Return to Transcripts main page
Laura Coates Live
DOJ in Turmoil as Six Officials Resigned Over Order to Drop Adams Case; Musk Meets with Modi; Iraq War Veteran Detained and Facing Deportation; Laura Answers Calls and Questions. Aired 11p-12a ET
Aired February 13, 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]
ROY WOOD, JR., COMEDIAN: The point is, thank you to MapQuest. You didn't been like Google and Apple maps. MapQuest kept it real. I'm going to print out my directions. I'm going to kick it like it's so true.
ABBY PHILLIP, CNN ANCHOR AND SENIOR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: What do people tell you about the show, by the way? Like, when people stop you on the street, they're, like, oh my God, it's --
WOOD: It's a great vibe. It's a great vibe. People who have been watching the show in the first season because, you know, it's a British -- it's a --
PHILLIP: Yeah.
WOOD: -- we're a remake of a British show. It has been a 30-year institution. It's their daily show. So, the thing that's really interesting is when Brits come up to me and go, hey, good job. That's not how they sound.
PHILLIP: Okay.
WOOD: But you get what I'm saying.
PHILLIP: I get the point.
WOOD: But, yeah, people are very appreciative.
PHILLIP: Don't miss the premiere of Roy's show, "Have I Got News for You," this Saturday, 9 p.m., right here on CNN and streaming the next day on Max. Roy, thank you so much.
WOOD: MapQuest, we love you.
PHILLIP: And thank you for watching "NewsNight." "Laura Coates Live" starts right now.
LAURA COATES, CNN HOST AND SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: So, we're about a quarter of the way through Trump's first 100 days. And tonight, top leadership at the DOJ taking a very public stand against his push to reshape the department in his image. I'm talking multiple resignations, sending shockwaves across the agency. They're refusing to comply with his administration's orders to drop the corruption case against New York City Mayor Eric Adams.
The first to quit was the top prosecutor in the Adams case, acting U.S. attorney for the state of New York, Danielle Sassoon. Acting Deputy Attorney General Emile Bove, who is Trump's former personal lawyer, then tried to turn to two other senior prosecutors at DOJ headquarters. They wouldn't play a ball either. We're hearing as many as three other prosecutors have also resigned.
And, you know, that phrase that popped up a lot the last, I don't know what, eight years? Quid pro quo? It's back. Sassoon sent a scathing resignation letter to A.G. Pam Bondi saying that she was baffled by the decision to try to drop that case. And she didn't pull a single punch. She accuses the administration of politicizing the DOJ, weaponizing it.
Sound familiar? Well, she says she can't really make a straight face, good faith argument to support why her office, the SDNY, despite their belief in the strength of the case and their ability, they believe, to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, why they would then dismiss a case because it was politically inconvenient for a mayor or because that mayor might prove politically advantageous in an immigration fight, that it would undermine the credibility of the office before the courts, and that judges, by the way, were highly unlikely to even just accept that this was in the interest of the public to treat the powerfully connected differently than, say, Joe Schmo.
She stood behind the prosecutors, the timing of the case, and even stated an intent to add additional charges for destroying evidence. And she wrote about a meeting in late January between Emil Bove, Adams's lawyers, and her own team, saying -- quote -- "Adams's attorneys repeatedly urged what amounted to a quid pro quo, indicating that Adams would be in a place to assist with the department's enforcement priorities only if the indictment were dismissed." She also says that during that meeting, Bove told a member of her team to stop taking notes and demanded they be handed over once it ended. Hmm.
Now, those enforcement priorities she's talking about? Well, Bove explicitly laid out what those are in his letter telling prosecutors to stand down on this case. He wrote the case would hurt the mayor's ability to carry out Trump's immigration crackdown. He even said the decision to end it had nothing to do with the strength of the evidence. One big question tonight, how far up the chain did this go? CNN's Kevin Liptak asked Trump directly whether he was involved.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KEVIN LIPTAK, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE REPORTER: Did you personally request the Justice Department to drop that case?
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: No, I didn't. I know nothing about it. I did not.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Now, more than four minutes later and after several other questions, he turned back to our reporter and said this. And it was unprompted, by the way.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: That U.S. attorney was actually fired. I don't know if he or she resigned, but that U.S. attorney was fired.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Four minutes. Trump has long made his disdain for career prosecutors loud and clear. But this is not some, how does he phrase it, some left-leaning prosecutor who's biased against him. Her credentials are sound. Sassoon, clerked for the Supreme Court justice, Antonin Scalia, never someone who has ever been accused of being some liberal hack. She's not a Biden ally. She attacked Biden over his last-minute pardons. And tonight, she's sending her own message loud and clear: Find someone else to do your political dirty work.
