Return to Transcripts main page

Laura Coates Live

DOJ Moves to Dismiss Adams Case Amid Protest Resignations; Trump White House Fires Nuke Stockpile Staff; New Legal Salvo In The War To Stop Elon Musk's DOGE; Jamie Dimon Goes Scorched Earth On WFH Culture; New Details Emerge From Deadly D.C. Midair Crash Investigation. Aired 11p-12a ET

Aired February 14, 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, COMEDIAN: Rudy's first wife was his second cousin, and Einstein's second wife was his first cousin. Yeah, Regina Perugia --

GEORGE CONWAY, LAWYER: That's how he came up with the theory of relativity.

(APPLAUSE)

Was it that obvious? Was it that obvious?

(LAUGHTER)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SARA SIDNER, CNN ANCHOR AND SENIOR NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yeah, George Conway has got jokes. Don't miss the premiere of season two of "Have I Got News for You." It airs tomorrow night at 9 p.m. Eastern on CNN.

And thank you so much for watching "NewsNight." We'll see you tomorrow morning at 10 a.m. with our conversation show, "Table for Five." Laura Coates -- "Laura Coates Live" starts right now.

LAURA COATES, CNN HOST AND SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Well, talk about a wild 36 hours. Donald Trump's DOJ is now scrambling to contain a self- made crisis that has now gone from pretty bad to worse. The department is in revolt with new resignations over the order to drop the corruption case against New York City Mayor Eric Adams.

It was only a matter of time until someone would actually follow through. And that time has come. Acting Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove put his name on the official filing along with two other prosecutors.

But now, things get really interesting. Because now, a federal judge has to sign off on dismissing those charges. Going to have to ask some serious questions about why -- why the DOJ is not listening to its own prosecutors, and why seven of them decided to quit instead of following through on Emil Bove's order. The newest one to resign is Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York. His name is Hagan Scotten. His letter of resignation, it is so extraordinary that I want to read for you his final message to Emil Bove.

Quote -- "Some will view the mistake you are committing here in the light of their generally negative views of the new administration. I do not share those views. I can even understand how a chief executive whose background is in business and politics might see the contemplated dismissal-with-leverage as a good thing, as a good, if distasteful, deal."

"But any assistant U.S. attorney would know that our laws and traditions do not allow using the prosecutorial power to influence other citizens, much less elected officials, in this way. If no lawyer with an earshot of the president is willing to give him that advice, then I expect you will eventually find someone who is enough of a fool, or enough of a coward, to file your motion. But it was never going to be me."

Now, Trump denies knowing anything about the case, and he claims the people who quit were about to be shown the door anyway.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: These are mostly people from the previous administration. You understand. So, they weren't going to be there, anyway. They were going to all be gone or dismissed. If not, they know, on Tuesday, they're all being -- you know, the whole country is being -- because what you do is you come in and you put new people in. So, when you say resign, they're going to be gone, anyway. But I know nothing about the individual case.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: But this doesn't bear out. The acting U.S. attorney for that district in New York, who quit yesterday, Danielle Sassoon, she was named to the position by this Trump administration. She wasn't some sort of a holdover of any kind. She was named by the second administration. And she has some serious conservative credentials. Frankly, so does Scotten. He clerked for Chief Justice John Roberts, as well as Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

Now, all of this, I admit, is a lot. And I haven't even mentioned the kind of heat Mayor Adams is facing even yet. More and more people are calling on him to resign or have Governor Kathy Hochul force him out. In just a second, I'll talk with one of the New York top Democrats, Congressman Ritchie Torres, about what he thinks should happen.

Adams, he went on one of Trump's favorite shows this morning. He denied striking any quid pro quo deal with the administration.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MAYOR ERIC ADAMS, NEW YORK CITY, NEW YORK: Think about my attorney, Alex Spiro, one of the top trial attorneys in the country. Imagine him going inside saying that the only way Mayor Adams is going to assist in immigration, which I was calling for since 2022, is if you drop the charges. That's quid pro quo. That's a crime.

[23:05:00]

It took her three weeks to report in front of her a criminal action. Come on, this is silly.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: And yet I've been in rooms with defense attorneys asking for a prosecutor to cut them a deal. Not as far-fetched as you might assume. And that man, who was at the end of the couch next to Adams, you might recognize him. That's Trump's border czar, Tom Homan, who was there to talk about working with the mayor on immigration. Here's what he said right as the interview was ending.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HOMAN: If he doesn't come through, I'll be back in New York City. And we won't be sitting on the couch. I'll be in his office, up his butt, saying, where the hell is the agreement we came to?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Hmm. Now, I'm not sure I would have laughed next to him, but everyone is a little different. Joining me now, Glenn Thrush, Justice Department reporter for "The New York Times", also Dave Aronberg, former state attorney for Palm Beach County, Florida who worked with Attorney General Pam Bondi.

