Return to Transcripts main page
Laura Coates Live
Zelenskyy Is Defiant After Explosive Oval Office Meeting With Trump; Officials Rule Out Key Theory In Gene Hackman's Death; Trump Reveals Private Blame Game Talk With Biden; Laura Coates Interviews Author Ben Arogundade. Aired 11p-12a ET
Aired February 28, 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]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
LAURA COATES, CNN HOST: Good evening and welcome to "Laura Coates Live." Now, if you needed more evidence the entire world order is kind of shifting under our feet, well, today, you got it, and a whole lot of it.
And now, Ukrainian President Zelenskyy is responding to that epic meltdown in the Oval Office you've undoubtedly heard about by now. President Trump and Vice President J.D. Vance are unapologetic, getting into a very public and very aggressive shouting match with Zelenskyy, an American ally fighting the power that invaded his country.
Now, Zelenskyy, he went back in front of the cameras a short time ago. He did not apologize either.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BRET BAIER, FOX NEWS ANCHOR: So, I'm not hearing from you, Mr. President, a thought that you owe the president an apology.
VOLODYMYR ZELENSKYY, PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE: No, I respect the president, and I respect American people. And if -- I don't know -- if -- I think that we have to be very open and very honest. And I'm not sure that we did something bad.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: But he also admits the Oval Office shout fest did not help Ukraine or America for that matter.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BAIER: Do you think the public spat in the Oval Office in front of the media served Ukrainians well today?
ZELENSKYY: I think this kind -- this kind of spat is -- is -- I mean, this -- this is not good for both sides.
BAIER: Do you think your relationship with Donald Trump, President Trump, after today can be salvaged?
ZELENSKYY: Yes, of course. Because it's relations more than to president, the historical relations, strong relations between our people.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Now when, maybe, if it does get salvaged, is an open question. President Trump seems to be fuming. He says it's Putin who actually wants peace, not Zelenskyy.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: He's dealing with a very weak set of cards. I want immediate peace. President Putin is going to want to make -- and he wants to make -- he wants to end it. And you saw what I saw today. This is a man that wants to get us signed up and keep fighting. And we're not doing that.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Now, the consequences of what happened today, frankly, they are still unfolding at this very moment. And it's no surprise because what we witnessed in the Oval Office was shocking to see. There's actually no parallel I can point to in modern American history, at least in front of the cameras.
The war leader, who has been celebrated as a Ukrainian Churchill by much of the West and supported by this country for the last three years, openly berated by the American president and the vice president.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ZELENSKYY: What kind of diplomacy, J.D., you are speaking about? What do you -- what do you mean?
J.D. VANCE, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: I'm talking about the kind of diplomacy that's going to end the destruction of your country.
ZELENSKYY: Yeah, but --
VANCE: Mr. President, Mr. President, with respect, I think it's disrespectful for you to come to the Oval Office and try to litigate this in front of the American media. Right now, you guys are going around and forcing conscripts to the front lines because you have manpower problems. You should be thanking the president for trying to bring an end to this conflict.
ZELENSKYY: During the war, everybody has problems. Even you. But you have nice ocean and don't feel now. But you will feel it in the future.
TRUMP: You don't know that.
ZELENSKYY: God bless, God bless, God bless, you will not have war.
TRUMP: Don't tell us what we're going to feel. We're trying to solve a problem. Don't tell us what we're going to feel.
ZELENSKYY: I'm not telling you. I'm not --
TRUMP: Because you're in no position to dictate that. Remember that. You're in no position to dictate what we're going to feel. We're going to feel very good.
ZELENSKYY: You're going to feel influence.
TRUMP: We're going to feel very good and very strong.
ZELENSKYY: I'm telling you, you're going to feel influence.
TRUMP: You're right now not in a very good position. You've allowed yourself to be in a very bad position, and he happens to be right about it.
ZELENSKYY: From the very beginning of the war --
TRUMP: You're not in a good position. You don't have the cards right now. With us, you start having cards.
ZELENSKYY: I'm not playing cards.
TRUMP: Right now, you don't -- you're playing cards. You're playing cards.
[23:05:05]
You're gambling with the lives of millions of people. You're gambling with World War III. You're gambling with World War III. Your country is in big trouble.
ZELENSKYY: I know.
TRUMP: You're not winning.
ZELENSKYY: I know.
TRUMP: You're not winning this. You have a damn good chance of coming out okay because of us.
ZELENSKYY: Mr. President, we are staying in our country, staying strong. From the very beginning of the war, we've been alone. And we are thankful. I said thanks in this Cabinet.
TRUMP: You haven't been alone. You haven't been alone. We gave you through this stupid president $350 billion.
ZELENSKYY: You --
TRUMP: We gave you military equipment.