[23:05:02]
With me now, Mimi Rocha, D.A. for Westchester County and former assistant U.S. attorney for the SDNY. Also here, Devlin Barrett, a justice and FBI reporter for "The New York Times." I suspect both of you very busy. I'll begin with you, Devlin, on this point. I mean, the U.S. attorney and five others have now resigned, resigned as a result of that demand to drop that case. The case, though, still has actually not been dropped. It's recommended to be dropped. So, what kind of chaos is happening right now as they're trying to execute that order?
DEVLIN BARRETT, JUSTICE AND FBI REPORTER, THE NEW YORK TIMES: So, what you -- what we saw today was Emil Bove going through the ranks of the department, looking for some career lawyer to sign this request for a dismissal, and he couldn't find anyone to do it. Now, there's a lot of lawyers at the department. I imagine that however many more resignations we are going to see, he will eventually find someone to sign this document and submit it. But that's not going to be the end of this.
All you're doing is signing a document, asking a judge to throw out the charges. In Sassoon's letter, she says very clearly, the judge is not just going to accept this at face value.
COATES: Right.
BARRETT: The judge will press and ask for answers, and you will not have good answers for why you're doing this.
COATES: And there has been at least one case in that jurisdiction where they said, no, you can't dismiss it.
BARRETT: Correct. And look, it's hard for a judge to keep alive an indictment --
COATES: Right.
BARRETT: -- that the Justice Department itself doesn't want to continue with. But there's a bigger problem here for the Justice Department leadership, which is if the judge decides to press senior Justice Department leaders as to exactly how this happened, that could be incredibly damaging to all the new leadership of the department because they're going to have to go in and defend what to most lawyers appears indefensible.
COATES: And your paper is now reporting as well that Adams has reached out directly to Trump for a pardon? What can you tell us?
BARRETT: Right. So, there is -- we're reporting on a whole series of conversations and sort of feelers, let's say, about whether there could have been a pardon, you know. So, that's how some of these conversations appear to have started with a ask for a pardon.
COATES: Preemptive or post-conviction.
BARRETT: Right, trying to get a pardon out of the White House. And essentially, the message, we're told, that Adams's defense team got back was, we're not really interested in a pardon. But then this other track opens up, which is through the Justice Department leadership. And now, we're at a point where basically you have a very tense standoff between the people who run the department and the people who do the work of the department.
COATES: Mimi, you've done the work of the department, and I have to tell you, it is pretty stunning, number one, that Emil Bove did not even endeavor to look at the underlying merits of the case, which they believe they can prove beyond a reasonable doubt. But then he spells out a kind of quid pro quo, the now resigned attorney feels, spelling out in his email, demanding that the charges be actually dropped. Now, he denies it, and a lawyer for Adams calls the claim a total lie. But you worked at the SDNY. How would you have read this order that says it's not good for him as a mayor, also, he could be helpful?
MIMI ROCAH, WESTCHESTER COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY, FORMER ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY FOR SDNY: Yeah. I mean, I don't know how they can deny that it was a quid pro quo or whatever you want to call it, a bargain, a political deal, a transaction between the leadership of DOJ and Mayor Adams as a defendant and his team because Bove's memo itself says it. I mean, what Danielle Sassoon spelled out very eloquently with citations and --
COATES: Uh-hmm.
ROCAH: -- lots of evidence in her letter is something that, frankly, a lot of us have been saying over the past couple days, which is when you look at Bove's memo on its face, it looks like a political deal. It looks like the reason they didn't want to do a pardon, which Trump has, you know, had no shyness about doing controversial pardons. But it looked like they wanted to have something hanging over the mayor of New York that they could leverage down, you know, as they go. It's not just an outright dismissal, it's a, well, we'll put this aside for now, and we'll see how you do. And he, even himself, Bove, references his ability -- quote, unquote -- I'm doing air quotes -- "to do the immigration, but enforcement." So, it's on its fate.
COATES: And Mimi, by the way, he talks about Viktor Bout as well, the Russian exchange that happened between the United States and Russia. He's referencing that, and then in the same sort of vein suggesting that this is either A, analogous, or that it's justifiable to actually do so.
And again, I remind the public, this is without talking about the underlying merits, without accusing the prosecutors of being unethical or doing something wrong.
[23:10:05]
It's just gone. And I have to ask you, as a prosecutor, particularly in that jurisdiction, can you imagine standing before, in front of you, as your office, which prosecutors are all fungible, before different courts and with a straight face trying to say that this other case should remain and not be dismissed, but that one was okay and had the same credibility before any of these courts?