Glenn, I'll begin with you here. I was struck by what a DOJ official told you, Glenn, saying -- quote -- "How are we going to do this for four more years, having to choose whether to do something unethical or be fired?" What is this level of panic that's facing the DOJ inside right now?

GLENN THRUSH, JUSTICE DEPARTMENT REPORTER, THE NEW YORK TIMES: I wouldn't say it's a level of panic. I'd say it's a level of the recognition of a cataclysm. I mean, we had a situation today. It's almost comic. It reminds me of the dynamic in death of Stalin or Veep in which you had Emil Bove convene a conference call -- I'm not making this up -- with the 24 remaining staff members of the Public Integrity Unit. This is the unit of the Department of Justice that oversees public corruption cases, the heart of accountability for elected officials in the building.

And he is literally asking them, and it turned into a demand, I am told, in the middle of the discussion, that within an hour, two of them needed to sign this dismissal. This came one day after three members of the Public Integrity Unit, actually two members and one member of the criminal unit, of the criminal division, declined and resigned in protest.

I am told, by the way, there was a fourth who got very lucky because she went into labor the previous day and was spared being asked to do that. Okay? It's what is going on right now.

COATES: Is that what's going to take? You got to be kidding me.

THRUSH: This is what's going on right now. And finally, he was able, through the action of a veteran member of that office, Ed Sullivan, no relation to the disease talk show host, who essentially stood up and said, I'm going to volunteer to do this so that we're not -- we're not going to lose the entire experience and expertise of the entire staff having to resign over this. This is how extreme a situation is. What is most remarkable to me, two things, is we're not a month into the administration, number one.

COATES: Yeah.

THRUSH: And number two, the hill -- the hill that we're dying on here is Eric Adams. We had anticipated this battle over Jack Smith, the J6 investigations, and we're certainly seeing movement on that. And we're certainly seeing the long arm of President Trump, whether he says it or not, having a great influence within the Department of Justice through Bove, but also through Pam Bondi, who has spent an enormous amount of time over at the White House in her 10 days on the job.

But what is remarkable is this fight, this crisis, which is really breaking this institution in front of our eyes, is taking place over Eric Adams.

COATES: Who, by the way, is in the midst of a re-election campaign. I think he has about 11 or months or so in his tenure. Dave, what he just described in terms of that room of two of you got to sign it reminds me a lot of Hunger Games. I volunteer as tribute. It doesn't end well in that respect, right?

How do you think the judge, though, is going to view the government's request to dismiss this case based on what is out there in the public, what has been stated as the reason, it's going to be a distraction for a mayor, there seems to be politicization as well, how does the judge do something like this?

DAVE ARONBERG, FORMER STATE ATTORNEY, PALM BEACH COUNTY: aura, Judge Ho is going to rip Ed Sullivan's face off. And Ed Sullivan is a retiring DOJ official, so he took one for the team because he didn't want anyone else to have to resign. So, I hope when Ed Sullivan goes into court, it's going to be a really big show, as you would say, because it's going to be ugly for him.

[23:10:00]

And I think as a DOJ official --

COATES: Well, why isn't Emil Bove -- why isn't Emil Bove going?

ARONBERG: Emil Bove should be the one to go. He's the one who cut the deal with Alex Spiro, the lawyer for Eric Adams. He is the one who ordered his team to drop the charges. He's the one who then sent the memo to say, now I'm now going to investigate the prosecutors who have resigned. So, he broke it, he owns it, and yet he's going to send others into court because I think it'd just be really embarrassing if he is the one getting dressed down by Judge Dale Ho.

It's going to be ugly, but it's going to be warranted because you're not supposed to do this. This is a blatant quid pro quo. I mean, don't trust me on that. Just look at the memo that Bove sent. He said the quiet part out loud. He said this is --

COATES: So, why would Pam Bondi, the new attorney general, allow this, Dave? I mean, you worked with her. You vouched for her during a confirmation hearing. Nothing would go beyond her purview. Why would she allow what you say is an obvious quid pro quo?

ARONBERG: I don't think she's being served well by the deputy attorney general who was not her choice to be number two. This guy, Bove, was trusted upon her.

COATES: But it's her department, right?

ARONBERG: The buck stops with the attorney general. There's no doubt.