ZELENSKYY: You --
TRUMP: And your men are brave, but they had to use our military.
ZELENSKYY: What about --
TRUMP: If you didn't have our military equipment --
ZELENSKYY: You invited me to speak --
TRUMP: -- if you didn't have our military equipment, this war would have been over in two weeks.
ZELENSKYY: In three days. I heard it from Putin. In three days. This is something --
TRUMP: Maybe you asked.
ZELENSKYY: -- new, in two weeks. Of course, yes.
TRUMP: It's going to be a very hard thing to do business like this, I tell you.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: It only actually went downhill from even that moment. President Zelenskyy was told, you don't have to go home, but you can't stay here at the White House. He had to leave. No rare earth mineral deal was signed, even though that was the whole reason that he was even here. The room where it was going to actually happen is just full of those empty chairs.
And the reaction in Russia, pure jubilation. They may as well be popping open the champagne bottles because one former Russian president is calling Zelenskyy an insolent pig who got a proper slap down. Read it.
Now, you heard Trump drop one phrase multiple times today. Zelenskyy doesn't have the cards, which in Trump speak means Ukraine doesn't have the leverage or a good hand to play here.
Leading us off tonight, David Sanger, CNN political and national security analyst and White House and national security correspondent for "The New York Times."
You have covered a lot of presidents. You have covered a lot of moments in the Oval Office. Have you ever seen this play out in front of the cameras before in this way or even heard about it happening in this way behind cameras and closed doors?
DAVID SANGER, CNN POLITICAL AND NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST, WHITE HOUSE AND NATIOANAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT FOR THE NEW YORK TIMES: Laura, I've covered five presidencies over 30 years in Washington. Never seen anything like this in public. Has it happened in private? Sure, you know.
COATES: Uh-hmm. SANGER: FDR and de Gaulle, Truman and de Gaulle, President Kennedy with his South Vietnamese cohorts. We've seen tensions during the Iraq War --
COATES: Uh-hmm.
SANGER: -- but they always were kept away from the cameras. Word of it sometimes pitched out. What happened here was not only different symbolically. It was different substantively, because as we went into this, the question was, is President Trump basically continuing to side with Ukraine but trying to negotiate a deal that would protect Ukraine's interests or has he flipped entirely over to Russia's side here?
And from listening to this, while he said he was just on America's side, it's pretty clear he's willing to sign any kind of ceasefire, even if it has no protections for the Ukrainians. And that was the core issue behind why Zelenskyy rose to the bait. And he's not without fault here.
COATES: But what do you mean? When you say the bait, and I've heard this phrase used a lot, are you implying that Vance and Trump set him up almost in an ambush to do just what he actually did or did his own actions contribute in some way? What do you think is the more accurate portrayal?
SANGER: We don't know yet whether or not this was sort of set up as an ambush. It didn't have the feel of that as you were watching it. It seemed to just escalate, particularly when Vice President Vance entered the fray in all of this.
COATES: By the way, did that surprise you that the vice president was so proactive in this conversation?
SANGER: Yeah, it did, and it made me wonder whether that was pre- planned or not. It was the J.D. Vance we just saw -- I was at the Munich Security Conference a week and a half ago at the Paris AI Conference. It was the same Vance who was, you know, right up front and out there.
But the real thing it revealed to me, Laura, was this. At the end of the day, Ukraine is just sort of a speed bump for President Trump and Vice President Vance. They're on to a much bigger project, which is --
COATES: What is that end game?
SANGER: That bigger game is normalization of the relationship with Russia, a much larger power. They want the business deals. If they want mineral deals, they probably want them there more than in Ukraine, certainly the oil business. There has been a fondness that the president himself has had for Vladimir Putin that we've never fully understood over the years.
[23:10:01]
Maybe it's just his authority and power. But at the end of the day, Ukraine is a blockade to building that larger relationship. And today, I think Trump sort of emerged in this, saying, well, fine, I took care of that, I basically put him in his place, and now he's going to go off and have his negotiations one-on-one with Putin without the Ukrainians at the table.
COATES: So, this was a pretextual way to get rid of somebody who wanted a seat at the table?
SANGER: Well, he wanted a seat at the table, and I think President Trump was not unhappy to be able to portray him as someone who was volatile enough that he shouldn't be at the table. You heard the president say that even prior to these meetings.
I remember, they walked into this with the president having declared a week ago that he was a dictator who wasn't going on with elections, or you could have said that about Vladimir Putin.
COATES: We'll see. There seems to be some fallout, and I'm putting that mildly when I talk about the way it's being described. You have to wonder if it can be salvaged because there are nations watching for that very fact.
David Sanger, thank you.
SANGER: Thank you.