ROCAH: No. That's an excellent point, right? That not only is it hurting your own personal integrity, to stand up there and say this case should be dismissed based on something having nothing to do with the merits, but it hurts the integrity of the entire office, of the Department of Justice. And there is no way that any judge that I can think of would have just rubber stamped this before.
And now, as everybody has been pointing out tonight, I think there's even more of a reason for the judge to do some kind of inquiry. It doesn't mean the case will survive, as Devlin says, but it does mean that even more facts, as if we need more facts, might come to light, that show just how corrupt -- I mean, there's really no other word for it.
COATES: Well, Devlin, I mean -- in the reporting, too, Mimi, there's a reporting as well that Sassoon, her office, she talks about it, they may actually file a superseding indictment and adding a new obstruction charge against Adams for allegedly trying to destroy evidence and providing false info to the FBI. I mean, Devlin, this is to be very significant in the overall inquiry.
BARRETT: Well, absolutely, and that's part of why I think you see Sassoon is so angry about what's happening here. Everyone understood that more charges were coming. This move to drop the case is basically an attempt to get ahead of the new charges that were coming. And so, the idea that main justice, in some form, the political leadership would decide, no, listen, here's what we're going to do instead, it flies in the face of all the evidence that has been gathered.
And look, there's a lot of complicated arguments in Sassoon's letter. I think she makes a bunch of important points. Emil Bove makes his own points. But this all is very simple. You don't need a lawyer to explain what's going on here. Sassoon's point is this is wrong. We should not do this. And Emil Bove's point is, I don't care what you say or what you think, do it or go.
That's what this is all about. It's about raw power and it's about whether or not the decisions that the Justice Department makes are going to be made on the basis of facts and law or are they going to be made on the political goals of the White House or the administration.
COATES: Well, they won't be made by Danielle Sassoon, that's for sure. Mimi Rocha, Devlin Barrett, thank you both so much.
You know, some lawmakers are praising the actions of the U.S. attorney who resigned. You've got Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar calling it a -- quote -- "extraordinary development that Sassoon chose to resign instead of doing Trump's bidding." And one New York lawmaker and a fellow Brooklynite ponders if the mayor of New York is now beholdened to Trump.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. HAKEEM JEFFRIES (D-NY): It is the intention of the Trump administration to keep the current mayor on a short leash. How the mayor responds to the White House's intentions is going to determine a lot about the political future of the current mayor of the city of New York.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Well, joining me now, Senator Peter Welch, a Democrat from Vermont, who also sits on the Judiciary Committee. Senator, I'm really glad that you are here tonight. I'm looking forward to hearing your insight because, as you know, the DOJ has gone after prosecutors, they've gone after the FBI, but this is a very bold move in this moment in time, to accept resignation of a top prosecutor in the SDNY, but also to ask for the case to be dismissed in and of itself. What's your reaction?
REP. PETER WELCH (D-VT): Well, my first reaction is enormous gratitude to Danielle Sassoon, who stood up for the reputation of the Southern District and stood up for the rule of law. She resigned. This is an extraordinarily respected prosecutor and a conservative, but she put the law first. Second, it really is exhibit A in the orientation of the Trump administration. There was a case against -- a corruption case against Mayor Adams.
COATES: Uh-hmm.
WELCH: The administration demanded the case be dismissed for political reasons, political reasons. They had a prosecutor who stood her ground. And now, they're indicting her and saying she should be investigated because she's following the rule of law.
[23:15:03]
So, it just really exposes in very blunt terms the agenda of the Trump administration, which is essentially to politicize the prosecution power that the Justice Department has.
COATES: The great irony in that is, of course, the campaigning on the statements that the government had been weaponized against Trump, that the DOJ had been weaponized for political reasons. And as she outlined, as you rightly point out, they never looked at the underlying merits of the case. In fact, they didn't even touch it. It was about whether they believe that they had tainted a jury pool and whether it was difficult for Mayor Adams to do his job.
And she points out in particular this idea of a kind of quid pro quo that they were asking for, that you drop the case against him without prejudice, I mind you, because he might be helpful in the immigration context which, of course, keeps him under the thumb of the DOJ in case his work is not good enough, and they say, well, we bring the case. That quid pro quo, very alarming.
WELCH: Incredibly. I mean, Adams is pledging to be the vassal of the president as opposed to the mayor of the people of New York, and the president in exchange is dismissing the case and, by the way, as you said, without prejudice. So, if Adams doesn't perform, the president could restore that prosecution. You know, it really is absolutely horrible on one hand, but on the other, I'm really quite inspired by what the folks at the Southern District did.
COATES: You know, obviously, Emil Bove is the person, as the conduit of the message from President Trump. But you're on the Judiciary Committee. Hakeem Jeffries believes that the deal being dropped should be scrutinized. What can your committee do?
