Return to Transcripts main page

Laura Coates Live

Trump Makes Tesla Sales Pitch With Musk At White House; Trump Reverses Course Again After New Tariff Threat To Canada; House Passes Spending Bill To Avert Shutdown; DOJ Official Fired Over Mel Gibson Case; New Video Shows Missing U.S. Student Right Before Vanishing. Aired 11p-12a ET

Aired March 11, 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)

ABBY PHILLIP, CNN HOST: The Black Lives Matter art that became part of D.C. after the summer of 2020 is disappearing. Today, it became a casualty of the president's push to strip what he calls DEI from the country after a Republican lawmaker threatened to withhold funds from D.C.

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

LAURA COATES, CNN HOST AND SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Tonight, a car show at the White House. Donald Trump and Elon Musk make a Tesla pitch on the South Lawn. But a lot of Americans aren't buying what they're selling. Plus, President Trump's tariff whiplash hits breakneck speeds as everyday Americans are asking, what's the end game? And there's new footage from right before a U.S. student vanished in the Dominican Republic. Are investigators closer to finding out what happened to this girl? Tonight on "Laura Coates Live."

You know, President Trump is trying to give a lifeline to the man who gave him a nearly $300 million lifeline during the campaign. How? By turning the South Lawn of the White House into a kind of Tesla showroom with Elon Musk right there to give the sales pitch.

Why? Well, probably because of the company's plummeting stock, which is down nearly 40% for the year, or maybe because of scenes like these at real Tesla showrooms: Shattered windows, damaged cars, what looks like gunshots near a Portland, Oregon dealership, you add in Tesla charging stations burned to a crisp outside of Boston. You end up with Trump putting on a kind of live Tesla advertisement at the White House.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: When I saw what was happening with this, you know, the concerted effort by paid -- I think they're paid agitators. And when I saw what was happening, I said, I want to buy a Tesla. And he shouldn't be -- sacrifice or have to suffer because he wants to help government. (END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: But the story doesn't seem to end with Trump's empathy, perhaps, for Musk. He's also accusing people of illegally boycotting Tesla except it's not actually illegal to boycott companies. And the president took it a step further during his Tesla show and tell.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNKNOWN (voice-over): Mr. President, talks about some of the violence that has been going on around the country at dealerships, some say they should be labeled domestic terrorists --

TRUMP: I will do that. I'll do it. I'm going to stop them. We catch anybody doing it because they're harming a great American company. And let me tell you, you do it to Tesla and you do it to any company, we're going to catch you and you're going to -- you're going to go through hell.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Naturally, violence should be condemned and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. But, you know, most protests against Tesla, they appear to have been overwhelmingly peaceful. And when you make claims that boycotting is illegal coupled with threats of domestic terror charges, well, it makes people wonder if it's a -- maybe it's a pretext to something more?

If the idea is to send a message, lawmakers in Congress are facing one of their own, because Trump is signaling that Republicans who don't rubberstamp his agenda, well, they might face the old primary.

Case in point, Congressman Thomas Massie, the only Republican to vote against the bill to fund the government through September. Trump is calling him a grandstander and threatening to put him out of a job. As for Massie, well, he seems unbothered.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MANU RAJU, CNN CHIEF CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Are you worried about the future prospects with Donald Trump coming after you?

REP. THOMAS MASSIE (R-KY): No. If I go -- if I get on this plane and never come back, I could still be the happiest guy on the planet.

RAJU: But can he beat you? Can he beat you?

MASSIE: I don't know. I doubt it. I think the comments were put out there to keep other Republicans in line.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: So, Massie may not be worried about his job. It's a different story for federal judges because if you're a jurist who doesn't support Trump's view of the law, his allies will threaten to come after you as well. Tonight, there are two judges speaking out against threats to impeach judges who don't bend to the president's will. One of them happened to have been appointed by the president himself. He says that impeachment shouldn't be a short circuit of the appeals process. Their message is likely directed at, well, Elon Musk himself, who has repeatedly called for removing judges who rule against the president of the United States.

Joining me now, Kara Swisher, a CNN contributor, "The New York Times" opinion contributing writer and, of course, host of the "Pivot" podcast.

[23:05:00]

Glad to see you, my friend.

KARA SWISHER, CNN CONTRIBUTOR, OPINION CONTRIBUTING WRITER FOR THE NEW YORK TIMES, PODCAST HOST: Good to see you.

COATES: I want to know what your reactions have been to the fact that the president was seemingly running to Musk's side today. There's a bit of a Tesla sales pitch being made to the American people.