COATES: Uh-hmm.

ARONBERG: I'm sure that she was not thrilled when she saw this thing blow up because I cannot imagine that as a 20-year prosecutor, she would sanction a quid pro quo like this based on politics.

COATES: But it's happening. That's the issue.

ARONBERG: It's in Bove's own words.

COATES: Dave, that's the issue. It's happening. It's happening. It is sanctioned. It has to be dismissed, right? I mean, I know you and I have had conversations in the past as prosecutors about it. I mean, she is 10 days, as Glenn talked about, into the job. She talked about how she would not be investigating the investigators, that she believes in the integrity of line prosecutors. She herself has been one.

This is going to be detrimental, and I'm being generous when it comes to how she is viewed. If she can be compromised in this way with the actions of her subordinate, does it bode well for her ability to command this department?

ARONBERG: Yeah, this has gone way down the road already, and so I think that she has -- it has been noticeable that she hasn't come out and made a statement in support of what Bove did. She just acknowledged that they're going to dismiss the charge. But this was Bove as the architect here. He was the one in the meeting. He is the one who ordered the charges dismissed. He's the one who said he's going to investigate the prosecutors.

And so, you're right to say that the buck stops at the top, but this looks like a number two, Trump's former criminal defense lawyer who has decided to take this on himself, and now it has gone way far down the road. So, yeah, you're right to say that the buck stops there, but I would say that the fact that you haven't heard much from the attorney general speaks volumes. COATES: It does. If she wanted to stop it, she could have. I mean, here I thought that, and I'm just quoting "Talladega Nights," the number two is only the first to lose. Doesn't mean you actually run the whole department. Glenn Thrush, David Aronberg, thank you both. I'll be waiting to hear those crickets from the attorney general transform into words. Thank you both.

Critics of New York City Mayor Eric Adams are piling on the pressure tonight. New York Democratic Congressman Ritchie Torres said -- quote -- "The dysfunction of the Hochul administration is exceeded only by the even deeper dysfunction of the Adams administration."

Congressman Torres joins me now. Congressman, thank you for joining us here this evening. It's baffling to so many people that this is where we are 25 days in, although some of this was advertised before the campaign. Your House colleague and fellow New Yorker, Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, has already called on Mayor Adams to resign. Do you think Adams should resign?

REP. RITCHIE TORRES (D-NY): The mayor should resign because he has been compromised by presidential blackmail. You know, the Trump administration made the Machiavellian choice not to pardon Mayor Adams, but to only temporarily drop the charges in order to preserve the possibility of reinstating the indictment. And so, the fear of a future indictment permanently keeps Mayor Adams under the thumb of Donald Trump. New York City has become a wholly owned subsidiary of the Trump administration. And so, as far as I'm concerned, either the mayor should resign or the governor must remove him.

COATES: Do you think --

TORRES: And I'm not speculating about the political motivations.

COATES: Do you think that Governor Hochul --

TORRES: Yeah, I'm not speculating.

COATES: -- ought to?

TORRES: Look, the governor who has the power to remove the mayor faces a simple test. You know, is she going to stand by idly while the Trump administration attempts a political blackmail of the mayor and attempts a hostile takeover of New York City's immigration policy and law enforcement policy?

[23:15:08]

You know, we need a mayor and a governor who are willing to stand up and protect the interests of New Yorkers from the worst of a Donald Trump presidency. We have too much at stake. New York City receives $10 billion from the federal government. New York State receives $100 billion from the federal government. You know, we need strong leaders who are willing to fight for New York.

COATES: Some would look at this scenario, and they would argue, congressman, there's a presumption of innocence. Why should he resign? He has always said that he was innocent. And now, there's not even an indictment overhead. And he said earlier today on Fox News -- look, he has been fighting this issue about immigration, not always in line with Democrats, even before the indictment. So, why should he not get the full weight of due process?

TORRES: The truth is in plain sight. The memo from the Trump administration reads like a ransom note. The memo acknowledges that the Trump administration dropped the charges against the mayor not because there was a change in the underlying case, but because he is useful to them. The administration intends to use the mayor of New York to advance its immigration policy. That is an abuse of power. That's an act of raw political power that threatens to corrupt the American legal system.

And the sight of the border czar humiliating the mayor of New York on "Fox & Friends," you know, to me, it's just embarrassing and undermines the interest of --

COATES: I want to play that, congressman, because I want -- I want to be clear about it. I want to play it again because this -- it may have been laughed off, but I didn't see a joke. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TOM HOMAN, BORDER CZAR: If he doesn't come through, I'll be back in New York City. And we won't be sitting on a couch. I'll be in his office, up his butt, saying, where the hell is the agreement we came to?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: I'm waiting for the part of why the mayor would be sitting there insulted and laugh it off when this is, to me, a little bit of a Martini with enemy moment.

