Return to Transcripts main page
Laura Coates Live
Pro-Palestinian Activist's Case Sets Up Major Free Speech Battle; Report Card Shows Americans Souring on Trump's Economy; Gavin Newsom Courts Steve Bannon on His Podcast; Judge Sides with Law Firm in "Chilling" Fight Against Trump. Aired 11p-12a ET
Aired March 12, 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 AND SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Well, tonight, it's the deportation case dividing the court of law and the court of public opinion. Is it about free speech or something else? Plus, a new economic report card for President Trump and Elon Musk. We've got the good, the bad, and the ugly. And is Governor Gavin Newsom taking himself into a political future or a political graveyard? There has been a lot of backlash over his conversation with Steve Bannon. We'll talk about it tonight on "Laura Coates Live."
All right, everyone, a pop quiz. Do we have free speech? Yes or no? Survey says it depends. Cue the legal inkblot test here in this scene outside of New York City courthouse.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CROWD: Release Mahmoud Khalil now! Release Mahmoud Khalil now! COATES: Protestors gathering in support for Mahmoud Khalil, the Palestinian activist who the Trump administration is trying to deport.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
Tonight, he is still sitting in an ICE detention facility in Louisiana. But the judge at today's hearing is ordering the government to allow Khalil to speak with his legal team, at least over the phone. He was arrested, as you know, in New York over the weekend for his role in last year's Columbia University protests against Israel's war in Gaza. Khalil was in the U.S. on a green card.
Now, his legal team says the government is suppressing his right to free speech with all of this. They say that it's a punishment for speaking up in defense of Palestinians. Now, the Trump administration and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, they say otherwise.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MARCO RUBIO, UNITED STATES SECRETARY OF STATE: This is not about free speech. This is about people that don't have a right to be in the United States to begin with. No one has a right to a student visa. No one has a right to a green card, by the way.
I think being a supporter of Hamas and coming into our universities and turning them upside down and being complicit in what are clearly crimes of vandalization, complicit in shutting down learning institutions -- there are kids at these schools that can't go to class.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Now, you might be wondering why Secretary of State Marco Rubio is the one weighing in. Well, I talked a little bit about this last night. It's because of this obscure, rarely used provision from the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952. And long story short, it says that a secretary of state can kick out a new foreigner who poses -- quote -- "potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States." That's a mouthful.
And the question, of course, is what are those adverse consequences in the foreign policy realm? Well, in this case, you heard Secretary Rubio alluding to some of it. The border czar, Tom Homan, and White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, they're getting a little bit more specific than he was.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TOM HOMAN, BORDER CZAR: It's a direct violation of our foreign policy objectives. He is -- when you hand out leaflets, incite violence on the college campus, that's illegal.
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: And to be clear, the White House has not given specific evidence that Khalil supports Hamas or that he personally handed out pro-Hamas flyers. We're waiting to find more information about what the allegations are. But an official did show us these leaflets that his group allegedly distributed. They show the former Hamas leader. They show the Hamas logo. But Khalil's lawyers, they're casting doubt on any claims that are coming from the White House.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
RAMZI KASSEM, ATTORNEY FOR MAHMOUD KHALIL: The White House spokesperson says a lot of things that are unsubstantiated, not just on this case. I would pay attention to what they actually, you know, put forward in court.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: That's where the rubber meets the road. Is it not? But part of today's hearing was to determine where exactly this case actually plays out. Remember, he was arrested at his Columbia University residence in New York before being briefly moved to a detention center in New Jersey. He was then transferred to an ICE facility all the way in Louisiana.
His attorneys, they want easier access to their client and to bring him closer to his wife, who is eight months pregnant. Now, she gave a statement to one of her husband's lawyers who read it on the steps outside the courthouse.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SHEZZA ABBOUSHI DALLAL, ATTORNEY FOR MAHMOUD KHALIL: My husband was kidnapped from our home. And it's shameful that the United States government continues to hold him because he stood for the rights and lives of his people. I demand his immediate release and return to our family.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[23:05:02]
COATES: Here to discuss, Andrew Arthur, a resident fellow in law and policy for the Center for Immigration Studies, and Raul Reyes, CNN opinion writer and immigration analyst. Glad to have you both here. I'm going to go with you, Paul, because --
RAUL REYES, CNN OPINION WRITER AND IMMIGRATION ANALYST: Raul.