SWISHER: Well, the sales are off, like, a lot across the world, not just in the United States, but in Europe and Germany, like, by double digits, large double digits, as people don't want to buy the cars for a lot of reasons.

One, they don't like Elon Musk. And you're allowed to do that in any country you want. If you don't want to buy a car, you don't like the people who make it, you don't have to buy it. The other is there's not a very fresh line of cars, actually. There's a lot of competitors. And so, that's another thing they're suffering, sort of weakness in that way, and updates.

And they've promised a lot of things like full self-driving that hasn't come to pass. They promised Robo taxis that haven't come to pass. And so, he's doing him a solid by -- doing this ridiculous and very cheap use of the White House to sell cars. It looked like a -- well, I guess it's a new car lot, but it looked like a used car lot.

COATES: It is fascinating to think about there could be other reasons that someone opts not to purchase a car other than perhaps his political stance. Imagine that. But he is intricately tied, of course, to the Tesla, as you well know.

SWISHER: Yeah.

COATES: And then after that display at the White House today, I mean, "The New York Times" is reporting that Musk is now looking to donate a hundred million bucks into groups controlled by President Trump's political operation.

SWISHER: Sure. COATES: It's not actually clear this would be one of Trump's super PACs or a new organization, but that's a whole hell of a lot of money. Why this much and why now?

SWISHER: Well, one, he's doing it so that Trump can control. So, he's showing a level of, you know, fealty, alpha, beta, like, I -- I will give you what you want. The other one that he has, he controls. Musk does. Secondly, he has made up that money today.

The stock finally went up after constant declines over the past few weeks. And it went up a little. It probably made that money already in Tesla stock. It'll probably go down again. It's not going to -- he's going to have to do a car sale every day, you know, essentially to get that stock back up, which would be something to see.

But it's a terrible use of, you know, taxpayer money to do -- to do this, to help a donor who's doing that, but he's doing that so he can make the money.

I think we need to all focus for all the distraction on Elon Musk and the rest of it. They are doing significant things. Always look at the money. His -- giving him money and the ability to primary other people is a cudgel he can use against people like Massie and others. And that's what this is all about, is more money from Elon Musk because Trump is helping him keep his fortune larger.

COATES: I mean, more money, more primaries. Right? That's the name of the game.

SWISHER: That's correct.

COATES: And this is, of course, on top of the quarter of a billion bucks he spent on the campaign, on top of --

SWISHER: Yeah.

COATES: -- the time he is also spending -- I mean, his actual, you know, time capital on the agenda. And I keep --

SWISHER: Yeah.

COATES: -- going back to this: What exactly is in it for Musk? Is it a pure altruism or something more?

SWISHER: No, no, no. He wants power. He actually believes this, I think, in part. You know, I -- I just was in south -- southwest with a lot of people like Mark Cuban and many others. And everyone thinks it's really about power and control.

I would look to AI. He really wants -- there's going to be one or two major players in AI, possibly just one. And Elon wants to be at the front of the line even though his AI company -- well, it's -- you know, it's a strong AI company. It's not at the top. OpenAI is and several others. And so, he wants to be in the front row when Trump is handing out all the -- the benefits from AI and various things the government can do. That's where I -- I think that's his biggest interest.

COATES: Well, it seems like it's apparent. Kara Swisher, thank you as always.

SWISHER: Thank you.

COATES: I want to bring in former campaign manager for Donald Trump, Bill Stepien, also former Obama campaign adviser, Ameshia Cross. I'm -- I'm not going to ask either of you if you have a Tesla because I feel like it's just going to be a loaded question these days. Let me ask you, though, Bill. President Trump did have these Teslas on the South Lawn of the White House. How is that not a conflict of interest?

BILL STEPIEN, FORMER DONALD TRUMP'S CAMPAIGN MANAGER: I think this is more political than financial. I think this is actually about yesterday and the comments on Fox News, whether you believe Musk or somebody else. He either stepped in entitlement reform or entitlement cuts. I think the White House was obviously forced to issue a retraction or clarification today.

I think in a town in which division is at the top of everyone's list, I think this was the president putting his arm around Elon Musk and saying, there's no division, he is my guy, I want to keep this guy empowered to keep doing the job he's doing.

COATES: I feel like every week, we are hearing something, whether it's their joint interview where Musk is saying they're trying to tear us apart, he's, like, I know this, or the comments about President Musk. There seems to be a consistent drumbeat of no, no, I'm really in control, which makes people question, think the lady got protests too much in some respects.