TORRES: Most New Yorkers I know are appalled. And you can tell, you know, the fact that the border czar feels comfortable lecturing and humiliating the mayor on live television, you know, tells you everything you need to know. The Trump administration knows that it has leverage over the mayor. It knows that it can coerce the mayor into doing whatever it wants. And that, to me, is a betrayal of what is in the best interest of New York.

You know, the mayor has been openly lobbying, not for the interest of New York, but for his own self-preservation. And the message for most New Yorkers is enough is enough.

COATES: Would you change your mind if this case were dismissed with prejudice or the case continued?

TORRES: What I find most troubling is the political blackmail. Is that the mayor no longer has sufficient independence to govern the city effectively. He's at the mercy of the president. He lives in fear of the reinstatement of an indictment. And that, to me, distorts his ability to govern the city effectively.

COATES: Congressman Ritchie Torres, thank you so much for joining us this evening.

TORRES: Of course.

COATES: I welcome Mayor Adams to the conversation. I'm curious to see what he thinks about how he is perceived tonight. Still ahead, when you move too fast, sometimes, you break things. And tonight, the administration may be learning that lesson in real time after firing employees -- get this, firing employees who help manage the nuclear stockpile. Plus, Trump sits down with Elon Musk for a joint interview and reveals what he really thinks about those President Musk digs from Democrats.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: Actually, Elon called me. He said, you know, they're trying to drive us apart.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:20:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: Mass layoffs across the U.S. government continuing tonight. Four sources telling CNN, Trump administration officials fired more than 300 employees at the National Nuclear Security Administration. Apparently, not realizing they oversee the country's nuclear weapons. A source telling CNN, members of Congress are freaking out because it appears that Trump officials failed to notice their all-important role.

And Energy Department spokesperson is disputing the number of firing, saying less than 50 people were let go. Now, the dismissed staffers -- quote -- "held primarily administrative and clerical roles, though some of them are on the ground, at facilities where nuclear weapons are actually built, some even inspect these weapons."

The firings are part of the administration's broader efforts, along with Elon Musk and DOGE, to trim the federal budget.

Joining me now to discuss, Nayyera Haq, former Obama White House senior director, and CNN senior political commentator Scott Jennings. Good to see both of you, Nayyera, today, this evening, on a Friday, and whew, Scott, let me begin with you. They fired people and then realized, uh-oh, that's not good, and unfired some of them. I mean, Republicans have said that speed is the point. It's part of the mandate. They've got the trifecta. But isn't this too fast if these are the types of mistakes that are being made?

SCOTT JENNINGS, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, FORMER SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO PRESIDNET TO PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: Well, I don't know. I'm having trouble understanding exactly who these people are because one side of our reporting says 300, one side says 50. They're all probationary, which means they've been there for a very short period of time. The Department of Energy says they were clerical but then, of course, they reverse some of it this morning. So, I'm -- I guess I'm just a little confused about who these people are and how long they've been there and exactly what they're doing.

[23:25:02]

I do think it's true that if you're going sort of around the government and making sweeping decisions like this, you are likely to hit some speed bumps, you are likely to run into some things that maybe you'll reconsider the next day just as they did in this particular case.

I will tell you, just as a broader political matter, I do think the American people are giving this administration pretty wide latitude to shrink the size of the federal government and doing so with probationary employees, meaning they haven't been there that long at all, strikes me as one good way to go about it even if you occasionally trip into some mistake like perhaps, I'm not saying they did, but perhaps they did on this particular agency.

COATES: I mean, one, the American people have much of a choice. But to permit the latitude at this point in time, I mean, American people certainly are powerful, but they're not one of the co-equal branches outside of elections, number one.

But Nayyera, on the other part, the reversals are kind of the point. I mean, it's one thing to understand that prevention is better than cure. But you're talking about the prospect that there is confusion even among those who have been fired or let go. That could be exhibit A for what Democrats have been warning and cautioning against.

NAYYERA HAQ, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST, FORMER OBAMA WHITE HOUSE SENIOR DIRECTOR: "Fast and Furious" makes for a great action movie, but the reality of governance and national security means you don't want Homer Simpson at the end of the day sitting there looking at your nuclear weapons stockpile, right? You want to make sure that there's people who are there, who understand what they're doing. And ostensibly, these positions were created anywhere from 50 to 300 because many people who work with nuclear security thought they were necessary.