COATES: Lawmakers on Capitol Hill feeling the heat from the fireworks that played out at the White House. The Oval Office showdown reigniting the debate over whether the United States should help Ukraine. And if so, how?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. SETH MOULTON (D-MA): The president of the United States is a coward who is Vladimir Putin's puppet. The vice president of the United States is a pogue and a coward who is Donald Trump's puppet.
REP. MIKE LAWLER (R-NY): And I think what President Trump is trying to do is bring the conflict to a resolution.
SEN. MARK WARNER (D-VA): If the rug is pulled out and Putin becomes the big winner and forced ceasefire, not only that disaster for Ukraine, but if anybody believes that Putin will stop at Ukraine, that he doesn't have in his eyes the Baltic States, Poland and others, they are not students of history.
SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R-SC): What I saw in the Oval Office was disrespectful, and I don't know if we can ever do business with Zelenskyy again. I don't -- I think most Americans saw a guy that they would not want to go in business with. He either needs to resign and send somebody over that we can do business with or he needs to change.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Here to debate it all, lead global security analyst for "The Washington Post" intelligence, Josh Rogin, and CNN political commentator Scott Jennings.
I keep hearing about apologies, and perhaps maybe it sounds nice in theory, but the idea -- does President Trump actually need an apology from President Zelenskyy to either, A, move forward in his negotiations, or to objectively view how the U.S. should appropriately deal with them?
SCOTT JENNINGS, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, FORMER SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO PRESIDNET TO PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: I don't know if he needs an apology. He needs Zelenskyy to recognize the position that he's in.
COATES: Which to you is what?
JENNINGS: We're their patron. We're their best hope for the killing to stop and for them to emerge from this sovereign and prosperous. And we're also their best hope as a business partner. I mean, all Zelenskyy had to do today was put on a tie, show up, smile, say thank you, sign the papers, and have lunch. That's it. And he couldn't do that. And this followed 10 days of being difficult in private and now one day of being stupid in public.
COATES: At one point, I want to --
JENNINGS: This did not have to go down this way.
COATES: Okay.
JENNINGS: And however you feel about why it started, why it's going on, who's right and who's wrong, we can help them in this and come out okay on the other side, and he's making it hard.
COATES: Now, first of all, I want -- hold on. I want to get to this point. The wardrobe, I think, is a ridiculous notion to criticize him on this notion. I know that's one of the things you're talking about talking about, but I've seen Elon Musk in a number of meetings --
JENNINGS: Okay.
COATES: -- and I had it. But that's beside the point. I might even go there. But the real issue to me is he wasn't -- he wasn't just out there not being spoken to, he was reacting to something. Whether he went too far in his reaction now is another story. But was he antagonized or baited into this or was he just --
JOSH ROGIN, LEAD GLOBAL SECURITY ANALYST FOR THE WASHINGTON POST INTELLIGENCE: Right --
COATES: -- not appreciative of what Scott is saying as being the beneficiary of the United States?
JOSH ROGIN: Laura, I can't believe I'm about to say this, but I actually agree with Scott. And everything that he said was basically right.
JENNINGS: Wow! ROGIN: I know. I'm going to get killed on social media for admitting that but so be it. And the fact is that it doesn't matter whether J.D. -- Vice President Vance planned it or just took the opportunity to bait Zelenskyy. Zelenskyy took the bait, okay? And he shouldn't have.
He made a mistake because as bizarre and horrible that it is that matters of life and death are decided now on the basis of whether or not President Trump likes you and whether or not you're willing to pretend that President Trump knows what he's talking about when he doesn't know what he's talking about, that's where we are. Zelenskyy knew that going in, and people told him that going in. Just get through the meeting and reestablish US-Ukrainian relations on a strong footing.
[23:15:01]
That's all you have to do. And, of course --
COATES: But Josh, even if that meant --
ROGIN: And, of course --
COATES: Hold on. Hold on. Even if that meant -- even if that meant that he had to not acknowledge that his country was invaded, that he had to suggest that the -- that his people somehow, although Trump did talk about them being brave, etcetera, that he had to present a weakness in front of the camera, even in front of his entire country and the world?
ROGIN: Yeah.
COATES: That was enough for you?
ROGIN: No, it's not good. I'm not saying that's a healthy way to run U.S. foreign policy. I'm just saying that every world leader knows, when you're in that room with Trump and the cameras are on, you just say, sure, whatever you say is fine, and then you work it out later. Okay?
And that's what the king of Jordan did. You didn't see when President Trump told the king of Jordan that all the Palestinians were going to leave Gaza. King of Jordan was just, like, all right, fine, you know, whatever. We'll deal with it later because, obviously, that's the right thing to do.