But then the Democrats maybe aren't protesting enough, Ameshia, because here was what they had on their official Democrats account on X, by the way, saying in the post, this is their words, "ugly ass truck." Um, is that the best that they can come up with?

AMESHIA CROSS, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: It sounds like a middle schooler. Absolutely.

COATES: And I have a middle schooler. And it does, in fact, sound like one.

CROSS: Absolutely not.

[23:09:57]

Democrats, it's -- it's not lost on anybody that the lack of a cohesive message, the lack of a message in general is something that continues to evade them. I think that at this point, the focus should be on the effects that are happening to everyday Americans.

We talked about just a moment ago some of those entitlement cuts that are bound to happen because the budget that this Republican Party wants, they cannot get without dipping their hand into those entitlements. They need to start talking to many of the workers and the families in the states that have since lost their jobs and many more that are going to be cut over the next few weeks.

COATES: But why --

(CROSSTALK)

COATES: -- Ameshia? That's the big question. Like, I've -- I've heard you articulate this before. And in your political eloquence, you have said this. Why -- why are we not seeing that?

CROSS: Because I think the Democratic Party has lost -- lost the plot. The idea that change comes from the top down is extremely frustrating when you're supposed to be the party of the grassroots, when you are supposed to be the party of civil rights, when you are supposed to be the party that elevated activism.

Right now, we're seeing a party that is playing games on TikTok and making weird videos that nobody fully understands and is not addressing or speaking to the issues that are affecting everyday people.

COATES: Well, of course, the Tesla, speaking of everyday people, these are not like, you know, $10 trucks. Right? These are not a thousand or 10,000. These are upwards of 40 to 110,000 bucks a pop. So, the idea of the president having the right sizing or downsizing or just firing federal workers and talking about the cost of living, is this too tone deaf to try to perpetuate the message he wants voters to see?

STEPIEN: It was unconventional for sure, to put it mildly. I'd also say, who's the Democrat's messenger? Right? The message is part of the problem. No one can out -- out scream Donald Trump. Right? There was no one out there.

CROSS: Donald Trump also has several messengers. The echochamber is a lot larger across multiple social media platforms.

STEPIEN: Sure.

CROSS: He has got college students. He has got recent grads. He has got people in the Appalachia. He has got people in big urban centers as well. At this point, the messaging is not just one messenger.

COATES: Well, picking up -- but you've mentioned the message being unconventional. I mean, people are fighting over the price of eggs. Eggs. And Teslas are in the back of the president of the United States. This does not jive for many people, that this is somebody who's focused on lowering prices for the average person. Most of whom can't afford a Tesla.

STEPIEN: Not the way I would have done it. But I also think this is in some ways refreshing from what we saw over the last four years where you didn't have this access, you didn't have this interaction, you didn't --

CROSS: But refreshing for whom? The average Tesla owner has a -- has a --

STEPIEN: Access to --

CROSS: -- salary of over $150,000 --

STEPIEN: Access to the president. They didn't have access to our president for the last four years.

CROSS: They don't have access to him now. You know who has access? The people who bought it. Billionaires.

COATES: You're not wrong --

(LAUGHTER)

-- about the access of it. But in terms of what you would have done, I mean, why do this? I mean, why -- why has there been the focus and the prioritization of the Trump administration on things outside of what I thought was a really winning strategy, you said it in the past, of focusing on the almighty dollar for the average person? Why -- why pivot in this way Is it useful to them?

STEPIEN: Useful to who?

COATES: Republicans, to Donald Trump, to those seeking reelection in the midterms, to securing the majority, maintaining it, everyone.

STEPIEN: What has happened this week? All nominees have been confirmed by the Senate, right? In swift order. No issues. No problems.

COATES: Yeah.

STEPIEN: Today, we passed a funding bill in Congress --

COATES: Uh-hmm.

STEPIEN: -- with one defection. So, we could talk about the car show, the South Lawn, all this stuff, but the mechanics of government are happening. The education, big changes there today.

COATES: Uh-hmm.

STEPIEN: So, we could talk about what's happening on the South Lawn, but change is happening. Change is afoot in Washington.

COATES: So, are Democrats distracted by what's happening right now? I mean, you had Ro Khanna, Congressman Ro Khanna, who denounced the acts of violence against Tesla. He had come on earlier in the -- last week, talking about how he was a little bit saddened -- I'm using my own word there -- at other Democrats not standing at other significant moments during that joint address to Congress and not sort of giving an inch. Trump said the same thing.