WELCH: We can't do much about that. By the way, I actually think the person who did something that is really notable is the Southern District prosecutor, Danielle Sassoon. That speaks for itself. So, we don't necessarily need an investigation. By the way, it's a Republican-led committee, so we wouldn't get one anyway. But we don't necessarily need one because the facts speak for themselves.
The question is whether, at a certain point, my Republican colleagues, it's really going to depend on them given that they're the majority, have to take the blinders off and say, wait a minute, this is not on the level, and our responsibility as United States senators is to stand up for the rule of law. You know, unfortunately, all those nominees that are getting appointed to -- quote -- "Trump's Justice Department" are getting confirmation votes from my Republican colleagues.
COATES: In fact, you've been critical about Kash Patel as a nominee for the FBI. They might very well have the votes. What can democrats do to counter his appointment?
WELCH: Well, number one, the reality is we don't have the votes, but what we can do is speak out and also in hearings be aggressive and try to reveal things, and we did. Kash Patel, I believe, lied. We asked him whether he had any knowledge about the purge that was underway at the FBI, and he, under oath, several times said no. Recent reporting shows he not only was aware of it, but he was directing it.
And there's two things that are really problematic. One, being deceitful with the public and with Congress. But number two, an FBI agent, there's thousands of them, who gets assigned to a case, they have to show up and do their job. And now, because they did their duty, you're going to fire them or you're going to send them to some distant location, we'll never hear from them again, the purge, uh, that's pretty despicable and, you know --
COATES: So, what can Democrats do about it aside from keeping the public enlightened and informed?
WELCH: You know, the reality is --
COATES: What is the next step?
WELCH: The reality is we can do what we can do, which is try to expose it through the hearings. But we need the public to say, hey, wait a minute, this is our justice -- our justice system. Hey, wait a minute, this is our government, we don't want these politicians in the Trump administration lying to us. Hey, this is our FBI, we're proud of men and women who commit themselves to a career to make us safe, and we want to stand up.
Now, if President Trump starts hearing that people are reacting because they see what's going on, that's going to have a big impact. So, we play our role, but candidly, the American people have to play their role. You know, a lot of folks had reasons, good reasons, to vote for Trump as they saw it, but this is not what they were buying.
COATES: Senator Peter Welch, thank you so much for joining us.
WELCH: Thank you.
COATES: Well, still ahead, is Elon Musk trolling Democrats who keep calling him President Musk? Because he made some moves today that certainly fanned their flames, like casually meeting with the Prime Minister of India. So, were they talking Trump or talking business? Plus --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNKNOWN: You have suggested, with regards to the Russia-Ukraine war, you've suggested several things that Ukraine should give up the idea of NATO membership, territory that was seized back in 2014 by Russia.
[23:20:06]
What should Russia give up?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: President Trump's very revealing answer to that question, it's next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: Elon Musk seems to be everywhere. Today, Musk, with his family in tow, met with India's Prime Minister Modi. The meeting drawing significant attention. But it seemed he took one very important person by surprise. Who? Well, the president of the United States.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)0
UNKNOWN (voice-over): Elon Musk met with Prime Minister Modi earlier today. Did he do so as an American CEO or did he do so as a representative of the U.S. government?
TRUMP: Are you talking about me?
UNKNOWN (voice-over): No, Elon Musk.
TRUMP: Elon, I don't know. They met, and I assume he wants to do business in India.
UNKNOWN (voice-over): Does Modi know whether he's meeting with a CEO or meeting with a representative of your government?
TRUMP: He's meeting with me in a little while, so I'm going to ask him that question.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Uh, so, personal or government business?
[23:25:00]
Well, according to Prime Minister Modi, they discussed space, technology, innovation, and yes, minimum government, maximum governance. So, both personal and government business.
Joining me now is CNN analyst Zolan Kanno-Youngs, former senior advisor to the Trump-Vance presidential campaign, Bryan Lanza, and Democratic strategist Chuck Rocha. Glad to have all of you here. Bryan, I'll begin with you. Does Musk have any business talking to Modi about business and government?
BRYAN LANZA, FORMER DEPUTY COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR FOR TRUMP 2016 CAMPAIGN, FORMER SENIOR ADVISER FOR TRUMP-VANCE 2024 PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN: Listen, I think mixing the two becomes dangerous because you can't. But Musk as a special government employee certainly has the right to meet with other elected leaders. I think, you know, in the first term, you had many people who met with other elected -- with other figure in the administration that weren't President Trump. So that's normal. But I think crossing it over and doing the business and government, that becomes sketchy, and we'll see what it looks like.