Now, the problem here is that for the Ukraine issue, the villainization of Zelenskyy has become such a matter of like ideology on the MAGA right that, of course, J.D. Vance is going to try and take any opportunity to paint Zelenskyy as a villain, and Zelenskyy fell for it. He fell into J.D. Vance's trap.
And I don't know if it was premeditated. It doesn't really matter. J.D. Vance is trying to kill Ukraine aid. He has been trying to kill Ukraine aid along with Tucker and Don Jr. and a large part of the Trump administration, but not all of it. And he's fighting a faction inside the Trump administration that is actually trying to help Ukraine, and that faction is losing and the J.D. faction is winning. And Zelenskyy played into that unwittingly, probably, but it really has tragic consequences because now, President Trump believes that Zelenskyy is the problem and not Putin, which is not actually true.
COATES: Well, that seems as though --
ROGIN: Putin is the problem.
COATES: But if they're -- if it was a preconceived and a foregone conclusion, based on what you're talking about --
ROGIN: Yeah.
COATES: -- that was there, then in many respects, Scott, what would you have him do? He was supposed to do -- what would have been the ideal scenario and still maintain his integrity on behalf -- again, on behalf of the people of this country who are looking to the president of Ukraine to say, we are fighting, we need to have our pride, and, by the way, we've been invaded by someone who thinks nothing of us, should he have just gone in and said -- swallowed hard and just kept going? That would have been the ideal to you?
JENNINGS: Yes. Let me address one thing. I don't think it was premeditated.
ROGIN: I don't know.
JENNINGS: I think Zelenskyy misplayed it in the room.
ROGIN: Sure.
JENNINGS: And we could disagree about --
ROGIN: No --
JENNINGS: -- J.D. Vance's position on it or agree on it. But either way, Zelenskyy certainly had been briefed on what the right way to handle this was. And all he had to do was walk in there and say, thank you, I'm really grateful to be here, we want to be partners with the United States, we're grateful for your leadership, where's the papers, and what are we having for lunch? That's all he had to do.
And look, the posturing doesn't have to occur now. If he is serious about wanting peace and ending this war, you don't have to keep posturing as a tough guy. Everybody knows you're tough, all right? The Ukrainians are tough, they're brave, they're fighting a much larger country. Everybody knows. The question for Zelenskyy is, can you take off the military uniform and put on the uniform of diplomacy? He failed the test today.
COATES: But his larger point, though, with respect to the vice president, J.D. Vance, I understood his questioning of diplomacy to mean what kind of guarantees you're going to give because there has been, in the past, Putin has made statements to suggest that he will follow through on something and he has not.
ROGIN: Oh, yeah --
COATES: That was ---
JENNINGS: Well, I have a short answer on this one, though.
ROGIN: Yeah, go ahead.
JENNINGS: So, the short answer is the Trump administration believes that if Ukraine goes into business with the United States, that in and of itself is a security guarantee. If your interests become our interests, we're going to be interested in making sure our interests are secure. So, it would have been wise for him to understand the economic deal, the mineral deal, is a security guarantee in and of itself. And he lost sight of that today in the argument.
The big picture here was lost because of an argument in the Oval Office, and that was a total misplay.
ROGIN: I'd just say that that's a shakedown, okay? And his -- Zelenskyy's point was if you're going to shake me down, I want the protection that the shake down comes with, and Trump was, like, no, you can't have the protection. So, no, it is not security unless we say it is a security deal. But that should have been litigated in front of the cameras. That's a problem for another day. But no, we should be clear --
COATES: But doesn't he want -- I mean --
ROGIN: Zelenskyy is right --
COATES: Doesn't the president, Zelenskyy, wouldn't he have, just negotiations, if everything is done behind closed doors and as opposed to saying in front of the camera, there is zero accountability to be able to reference. It's just a he said, he said scenario.
So, didn't he want it in front of the camera in part to say, you're telling me what you're describing, Scott, as in the mineral deal is enough to say, you mess with us in our interest, Putin, you got a problem with the United States, then say that on camera in that moment? Isn't that what his goal was, to say, get it on camera?
ROGIN: And I think A, Zelenskyy is right, B, Zelenskyy is righteous, and C, he failed to read the room, and he did his own cause of disservice by losing Trump, which is not the way that you get American foreign policy on your side these days, right or wrong. So, the system is not great.
[23:20:00]
You have to pretend Trump knows what he's talking about to get what you want. But Zelenskyy didn't even do that. So, now, we're where we are.
COATES: Final point. JENNINGS: You're suggesting that he should have walked into the Oval Office and boxed in the president of the United States on camera. I mean, he's not in a position to do that.
COATES: He said as much.
JENNINGS: And I heard Marco Rubio, our secretary of state, on our air tonight, I believe, that the economic deal is in and of itself a security deal. Zelenskyy should have known that. This is a huge unfortunate miss. I don't know what's going to happen next, but I know we're in a worse place.