COATES: -- as we've said, Khalil has been -- excuse me. Raul. Excuse me. Khalil has actually -- Khalil has been moved to different facilities, and his lawyers say they couldn't have privileged communications with him. It's still not clear if he has been charged with any crime. Is this the -- the normal process for a deportation case and, of course, that limited access?
REYES: No. To be -- to be very clear, this is not normal process for a deportation case in the immediate aftermath of a detention. It's not uncommon for people to be moved around the country, but so quickly without providing Mr. Khalil access to his attorney. That is unusual.
And -- and just to be clear, the government is citing this portion of the Immigration and Nationality Act, but the reason that that provision, as you mentioned, is so infrequently used is because it conflicts with our First Amendment right to freedom of speech. That is a right that is guaranteed to noncitizens as -- as well as U.S. citizens. Mr. Khalil as well is entitled to due process. That, I think, is what is so troubling to people here.
Regardless of what your views are on -- on Israel, Gaza or Palestine is that we seem to be witnessing a kind of erosion of First Amendment rights in real time.
COATES: And, Andrew, secretary of state, to Raul's point, I mean, according to this, can sort of unilaterally make an immigration decision. It hinges on that phrase, potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences. Is there any insight -- albeit the subjectivity of this, is there insight into what exactly the adverse foreign policy consequences would be in Khalil's case?
ANDREW "ART" ARTHUR, RESIDENT FELLOW IN LAW AND POLICY, CENTER FOR IMMIGRATION STUDIES: Yeah, you know, it's interesting, Laura, because, you know, you quite aptly noted that provision last night. I think I was the first -- first person to conclude that that was going to be the ground of removal that they were going to bring against them.
Now, it's important to note that the Immigration and Nationality Act also says that those serious foreign policy concerns can't be based upon speech or activities that would be lawful in the United States. Now, there's a caveat to that because if it is lawful in the United States, the secretary of state can issue a decision that finds there would be a compelling compromise of the foreign relations of the United States.
Mr. Khalil is going to have an opportunity to present his case in court. And probably, if I had to make a guess, what he's going to say is, everything that I did, all of my activities, all of my actions, were lawful in the United States and, therefore, this provision doesn't apply to me.
And, you know, I read up in advance of -- you know, during this case in advance of the interview tonight, and the more that I read about what various people say that Mr. Khalil has done, the less that I actually know. The good thing -- the good news for the United States and for Mr. Khalil is that this will be, you know, adjudicated in the court of law, not the court of public opinion, which is what has happened so far.
So, this case isn't ended. He does have due process rights. He will have the opportunity to present his case in court. And I think we're going to find a lot more out about this case as it goes along.
COATES: And yet, I can't seem to get over this idea, Raul. You know full well that courts are always engaged in a kind of balancing test between --
REYES: Uh-hmm.
COATES: -- the government stated interest in something and then the personal interest, and how they balance whether they can, in fact, suppress or infringe on someone's rights, foreign policy, immigration or areas the courts often defer. And Secretary of State Marco Rubio says that Khalil's case is not about free speech.
REYES: Uh-hmm.
COATES: And says he says it's about noncitizens not having a right to be here or a sort of entitlement. What's your response to that?
REYES: Well, one -- one thing that is legally sound that is not at issue is -- is -- is, again, the fact that noncitizens, especially legal -- lawful permanent residents like Mr. Khalil, when it comes to the First Amendment, they have the same rights as the rest of us. And let's -- let's look at the government's case so far as what we know of it. They have not alleged that he occupied buildings. They have not alleged that he was responsible for the destruction of property. They have not alleged that he directly incited anything.
So, again, this is the most that his press secretary is saying -- putting forward, is that he may have distributed literature or made postings on social media. It is very hard to square that with removal -- revocation of a green card, which no matter what, how -- how this plays out, still will ultimately have to go before an immigration judge. And the fact is there are many people situated like Mr. Khalil.
[23:09:55]
We have about 13 million lawful permanent residents in the United States, one million foreign students here on visas, and this to me seems to be a test case of potential executive overreach into what are their rights. And I -- I would say that all Americans should be concerned about this because this type of encroachment on our civil liberties impacts all of us.