I think -- I hope Elon is a lot smarter than that because that will erode even more the trust that they have. Republicans are very trustful in him right now because he's deconstructing the administrative state. But if it looks like he's putting personal interests instead of that goal, that's going to be a problem for him.
COATES: Especially when you talk about conflicts of interest. If they're apparent, they'll be known. But it might erode Trump's trust in him if he's asked questions and caught off guard about what someone in his own team is doing.
CHUCK ROCHA, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST, FORMER SENIOR ADVISER FOR BERNIE SANDERS'S 2016 AND 2020 PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGNS: Look, as the political guy here, that's what I caught the most. I can't say I know Donald Trump like my good friend, Bryan, knows Donald Trump. But I run against Donald Trump enough to know that Donald Trump don't like to be surprised like that or Donald Trump don't like to see other folks sitting in a nice chair with the flags behind them talking to the president of another country.
There's lots of people, I'm sure, that meet with lots of heads of state, I want to act like I know who they all are, but they don't make a production of it like that was done. And I think that will end up eroding some things with Donald Trump.
ZOLAN KANNO-YOUNGS, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST, WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT FOR THE NEW YORK TIMES: It wasn't the only time that that question also came up. You had Trump as well standing next to Prime Minister Modi when they had their joint press conference. And once again, the question directed towards Modi, the attention, the spotlight goes towards, what was that conversation about with Elon Musk?
This also speaks to a broader concern that we're hearing from government watchdogs, that we're hearing from readers as well, which is just the question about, you know, who is watching out for a conflict of interest here? You have Elon Musk, who has been directed by the administration to go in and assess all of these different agencies. Well, you know, President Trump also said recently that he wants the next agency to be the Pentagon. We know that the Pentagon also has contracts with some of Elon Musk's companies as well.
My colleagues as well did reporting and found that at least 11 of the agencies that have been impacted by firings or resignations as a part of this really executive sort of, you know, approach by Trump to try and cut down on federal bureaucracy, at least 11 of those agencies had ongoing complaints, enforcement or investigations ongoing into Elon Musk's companies as well. And these are some of the agencies that he's taking a look at, right?
COATES: And, you know, but there is, it's just in tonight as well, the Trump administration has started some of these mass firings. We're hearing of a thousand employees at the VA alone who have now been dismissed. Most of them are in their probationary period as employees. But besides the rallies they're doing and knowing what Zolan has just talked about and the idea of the interplay of conflicts potentially with Elon Musk, what are Democrats going to do about it?
ROCHA: We have no power over any branch of the government right now, but what they could be doing is --
COATES: That's a hell of an admission, even if true, for voters to hear, right? To think about there's no power here.
ROCHA: Right, because we have -- when you lose elections, you lose power. And we lost the House, we lost the Senate, and Donald Trump has appointed the last three Supreme Court justices while he was in office. But Democrats, that'll mean that you can sit back and you don't have to do anything. Draw in contrast because what the president is doing right now during his honeymoon stage is very popular with people.
I'm a Democrat, and I will say that. If you go to some hardworking folks and say, we're going to make sure that less of your tax dollars is going somewhere else and not right here, that's pretty popular. But if they continue to what the reporting has been saying and going on, eventually, something is going to break. It's going to be very important. It's very important to lots of folks, not USAID or not some other random thing. Something big is going to break and it's all going to come down on them.
COATES: Like paper straws, which I know. See, had you known, that's all you had to do in the strategy is talk about paper straws, and you'd been fine. I want to turn to you, Zolan, on this because I want to talk about Russia. Trump was asked today about what should Russia give up in its negotiations to end the war. He hedged. Listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: Maybe Russia will give up a lot. Maybe they won't.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Why the hedge? Why can't they say what they should?
KANNO-YOUNGS: Right, right. So, this came after a week in which President Trump -- obviously, he'd had this major call with Putin as well.
[23:29:53]
And, you know, just that call in itself also was seismic, not just because it ended sort of a western diplomatic, you know, isolation of Putin, but also it prompted this question of, wait, will Zelenskyy be cut out of ongoing negotiations? The leader of the country that was invaded, will he be cut out? Now, the president followed up today, Trump did, and said Zelenskyy will be at the table after Zelenskyy called that out.
But there has been this question of, well, look, you know, you have this transactional approach to foreign policy. You've recently said that you want critical earth minerals as well in Ukraine if aid is going to continue. You want it to be secured. Well, those are demands on Ukraine, which was invaded. But the question was rooted in why are we not seeing equal demands on the part of Russia, not that pressure on the part of Russia.