There's plenty of places to turn the bat (ph) in government. I would certainly start with, you know, maybe the $8 billion that Elon Musk gets from contracts with the federal government. I mean, that kind of conflict of interest is there. There's plenty to do all over the government. But let's not start with the national security complex until people actually are in place, who understand what they're doing.

COATES: Well, that's a good question to post, Scott. I understand that people, and you have said that you believe there's a mandate to disrupt the bureaucracy. I also believe that 100 days, the first 100 days of an administration is an arbitrary figure to me. But why do you think they are operating at warp speed? This is a four-year administration. If you believe the voters have given latitude, what do you think is the motivation for the pace?

JENNINGS: Well, number one, if I could just go back to something Nayyera said, before you start cutting all of Elon Musk's ties to the federal government, understand that we've asked him to rescue our two astronauts in outer space. So, maybe don't take a meat ax to Elon's engagement with the feds until we get our astronauts home, number one.

Number two, the reason that they're -- the reason that they're moving fast is because momentum begets momentum. Trump created tremendous political momentum for this kind of change by winning the national popular vote and a real mandate in the electoral college. He extended the momentum by having a really good transition. And, of course, his first three plus weeks in office, he has continued that. And so, momentum begets momentum.

And the polling is pretty clear. The American people like what he's doing. There were some focus group reports in Axios this morning. Swing state voters in Arizona were saying, yeah, we like the idea of cutting the federal government, we like the idea of what Trump is doing, and we're willing to give them some space to do it.

So, the reason you move fast is because you have a mandate to move fast and because it's the fulfillment of campaign promises. I think in Washington, it's all too common to talk big during a campaign, get into office, things slow down, things get on the back burner, and then four years later, you say, well, gosh, sorry, we never got around to that. That's obviously not what Trump and Musk are doing this time, and I think the American people quite like a politician who's willing to keep their promises on day one instead of putting them off until, whoop, it's too late.

COATES: Nayyera, let's talk about the politicians. I want you to respond to that. But before we talk about the politicians, when Trump and Musk sat down for an interview with Fox News, there was one politician in that interview, the president of the United States, the other, of course, not. It's set to air on Tuesday. And I want to play for you a preview that Trump disputes rumors that there is any rift between himself and Elon Musk. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: Actually, Elon called me. He said, you know, they're trying to drive us apart. I said, absolutely. No, they said, we have breaking news. Donald Trump has ceded control of the presidency to Elon Musk. President Musk will be attending a cabinet meeting tonight at 8:00.

(LAUGHTER)

And I say, it's just so obvious. They're so bad at it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: What's obvious to you from this joint appearance, Nayyera?

HAQ: Yeah, that's damage control. And it is damage control for the fact that in the Oval Office behind the resolute desk, the president of the United States was not the one who was doing most of the speaking. And we've both worked in the White House, Scott and I. We understand that it's usually not a good idea to upstage the president. So, this was balancing the scales a little bit. It's not necessarily a Democrat or Republican thing.

[23:29:58]

It was a broadly concerning thing covered by media and Congress alike and wondering what's going on here with this special government advisor who, apparently, is doing quite a bit more than just bringing back two astronauts from space, who, by the way, are stuck because of the way orbit cycles work. I don't know that Elon Musk has managed to change gravity, but hey, we talk about him as a genius. Maybe that's what he's doing, changing the gravity of Washington, D.C. and centering around himself instead of the president.

COATES: Somewhere, Cynthia Erivo is singing "Gravity," from Wicked. Thank you, Nayyera Haq, Scott Jennings, both of you. Stick around. I appreciate it. Still ahead, a new tactic in the legal fight against DOGE. Lawyers now filing lawsuits against Elon Musk directly, naming him as the defendant for the first time. So what case are they making and could it actually work? Jeffrey Toobin standing by on that, and much more next.

And later, one of the mysteries of the Potomac crash now answered as we get a clearer picture of what happened inside the Black Hawk chopper seconds before impact.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:35:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: Two hearings and two different decisions involving the world's richest man and his effort to slice and dice the government. First, a judge kept in place the temporary ban stopping Elon Musk and DOGE from accessing the Treasury Department's payment system. But mere hours later, a different judge in a different courtroom declined to ban DOGE from accessing any federal data.