COATES: That's -- that's going to be the crux of the issue here. Right? That -- what his actual actions are. But then you go against, Andrew, that subjectivity of who gets to determine what those actions are and will they see the light of day. And the White House says that Khalil was part of a group that distributed flyers with the logo of Hamas, another -- quote -- "pro-Hamas propaganda."
When you look at the allegation that the group may have done something, but they have seemingly said that he has encouraged or somehow led the group, what is the tension you see in him being able to make his case to stay?
ARTHUR: Well, that's really going to be the issue. The issue is going to be what role he played in what I believe is called the Columbia University Apartheid Divest movement and what activities that CUAD actually engaged in, and to the degree that it has incited terrorist activity were alternatively infringed on the rights of students, other students, to get education to Columbia University.
It's important to note, Laura, that about 36.2% of all students at Columbia University are foreign students.
REYES: Hmm.
ARTHUR: And the way in which those students and all students at all universities in the United States are treated has a direct impact on the foreign relations of the United States. There's a principle, I'm sure Raul will agree with me, called reciprocity.
COATES: Uh-hmm.
ARTHUR: Basically, we treat foreign nationals the way that they treat our citizens when they go abroad and become foreign nationals there. So, you know, to the degree that there is, you know, threats against individuals that they're unable to go to class, that school buildings are taking over, those all may be issues that play directly into the foreign policy determination that Secretary of State Rubio has made.
Again, all of this is going to be argued in court. We're going to have the opportunity to make this. The one thing that I would beg all of your listeners and all Americans to do is to understand that we do have a legal system. We do have due process in this country. All of these issues will be resolved in the court of law.
REYES: And -- and, Laura --
COATES: Oh, we should have those. Go ahead.
REYES: Laura, these issues will certainly be reserved -- resolved in the court of law. But meanwhile, Mr. Khalil is in immigration detention 1,300 miles from home, he hasn't had proper access to his attorneys, and it could be weeks before his case is actually adjudicated on the merits.
(CROSSTALK)
COATES: -- passes prologue. It passes prologue on the idea of how the length of people who are often in these detention facilities waiting their immigration hearings. It could be many more than just weeks as well.
REYES: Right. COATES: Andrew Arthur, Raul Reyes, thank you so much.
REYES: Thank you.
COATES: I don't know why. I know you. I don't know why I keep calling you Paul. Ignore this, Raul. Thank you so much.
REYES: Thank you.
COATES: With me to talk through the political fallout, Republican pollster Frank Luntz and Democratic strategist and former senior adviser for the Bernie Sanders presidential campaigns, Chuck Rocha. Glad to have you both here.
I mean, Chuck, there are some House Democrats that are releasing and have released a letter that is demanding for Trump to drop this pursuit essentially and of effort against Khalil. But you know what? Only 14, just 14 Democrats have signed it. Why?
CHUCK ROCHA, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST, FORMER SENIOR ADVISER FOR BERNIE SANDERS'S 2016 AND 2020 PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGNS: There's a number of reasons. One is that the Jewish lobby is very strong in the Democratic Party and Republican Party, and they don't want to see ads when it gets them in their own primary. It's always about politics and money to begin with.
Second of all, it's an issue out there in the electorate where folks don't really understand it. They understand that there are illegal -- quote, unquote -- "immigrants" that we want to get rid of. They understand that there was a disturbance at Columbia. People can't have the time in their day to put those two together. But when Democrats talk about this, they should be talking about the First Amendment. There are lots of things that go on every day that I disagree with, but people have the right, and they have the right to say what they need to say. I think this is one of the examples that Democrats will use.
COATES: What's your perspective on it, Frank?
FRANK LUNTZ, POLLSTER AND COMMUNICATIONS STRATEGIST: There's free speech, which is 90% support. There are protests, which about 70% support, the right to protest. Then when it comes down to hate, it drops down to 20%. And when it's violence, it's at 10%. Hamas is a violent organization. They preach violence. They killed Israelis by the hundreds, thousands. And the public does not support them.
This one individual, we don't know what he did, we know what he said, we know what he argues for. The public simply wants universities to be places of learning. They do not want to take away someone's right to protest. I want to be clear about that.
But when the protest crosses over into either hate speech or into calls for violence in Colombia, it was violent. It was awful a year ago.
[23:14:57]
The public would say, enough, let's get this -- let's get him out, and let's bring peace back to the campus.