ROGIN: I think they can fix it. I think they can fix it.
COATES: Well, glass half full on a Friday evening. I think his point was he just didn't have to get on his knees to do it. Scott Jennings, Josh Rogin, thank you both so much.
Europe waking up to some dramatic headlines this -- their morning. The Sun's front page, "Ukraine Hero Ambushed with the headline "The Fight House." The Daily Mirror, "Peace, Hopes and Tatters." "Shock and war." And the Times, "Meltdown in Oval Office." So, what are America's allies and Vladimir Putin thinking right now, I wonder? Former Republican Congressman Adam Kinzinger standing by with his own assessment.
And later, we've got the new timeline in the death of Gene Hackman as the curious case gets even stranger.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:25:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: America's European allies coming out with a strong show of support tonight for Ukrainian President Zelenskyy following this afternoon's Oval Office showdown. The foreign policy chief of the European Union expressing her support on X and posting these striking words: Today, it became clear that the free world needs a new leader. It's up to us, Europeans, to take this challenge.
Meanwhile, in Russia, they are celebrating President Trump's performance. A senior Russian senator posting on Telegram, "The Kyiv clown played his role of 'president' poorly in the White House and was thrown out for bad behavior and disrespect towards the U.S."
Joining me now, CNN senior political commentator and former Republican congressman, Adam Kinzinger. Congressman, you were listening to our conversation and the debate we were having about how it was perceived, the behavior of Zelenskyy versus Vance and Trump. Where do you stand?
ADAM KINZINGER, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, FORMER ILLINOIS REPRESENTATIVE: I was actually crawling out of my skin listening to that. I mean, Scott, I expect from -- he always has to defend Trump. But Josh surprised me a little bit. I mean, look, this is the freely- elected president, the democratically-elected president of the largest country in Europe. He has every right to defend his integrity, to defend his own nation's integrity, and to push back on misinformation.
Donald Trump continually says, we've given $350 billion. And we haven't given $350 billion. He continues to lie and say, Ukraine has been totally destroyed. It hasn't. It has been heroically defending. We're on year three of a three-day war. Vladimir Zelenskyy had every right to stand up for himself.
And a vice president should never have spoken to a president like that. And, frankly, if we had a good president, he would have told his vice president that. It makes me honestly sick to hear it.
And I'll say really quickly, Republicans have to take Reagan's name out of their mouth because he gave the speech in the Goldwater Convention where he said, we can have peace and we can have it this next second. Surrender. But therein lies the road to serfdom. And that is exactly what Donald Trump is advocating for, is surrender.
COATES: You know, on that point, Vice President Vance, he has not been shy about his views of Ukraine, famously saying he didn't care about what happens to Ukraine. The fact that he did insert himself, not just insert himself, he was proactively leading the conversation at times, trying to compel Zelenskyy to say repeatedly that he was grateful, that he was thankful, he has been that and has said that repeatedly to the United States over time, but he invoked the idea that he had campaigned with then Vice President Kamala Harris, is that the source of the irritation?
KINZINGER: No. There's a really weird thing with J.D. Vance and some of the people he runs with that have this really weird thing for Russia, and J.D. Vance is basically shown his affection for Russia.
You know, with him and Trump, people keep acting surprised. I mean, this is what they've said they're going to do. So, it has nothing to do with the campaign. Volodymyr Zelenskyy did not endorse Kamala Harris. He went to the sitting president, by the way. Joe Biden was the sitting president. There's always a campaign. So, can you never talk to a president when there's a campaign? And he saw where people in Scranton, Pennsylvania were creating 155 munitions shells for artillery to help Ukraine defend itself. It was amazing that he went there.
And only the thin-skinned toddler that sits in the Oval Office, Donald Trump, would be upset by that. There is no other time in -- the sitting president of the United States has every right to take somebody like Zelenskyy to a -- to munitions factory, and they can get ticked off all they want about it. But, ultimately, Donald Trump, people have to go to the Oval Office, what your prior segment was saying, and we have to be really careful because this toddler could -- he could go off and get really upset. That's not a president we should be proud of. That should be somebody that we say, that is not in America.
COATES: So, did Vladimir Putin emerge the victor today? KINZINGER: Yes! Name one time that Donald Trump has ever said anything bad about Putin. He can't even say that Putin invaded Ukraine, and even Putin says he invaded Ukraine. He's -- he's -- they are happy because the Russian economy is about to collapse. They're out of offensive combat power. They're basically trying to hold any ground they can in Ukraine, and Donald Trump is throwing the quickest lifeline he can out there to save them.
COATES: Can Zelenskyy salvage this at all?
KINZINGER: Yes, he can. I don't think he needs to do it by coming crawling in the Oval Office.