Are Democrats distracted by things like the South Lawn and missing the mark for the average voter? CROSS: Well, I think that it's important for Democrats to make the connection between the wealth and opulence that is being shown at the White House when many of them still can't afford the price of eggs or the next school supplies for their kids or even know if the school is going to be open next year because of the cuts to the department of it. Those are things that I think that they're trying to hammer home.

But in addition to that, I agree, there are -- there were certain circumstances where Democrats should have stood during that -- during that joint session, particularly --

COATES: His head is, like, swiveling. You're soft. Right? He's agreeing with you. Go ahead.

(LAUGHTER)

CROSS: Particularly the young -- the young brain cancer survivor. My niece actually passed away from brain tumor at six years old. So, it's a very personal thing for a lot of people. And they feel like, you know, you go against Trump when it comes to the policy, but we're talking about American families. And there were a lot of people who were honored during that process, who politics didn't matter. These were American heroes and people who had survived some pretty tragic situations.

COATES: Sorry to hear about your niece. I'm glad you shared that with us, though. Thank you for making sure that we understand these are -- there's rhetoric and there's real people impacted every single day.

[23:15:02]

So, thank you both.

Still ahead, businesses, investors, and everyday people all looking for some sort of crystal ball as to how Trump's trade war pain might end. Well, one of the smartest economic wizards around is with us to help answer that question. Larry Summers is next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: Well, another dizzying day of President Trump's trade war with Canada. The White House still on track to impose a 25% tariff on steel and aluminum on Canada at midnight.

[23:20:03]

After backing off a whopping 50% threat, you may wonder why the White House would do that.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: There's a very strong man in Canada who said he wasn't going to charge a surcharge or a tariff on electricity coming into our country. He's all -- he has called, and he said he's not going to do that. He was a gentleman.

UNKNOWN (voice-over): Will you reduce it --

TRUMP: He was a gentleman.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Well, tonight, that gentleman, as the president calls him, telling his side of the story.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DOUG FORD, ONTARIO PREMIER: It's not about backing down. It's about sitting around the table and negotiating a fair deal because right now, no one likes uncertainty.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Well, joining me now, former Treasury secretary, Larry Summers. Mr. Secretary, thank you for joining. I am curious, from your take, what are the consequence of having these daily policy changes on something as significant as tariffs?

LARRY SUMMERS, FORMER SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY UNDER CLINTON: I think we're doing real damage to our economy. It's a self-inflicted wound. We increase the price of goods like steel and aluminum that are used by companies that employ 10 million people. We make purchasing weapons for our national security more expensive. We make cars more expensive for American consumers.

We hate (ph) a country that used to be among the best friends we had in the world. We hurt U.S. exporters when Canada retaliates. We give a gift to Asia because every time we produce jointly back and forth with the supply chain with Canada, the Asians are getting a big advantage relative to us, as are the Europeans.

So, it seems to me this is pretty much all downside as economic policy and all of the uncertainty where nobody can predict what's going to happen. What do you do when you're not sure what the future holds? You decide it's the wrong time to buy a car. It's the wrong time to buy a house. If you're a business, you decide to hold on to your money and figure out what your factory is going to look like a little bit down the road. So, I think we're taking real chances with our economy in the way we're doing this.

COATES: And, of course, the markets have been volatile as a result of it. And, actually, Mr. Secretary, there have been some financial commentators who suggested that President Trump may want to impact the markets this way to put some pressure on the Fed chairman, Powell, to maybe lower interest rates. How do you think Powell is viewing how all this is happening?

SUMMERS: I hope and I trust that the Fed is going to do its job independently as is mandated by law. And I expect that that's what they will do. It's certainly what they should do.

I got to say that damaging the economy so that the Fed will cut interest rates seems kind of like a crazy approach to managing the economy because at the end of the day, they're going to be behind. It's like burning your own house so you can get some insurance or something. It seems like a very odd strategy for moving the country forward. I have --

COATES: Indeed.

SUMMERS: I think that two months ago, most experts thought the odds of a recession in the United States this year were 10 or 15%.

COATES: Uh-hmm.

SUMMERS: Now, those odds are close to 50%. And there's only one important thing that has changed, and that is the kinds of policies we're pursuing. Two months ago, most people thought the United States economy, the United States stock market was the strongest in the world. Now, it's lagging badly behind many others. Only one thing that's important has changed.

