Return to Transcripts main page

Laura Coates Live

Laura Coates Interviews Former NYC Mayor Bill De Blasio; Setback After Setback For President Trump In The Courts; CBS News Poll Says President Trump Is Riding High Three Weeks Into His Term. Aired 11p-12a ET

Aired February 10, 2025 - 23:00   ET

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

[23:00:00]

SCOTT JENNINGS, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Can we please have headlights like what we had when I got my driver's license, which enabled me to both see the car and the road and not drive off into the side of a ditch. Bad, bright headlights.

ABBY PHILLIP, CNN ANCHOR: You know, I think you're right about that. Those types of headlights, they're designed for you as the driver to be able to see, but nobody else can see on the road.

JENNINGS: Yes.

PHILLIP: It's insane.

UNKNOWN: And don't let it rain or anything. It's even worse.

JENNINGS: Glare, terrible.

PHILLIP: Guys, great job. I would vote for every single one of you. Only for your executive actions.

JENNINGS: -- was the worst.

PHILLIP: All right, everyone. Thank you very much for watching "NewsNight." "Laura Coates Live" starts right now.

LAURA COATES, CNN HOST: Breaking news tonight, President Trump's DOJ looks to bail out New York City Mayor Eric Adams with a stunning order to drop his corruption case. Former Mayor Bill de Blasio is standing by to react. Plus, the Constitution may be bending, but will it break?

The new fears that Trump will simply ignore the courts that are putting him in check. And what happens when two billionaires fight over the future of Open A.I.? Well, we might be able to find out soon. Tonight on "Laura Coates Live".

Day 22 of Donald Trump's second term is raising this major question. Is his administration messing with those scales of justice? Well, tonight, Trump's DOJ is willing to drop the federal corruption case against New York Mayor Eric Adams. The Democrat was facing five charges for bribery and corruption. He's set to go on trial this very spring, right before his reelection campaign kicks into high gear. But a DOJ memo is telling Manhattan prosecutors to put an end to all

all of it. You might be wondering, wondering why. And actually, the memo lays out the very reasons they're telling them to. First, it says the case has been tainted by publicity and could impact witnesses for a jury pool and the jury as well.

And here is the second, quote, "The pending prosecution has unduly restricted Mayor Adams' ability to devote full attention and resources to the illegal immigration and violent crime that escalated of the prior administration," unquote. And last time I checked, a prosecution getting in the way of your job does not mean that criminal charges get to disappear, a lot of people in court actually have jobs, as well.

It also goes without saying that immigration is at the very top of Trump's agenda. Not surprisingly, of course. It's especially curious, though, when the DOJ says it made this decision without even looking at the strength of the case.

Mayor Adams has denied doing anything wrong ever since he was charged back in September. Now, he claimed it's all politically motivated for his critique of Biden's immigration policies, even though there's no evidence that we see right now of that. In his initial reaction tonight, he says, he needed to find out more from his lawyer.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MAYOR ERIC ADAMS (D-NY): I think that I would like to speak with him first and get a better understanding of exactly what's taking place now, because right now I don't have any information. As I'm sitting here, calls are coming through, but we're looking to find out what's going on.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: We know, CNN spoke with his lawyer and he says the mayor would have been acquitted in 45 minutes. Now, when you see what Mayor Adams has been up against his last several weeks and what he's been up to in the last several weeks, that may not come as all that surprising. I mean, he was at Trump's inauguration. Before that, he went down to Mar-a-Lago. In October, before the election, Trump compared the mayor's problems to his own.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITES STATE OF AMERICA: I know what it's like to be persecuted by the DOJ for speaking out against open borders. We were persecuted, Eric. I was persecuted and so are you, Eric.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: I want to bring in CNN chief law enforcement intelligence analyst John Miller, who was deputy commissioner of the NYPD. He also served under Mayor Eric Adams. Also here is CNN legal analyst Jennifer Rogers, formerly of the SDNY. I'll begin with you here, Jennifer. What a lucky break for this mayor compared to what he has been charged with, huh?

JENNIFER RODGERS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Yeah, it's a dark day, Laura, for those of us who worked at DOJ, especially SDNY, because this is a corrupt deal. And since Watergate, you have had these independent processes in place so that the White House doesn't actually use politics or personal preference to influence criminal cases.

So this is what we're seeing today. The reasons for this is that this is a quid pro quo arrangement between Adams and President Trump. Adams gets his case dismissed and in exchange Trump gets to have the mayor of New York City under his thumb for as long as he can hold on to City Hall for his immigration priorities and whatever else he wants.