[23:29:58]
I want people like, you know, Lindsey Graham, like these congressmen and senators that say they support Ukraine to actually exert some pressure for once, to do your job and actually, you know, defend this country so then it can. Otherwise, Europe has to step up, too. And I think Europe made it very clear in their statements today that they will fill the gap of the United States.
And, by the way, America, if you're excited that we're no longer the leader of the free world and we get to sit back and relax now, the cost this is going to put on us eventually is going to be out- measurable. It's going to be immeasurable, the cost in lives and combat power and everything else we're ultimately going to have to use.
COATES: Adam Kinzinger, thank you.
KINZINGER: You bet.
COATES: Up next, a leading theory in how actor Gene Hackman died. Now, that was apparently ruled out.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNKNOWN: She revealed to me the following information. Both individuals tested negative for carbon monoxide.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: So then what happened? New clues emerging tonight as we learn about that timeline and the new potentially critical evidence that has now been collected at the scene.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:35:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: New tonight, investigators say actor Gene Hackman likely passed away over a week before he, his wife Betsy, and their dog were found dead inside their home. That's based on data from his pacemaker that shows Hackman's last cardiac activity was recorded on February 17th. That's nine days, nine days before they were found.
The community in Santa Fe mourning their loss and asking, what could have happened to the beloved couple? A close family friend of Gene Hackman and Betsy Arakawa speaking of their love on CNN just earlier tonight.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BARBARA LENIHAN, HACKMAN FAMILY FRIEND: Probably never seen a couple that got along and enjoyed each other so much. Of course, Betsy was proud of Gene. Gene was equally proud of her. They were on the same page. She was as clever and witty and fun as he was. They traveled. They just did so much. They were great in the community. Everybody liked them and loved spending time with them.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Joining me now is Santa Fe New Mexican reporter Nicholas Gilmore and distinguished professor of applied forensics at Jacksonville State University, Joseph Scott Morgan. Professor, I'll begin with you. What does that last recorded cardiac activity tell you about this timeline that they're looking at?
JOSEPH SCOTT MORGAN, DISTINGUISHED SCHOLAR OF APPLIED FORENSICS, JACKSONVILLE STATE UNIVERSITY: Yeah, hey, thanks for having me. But yeah, one of the things that you have to consider, I think, because we've heard much has been made in the news about the status of the remains, and that's what we're interested in relative to what's referred to as postmortem interval, which is something that we gauge in the medical legal community as to how long an individual has been deceased. There's been a bit of information relative to the term mummification, which does take a bit of time.
I think the important takeaway here is to try to assess the difference in times of death relative to Betsy and to Mr. Hackman to try to understand if it's possible who may have passed away first.
COATES: That's an important timeline to establish. Nick, I know you've been reporting from the ground there in Santa Fe. The sheriff spoke this evening about what they found and seized from the Hackman's home. What did you find out?
NICHOLAS GILMORE, REPORTER, SANTA FE NEW MEXICAN: So, yeah, we got an inventory log actually this morning from a return search warrant from investigators, and that included a list of different items that they did take from the home that they said had evidentiary value. There were two cell phones, a 2025 monthly planner, medical records, and then these medications, Tylenol, thyroid medication, and Diltiazem, which is, as I understand it, blood pressure medication.
COATES: Uh-hmm. So, in fact, with all those things being taken, is there anything that they are -- the investigators are looking into specifically with that combination of things they've removed?
GILMORE: Well, the sheriff did say that these medications were very important evidence. I mean, that was a quote from him. COATES: Uh-hmm.
GILMORE: But he didn't really elaborate on, you know, whether investigators have a theory regarding the medication or anything like that. He did tell us that there was no surveillance video that was recovered from inside or outside of the home. And he didn't give us any details really on, you know, those cell phones or the planner, the calendar and, you know, whether they got any useful details from those.
COATES: Professor, let me ask you, because the investigator did confirm that Hackman and his wife did not have carbon monoxide poisoning, but we still don't have the results of the final autopsy or toxicology report. So --
MORGAN: Yeah.
COATES: -- how do those all factor in in terms of, one, how would they determine no carbon monoxide even after it has been nine days and also what comes next?
MORGAN: Yeah. Well, a standard test that's run on any circumstance where you suspect carbon monoxide, and I'm talking about things like house fires, people that subject themselves to auto-fumes, that sort of thing, we run a test called a carboxyhemoglobin level, and it gives you an immediate sense for, if we are in dangerous levels relative to that compound, there's a bit of it in the air anyway, anywhere you go, but you have to understand if it's in toxic levels.
Now, that compound with also the standard drug panel that they would be testing for, it's a standard thing that everybody says in every death. It's going to take time, pending more further testing.
COATES: Hmm.