Trump is so hard to put into traditional political labels when it comes to foreign policy, isolationists, imperialists. Transactional really seems to be the through line here. And at this point, you are seeing that he at least feels, okay, well, the aid is going to Ukraine. What are we getting? With working with, with at least talking to Russia, potentially, you have the ability to come out and have an end to the war, but how much territory will Ukraine have to cede at this point, particularly if they have a smaller role at the negotiating table?
COATES: Is it advantageous for Trump not to be categorized in that way?
LANZA: Listen, I think he's negotiating. When you're in the middle of a negotiation, you don't eliminate any options. And so, when he's asked the question, you know, what is Russia going to lose, you know, he doesn't want to sort of say that publicly, you know, to try to box Putin in and sort of end the negotiations, he's keeping it internally. And we've seen him negotiate over the years. We know what he's going to do. He's going to go at you hard. He's going to press you across the table. You're going to be uncomfortable. You're going to hate it.
But you're ultimately going to come up with a deal. And you're going to see that with Zelenskyy sorts of stepping forward with that. Remember, for a long time, Zelenskyy didn't want to engage President Putin. So, you can't come to the end of a war if you don't have a world leader who's the opposing side of war, who wants to engage you.
And I think, you know, President Trump forcing these people to come to the table, you're right about the rare earth minerals. Ukraine has something there that's valuable to the world, that's valuable to the United States. And they have to find a way to secure it, and they can leverage that. What President Trump is doing is he's leveraging Europe to step up more and be more participants in their own security as opposed to only depending on the U.S.
KANNO-YOUNGS: The contrast is, though, we are seeing the public demands when it comes to his comments about Ukraine and what about Ukraine may need to give up. He said during the campaign that he thought Zelenskyy should have cut a deal, potentially see territory. We haven't seen that equal pressure on Russia.
LANZA: I think it's important to understand, Ukraine is losing. They've lost territory. In order for them to regain it, they have to do something offensively to move forward, and there's nothing on that pathway. So, Trump stepping in is not about Ukraine gaining more land, it's about stopping Ukraine from losing more land. I think that's the critical thing. Every day, Ukraine lose more and more land. And the biggest economic driver in Ukraine is the Odessa ports. If they lose that, they have no economy going forward.
So, I think it's right for Trump to step in and sort of talk about what Ukraine is losing because if they do nothing, they're going to continue to lose more. And with the world community sort of criticizing Trump making those things, there's not the understanding that the status quo means Ukraine loses more every day.
COATES: Let's talk about the cabinet being rounded up today, rounded out more and more for President Trump. In particular, you've got the newly-confirmed HHS Secretary, RFK Jr., as you know. He seems to be trying to quiet questions about his stance on the future of vaccines. Listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ROBERT FRANCIS KENNEDY JR., UNITED STATES SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES: I'm not going to take away anybody's vaccine. If people are happy with their vaccines, they ought to be able to get them. What we're going to do is give people good science. We don't have good, safe studies on almost any of the vaccines.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ROCHA: I'll go back to what you just said in the Florida slip, if I use that word right, and maybe they will be rounded up and they may be rounded up if and stay with me here. This is not conspiracy theory, which is a lot of what Mr. Kennedy likes to talk about. In West Texas right now, there's a giant outbreak of measles, for God's sake, because folks out there have not taken the vaccine to their children and a bunch of babies between 5 and 15, as reported today, have a measles outbreak in the United States of America, and we shouldn't. That doesn't mean it is Mr. Kennedy's fault. I'm just saying this is just one example. If that starts happening, listen to your political consultant.
Again, over and over, when you have an anti-vaxxer in the HHS, I know he said he wouldn't keep vaccines from anybody, I'm not putting on that either, but I'm saying, politically, this is horrible, to have somebody like this here if there was, God forbid, anything happened, we have some kind of outbreak or something or if measles is popping up again in West Texas.
COATES: Well, we'll see. Maybe that's the reason for one of the no votes. We'll see how that all falls out. Zolan Kanno-Youngs, thank you. Chuck and Bryan, stick around because later in the show, we're going to answer your questions. You can send me yours @thelauracoates on X and also Instagram.
But for now, I got a question for you: Should war veterans who serve their country, this one, be deported? And no, it's not a hypothetical question I'm asking because tonight, a soldier who served in Iraq may soon be at risk of being kicked out of the country.
[23:35:00]
We'll share his story next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: Well, he's an Iraq War vet. He's a father of seven. And right now, he is sitting in a private prison facility facing deportation. I'm talking about Marlon Parris. Parris came to the country in 1997 from Trinidad and Tobago. He received a green card, which he renewed in 2007 and also in 2017. And that green card was all he needed to put his life on the line for the U.S. Military. He served in the army for six years until he was discharged with PTSD and brain trauma.