COATES: And yet, to play devil's advocate, there has been a lot of litigation, including when there has been particularly what we call hate speech when the Klan has marched through areas of the country and normally very liberal organizations have supported their right to do so. Almost quoting Voltaire. Right?
The idea of I can be admittedly opposed what you want, but I'll fight like hell for you to say it is the idea of targeting this particular person as opposed to criminal conduct and charges against others who participated. Does that suggest this is a pretext or something more?
ROCHA: I think it shows that something could be coming. Let's take you back to January 6 when the president would tell us he had the right to stand there and tell people to go to the Capitol and let their voice be heard. Some could interpret that as violence, but that still was his right under his right to do that.
So, like, you can't have it both ways. You got to pick one side or the other. People who really care about this in the polling that I do in 20 congressional districts and three Senate races that I worked in last year are the ones who already have a Donald Trump flag at their house or on their boat or couldn't find Israel on a map right now. I'm just saying --
COATES: So, Democrats, though, are they being consistent in the fact that they have been condemning people who have silenced voices before, but only 14 signed on to this letter? I'm not saying that the content of whatever he's accused of having done, which we don't know the specifics of, is something short of egregious, but why don't we hear more from Democrats on this issue?
ROCHA: The reason you see me smiling is because I'm one of those rare people who still run campaigns every day for a living. And there's one thing all Democrats have in common, is they're very cautious. It's like they're walking around with natural glycerin, and they don't get nowhere near this. I promise you their consultants are saying, you shouldn't be on that letter, you should be nowhere near this, there's no way good for us here.
COATES: Well, Republicans are, Frank -- I mean, you've got most Republican lawmakers who are in lockstep with Trump. We know that. But you also have a few surprising dissenters. You have people like Ann Coulter who has asked if the arrest of Khalil has violated the First Amendment. How will this play among the Republican voters?
LUNTZ: The Republican voters are extremely pro-Trump. And yet it's not about ideology, it's about a personality, it's about the change that he wants to bring to America. And on an issue like this, Republicans don't support violence. They don't support what led to women getting beaten up, what led to Jewish students either coming out of their classrooms and getting accosted or simply staying in their dorms.
And that is something and it's -- we see it in the reaction, perhaps. Perhaps, it's an overreaction. But it's the reason why the public wanted so much change, why they voted for Donald Trump in the first place. Stability, safety, security. These are common sense issues, not ideological. And those people who voted for Trump don't want the hysteria of Columbia or USC or what happened in other universities because it's not limited to Columbia.
COATES: Uh-hmm.
LUNTZ: They just want a little bit of peace and quiet. You want to oppose something, go ahead, but not with hate and not with violence.
COATES: Well, you know, this is going to be the conundrum because the First Amendment infringements are judged by whether you are judging the content of the speech and the substance of the speech, not just the time or the place or the manner that you do so. More on this ahead. Stand by, guys.
Still ahead, Trump has shrugged off the ugly side, ugly slide on Wall Street all week long, speaking of stability. There's a different set of numbers we got today that may be much harder for him to ignore. Let me explain what I mean next.
And later, a game of chicken on Capitol Hill begins as Senator Schumer says Democrats will reject a bill to avoid that shutdown. Will the strategy actually work?
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:20:00] (COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: Remember those promises of an economic boom?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: So, when I went, I will immediately bring prices down starting on day one.
They think Trump is going to get elected. That's the only reason our economy is good (ph).
(APPLAUSE)
That's the only reason the stock market is up.
When I'm in the White House, the Biden economic bust will quickly be replaced with the Trump economic boom.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Well, we're not at day one. We're nearly two months into his second term. And an early report card is, in fact, out. And Americans are sour on his handling of the economy.
A new CNN poll is showing Trump's economic disapproval at an all-time high of 56%. That was worse than any time, by the way, any time during his first term. Frank Luntz and Chuck Rocha, they're back with me now. We are also joined by Semafor's White House correspondent, Shelby Talcott.
This is fascinating. I want to go to you, Frank, on this because the economy is the number one priority we see across polling boards all the time for American voters. And the president's number where he usually seems to thrive have taken a heck of a hit. So, is -- is this a red flag that he will notice? Is not -- is it an opportunity to course correct? What?