MORGAN: And so, toxicology is not something that's turned around really, really quick.
[23:40:00]
I'm afraid to tell you that they're going to have to wait. Everybody is going to have to wait to see what's on board. We already have some indication of medication, but we don't know whose medication that was, if it was either Mr. Hackman or his wife. So, that's very important as well. And we have to see what's in their system.
COATES: We're going to keep relying on you both. Thank you for your expertise and your reporting. Thank you both. Nicholas Gilmore, Joseph Scott Morgan, thank you this evening.
MORGAN: Thank you.
COATES: Still ahead, President Trump revealing part of a private conversation he had with Joe Biden, and who he says Biden is blaming for the Democrats losing in November. And no, it's not Kamala Harris.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:45:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: New tonight, President Trump revealing new details on just who former President Joe Biden blames for getting bounced from the democratic ticket. Trump telling "The Spectator" that Biden places the blame on former President Obama and former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Now, CNN has not independently verified Trump's claims about Biden's remarks, though we have reached out to a Biden spokesperson for comment.
But Trump's dirt about Democrat infighting does sound awfully familiar from what Biden's press secretary, Karine Jean-Pierre, said earlier this week about life after that disastrous debate performance.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KARINE JEAN-PIERRE, FORMER WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: What was happening with leadership in the Democratic Party and how it was truly -- as my former colleague, communications director Ben LaBolt, said, it was a firing squad, and I had never seen anything like it before.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Joining me now, Michael LaRosa, former special assistant to President Biden. Michael, I wonder, do you believe what Trump said in that interview, that Biden blames Pelosi and Obama?
MICHAEL LAROSA, FORMER SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO PRESIDENT BIDEN: I'm sure he does. I'm sure it felt that way. But I think it would be a very simple view to take that -- to take that point of view only because -- I mean, they were kind of the shield for the rest of the rank-and-file members of Congress who were very angry at the president, who saw their own polling dip, and they sort of stood in the breach.
But I think in the reporting that came out after, the person that most reflects how serious the situation was, was the reporting that came out about Senator Reed from Rhode Island, Jack Reed, who is no drama, very sober, very sober-minded, quiet, reserved, never says a word in caucus, never makes waves, but somebody who has known Joe Biden for 30 years, served with him, has known him well. He advised the president's staff that he should take two cognitivism -- oh, my God --
COATES: Got it.
LAROSA: Cognitive exams.
COATES: Cognitive exams.
LAROSA: Sorry about that. And release the results. But the point is that it was coming from Jack Reed. And that's when you know how serious the situation within the Democratic Party was and how impaired the president's reelection campaign was. COATES: So, talk to me about it now because, in between, there has been that developed trust issue that people have said -- I mean, Republicans have seized on the idea that they believe that the American people were gaslit by a staff that shielded that from you. They're running on that. They ran on that. They now have a trifecta in Washington. So, what do Democrats do about this now?
LAROSA: Look, we have to have these uncomfortable conversations because that's why we're here in the first place. That the leadership or whomever, that the Democrats in Congress, the rank and file, weren't willing to have these conversations with Joe Biden in November of 2022 instead of July of 2024.
Part of the problem here was that for 15 months, the polling -- everybody saw the polling. He was behind or he was even with President Trump for 15 months. And yet they weren't taking opportunities to go on "Meet the Press," to go on Sunday shows. They were turning down network town halls. They weren't doing press avails. Donald Trump was. Donald Trump was doing everything he could to be out in front.
And when you know you have vulnerabilities, you should be showing and telling. But instead, they disengaged. That was their strategy. If you can't do a Super Bowl interview in the year you're running for president, that should have been a sign. And I think it was.
COATES: Well, you know, Republicans were criticized and still are for looking backwards at the last elections and not getting over it, so to speak, although --
LAROSA: Yeah.
COATES: -- very different scenario in terms of January 6th and beyond --
LAROSA: Yeah.
COATES: -- and election denialism. But are Democrats going to be hampered if they are still trying to assess what happened there with Biden as opposed to looking for who their new leader is, who will be on that ticket, and the midterms?
LAROSA: Well, the midterms come first, right? Prelims before the finals. And I think that's a big part of this. Like I said, the polls were what they were for 15 months, and yet Democrats were attacking the polls. We were attacking -- we loved polls. When we were running, we were ahead all the time. Instead of attacking the polls, attacking journalists at CNN or "The Wall Street Journal" or "The New York Times" for their reporting, why didn't we just try to fix the problem? Why didn't we just try -- why didn't we just try to get him out there? Start showing and telling.
But it was the opposite. They decided to undermine the polling, undermine data, and that is kind of where you hear this term gaslighting from, because we could all see it for a year and a half. And, by the time, as Karine said, the Circular Firing Squad came, it was too late. They lost the benefit of the doubt. [23:50:00]
COATES: We'll see what happens in the weeks and months to come.