[23:05:01]

So, that's what this is about. And it's just a shame that after all of these years, even through the first four years of Trump's presidency, SDNY managed to hold on to its independence and it's gone now. And you know, as you mentioned, the memo even admits it's not about the substance of the case.

It's not about what Adams did. It's about the president and what the president wants. So, I think it's a real shame. And you know, the reasons given in the memo are laughably ridiculous, to be honest. So, I just think it's a very good day.

COATES: And of course, we don't have any proof or evidence that there is a quid pro quo that he agreed I will do X. In fact, one of the reasons that Mayor Adams has said in the past why he feels he was persecuted, John, is because he had gone against and bucked the system under Biden, aligning himself with the views of Trump.

But Jennifer's point is not, you know, is not missed on anyone that the idea of the SDNY, which used to be called and known as the Sovereign District of New York, tongue and cheekingly is very different these days now, if they're able to say, get rid of it.

The memo goes on to point out, and I'll mention this to you, John, the pending prosecution has unduly restricted Mayor Adams' ability to devote full attention and resources to the illegal immigration and violent crime that escalated under the policies of the prior administration. So, I do wonder, have these charges, have they really derailed his mayoral duties?

JOHN MILLER, CNN CHIEF LAW ENFORCEMENT AND INTELLIGENCE ANALYST: Well, it's certainly, and nobody would disagree with this, a tremendous distraction for a chief executive, especially of a city, to be under the kind of pressure that comes with being under indictment on federal charges, having to prepare a defense, that would be a distraction for anyone.

But I think the memo from deputy -- deputy acting Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove is dripping with political implications in every line because it talks about the weaponization of government, that this only happened to Adams after he criticized the Biden administration. It talks about the migrant problem in New York and that, you know, he's needed to be focused and fighting on that.

So, it joins a lot of Trump issues together. But taking the wider aperture here, Eric Adams, in some way, with this case being thrown out at the request of the Department of Justice, becomes a validator for the narrative of the weaponized government that went after critics.

So in that way, it helps Donald Trump with his storyline, as well as -- as Jennifer pointed out, the mayor is going to be owing to the president and the administration that made this happen. And remember, it was dismissed without prejudice, subject to review by President Trump's U.S. attorney appointee after the election. So, what it says is, if Eric Adams suddenly goes south politically on the White House, they can bring the case back.

COATES: That's the hook, Jennifer, and the idea of that sword of Damocles hanging over his head. And in fact, the prosecutor tapped to leave the SDNY for now, at least, and you all, so soon, seems to be stuck between a rock and a hard place.

And so, how do you think the SDNY prosecutor should actually and will react, should she actually dismiss the case? Would she lose face? Would the morale be affected? Would this be a chilling effect on any cases that even arose during the Biden administration?

RODGERS: Well, I don't think she has a choice, Laura. I mean, the SDNY is not an independent office, right? It's part of DOJ. And so, when the attorney general or someone acting as the attorney general tells you to dismiss a case, you really have to do it.

So, I think Danielle's job was to fight for the case, to push back, to tell them that they wanted to keep their independence, that the case was a righteous case and a strong case. And once they say no, we're going to make you dismiss it.

I don't think she has a choice. I think it does affect the morale of the office. I think if you're at SDNY today, and frankly anywhere at DOJ, you have to be thinking about what you're going to be asked or forced to do over the next four years, and whether that comports with your own sense of integrity and character, whether it's the job you signed up to do.

But you know, that is kind of more of a general thing. I don't know that Danielle's saying, I refuse to walk the piece of paper over to the courthouse is where we're going to do anything at this point.

COATES: I have to wonder what the defense bar thinks about all this in terms of who is getting cases dismissed and who's not and how this bodes in front of the judges, as well, who will obviously hear more cases from this very office. John Miller, good. John.

MILLER: You also have to remember there's a long history of similar bribery cases whether it's Congressman Stevens or the McDonough case or Sheldon Silver from the New York State Assembly/

[23:10:00] You know, that there is a narrative that it's a weak case because the quid pro quo and the bribery count isn't really there, and a lot of those got reversed on appeal, even though the memo says we're not making any judgment on the case.

COATES: A really important point and a good segue to our next guest, John, Jennifer, thank you for both joining me. I want to continue now with Mayor of New York, former Mayor of New York, Bill de Blasio. Mayor, thank you so much for joining us. What's your reaction to this given some of the commentary that this case presented as weak initially? Did you share that view?