LUNTZ: It's really not the economy. It's not even inflation. Mhmm. It's affordability. How much it costs for food and fuel --
COATES: Uh-hmm.
LUNTZ: -- housing and health care. And, in fact, when we asked the question within the last couple weeks, affordability beats the economy by almost three to one. So, that's -- that's a precise mark.
And the negative ratings are based on a simple issue that I don't think this administration gets or understands fully, tariffs. They have not made the case for why it's necessary. And they go in and they come out. He says he's going to do it, and then he's not.
Americans do not want to be put at a disadvantage, and they want to fight back against companies, that countries that are trading against them in unfair ways. But they don't understand why you put them in and take them out, put them in and take it out. [23:25:00]
And they want make sure that it's not going to affect their bottom line. The mission is correct, the communication is not.
COATES: Well, that's for the devils in the details, Shelby. I mean, given the market, given that back and forth of the tariff whiplash, what's happening behind the scenes at the White House?
SHELBY TALCOTT, WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, SEMAFOR: Well, behind the scenes, genuinely, the administration is defending its actions. I actually have -- I was asking somebody close to the president earlier about, you know, what you actually think of what's going on? I have an interesting message. This person said it's well worth it, these numbers that are you're seeing that are going up and down, and they added that the faster, the better because, of course, president only has one term left.
And what I thought was interesting was they said the sooner this ends and normalization returns, the better we will do in the midterms. So, I thought that was notable because they clearly are looking at a marker of when to become concerned about this, and it's closer to the midterms. That's what they're looking at.
Right now, though, they're defending their actions, and they're saying essentially, this is what Donald Trump promised to do, and it needs to be done. And, basically, short term pain for long term gain.
ROCHA: Let me back up and say that this is the reason Donald Trump got elected. Take it from somebody who worked in so many of these races. I saw it firsthand, and it was our own fault. When you went into these congressional races, some of which we flipped from Republican to Democrat, some we did not, in every one of those, we were under polling, what the president's numbers were like, and it was what exactly Frank said about affordability.
But let's take that a step further. Yes, Donald Trump won, but he got less votes overall than anybody else on the ticket. So, he got majority, less voted for somebody else.
But the other fact of that is that if you really look and you dig into those numbers, that Republicans who voted for him, not majority of them, but like 15%, not an exact number, Frank, they were just tired of not being able to afford things. And they didn't like Joe Biden. They thought he was old and weak. They were willing to give Donald Trump a chance to return back to what they remembered four years prior.
COATES: Yeah. There's a CNN poll that shows aside from the idea of affordability, there's also the idea of Elon Musk and their views about him. And I want to put it on the screen for everyone because it's showing that most Americans view Elon Musk negatively. Fifty- three percent, by the way, to 35% favorability.
And -- and Frank, you recently spoke with a group of Democrats who -- who voted for Trump, and here's what some of them told you about what they think. Listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNKNOWN: I think he's straight forward. He admits mistakes, which is unusual, and I like that about him.
UNKNOWN: I believe he's a great businessman, but I also question his political intellect.
UNKNOWN: I think the president is using him as a puppet.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: So, is Musk impacting his own -- Trump's favorability? Is he becoming a kind of liability? How do you view this?
LUNTZ: It's both. And he's an asset when it comes to business skills. He's a liability when it comes to communication. I've met Elon Musk a couple times, and he doesn't care about language. He's right at it. He says what he wants to say. He says what he means, means what he says.
The problem is that he doesn't understand or fully appreciate that these are real people who are losing their jobs. These are families who've been -- who've worked hard, played by the rules, and they're getting notices that they're no longer employed. And he's doing it in a way with a chainsaw that alienates people.
COATES: Uh-hmm.
LUNTZ: There are a lot of Democrats, literally millions of Democrats, who voted for Trump because they had enough, and they thought that the Democrats were not going get us out of this problem. They don't like what Trump says, but they agree with what he's trying to do up to a point. And there's a breaking point. And Elon is sometimes on the other side of that.
So, I want to to give you a direct answer. What Elon is trying to do has majority support. How he's actually doing it does not.
COATES: Well, that's going to be the key. I mean, the idea does the end justifies the means -- I mean, the idea of the vehicle itself. I don't think anyone disagrees with the premise that you want to do away with waste and fraud. That makes sense. But how you do it, of course, is where the conflict is. And behind the scenes in the White House, is Trump feeling that heat on Musk or the idea of that tension between what to do and how to do it?