So, I think we're doing real economic damage. There are things that the president is doing that are appropriate. Some of the efforts to reduce regulation, I think, are very much necessary. Some change in our policies at the border are appropriate. But these tariffs and some of what's being done to somewhat arbitrarily slash and burn government spending, I think that's going to create uncertainty and problems that are going to be with us for a very long time.

COATES: An ominous warning. Larry Summers, thank you for joining us.

SUMMERS: Thank you.

COATES: Still ahead, what happens when a Republican repeatedly votes against President Trump's wishes?

[23:25:02]

Well, Republican Congressman Thomas Massie is about to find out. And later, Mel Gibson, yep, that one, and the sudden gun rights request that reportedly got a pardon attorney fired.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: Tonight, House Republicans delivering a budget battle victory for President Trump, passing the stopgap bill that will keep the government open. Now, the Senate must pass it to, of course, avoid a government shutdown. Almost every House Republican voted in favor of it. That is except one, Kentucky Congressman Thomas Massie, a budget hardliner who wanted the funding bill to cut more spending.

[23:30:03]

Now, that has Trump fuming. He's calling Massie a -- quote -- "grandstander" and threatening to fund a primary challenge against Massie. Now, Trump has actually targeted Massie before, but he failed. That may be why Massie is brushing off Trump's threats tonight.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) MASSIE: I think the comments were put out there to keep other Republicans in line. I don't think they were meant to change my vote because they know they can't change my vote. They don't even call me.

RAJU: But he called you a grandstander.

MASSIE: That's an upgrade. Last time he called me a third-rate grandstander. So, I've -- I no longer have that qualifier. I'm just a grandstander, according to him.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: (INAUDIBLE). With me now, a man who knows what it's like to draw the ire of the president, former Congressman Mo Brooks, a Republican from Alabama. Trump, as you recall, rescinded his endorsement of Brooks during the 2022 Senate race. Congressman, thank you for joining us. What -- why would Trump start this fight again? I mean, is Congressman Massie right? Is Trump sending a warning to any Republicans who, well, try to cross him?

MO BROOKS, FORMER ALABAMA REPRESENTATIVE: Well, let me give a little bit of background. I know President Trump personally for a good number of years. I know Thomas Massie personally for a good number of years. If we had 537 elected officials in Washington, D.C. like Thomas Massie, a lot of the challenges that we face as a country would be solved. Congressman Massie is smart as a whip. He understands public policy and the cascading effects. He's honest. He's principled.

And, unfortunately, we've got a president who, quite frankly, in my judgment at least, does none of those things. And so, you -- you put those two together in and politically speaking, it's like gasoline and matches, and you know how Donald Trump likes to play with matches.

COATES: Well, you know, there -- it seems as though Congressman Massie also thinks some of his Republican colleagues are playing with a kind of fire because he says they're only caring about deficits -- quote -- "when we're in the minority." Of course, they're in the majority now. So, are Trump and Republicans backing away from their commitment to cut that $1.9 trillion deficit?

BROOKS: Well, absolutely. But that's not new. If you go back to 2015 and 2016, President Donald Trump told us that he would be able to balance the budget in four years and pay off all of our debt in eight years. And instead, he racked up the worst four years of deficit, accumulated debt and deficit, well over $6 trillion, of any president in history until Joe Biden came along and did a little bit worse.

We've got $36 trillion debt. We've got $1.8 trillion deficit from last year. Over 20% of our tax revenue now is being spent on debt service, and it's only going to go up unless we get people who act like Thomas Massie. So, is there a lot of hypocrisy in Washington, D.C.? Absolutely.

If the Democrats had proposed this legislation, if they'd been in majority, it probably would have been a unanimous Republican vote against raising our debt ceiling by roughly seven and a half trillion dollars during the Trump administration and $19 trillion over the next 10 years. That's not solving the problem, that's making it worse, and we're headed to a national insolvency and bankruptcy as a result.

COATES: I think you've identified some of the frustrations about hypocrisy from the American voters for both sides of the aisle. I do want to turn to our conversation I just had with Larry Summers. I know you were watching that last segment. What did you think of his warning, an ominous one, frankly, about those tariffs?

BROOKS: Well, I have an economics background, too. Of course, not to the same depth probably as Larry Summers. But everything I heard, I agree with 100%. The American economy needs confidence. It needs stability. It doesn't need the kind of uncertainty that's being interjected on a regular basis, and that uncertainty causes people to freeze up. And we need people to risk money in order to create more jobs, and they're not going to do it if we keep hearing the kind of things we're hearing emanating from Washington, D.C.