BILL DE BLASIO, FORMER NEW YORK CITY MAYOR: Oh, absolutely, Laura. I mean, I felt instantly it was weak. And when I read the whole indictment, I was shocked that it ever got to the point it did. Look, I want to emphasize that clip you showed to Donald Trump. I was at that dinner, the Al Smith dinner, and he said what he said about Eric Adams, and then he went on to rather strongly attack me. And so, I am no apologist for Donald Trump, to say the least.

But I also think it's fair to say we should objectively look at the fact that the prosecution brings a case if the charges are weak, that we should not defer instantly to the voice of prosecutors any more than we should any other part of government or the private sector, any of them.

I looked at that case and I said some doesn't add up here. I don't necessarily assume it was because of anything that was going on in Washington or anything political, southern district is a place it's known to be a home for people of great ambitions. I experienced some of that myself in dealing with the Southern District in 2017. In fact, John Edward was working for me at that time.

COATES: But Mayor -- but they didn't actually look at the strength of the case, though. I mean, that's the thing. I mean, I can hear where you're going with this, but they didn't actually look at the assessment of the case. They considered something very different.

And in fact, Emile Bovet, who you know was counsel for Donald Trump at one point, said the Justice Department has reached its conclusion without assessing the strength of the evidence or the legal theories on which the case is based. Wouldn't it have just been stronger if they had even endeavored to do that or even said they had to demonstrate your point?

DE BLASIO: One hundred percent. I don't know why I didn't, actually, Laura. I think --

COATES: So, why didn't they?

DE BLASIO: I cannot speak for them. I'm telling you as -- I'm not a lawyer also but looking at indictment that had no evidence attached to the person who was indicted, everything was about what other people around him did or about things that were not criminal like taking, you know, upgrades on flights. Look, I don't agree with Mayor Adams on a lot of things but I also want to say that it's not fair for someone to have these charges brought against him in a kind of flimsy way that really did distract him from his work. I don't think it was fair to begin with, so it was going to be a reassessed, I agree with you. I think it should be done on merits.

But there is a second point they made which has been traditionally recognized approximately to an election. The primary election for mayor of the city is, you know, four months away -- four and a half months away. So, something like this hangs over, it does affect the democratic process.

I think in the end here now Eric Adams has a chance to go out and say, you know, let's talk about the record, let's talk about the issues, and make his case to the people. I think before this that was really difficult. And so, you know, ideally --

COATES: Well, let me ask you, Mayor, excuse me. I don't want to cut you off, but I do -- I am curious. Particularly, you are in a very unique position here as a guest of this show in the sense of having been a mayor of New York City.

He -- Emil Bove memo suggests that it is such a distraction and it takes away from your ability to actually govern as the mayor, having this over one's head. Understandable, however, if someone were engaged in behavior that was either unethical or criminal, should the office itself shield you from being prosecuted because it might be a distraction?

DE BLASIO: No, very fair point, Laura. I want to emphasize we've got - we've got multiple pieces here. If this one -- let's say this was an incredibly strong case that was brought last year, I think we'd be having a very different discussion. In fact a very weak case in my opinion was brought, a strangely weak case.

So from my point of view, it's right for the Justice Department to say there's not enough here to go on and there's an election in four and a half months and they need to step back. And they have stepped back in the past in close proximity to the election.

I agree with you. I think they should have done that more on the merits. But the original sin here, if you will, is why was such a weak case brought? Many times we heard there'd be superseding charges. That went on for months and months and months. Where were they? They never showed up.

So in the end, I actually think the people in New York City now get a chance to judge Eric Adams on and the work he did or didn't do. Like they can decide that. But it shouldn't have been because a single prosecutor brought a case that proved to actually have a lot of hold.

COATES: Well, I do wonder how that is different than what most prosecutors do when they bring a case. They have a probable cause finding, they have to try the case, prove beyond a reasonable doubt. And while I certainly understand your views on the strength of the matter, it was also detailing straw men and being -- and using campaign-related contributions in ways that were distinct from what was actually stated.

[23:15:07]

But this case is likely to be dropped. And not a lot can be done to change that, even though there is that without prejudice motion of it. Before I let you go, I am curious about the decisions today. Trump also pardoning Rod Blagojevich. Now, both of these cases show Democratic lawmakers facing corruption charges of some kind, albeit for very different reasons. Does this suggest anything to you about Trump's motivations or priorities?

