

COATES: Your Honor, thank you so much for joining me this evening.

HATCHETT: Always happy to be here. Thank you.

COATES: More news ahead. But first, we want to correct an error we made on this show back in September. It was during a segment about Sean "Diddy" Combs's legal troubles. During the segment, we mentioned that one of Diddy's former music producers, Rodney "Little Rod" Jones, had filed a lawsuit accusing Diddy of sexually assaulting him. During that coverage, we mistakenly put up a picture of a different individual, Rod Mosley (ph), who was not the man who filed that lawsuit. Mr. Mosley (ph) had nothing to do with the Diddy story, the lawsuit or any of the claims therein. We apologize to Mr. Mosley (ph), and we regret the error. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) [23:40:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(MUSIC PLAYING)

COATES: That's Luther Vandross and Dionne Warwick's classic duet, "How Many Times Can We Say Goodbye?" And I am so excited because I had the opportunity to sit down with Miss Warwick herself. She's a part of a new CNN film examining the incredible career of Luther, telling his story through the eyes of those closest to him and who inspired him the most, like the legendary Miss Dionne Warwick.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

(MUSIC PLAYING)

DIONNE WARWICK, SINGER: I remember hearing "A House is Not a Home" the first time. I couldn't believe what I was hearing. I told him, I said, (INAUDIBLE), you have just given me the definitive version of that song.

(MUSIC PLAYING)

[23:45:00]

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Man, am I excited because joining us now to discuss the new CNN film about Luther Vandross or if you're a real fan, Luther, Grammy Award-winning singer Miss Dionne Warwick. What a pleasure to have you in studio. How are you?

WARWICK: My pleasure to be here with you. I am wonderful.

COATES: We saw you on full display in this new film with Luther.

WARWICK: Yes.

COATES: And I had to tell you, what a treat it is to know that mutual admiration and respect the two of you had.

WARWICK: Yeah.

COATES: Take me back to what your relationship with Luther was like.

WARWICK: Oh, my.

(LAUGHTER)

How much time do we have here?

(LAUGHTER)

COATES: As long as you want.

(LAUGHTER)

WARWICK: Listen, I -- we're, you know -- oh, let me just begin. I met Luther in the state of Michigan, where he was in college. And his roommate had won two tickets for my show. And he was so excited, he said, Luther, I've got tickets to go to your cousin's show. So, they showed up at the theater. And after, the tickets allowed them to come and say hello to me. And, of course, the roommate came in first. He was going on and on. He said, oh, your cousin is outside. I said, my cousin? He said, yeah. I said, who? He said, Luther. I said, Luther? Yeah.

(LAUGHTER)

I said, well, tell Luther to come on in here. So, he came. He said, hi, cuz. Yeah, hey, cuz.

(LAUGHTER)

And that was our first meeting.

COATES: Were you real cousins or how we do cousins?

WARWICK: No, we were not cousins at all.

COATES: Uh-hmm.

WARWICK: He had told everybody at his college that he was related to me. So, he decided to come see me. I was appearing at Carnegie Hall.

COATES: Uh-hmm.

WARWICK: And he came to see me. I cannot thank you enough. You just throw me out for lying the way I lie.

(LAUGHTER)

I said, well, you want to be my cousin. You want to be my cousin? He said, I can? And from that moment to the day -- the last day I saw him in the hospital, he just meant so much. He became family.

COATES: Hmm.

WARWICK: Absolutely. I miss him terribly. He would call me at all clocks and no hours. Did you see the match? What match are you -- what? It's 4:00 in the morning, boy.

(LAUGHTER)

What's wrong with you? The match, the match, you didn't see the match. What match are you talking about? Oh, the wrestling match. Wrestling.

COATES: Wow.

WARWICK: He was an incredible wrestling advocate. I didn't love wrestling. COATES: Well, you know, it's so interesting that he thought of you as his cousin and his family, but your music and the melody that combines your lives --

WARWICK: Yeah.

COATES: -- really made you related in all of our minds. I mean, to hear him pay such homage to you, you were really his inspiration, hence the reason he said you were family to him. What was it like knowing that you were his inspiration, and then hearing him give what you then called a definitive rendition of a song that only you can sing?

WARWICK: He gave me the definitive version of "A House is Not a Home." He recorded it. He called me first. I'm recording one of your songs. Okay. And he sent it to me. I heard it before the record company heard it.

COATES: Really? What was that like hearing it through the phone? He's so talented.

WARWICK: It was amazing. I dropped the phone. I said, how dare you do this to me?

(LAUGHTER)

He said, what do you mean? I said, oh, my god, you're crazy. What have you done to the song? Oh, you don't like it. I said, I love it. Are you crazy? Anything that he recorded of mine, there's a lot of those.

COATES: Uh-hmm.

WARWICK: What I love about what he did was he made them his own.

COATES: Hmm.

WARWICK: He didn't do beyond Wallace. He didn't look at backdrops, interpreting what beyond Wallace had done. He was a genius. He just was.