COATES: So, do you give any credence to this this thought that this is all part of the negotiation? The give and take, the media is reporting on it. But the give and takes of these conversations is what happens behind closed doors and how the sausage of negotiation is made. Do you buy that at all?

BROOKS: Well, if there's consistency to it, then you can have those kinds of public comments. But we've got a president who is all over the map on a regular basis. Yes, tariffs, no tariffs, yes tariffs, no tariffs, yes tariffs, no tariffs.

If you're a businessman, and let's say you're in the steel or aluminum business, you're not going to expand and create the capacity to produce more aluminum and to produce more steel in America if you don't know what the heck the competition is going to look like a year from now if you don't know what the tariffs are a year from now.

[23:35:02]

That kind of uncertainty causes these people to freeze up, and that's hurting our economy.

COATES: You know, Ukraine today, congressman, agreed to a 30-day ceasefire. It -- it put the onus on Russia to agree. If that holds, does this validate Trump's -- we call it -- negotiation approach?

BROOKS: Well, no. I -- I -- I don't understand the idea of, all of a sudden, we're in alliance with North Korea and Russia, which is what President Trump has been doing by hurting Ukraine. His foe is an invader, Russia, and North Korea, which has also supplied troops.

So, we've got to start being faithful to the kinds of commitments that America has made over the decades, and we should not be betraying not only Ukraine, which has been an ally, but also Western Europe, which has been an ally.

And it really creates another degree of uncertainty, albeit this time in national security and foreign policy matters that may encourage other aggressors to be aggressive. One thing that we should have learned about from history is don't ever encourage an aggressor. Don't ever appease Neville Chamberlain. How well did that work with Adolf Hitler and Nazi Germany? Not well at all. Yet that seems to be the strategy.

I couldn't believe it when Marco Rubio and the president have been saying along with J.D. Vance, Ukraine, you've got to surrender in whole or in part, the in part being you've got to give up land to the invader. That's just going to encourage that invader and other potential invaders to invade more. That's bad policy.

COATES: Former Congressman Mel Brooks, thank you for joining.

BROOKS: My pleasure. Thank you.

COATES: Up next, she refused to recommend Mel Gibson be allowed to buy a gun, and she says the DOJ fired her because of it. And, you know, tonight, she's speaking out.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ELIZABETH OYER, FIRED U.S. PARDON ATTORNEY: I said to a colleague, I really think that Mel Gibson might be my downfall. And within hours of saying that, I was being escorted out of my office.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Plus, new surveillance video emerges showing a missing U.S. college student just hours before she vanished in the Dominican Republic.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:40:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: Mel Gibson's gun. That's why the U.S. pardon attorney was fired, at least according to her. Two weeks ago, Liz Oyer was tasked with vetting a list of people convicted of crimes to see if their gun rights should be restored. An unusual assignment for her, but she proceeded nonetheless. Her office came up with an initial group of 95 people that she thought were worthy of considering.

And then came the request. She says that she was asked to add Mel Gibson to the memo. Here is what she told CNN's Kaitlan Collins about that tonight.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OYER: I was unable to fulfill the request because I did not have enough information about Mr. Gibson to be able to recommend that, given his history of domestic violence, he should receive his gun rights back.

(END VIDEO CLIP) COATES: Now, Gibson lost his gun rights after he pled no contest to a domestic violence charge back in 2011. Under federal law, someone convicted of a crime like domestic violence is prohibited from buying or owning a handgun.

I want to bring in the reporter who got the scoop first, justice and FBI reporter for "The New York Times," Devlin Barrett. I'm glad -- I'm going to call you Mr. Scoop at this point in time. She says that she wasn't given a reason for her firing. There were others, as you know, at DOJ who were fired even on Friday alone. Why does she believe Mel Gibson's gun case is ultimately why she was let go?

DEVLIN BARRETT, JUSTICE AND FBI REPORTER, THE NEW YORK TIMES: Well, as this played out, she became more afraid that she was going to be fired over this because -- in part because people keep getting fired, demoted, reassigned in the Justice Department, senior attorneys like her, senior officials like her. And there's a -- there's a bit of a climate of fear and a bit of a climate of uncertainty that anything you do to disagree with the political leadership might lead to your demotion or firing.

So, that's sort of the context in which all this was happening. And then within hours of her saying no a second time, you know, two security guards showed up at her office with a letter saying she was fired.

COATES: I want to play more from her interview with Kaitlan Collins. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OYER: Dissent within the Department of Justice is just being aggressively silenced. People are afraid to speak up. They're afraid to object. I confided in a colleague who expressed the view that yes is really the only acceptable answer to requests that are being made by department leadership. And so, I understood that the consequences were potentially serious for my career at the Department of Justice.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: You cover the DOJ. Does this mean that that yes is the only response and loyalty the criteria?