DE BLASIO: Look, I think it's convenient to Trump's narrative. And again, I have absolute disrespect for the way that Trump is going about subverting the Constitution right now. So, I want to be very clear, I'm looking at this particular matter in New York on its own particularities.

COATES: Sure.

DE BLASIO: But no, if you're writ large -- writ large, do I think there is a certain glee in Trump world that being able to play out their ideology with Democrats, of course. I think it's convenient to their narrative. I don't know enough about the specifics in the Illinois case.

But I think we can't, look, what is that famous saying, matured age is the ability to keep two contradictory thoughts in mind at the same time? I think we can look at the specifics of the case while simultaneously saying what's happening in Washington right now, the politicization of the Justice Department, taking away the standards that we all learned from Watergate, no one is above the law.

Those are all endangered right now, and we have to fight. But at the same time, if an individual is not being treated fairly or our local democratic process isn't being treated fairly, we have to look at that as well. I prefer a walk in chew gum at the same time, but you're starting to much fancier, more high-brow. Mayor Bill de Blasio. Thanks for joining us tonight.

Up next, another day, another round of court rulings against President Trump and Elon Musk. But tonight, there's some serious fear that they may be preparing to ignore it. But what happened then? One of our favorite constitutional legal minds, Kim Whaley, is standing by to unpack it all. And later, as if Elon Musk isn't busy enough, wait till you hear about the major A.I. offer that he is now making.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:31:08]

COATES: Setback after setback after setback after setback after setback for President Trump in the courts. Just today, judges assailing Trump for allegedly violating temporary orders blocking his freeze on federal funding and his decision to fire most USAID employees.

Judges also stepping in to block his orders that fired the head of the whistleblower agency, the office of special counsel Cut funding for public health research, and forced employees to take part in a buyout program. Tonight, Trump lashing out at those rulings.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: Judges should be ruling. They shouldn't be dictating what you're supposed to be doing.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: That's also ruling, but I digress. His vice president going a step further, suggesting Trump should circumvent the court's orders. It's not a constitutional crisis yet, I suppose. But even some Republicans may, and they have said, Vance's suggestion might be a bridge too far.

(BEGIN VIDEP CLIP)

MANU RAJU, ANCHOR AND CHIEF CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Should the administration abide by that court order?

UNKNOWN: I mean, that's our system under the Constitution.

REP. MIKE LAWLER (R-NY): We have three co-equal branches of government, and the judiciary plays a critically important role.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: With me now, constitutional law expert Kim Whele, a professor at the University of Baltimore School of Law, former federal prosecutor and also a prolific author. Kim, glad you're here with us. You called the federal courts, quote, "The last bulwark against Trump's assaults on the rule of law and constitutional order." So, are the courts working as this co-equal branch despite Trump's seeming dismissal of them?

KIM WEHLE, FORMER ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY: Well, and his distortion really of them. Yeah, I mean, this is the -- this is the separation of powers. No more kings, right? A king, an unlimited monarch, power comes from God. The king is the boss, no accountability. And our government flips that. And the people are at the top on an inverted pyramid.

And the power trickles down. And the way you hold presidents accountable is Congress either enforces its muscle, which it's not doing, or the courts decide that the president is not complying with the law and where does the law come from, the Constitution or from federal statutes. And these judges are finding that Donald Trump time and again are violating both of those pillars of the rule of law under the American Constitution.

COATES: Well, the vice president says that Trump can defy these sorts of decisions. And as you articulated all the different ways in which the courts are supposed to work, many are wondering if in the end it's just a big, yeah, you and what army can enforce it? And this is the commander in chief we're talking about. What happens now? Can they do anything to enforce it?

WEHLE: What I've said now for years often with you, it's not so much what does the constitution of the law say. It's one of the consequences for violating it. If there's no consequences for violating it, doesn't matter with the loss. It's like a speed limit. If you won't get the ticket, people speed. When you get it in the mail, you'll slow down.

And the courts don't have their own at law enforcement. They have a U.S. marshal service but that's actually under the control of Pam Bondi, the attorney general. So, it's controlled by Donald Trump. You know, the big question in this moment is if Congress isn't going to push back, the courts don't have a mechanism to enforce its orders and we have a private citizen, Elon Musk, who's completely unaccountable under the constitution.

I would go so far as to say we're not on the cusp of a constitutional crisis war. We are in a constitutional crisis. This is a power grab from all the other branches and outside the government that is Elon Musk.