Judge Tanya Chutkan, yes, that judge, Tanya Chutkan, agreed there were concerns about how much access DOGE has. But she voiced concern that a blanket ban would -- quote -- "functionally grind the workings of the government to a halt." Instead, Judge Chutkan gave the states that sued DOGE until 5 p.m. tomorrow to file a more limited request. But these lawsuits could reveal a new legal strategy by DOGE doubters. Sue Elon Musk himself.

With me now, former assistant U.S. attorney Jeffrey Toobin. He's also the prolific author you all know and the author of the brand-new book, "The Pardon: The Politics of Presidential Mercy," which just came out this week.

Jeffrey, good to see you. Let me ask you first about these lawsuits because they are targeting not just DOGE, but Musk directly, arguing he has too much power, too little oversight. What do you think? Could this work in the courts?

JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN CHIEF LEGAL ANALYST, AUTHOR, FORMER ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY: You know, one of the things -- you know, Laura, what always matters in courts is facts. You know, what is actually happening. And for all that we've heard about Elon Musk, I think it is somewhat ambiguous what he is actually doing.

And I think it's -- that's very important. Is he giving advice to the president and to other government officials who are then executing his advice? In that case, I think he's going to have a lot of freedom. However, if he is actually doing the firings himself, then I think there might be more opportunity for the courts to say, look, you can't do that in this position.

And I think there needs to be actual fact-finding, a hearing, at least one, to determine what his role is because I think that's going to affect the legal remedy a lot.

COATES: I think, indeed, it will. You know, you're very prescient in a lot of areas, including the timing of your new book, "The Pardon." You frame it around President Ford's decision to pardon President Nixon. I wonder what you believe Ford got wrong and what most Americans still seem to misunderstand about presidential pardoning power.

TOOBIN: Well, you know, the thing about -- that I find so interesting about pardons is that they are an anomaly in our constitutional system. You know, we are familiar with the concept of checks and balances, which is how much of the American government was set up. But pardons are different. Pardons are an absolute unilateral power of the president. There's nothing courts can do about pardons. There's nothing legislatures can do.

And so, for that reason, I think pardons operate like an X-ray into the souls of presidents. And you can see what really matters to presidents by whom they decide to pardon or don't pardon.

And with Ford, you had a man of a great deal of integrity, but not a lot of savvy. And he was put up against his predecessor, Richard Nixon, who had a lot of savvy and a very conniving figure, who managed, amazingly, to manipulate Ford into giving him a pardon even though he was in disgrace out in San Clemente, California at the time. And the story of how their characters determined what happened, it reveals how pardons have worked ever since, right up including to today.

COATES: A really important book, really timely as well. Perhaps you didn't realize how timely it would be, given the breadth of pardons we are now seeing, and they're probably sure to continue. Jeffrey Toobin, thank you so much for joining tonight. The book is called "The Pardon: The Politics of Presidential Mercy."

As federal workers grapple over President Trump's return to the office mandate, one of the most powerful men in the country is going scorched earth on work from home culture. We have the must-hear message from Jamie Dimon coming up.

Plus, major new clues into what went wrong over the Potomac.

[23:39:58] This as investigators reveal what was going on inside the Black Hawk helicopter and the critical message that may have gone unheard just seconds before the crash.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JENNIFER HOMENDY, CHAIRMAN, NTSB: Transmission was stepped on by a 0.8 second mic key from the Black Hawk.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: Just in tonight, accused killer Luigi Mangione has issued one of his first statements through his attorney's website. It reads -- quote -- "I'm overwhelmed by and grateful for everyone who has written me to share their stories and express their support. Powerfully, this support has transcended political, racial, and even class divisions, as mail has flooded MDC from across the country and around the globe."

[23:45:04]

"While it's impossible for me to reply to most letters, please know that I read every one that I receive. Thank you again to everyone who took the time to write. I look forward to hearing more in the future."

Mangione has pleaded not guilty to murder and terror charges in the killing of United Health CEO Brian Thompson. His next court hearing is a week from today.

Also new tonight, we're getting some answers into that deadly midair collision over the Potomac. Sixty-seven people were killed when a Black Hawk collided with an American Airlines jet. The NTSB now revealing an early analysis of the flight data and voice recorder on the helicopter indicates the pilot and her instructor read out two separate altitudes just before the crash.

The radio altimeter also showed an altitude of 278 feet, confirming the helicopter was flying above its mandatory 200-foot ceiling. The crew was likely wearing night vision goggles throughout the flight. More worrying, pilots may have missed a key directive from air traffic control. But there's a caveat. The NTSB chair says this information is only preliminary, and they found -- quote -- "inconsistencies in the data."