[23:40:00]
Now, things took a turn for Parris in 2011. A nonviolent drug charge led to prison time. But ICE agents promised he would not be deported due to his military service. They even gave him a letter saying so. Well, since then, Parris's family have been able to travel outside the United States without issue, except for an October 2023 trip that ended with his green card being confiscated. And you fast forward to two days after President Trump took office, and that's when the arrest happened. His wife says when she got to the scene, she was simply told, he's on a list, we have orders, and he's on a list. And she wants to know, why now?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TANISHA HARTWELL-PARRIS, WIFE OF MARLON PARRIS: I am having to visit my husband through a glass window. And I do not know when he's coming home.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Common Defense, a national veterans' group, is demanding Parris's release, his green card, and a promise from President Trump to protect service members from deportation. Joining me now is the organizing director of Common Defense, Jojo Sweatt. Jojo, thank you for joining. What is the status of Marlon Parris' case?
JOJO SWEATT, ORGANIZING DIRECTOR, COMMON DEFENSE: Currently, he has been sitting in a detention facility in Florence, Arizona, and he has a bond hearing tomorrow morning and another hearing that looks to be scheduled at the end of the month. So, right now, we don't know much until this bond hearing occurs tomorrow.
COATES: You don't need to be a citizen to join the military. And sometimes, service can even speed up the immigration process, I understand. But as a non-citizen, are you promised anything else through your service?
SWEATT: You know, you are promised this pathway to citizenship. And then there is not really a system that allows that service member to have the necessary checks and balances to ensure that process is indeed happening for them.
I actually was a Marine Corps recruiter from 2003 to 2007 when we were actively recruiting for a lot of folks to volunteer to serve in the war in Iraq and in Afghanistan. And that was a big selling point, was that, A, we were issuing two-year contracts to join the service and that there was a pathway to citizenship provided to those members. I've enlisted folks who are on temporary status LPNs, a variety of statuses that the United States is tracking and they're able to join the service.
COATES: So, given that then, and he I think was deployed three times to Iraq, if I read it correctly. He served. He was released and discharged, I'm assuming honorably.
SWEATT: And he maintained all of his records and his status. And so, he wasn't even somebody who, you know, was trying to get anything more, right? He joined on this status. He renewed his green card multiple times even after the incarceration. And so, it just doesn't make any sense as to why he would be picked up now and in this situation.
And it's a tragedy because he is not the only veteran who has been deported. In years past, this has been a problem under many administrations, our immigration policies here in the United States.
COATES: Now, I understand he did serve five years in prison back in 2011 for a non-violent felony drug charge. He was also discharged from the army with PTSD and brain trauma, unfortunately. What do you say to those who might argue, well, the felony conviction somehow discounted the service that would have protected him?
SWEATT: There's nothing that discounts a service of a person who raises their right hand and swears an oath to our country's Constitution is willing to sacrifice their life. We have a judicial process in which people can serve if they do commit crimes, and we are in America have those processes to allow the law. It doesn't mean that then, after you serve your time, that we throw you away in society.
And, in fact, in the veteran world, there is a program across the nation called Veterans Treatment Court, where we advocate for programs in the court system to capture veterans who have not retained services that they need that help their mental health conditions, their financial situation, whether they're homeless or not.
[23:45:01]
And these are problems that we've had after being at a terminal war for 20 plus years. And so just because folks make a mistake, he has paid his penance and he still served this country. And we still need to honor him and give him a citizenship and make sure that he's safe and that he can continue to thrive just as he has since being released from prison. He is a standup citizen of our community, a small business owner and, like you said, a father of seven children who are now without him.
COATES: I feel for his family and just commend his service as we do with everyone who did raise their hand and say, I want to protect this country. Jojo Sweatt, thank you so much for helping us to understand what's happening to him.
SWEATT: Thank you for having me and letting us share about the deported vet's issue.
COATES: Still ahead, the panel is back and the "Laura Coates Live" phone line is open. We're answering your questions and taking your calls next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:50:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: Well, day 25 of Donald Trump's second presidency, and here on "Laura Coates Live," we are taking a moment to hear from you. What's keeping you up at night? If you want to engage, submit your questions to @thelauracoates on X and also Instagram.
Bryan Lanza and Chuck Rocha are here back with me now to answer some of your pressing questions.
(RINGING)
The phone lines are on. Let's go to our first caller of the night. We got Don from Texas. Don, what's your question?
DON, CALLER FROM TEXAS (via telephone): Well, it's a question that I have many times since January 20th. Why does Trump/Musk believe they have to hold entire departments or programs in order to find out what part of them is a scam or a fraud?
COATES: That's a good question. Bryan, you want to take it?