[23:25:00]

He's not impeachable, he's not even fireable in theory by Donald Trump. He's not on the federal payroll, he's not subject to the Freedom of Information Act, all these checks and balances. So, we're seeing the Constitution spread before our eyes.

COATES: Kim, is he somebody you can actually fine? I mean, obviously he's not the president, as you articulated, he's a special government employee. He's not beholden to the same standards, whether you like that or not. But can the courts use fining for the most wealthiest man in the world?

WEHLE: Well, so if a court order has to bind him, first of all, and he's a private citizen, so all these lawsuits against Trump aren't going to bind him. There's a civil lawsuit, taxpayers that are affected, for example, by his use or invasion of the Treasury Department information, your private information. If that comes back to hurt you because he has access to your bank account, if you ever got a tax return by direct deposit, he has that information.

There are ways you can sue. And to your point, you know, a billionaire can say, I don't care what you find me. I don't -- I'm going to do what I want or just let it sit there and wait for the U.S. Marshals to come and hold me in contempt and his buddy Donald Trump can call them off.

So, you know, the constitution is only so good as it's enforceable and enforced. And right now Donald Trump kind of has his finger on the pulse of all the mechanisms to actually uphold the rule of law with the exception really of the states. COATES: Of course, time and delay worked to his advantage in these

cases when he was not president. And now this idea of discrediting the judiciary or discrediting what the prosecutors might think might come back to support him in the end. But I always say, you talk about this Kim, be careful what you wish for. At some point, rule of law, if it evaporates, so does the nation.

WEHLE: And educate yourself, you know? You got to learn how the Constitution functions if you're going to uphold it.

COATES: Well, there you go. Read one of your books for this, Kim Whele. I tell you, she's prolific. Thank you for joining tonight.

WEHLE: Always a pleasure.

COATES: Up next, Democrats are beginning to ponder a critical question. Should they be willing to shut down the government in order to push back against Donald Trump and Elon Musk? My panel will be here to debate that, next. Plus, President Trump's revealing answer when asked who might wear the MAGA crown once he leaves.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BRET BAIER, FOX NEWS HOST: Do you view Vice President J.D. Vance as your successor, the Republican nominee in 2028?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:31:58]

COATES: President Trump riding high three weeks into his term. His approval rating is above 50 percent according to a poll from CBS News. But, and there's a big but here, there are weighty battles ahead. And one of them involves the looming deadline to fund the government. Lawmakers have only until March 14th to pass a bill to keep the federal doors open. And some Democrats are urging the party to play hardball as Trump takes a wrecking ball to federal spending.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ (D-NY): We should be very clear with the American people that the House is governed by a Republican majority, the Senate is governed by a Republican majority, and the White House has a Republican president. And if they want to pass their agenda, Republicans need to conjure up the votes for them to pass their own bills.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: With me now, Shermichael Singleton, a CNN political commentator and Republican strategist, and Michael LaRosa, former special assistant to President Biden and press secretary to first lady Dr. Jill Biden. Glad to have you both here. SHERMICHAEL SINGLETON, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Yeah, good to see

you.

COATES: Michael, I'll start with you, Michael, for a moment here. So Democrats, they have, let's just say they've struggled to come up with a game plan. And I wonder if this is the right approach you feel to force Republicans to go at it alone.

MICHAEL LAROSA, FORMER SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO PRESIDENT BIDEN: The government spending bill? Yeah, that's where they have leverage. The, look, Democrats are out of power. In order to use power, you have to win elections. So Democrats need to, instead of focusing on the argument, need to focus on just winning elections, right? The only leverage that Democrats have is yet over at Congress.

That's the turf we can play on. We can't play at the federal agency level. This is the same -- these are the same laws he broke in 2019 that got him impeached in the first place. Except we don't have subpoena power this time. We can't haul in people or whistleblowers. We have no oversight authority on the federal agencies.

COATES: So what should they do?

LAROSA: We have to focus on the -- we have to move the battlefield. The battlefield is not at the agencies. All of these things he's doing, yes, is he flooding the zone? Is he doing a lot? Of course he is, it's all toothless though. It can all be overturned by the next democratic president, but the Democrats can fight because what AOC said, is correct. They cannot keep the government open without Democratic votes. They need us. We can extract concessions from them over there on the budget field.

COATES: So, you're smirking, why?

SINGLETON: I mean, he's partially right. I mean, you're going to lose some Republicans. That's just the reality of this. Every time we have these conversations, we have a very difficult time keeping all of our members. We have a very slim majority this time around. This is probably the best opportunity Democrats have in terms of leverage to answer your question.