BARRETT: Well, look, there's a memo that the attorney general has sent out that basically says, you must comply with anything we say. You know, there's a -- there's a long tradition and culture within the Justice Department. If a lawyer feels very strongly that something is not the right thing to do --

COATES: Uh-hmm.

BARRETT: -- they can pull their name, they cannot be involved in it.

COATES: Also, you want to hear that if you're the -- if you are a member of the DOJ. If there is some consternation or reason not to go forward, that's very much part of your duty to talk about that. BARRETT: And I have heard from many people inside the department now who say that they are afraid to disagree, they are afraid to say anything that might get them sideways with the political leadership for the example shown here today, which is that, you know, they could get fired or demoted.

COATES: That sounds like Lady Justice is no longer blindfolded then in that respect.

[23:44:57]

In a statement, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche had this to say. This former employee's version of events is false. Her decision to voice this erroneous accusation about her dismissal is in direct violation of her ethical duties as an attorney and is a shameful distraction from our critical mission to prosecute violent crime, enforce our nation's immigration laws, and make America safe again.

But you actually corroborated her with multiple people. Right?

BARRETT: So, her account is very clear, and there are people inside the Justice Department who confirmed what happened, the way she said it happened.

COATES: Hmm.

BARRETT: The big question here, obviously, is she was not given a reason for her firing. So, the big sorts of like tension point here is, was she fired because of this or was she fired while this was happening? And the people who have fired her say that's not why we fired her. But obviously, when you're in the process of firing lots of people, there's reason to obviously question the reason every time someone new gets fired or demoted or reassigned.

COATES: The plot thickens. I look forward to reading your next scoop. Devlin, thank you so much for joining.

All right, there's a very important court hearing set for tomorrow in New York that I want to point out. It's for Mahmoud Khalil. He is the green card holding Palestinian activist facing deportation over those anti-Israel protests at Columbia. Here's what the White House press secretary said today.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KAROLINE LEAVITT, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: This is an individual who organized group protests that not only disrupted college campus classes and harassed Jewish-American students and made them feel unsafe on their own college campus, but also distributed pro-Hamas propaganda, flyers with the logo of Hamas.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Now, his attorney says her client did nothing illegal. That lead us to a new segment we're calling "Can They Do That?" Specifically, can the administration deport green card holder Mahmoud Khalil? We'll get some more answers about that at the hearing tomorrow. But here's the short answer for now. Theoretically, yes, provided there is a legitimate basis under the statutes.

Now, ICE has not publicly provided an explanation or a statutory basis as of yet. But the White House today said it's relying on a particular provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act that says that a green card holder can be deported if the secretary of state has reasonable grounds to believe that a person would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States.

That determination appears to be wholly subjective as to how one defines such consequences or whether one's behavior rises to that level. Courts are often looking to second guess a termination of foreign policy and elected to defer to a secretary's determination.

And while the Supreme Court has held that constitutional rights can extend to even noncitizens, the powers that the executive holds over issues of immigration and foreign policy could significantly impact those rights.

There's a lot we don't yet know to even evaluate whether a subjective determination of this particular green card holder presents such consequences. But we have questions, like, what specifically did he do during the protests that would rise to that bar? The administration suggests that he has led activities aligned to Hamas. What does that mean and is it specific enough?

Remember, saying antisemitic things about Israel, handing out flyers is not on its face illegal given the First Amendment. Courts have also found that green card holders can be free from deportation based on speech alone. Could the -- can the government, though, prove that their interests override even that? Will a court defer or challenge?

You can bet there's going to be a lot of appeals, a lot of hearings on this very issue. Already, they're wrangling over whether courts in New York or Louisiana, where he's being held, should handle this case. And nine Supreme Court justices may indeed already be expecting to weigh in ultimately.

But the bottom line, based on what we know presently, yes, even with some legitimate free speech concerns having been raised, it is entirely legally possible for courts to extend deference to a secretary of state's determination that deportation may be appropriate. But will they?

Ahead, this is the last known image of a University of Pittsburgh student before she vanished in the Dominican Republic. Was it a tragic accident or something far more nefarious? The latest on the investigation is next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:50:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) COATES: Tonight, new information on the disappearance of a University of Pittsburgh student while on vacation in the Dominican Republic. CNN obtaining the last known images of Sudiksha Konanki.