COATES: Between "Anyone Who Had a Heart" to "A House is Not a Home" -- I mean, I could go all day with your repertoire, frankly. And what's interesting is so many people who are as respected and renowned and talented as you are, sometimes, you have an issue with someone creeping up on what you might be possessive about.

WARWICK: Yeah.

COATES: But you didn't feel that way with Luther.

WARWICK: No.

COATES: You enjoyed and respected his talent.

WARWICK: Not only talent, but his ingenuity, my goodness. Take a song and just decide. Well, I'm going to sing the right notes, but I'm going to sing them the way I think they should be sung.

[23:50:02]

That's making it your own.

COATES: I love the way that you have always owned your space and also left the door open for others.

WARWICK: Oh, yeah.

COATES: You know, there's going to be a biopic, I understand. We're going to learn more about your life. You've hand-selected the person, Teyana Taylor --

WARWICK: Yes.

COATES: -- who I have to say really looks a lot like you.

WARWICK: I know. It was Harry (ph).

COATES: Yes.

WARWICK: I got to tell you, my son found a photo of me back in the day, and put them side by side with Teyana, and sent it to me. And when I looked at it, I said, oh, wait a minute, who is this child?

COATES: Hmm.

WARWICK: You know? And finally, I got to talk and speak with her. And she's so personable. It's like talking to myself. It was wonderful. And I'm so pleased that she's so excited about it.

COATES: It must be, on the one hand, very exciting to have your story told on your terms. On the other hand, you know, you have been in this business and given us such joy for so long. I wonder if a part of you wonders about the privacy and those private moments that you hope to hold dear.

WARWICK: I find those times.

COATES: Uh-hmm.

WARWICK: No. Does say it all. And I finally learned how to say, no. I mean it.

COATES: Uh-hmm.

WARWICK: I give so much of me to everybody. And can I have just that much so I can say that's mine? And I'm going to keep it for me. And no, you're not going to know what I'm going to be doing with it.

(LAUGHTER)

COATES: I was getting ready to ask, and when do you most feel like that? But that's none of my business. Thank you very much. I'm not set on that. WARWICK: And I will say that.

COATES: Yeah. Well, I believe you, Ms. Warwick, that you would, and I respect that about you. Can I ask you, though, when you said that you give so much to yourself, there are some songs that you have sung, and they have sound tracked our lives, really, and I will hear you hit a note sometimes, and I would say to myself, this is the point where she gave just a little bit of her life away. There is a little bit left in that song, whether it's the way that the voice cracked intentionally or the soul came out or the arc of the note. Do you have a song where you say, that was a moment where you can, you'll know Dionne Warwick if you hear that song?

WARWICK: I would have to say every single song I've ever sung.

COATES: Hmm.

WARWICK: I've been so fortunate in the composers that I've been able to sing songs that they've written specifically for me. And in so doing, whenever I sing any of them, they're coming from here, not here, here, because they're written for me, and I feel the only way that I can interpret them and give them to audiences is to be completely honest about it.

COATES: Well, that no wonder you and Luther Vandross and so many others gravitated towards one another, because as we learned from the film, many people didn't appreciate his, as you call it, ingenuity and arrangement and lived experience through, even if it's slowing down a song, to have a different pace on it. You actually performed with him many times.

WARWICK: Oh, yes.

COATES: Tell me what that was like for the two of you to --

WARWICK: It was such fun. I think we laughed more than we sang.

(LAUGHTER)

Yeah. He produced a C.D. on me, and we did a duet called "How Many Times."

COATES: Hmm.

WARWICK: It was a joy to sing with him, because you could see him saying, I'm going to sing this song with you, finally. Yeah, you're going to sing with me, finally.

COATES: Yeah.

WARWICK: So, okay, so my phrasing becomes a little bothersome to you. It's because of you. You phrased this way. I said, how do you know my phrase? He said, because I've studied you, that's why I know this. But he took the time to get to know Dionne, not only personally but musically. And there's nobody that does it like you. And I'm glad to hear that. Thank you very much. COATES: We all are glad to hear it, and thank you very much. To think about having that friendship turn into the soundtrack of our lives in joy, in heartbreak, and in comfort, I guess what they say, that's what friends are for in this world.

WARWICK: Always, always.

COATES: Thank you so much.

WARWICK: Never forget it.

COATES: Thank you for being here, and thank you for what you've done to make my life, my family's life, have the perfect soundtrack. There's none better.

[23:55:00]

WARWICK: Thank you so very much. It makes me feel good. Thank you.

COATES: Thank you.

WARWICK: Merry Christmas.

COATES: Merry Christmas.

WARWICK: Yeah.

COATES: Happy New Year. Thank you so much. Be sure to tune in on New Year's Day "Luther: Never Too Much," appropriately entitled, premieres January 1st at 8:00 p.m. Eastern and Pacific on CNN. You, guys, know how cool it is to have this show, right? And talk to people that you just fangirl. Okay, fine. It's very cool. A very wonderful moment. I want to thank you all so much for being a part of it. And thank you all for watching.

(MUSIC PLAYING)

This is my song, my playlist. Anderson Cooper, he's a friend, he's next. That's what friends are for.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)