But I do think Republicans have an opportunity to make an argument to the American people. Every night, every month, every single person in this country has to balance their personal budgets, paying their mortgage, their rent, card note, electricity, gas, activities for their children.

[23:35:02]

We don't have unlimited credit cards in our personal homes. Why in the world should the federal government have an unlimited slush fund of money and then put that on his back on Democrats. So, Republicans need to argue, yes, we're going to pay bills that we've already accumulated debt for, right? But going forward, whatever continuing resolution we pass, there needs to be cost savings attached to that future spending. If Democrats don't want to pass that, put that on us again, back on them.

COATES: Well, I wonder how Democrats would feel about owning that particular burden of, would it be a feather in their cap or an albatross around their neck to be the ones to say, shut down the government?

LAROSA: We can't. We won't be because look, they're in charge of all three branches. They're in charge of the courts, they're in charge of the House, the Senate, and the executive branch. They will own a shutdown. It doesn't matter. They will own it.

And so, that is why we need to get away from dying on the hill of federal agency spending, which is not popular with middle America or any of the part of the coalition we need as Democrats to get -- bring those voters back. We are, they, they have positioned themselves to be the watchdog of people's wallets.

They have set us up to be the defenders of DEI in Serbia and trans operas in Colombia. If you thought the transgender ad of 2024 that rolled on a loop in swing states was bad, this will make it look like child's play.

COATES: Well, you know, one person who has been an ardent supporter, so we say, of Donald Trump and his policies has been his own vice president. And yet, when he was asked about whether Vance was, in fact, his successor, I want to play for you what he had to say.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BAIER: Do you view Vice President J.D. Vance as your successor, the Republican nominee in 2028?

TRUMP: No, but he's very capable. I mean, I don't think that it, you know, I think you have a lot of very capable people. So far I think he's doing a fantastic job. It's too early.

BAIER: Right.

TRUMP: We're just starting.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: That's not very comforting for Vance to hear.

SINGLETON: But I think it's okay, Laura.

COATES: Do you really think it's okay?

SINGLETON: It is too early. He's only been in office for what, two and a half weeks now and people are asking, is J.D. Vance going to be your successor? Who knows what's going to happen over the next two or three years? I think the president needs to sort of get in office, deliver on some of those promises.

He's doing well on immigration. He appears to be willing to tackle some of the debt stuff that he promised. I think the third trifecta of all of this, if you will, is bringing down cost of living. If he can accomplish all of those things, then let's have conversations about who his successor will be.

COATES: Well, yes, but the elephant in the room, and it's a big one, has been his suggestions about maybe even trying to have a third term. I mean, there is a technicality that you cannot be elected to the presidency again.

There are thoughts he could either try to ignore that amendment, twenty-second, I believe it is, or he could just say, try to remove me, or he could try to become a vice president and be elevated immediately. That's all the backdrop for him.

LAROSA: You know, what, I'm sure there's endless conspiracy theories about what he wants to do. But what he definitely wants is to control the attention economy and he can't lose that control by saying, oh yeah, this guy is going to be next --

COATES: Interesting.

SINGLETON: That's a good point.

LAROSA: -- the next guy. And because you know, the president doesn't want to travel with a lame duck. He wants to be able to make that decision. He wants to be able to be kingmaker and use that power of leader of the party.

SINGLETON: And every president wants that, right? Every president. I mean, look at your former boss.

LAROSA: Well, I don't think he had a choice.

COATES: Well, that sounded like shade.

LAROSA: It was not.

COATES: Not from you, from this one. Me here, my sure-by-full friend. Okay.

LAROSA: There wasn't much of a choice there.

COATES: Really quick though, you mentioned the idea of all the other things, prices, the economy, and beyond. Why is he not prioritizing those? I mean, he's putting pennies, literally, before things like that.

SINGLETON: Yeah, look, I think we need to get through March and figure out if we can pass a C.R. with the debt ceiling with Republicans. Then I think you begin to shift to figure out how do you bring down costs across the board, whether it's cost of living, eggs, milk, gas, et cetera.

I do think you need to incentivize some of those corporations and businesses to figure out ways that they can leverage maybe tax incentives to bring down that cost. So there are some tools in the executive's toolbox, I would argue, to incentivize that, thus bringing down costs for the average American family.

LAROSA: Everything he's doing is old news. Republicans have played with foreign aid and federal workers for decades. This is not a new playbook. He is --

SINGLETON: Thirty-six trillion dollars in debt, Mike. What do you say about that?