Thank you so much for your analysis.
LAROSA: You're welcome.
COATES: All right, Friday night, which means you still have just under, what? Forty-eight hours to catch up on all the Oscars hype and drama before the big reveals. We'll start you off next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: Well, this weekend, the Oscars hope to defy gravity -- see what I did there? -- and the ratings slump hitting award shows. Producers are promising fresh faces and powerhouse performances this coming Sunday. And one of the performances will come from the stars of "Wicked," Ariana Grande and Cynthia Erivo.
[23:54:58]
But they're keeping what song they're going to sing under wraps, at least for now. Comedian Conan O'Brien will host for the very first time. Really? The first time? I guess so. And they say they'll have some more surprises.
Of course, all eyes will be on the awards and the suspense surrounding the Netflix movie "Emilia Perez." It has the most nominations and has won several awards. But the star, Karla Sofia Gascon, also faces intense backlash for controversial posts.
Here to discuss Hollywood's golden moment, writer Ben Arogundade. Thank you so much for being here. He's the author of the new book, "Hollywood Blackout: The Battle for Inclusion at the Oscars."
So, Ben, welcome, and let me ask you because you've mentioned that despite all the progress, there are so many glass ceilings that have yet to be shattered. For instance, no Latina has ever won Best Actress. Could that possibly change this Sunday
BEN AROGUNDADE, AUTHOR: The odds are stacked. But the nature of the voting and the results is changing, which is why you see such a diverse list this year. So, we are hoping that that record and also the one that says that only one Black woman has won in almost 100 years will also be shattered tonight. So, fingers crossed.
COATES: Some people -- you mentioned diversity -- are hailing the diversity of the Oscar nominees. Several nominated for the very first time. But there has been a severe political backlash to DEI, and there are grumblings about quotas or too many diversity rules for the Oscars. Your book actually explores past diversification attempts in Hollywood. How have those gone?
AROGUNDADE: It's a hundred years of struggle, if you like, their internal civil rights movement, if you want to call it that, for representation. And from 1927, when the Academy was incorporated, to now, we've seen a big change from the 36 all-white members who began the Academy to the 11,000 members we have now from over 70 countries. Twenty percent of whom are from ethnic minority backgrounds and a third of whom are women.
So, big progress has been made, no doubt, and that's what you're seeing, I think, reflected in the types of films. But it has been a big struggle and it still continues, so there are still inequities.
COATES: In your book, you note that many of the Oscar wins, particularly by Black actors, happened around major historical events, saying -- quote -- "Black artists benefited from the perfect timing. This was not their design. It was simply their fate." What do you mean, and what do you think that is?
AROGUNDADE: So, we like to think that change in society just comes organic from societies, progressing and improving. But what we've seen with the Oscars is that change has happened within the awards from outside events.
So, in 1940, when Hattie McDaniel won for "Gone with the Wind," it was a second World War that was the backdrop to that and the sympathy engendered for African-Americans as a result of what was happening with Hitler in Europe. In 1964, when Sidney Poitier won, it was a civil rights movement that was going on in the background. In 1993, when Lucas Jr. won, it was the end of the Vietnam War and America's love for war films, etcetera. In 2016, it was Oscars so white.
So, these things that have happened outside have influenced the minds of the voters and, therefore, influenced the films that won, which is the thesis I talk about.
COATES: You know, one of the great misfortunes of that thesis, though, is that I'm sure it put the actors in the context as if they weren't extraordinary in their own rights and that it was somehow not earned. But we know that that's not the case, right? These were extraordinary actors and their work speaks for itself.
AROGUNDADE: Indeed. And the question is, it's not about their quality. The question is, how do you get the people who vote to pay attention to quality?
COATES: Yeah.
AROGUNDADE: So, what these incidences illustrate is that you need to put a spotlight on all of these areas in order for their quality and their undeniable talents to be seen and recognized. And that's the important fact. It's not that anybody is doing a favor for diverse groups. The quality is there. They just need to be given the same platform.
COATES: Well, this weekend will be a huge platform. I wonder, quickly, what you'll be watching for?
AROGUNDADE: Cynthia Erivo will be really great if she won. She's a Black Brit. We haven't had one of those win Best Actress, and we've only had one Black woman win Best Actress. So, that list needs to come up to modern standards, for sure.
COATES: Well, maybe she will, in fact, defy gravity.
[00:00:00]
Ben Arogundade, thank you so much. Nice to talk to you.
AROGUNDADE: Thank you. Thank you. Thanks, Laura.
COATES: Well, everyone, I want to thank you all for watching. "Anderson Cooper 360" is next.