I want to get right back to former Black Hawk pilot, Elizabeth McCormick. Glad to have you here to help us make sense of the new information we're learning today. Of all of it, what do you think is the biggest factor that could have contributed this horrible crash?

ELIZABETH MCCORMICK, FORMER BLACK HAWK PILOT: The discrepancy between the altimeters inside the cockpit from the pilot in command, which was the warrant officer instructor pilot, and the co-pilot, which was actually the captain. So, I think that is going to be one of the key critical findings, which was why were they higher than they were supposed to be. COATES: What could possibly explain that discrepancy?

MCCORMICK: So, the barometric altimeter is based and changes based on the barometric pressure, which is why they're looking at the physical evidence of the helicopter, the pitot tube that brings air in, what could have caused the difference in that. And for each flight, it's set based on the barometric pressure of the day of that moment when you take off.

So, it is possible any changes in barometric pressure from the day before if they hadn't been updated. That's one. It could be a calibration issue. There is -- this is all going to have to be closely investigated by NTSB and will be.

COATES: And those investigators believe that helicopter pilots may not have heard the tower's command to pass behind the passenger jet, possibly because the pilots keyed their microphone to reach the tower at the same time. Is there any way to mitigate that or is that just the worst of timing?

MCCORMICK: As bad timing. But they also did not catch an earlier -- there were -- there were two calls that were missed, that NTSB brought out in the briefing from the cockpit voice recorder. Earlier, they did not catch the -- they said that it did not show up in the recording that the Black Hawk pilots did not hear air traffic control saying that there was a CRJ circling. That was not that radio.

Transmission was not received in the Black Hawk cockpit. And part of that is because they are on two different frequencies. The CRJ and the Black Hawk were on different frequencies with the tower and air traffic control.

COATES: Preliminary investigations still pending. We need more answers. Thank you for helping to unpack it all tonight. Elizabeth McCormick, always a pleasure.

Up next, Jamie Dimon goes off on the work from home Zoom culture.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JAMIE DIMON, CEO, JPMORGAN CHASE (voice-over): Don't give me this shit that work-from-home Friday works. I call a lot of people on Friday and there's not a goddam person you can get ahold of.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: We have Dimon's must hear viral rant that's now dividing the internet. I want to know which side you're on. Plus, from first take to first term. Is the Stephen A. Smith for president talk all just hype or might there be something there for Democrats? Scott Jennings and Mike Leon tackle it all, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:50:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: Time to wrap up the week with hot topics lighting the internet abuzz. Scott Jennings is back along with a host of "Can We Please Talk?" podcast, Mike Leon. Glad to have both of you here.

Scott, JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon delivering something of an ultimatum to his employees who are still working from home. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DIMON (voice-over): The people of you who don't want to work at the company, that's fine with me. I'm not -- I'm not mad at you. Don't be mad at me. It's a free country. You can walk on your feet, you know, but this company is going to set our own standards and do it our own way. And I've had it with this kind of stuff.

And, you know, I come in, you know, I've been working seven days a goddamn week since COVID. And I come in and -- where's everybody else? They're here, they're there, the Zooms, and the Zooms donot show up. And people say they didn't get stuff. So that's not how you run a great company. We didn't build this great company by doing that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: I mean, from the White House and Wall Street, this is the conversation. Is working from home dead?

JENNINGS: I don't think it's dead, but it's going away.

[23:54:58]

And I think -- look, Donald Trump won the election. Now, every CEO in the country finally decided to grow up here. I mean, people are taking back their companies. They're taking back our work culture and saying, show up for work and work with your team.

And, you know, I've been in a lot of different professional settings over the years. Always seems to work better when you get people together in the same room collaborating in germinating ideas and fighting for the same mission. It's just -- and having done this with kids on Zoom and having -- also had some Zoom in part of my professional life.

I just -- the in-person stuff is working. So, God bless this rant because I think a lot of company CEOs in America are thinking the same thing.

COATES: I say this as a chorus. All three of us are remotely talking to each other and it seems to work okay. Mike, what's your response, though?

MIKE LEON, PODCAST HOST, DIRECTOR OF STRATEGY AT FREE & EQUAL ELECTIONS FOUNDATION: Right. Well, first off, no better Valentine's present, right, than Scott Jennings and Laura Coates. That's my nightcap here. But --

(LAUGHTER)

-- look, two things can be true at the same time, Laura. As Karoline Leavitt, the press secretary, says, two things can be true at the same time. One, there's nothing like hearing from a multimillionaire CEO as his company made 58.5 billion in net income last year in 2024. Tell us about how we all need to get back in office. That's number one. But number two and more importantly is he is right, he's just delivering it wrong.