LAROSA: Anybody who has worked in government knows if you're ever going to actually -- he's going for low-hanging fruit. USAID, it's less than 0.47 percent of the budget. Hold on, hold on. The point is where he won't go is where all the waste fraud and abuse is. It's in entitlements. He won't and look we would love to see him try. We would we dare him to try to touch Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security.

[23:40:00]

He won't do it for the same reason we know he won't because he's too scared to do it.

SINGLETON: He's gone a lot further than Democrats, Laura.

COATES: Listen, listen. Gentlemen, I would ask for more of your two cents but the president says that pennies are no longer applicable. Shermichael Singleton, Michael LaRosa, thank you so much, both of you.

SINGLETON: Thanks, Laura.

COATES: Still ahead, she made history as the first black woman to serve on the nation's labor watchdog group, only to be fired by President Trump. So, what's she going to do now? When Wilcox standing by to share her story and her response.

Plus, the major salvo in the war over A.I. This time it's Elon Musk firing the shot with a multi-billion dollar offer to take over the maker of chat GPT. And tonight, Open A.I.'s Sam Altman has a response. Next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:44:54]

COATES: Elon Musk today putting forward a nearly $100 billion unsolicited offer to buy back Open A.I.

[23:45:03]

That's the parent company of ChatGPT. It's Musk's latest attempt to regain control of the company he co-founded in 2015 before leaving it in 2018. Ever since, he has been increasingly critical of OpenAI's efforts to make a profit. To that end, the lawyer for the Musk-led group making the offer wrote, "It's time for Open A.I. to return to the open source. Safety-focused force for good it once was. We will make sure that happens."

Open A.I. CEO Sam Altman wasted no time firing back on X of all places saying, quote, "No, thank you. But we will buy Twitter for $9.74 billion if you want." Musk shot back with a one word reply directed at his former colleague - "Swindler". Billionaires in a war of words over A.I. What could be more 2025 than that?

Joining me now, "New York Times" technology correspondent, Mike Isaac. Mike, good to have you on. There are some serious folks involved in Musk's deal, one being a big time Hollywood's CEO, Ari Emanuel. But Musk, he must have known that Sam Altman would have rejected this deal, so why even offer it?

MIKE ISAAC, TECHNOLOGY CORRESPONDENT, "NEW YORK TIMES": No, you're totally right. And this is honestly the latest sort of salvo in this ongoing war between Musk and Altman. Years ago, they founded Open A.I. together as a non-profit entity. And as this thing grew in power and stature, Elon Musk walked away.

He's very much convinced that this is, A.I. could be very dangerous for the world, whereas Sam Altman thinks it's going to be transformative in a positive way. And so, as Elon broke off, this is his kind of way of, trying to get back in and potentially, if not take over the company, which will probably almost certainly be rejected of an offer, at least make it more complicated for Altman to take it, make it a for profit entity.

COATES: Is there any chance that Altman and Open A.I. may be actually forced to consider any of this?

ISAAC: So, this is the interesting thing here, you know. They can reject the bid. It's a private company. It's not like a hospital takeover in a public company. So they could reject the bid. The problem is they're trying to turn this company into a for-profit company from its non-profit status. And if they reject this nearly $100 billion bid, they have to sort of tell charity regulators in Delaware, hey, this company actually should be worth more than the 40 billion we were valuing it before.

So, they could reject it, but it actually complicates some of their financial maneuverings if they're trying to take it to a for-profit company. It's really a lot of like arcane math that gives Sam Altman a big headache.

COATES: Oh, I don't want to do math tonight. Don't do that, Mike. We're going to move on to politics for a second instead because the politics around this are remarkable when you consider that one of President Trump's first acts when he actually got back into the White House was to bring in Sam Altman to announce a big A.I. deal which Musk then trashed. So, could Trump have to pick a side here? Is it going to get ugly?

ISAAC: Now this is the other sort of shading -- shadowy maneuvering around this whole thing. As you noted, Sam Altman very quickly, you know, they had this project called Stargate in the works for months before President Trump took office, but specifically negotiated it with President Trump to make it look like, you know, essentially let him take credit for it in the first few days. It's a hundred billion dollar deal that creates data centers across

the country partnering with SoftBank, the Japanese mega conglomerate, and Oracle, the big data power broker. And so, it gave Trump an early win and it gave Altman a real in to the presidency there. But I think Elon is the other complicating factor here and he might have to choose who he wants to help as this continues.