LANZA: Yeah, I would say, you know, when fraud is being committed with your bank account, you freeze your bank account to make sure no fraud is taking place. You don't sort of let the bank account happen. And while you investigate, you got to freeze the money. And Trump and Musk are saying, you know, there is fraud being committed, there's grift taking place, and we need to freeze so we can analyze what's going on. I think that seems reasonable.
COATES: Even with all the risks of doing so?
LANZA: It's always a risk, but it's a risk of doing nothing because taxpayers -- the taxpayers entrust politicians with their money and there is nothing more powerful than politicians sorts of ignoring the problem and doing nothing about it. Taxpayers wants results. And people want this -- don't want their money spent fraudulently.
COATES: Do you buy that?
ROCHA: Look, I'm a Democrat. I don't buy that. I think that when checks stop showing up and folks are making sure their returns are coming back for most folks in America who get a return, I think a problem is going to happen.
COATES: Another caller, he joins from Washington State. Robert, what's your question?
ROBERT, CALLER FROM WASHINGTON STATE (via telephone): My question is, Donald Trump is a very scary guy. Why is -- what makes him so popular?
COATES: Hmm. Chuck, you want to take that one?
ROCHA: This is my favorite question. We've talked about it on this program before. I joined the Democratic Party in 1989 because I wanted to fight NAFTA, I wanted to drain the swamps, I wanted to make sure that my tax dollars weren't going to foreign wars or wasted. I give you that one, Bryan. And that sounds like Donald Trump today.
That's why we lose to him, is we've let him steal our verbiage. We have quit talking about working America's -- keeping America safe, doing the things that we did when I joined this party. And that's the reason. He is scary. But he is not scary to enough people to lose elections because he sounds like the Democrats and why I joined this party.
COATES: Bryan, what do you think?
LANZA: Listen, I think Trump is not scary when you think about what's scary without Trump in Washington, D.C., an out-of-control bureaucracy that's invading our lives every day more and more, and people want to change from that. And I think that's why, you know, I'm sorry you feel scared, but I think more and more people feel comfortable with what's going on.
ROCHA: You should be sitting here. I'm scared. Sorry about it.
LANZA: I'm not scared. I'm a Latino. I'm not scared.
(LAUGHTER)
COATES: Okay, we're never scared, apparently, in this studio right now.
LANZA: There are men in this studio.
COATES: Let me go -- Joe -- we got a hat. Joe from Georgia asked this question: When will Democrats stop impeding the cleanup of government agencies? Why don't they join in cleanup? Just standing on corner yelling shows -- they are not shows. Just standing on the corner yelling shows they are not working, not needed. Chuck, what do you think?
ROCHA: I think that in every aspect of the government, we could do it better. I'm one of the Democrats who thinks, not only the only one that wears a cowboy hat, one of the things we could clean up our government, too. I remember back when I was younger, which wasn't that long ago, when we would have articles about $700 toilet seats at the Pentagon. And I remember how mad that would make me. Let's get rid of $700 seats at the Pentagon and clean up the parts that we can without hurting working folks.
LANZA: Listen, I think it's clear that Democrats care more about the bureaucratic state than the American people. That's why they're fighting so hard. That's why they're outraged. You know, their constituency is not the American people. It's the bureaucrat in Washington, D.C. It's a bureaucrat that's fleecing America. And I think that's -- they're always going to be on that side.
ROCHA: I'm a Democrat, and I'm not a bureaucrat.
COATES: We got another caller here. We got Mark from Arizona. He's on the line. Thanks for joining us. What's your question?
MARK, CALLER FROM ARIZONA (via telephone): Thanks, Laura. Yeah, I was curious. What would need to actually happen for Trump to be able to run for a third term?
COATES: That's a good question. We get that a lot. So, first of all, it would take an act of Congress, right, to amend that 22nd Amendment, which actually says you can't be elected to more than two terms. Now, there's a couple things about that. Number one, it does say elected to. So, one thought is that Trump could maybe become the vice president and immediately ascend to the presidency yet again, or they could say, well, let's amend it.
[23:55:00] That, of course, would take two-thirds of the Senate to end the House, and then ratified by three-fourths of the different states, or you can simply say, make me leave which, of course, puts us in the actual constitutional crisis that no one perhaps contemplated. But as it stands right now, 22nd Amendment says you cannot be elected again. We're only 25 days in, though, and we're already asking that question. That should tell you a whole lot.
Viewers, keep those questions coming @thelauracoates on X and also on Instagram. I love to hear from you all and share in the conversation. Bryan Lanza, Chuck Rocha, thanks for playing along with us today as well. And hey, thank you all for watching. "Anderson Cooper 360" is next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[00:00:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST: Tonight on "360," stunning high-level resignations from the Department of Justice --