Surveillance video shows her and a group of friends leaving the hotel lobby and walking towards the beach at approximately 4:15 a.m. on Thursday. An additional image of another security camera shows the group walking the property around the same time.

What happened after that? Well, at approximately 04:55 a.m., six people left the beach, but Konanki and one other man were not with them. That man is now being kept in a hotel room under police watch.

[23:54:58]

But a source familiar with the investigation tells CNN he is not officially detained. And another source tells CNN the man is not considered a suspect at this time.

Here to discuss, former senior FBI profiler, Mary Ellen O'Toole. Among her many cases is the Natalee Holloway disappearance in Aruba in 2005. Mary Ellen, thank you for joining. I need your expertise because it has been five days since Sudiksha was last seen. Are you concerned with how little we still know about what might have happened?

MARY ELLEN O'TOOLE, FORMER SENIOR PROFILER AND SPECIAL AGENT, FBI: It is really very concerning that we know so little about her, and we know very little about really what's being done other than the things that we read in the newspaper about the searches and the dogs and the drones and so forth.

So, at this point, really, frankly, if this case had occurred in the United States because we unfortunately see a number of these cases, there would have been a lot more work done, at least from my perspective.

For example, we would have been developing a very thorough victimology on this young woman to understand what her personality is like. And if any of her behavior, like what we saw on that videotape, was that out of character for her? Because that can give us a lot of insight into what would cause her to hook up with someone she just met, and he looks like he's almost pulling her down that walkway.

So, that victimology would give us a bit much better understanding. Could she have possibly been drugged? So, we -- I don't see that happening in this case.

COATES: I'm assuming you use the term "hookup," you mean that she is connected in some way. We don't know the circumstances of their interaction in any way, Mary Ellen. But that's part of the questions people have. I mean, her own father is asking authorities to widen their investigation to kidnapping or human trafficking. I mean, there are more than 300 people currently involved in the search. Where should their focus be outside of the victimology profile?

O'TOOLE: Well, you have to have parallel courses of investigation. You can't just do one course and look if it was a stranger or someone she met there at that facility, at that hotel. You have to also be looking at, could it have been an accident? But both have to be done at the same time. And then you start bringing in the experts that can pursue each separate line of investigation.

If you do one and then try to finish that, then later start up another one, you can see how you can lose a lot of valuable information and physical evidence and so forth. So, it has to be parallel tracks.

COATES: Mary Helen, could you describe the information sharing you would expect between our own FBI and the Dominican authorities?

O'TOOLE: It would be limited, and the reason that I say that is, and I think a lot of people don't understand this, when you go to a foreign country and something happens to you, you get hurt, you -- you get attacked, you get arrested, the FBI has no jurisdiction in your case. We can't come in and take over in the investigation. We can't call the shots. We don't even do the interviews. When I went down from the Natalee Holloway case, it was my case, I just stood and watched as they conducted the interviews.

So, we're really in kind of in more of an assistant mode in these kinds of cases. And so, what's being done -- the hands-on work is actually being done by the authorities there. The other thing that I think is really important, people tend to think the FBI will come down en masse and that that we will have a large presence. That's not true at all.

COATES: Hmm.

O'TOOLE: There are very few FBI agents that are likely on the ground. If this happened in the United States, I can promise you we'd probably have upwards of a hundred FBI agents, we'd have the state police, we'd have the county police. But in this case, you just don't have that expertise, and that's unfortunate.

COATES: Extremely, especially her family who -- they want her home. They want to know where she is and what has happened. And here's some of what we do know about Sudiksha. She's a 20-year-old student, a junior at the University of Pittsburgh. Described by her family as bright, as ambitious, studying to become a doctor. From your experience, how important are those kinds of details to the investigation?

O'TOOLE: Oh, they're critically important because they give us a picture of who this young woman is. And the first time a case comes across my desk, the first thing that I do is to develop the victimology.

Who is this person? What is their personality? And why were they -- why were they selected? Why were they targeted? Why did they become the victim either of an accident or of a violent crime? And if you have someone that's acting out of character, as I did see in the Natalee Holloway case, what would account for that? What would explain that?

[00:00:00]

So, understanding the victim. It is through the victim that we know more about the offender if it is a violent crime. If it's an accident, the same is true. We've heard nothing about whether or not she can even swim. So, victimology is critical in this case.

COATES: A very important insight. Mary Ellen O'Toole, thank you.

O'TOOLE: You're welcome.

COATES: Thank you all for watching. "Anderson Cooper 360" is next.