COATES: The complicating factor might be Elon Musk's middle name. We'll see. Mike Isaac, thank you so much.

ISAAC: Thank you for having me.

COATES: Up next, she was the nation's top labor board watchdog. That is until President Trump suddenly fired her. Now, she's speaking out about what it's like being the tip of the spear in the fight against Trump's federal purge. Wynne Wilcox joins me next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:53:52)

COATES: Well, Trump's federal purge continues, and one of its many targets, the National Labor Relations Board. The White House removing two of its leaders in a late-night email, effectively paralyzing the agency. Why should you care?

Well, this is the nation's top labor watchdog. It was created by Congress in the mid-1930s, and the independent federal agency is tasked with enforcing the country's labor laws, safeguarding the rights of workers, even if they, by the way, are not part of a union, all in an effort to improve working conditions and also improve pay, investigating unfair labor practices and overseeing union elections. My next guest is suing the administration after being removed from her post. A firing that she deems illegal.

And Gwynne Wilcox joins me now. She is also the first sitting member of the board to be removed in its 90- year history. Gwen, thank you so much for joining. I'm sorry for the circumstances, but I'd like to understand, how did you find out about your firing? And were you given a rationale for why?

[23:55:00]

GWYNNE WILCOX, FORMER NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD MEMBER FIRED BY TRUMP: Thank you for your question. It's really a pleasure to be here with you even under these circumstances. And so I was at home on January 27th and around 11 P.M., I received an email from a White House staffer saying, speaking on behalf of the President, stating that I was being removed immediately, effective immediately.

And the best I can gather from the letter was that I was not -- he wanted people who were loyal to him and would issue decisions more consistent with his views. And that is actually in violation of the National Liberations Act which is an independent agency that is to be free of influence, both presidential and other political influence. And I was, and I was a, you know, my term ends in 2028, so I'm the first person ever in these 90 years to be removed from their position.

COATES: What does that feel like to you Gwynne when you saw that and you read that and got some semblance of a rationale? How did you feel in that moment?

WILCOX: I was very stunned and I also think back that I was really surprised and shocked. It was just a lot of feelings going through me at that moment.

COATES: Of course.

WILCOX: And you know, close to 11 o'clock at night, I could not reach out to my agency at that point. And so it was a restless night, let's say that.

COATES: And the idea that you would not be or thought not to be in line with his interests. Do you have any indication as to why he believed that to be the case? Was there an instance, a situation you can even point to make that clear?

WILCOX: I really don't know any specific issues. I don't make decisions on my own. It has to be a majority decision. Whether it's regardless of who the president is who nominated a board member, we often come to consensus in 80 percent of our cases. So I'm not certain. Other than the fact that we've issued a lot of important decisions enforcing employees' workers' rights and that's what our job is to do.

COATES: In fact, recently, the board took action to protect the rights of workers at a variety of agencies and who's at multiple companies, including Elon Musk's SpaceX. Do you think that Musk had anything to do with your removal?

WILCOX: I have no idea. The letter was on behalf of the president, but as I stated earlier, that it's important to recognize that no one is to have impact, influence the decisions of a board member.

COATES: Yeah, you said the administration is testing the agency's independence. And you may have heard Vice President J.D. Vance now questioning judicial independence and quote, "If a judge tried to tell a general how to connect to military operation, that'd be illegal. If a judge tried to command the attorney general and how to use her discretion as a prosecutor, that's also illegal. Judges aren't allowed to control the executive's legitimate power." When you hear that, what is your response?

WILCOX: You know, I think that, I don't know if I can really speak to the issue of judges, but certainly our system has been working for many, many years. And these challenges to the authority of the courts and also the legislators, really have been challenged during this, just during these first couple of days or two weeks of this administration.

COATES: Very quickly, will you take this all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary? WILCOX: Well, you know, we just filed this case last week. There is

-- today, we, my lawyers filed a request for a declaration that my removal was unlawful. And so, I'm hoping that this will be expedited so that myself and the NLRB can get back to work as soon as possible. So, we'll have to evaluate this case as it goes along.

COATES: Still focused on the mission.

WILCOX: Yes, totally.

COATES: Gwynne Wilcox, thank you so much.

WILCOX: Thank you.

COATES: And hey, thank you for watching. Anderson Cooper 360 is next.

[23:59:55]

ANDERSON COOPER, CNN ANCHOR: Tonight on "360", federal judge rules that members of the Trump administration are defying his court order as the president and vice president raised concern that he might make a pact (ph), "keeping them honest".