As somebody who has worked in product and technology for over 15 years, it does make sense when product managers and engineers are in- person, when departments line up their schedules to come in person. You don't have to do it every day, as we're proving evidence right now, but you do have to do some of it. So, don't confuse remote work for hybrid work. He just delivered it wrong and, obviously, he didn't know he was being recorded.

COATES: Well, we'll see because it has saved some money and not everyone has to be together all the time. But we'll see how it all ends up in the wash, as they say. I want to get to this story that's really interesting to me, especially legendary commentator Stephen A. Smith. He was asked whether or not, Mike, he would want to be president. Here's his response.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

STEPHEN A. SMITH, LEGENDARY SPORTS COMMENTATOR: I have no interest in being a politician. I have no interest in running for office. But if people came to me and my money was right, and I didn't have anything to worry about, and they said, Stephen A, we just want you to be in the White House, because that's the only office I would be interested in, I wouldn't be interested in being one of 100 senators, and I wouldn't be -- I damn sure wouldn't be interested in being one of 435 congressional figures.

But if you told me that I could be the president of the United States of America, I'm not going to sit up there and tell you that I would not strongly entertain that. Yes, I would.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Well, that's not what the offer that usually gets made, Mike, on this point. But I wonder, would Stephen A. Smith, is he valuable to Democrats?

(LAUGHTER)

You read the book.

LEON: Yeah, you know --

COATES: He's reading the book.

LEON: Is he valuable? Well, hold on, Laura. Let me -- let me -- let me pontificate, if I may do, my Stephen A. Smith impression here for you, Laura Coates. You know I was a producer -- JENNINGS: That's good. That's really good.

LEON: -- at ESPN from 2010 -- you know I was a producer at ESPN from 2010 to 2011. You know I happen to know Stephen A. Smith. We know each other. The problem I have with Stephen A. Smith right now, and this is something that Scott has tweeted about, it's that the Democratic Party didn't know how to use podcasters, particularly somebody like Stephen A, right? Somebody that has a platform. They didn't know how to use them properly.

Stephen A needs to figure out if he's going to put the same intention that he did working at the Philadelphia Inquirer covering sports for 25 years and using that journalism degree.

If he's going to use that same intention when it comes to podcasting and doing interviews because right now, what he's doing is a semblance, he's giving hot takes to feed the algorithmic machine of YouTube so he can monetize, but then also, he's doing things like this where, yeah, I may run for office, even though he considers himself a centrist.

So, he needs to pick a lane. But, for right now, Stephen A. Smith, I'm going to get back to doing some reading.

COATES: Scott, what do you say? You don't have a prop, but you can talk, anyway.

JENNINGS: Look, I think the coin of the realm in politics right now is authenticity. It's why Donald Trump largely burst on to the scene and, you know, did away with all his primary opponents in '16. It's how he beat Kamala Harris. It's the idea that you're not just reading someone's script, that you're actually authentically speaking your mind.

And also, what we learned from Donald Trump is that you can sort of create some elasticity in your party and in your political coalition. I mean, we've got a party now that's got everybody from Mitch McConnell to RFK Jr. in it with Donald Trump at the top of the whole thing. But authenticity buys you a lot of capital in politics. And I think that would be true for anybody who ran for president in either party. Democrats have a real problem with this.

Stephen A. Smith comes out, presents as an authentic guy. I've wondered if they don't need to move away from the standard political types and get into something like this. I don't know if he's the right one. But that kind of a communicator who doesn't appear to be just reading the script that was handed him by a political consultant could be really, really interesting in a campaign.

COATES: I'm here for it. I'm interested in it. I'll watch it unfold. Real quick, I want to ask you both very quickly here. Yes or no.

[23:59:59]

If you were Donald Trump, would you be hanging your mugshot outside the Oval Office? Mike, what do you say? LEON: Laura, it's 2025. Up is down, left is right. Hang up the mugshot, don't hang up the mugshot, it doesn't matter. You know, it's 2025. Hang it up. He hung it up.

COATES: Scott, what do you say?

JENNINGS: One hundred percent. The man is a total gangster. I'd put that mugshot up in my office, too. Baller.

(LAUGHTER)

COATES: Wow. Okay --

LEON: Baller is not the word I'd use, but yes.

(LAUGHTER)

COATES: Balling on a budget. I mean, it's a mugshot you can get. Anyway, Scott Jennings, Mike Leon, thank you so much, both of you. Thank you all as well for watching tonight. "Anderson Cooper 360" is next.