TALCOTT: Well, certainly. And we've seen -- we've seen indications of that publicly. We saw -- of course, we heard about the private blow up with Cabinet officials. That was one of the issues. Right? How these cuts are being implemented.
But also, in recent days, we've seen Donald Trump come out and publicly defend Elon Musk. He was with -- he did the Tesla event with him just the other day. Part of that was reaffirming his support for Elon Musk. And what's also interesting is, in recent days, Donald Trump has sort of added a line in his script where he has repeatedly begun saying, we have to do these cuts. These cuts have to happen, but we have to be cutting the right people, and we have to be cutting the right agencies. And so, that's -- that's sort of a shift from a month and a half ago.
So, I do think there's recognition that while the administration is firmly behind what DOGE is doing and that a vast majority of the government needs to be cut, it needs to be done the right way.
[23:30:06]
ROCHA: The midterm elections are less than 18 months away. There are 40 congressional seats that were won or lost by plus or minus five points. The American people now are waking up to Elon Musk. He's not popular in any place that we go right now because he doesn't know how to talk about it. He's the richest person in the world, and Americans now are starting to think, maybe these really rich people aren't really care that much about us because I can promise you none of my prices are going down.
TALCOTT: And July 4, 2026, that was the date that one person gave me on Donald Trump has to have mostly good news by that date, is -- is the timeline that --
ROCHA: I'm already running ads.
(CROSSTALK)
LUNTZ: I would challenge you just slightly --
COATES: Yeah.
LUNTZ: -- which is Labor Day. On Labor Day, they make the decision of what they're going to do. And same thing happened in 2024. So, I -- I push it back two months. And I would not be judging anything right now because it's too early. We just got started with this.
ROCHA: It's a good day because we celebrate labor on that day.
COATES: Well, D.C. pushing back a date. Unheard of.
(LAUGHTER)
Thank you, everyone.
Up next, Democrats face a major unity test as they vow to vote against a bill to avert a shutdown. Are they actually going to hold the line? And Governor Gavin Newsom inviting Steve Bannon to his podcast in a political gamble that not everyone is so sure is going to pay off. Congressman Eric Swalwell standing by next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:35:00] (COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: Well, we saw the strangest of bedfellows on a new podcast, the current sitting governor of the most populous state in America and vocal Trump critic, Governor Gavin Newsom, and conservative firebrand, Steve Bannon.
And his final two years as governor, Newsom is eager to feature conversations with the leaders of the MAGA movement with the hopes, apparently, of reaching across the aisle.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GOV. GAVIN NEWSOM (D-CA): I want to take this opportunity to sort of, you know, go back a little bit and talk about your history, a little bit about your motivations, and where you see this country.
STEVE BANNON, FORMER WHITE HOUSE CHIEF STRATEGIST: The purpose I want to do this is I want to convert you to be a tariff guy also. This is -- this is part of the process to -- to unwind you from being a globalist, to make you a populist nationalist. It's a long journey. It's a long journey, but I think you'll get there.
NEWSOM: This is part of the deprogramming, is it?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Is it? Well, Bannon's invite to the podcast has triggered a lot of backlash, including from former Republican Congressman Adam Kinzinger.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ADAM KINZINGER, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, FORMER ILLINOIS REPRESENTATIVE: Bannon is the one that says you need to flood the zone with shit. And because Gavin Newsom wants to run for president and thinks he's going to be this healer, he brings on this nationalist. Many of us on the right sacrificed our careers taking these people on, and Newsom is trying to make a career with them.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Joining me now, Democratic congressman from California, Eric Swalwell. Congressman, welcome. Glad to see you. I -- I -- I'm curious about your assessment of this decision. Should Governor Newsom be giving someone like Steve Bannon, who has been known as a conspiracy theorist, a flame thrower -- thrower, a platform?
REP. ERIC SWALWELL (D-CA): He can talk to whoever he wants to talk to. I interviewed Steve Bannon once as well --
COATES: Uh-hmm.
SWALWELL: -- but it wasn't because I wanted to learn anything from him that would be useful in our discourse. It's because he was helping to run the Trump campaign, and I wanted to know what he knew about Donald Trump taking help from the Russians.
So, it was a much different interview, and I found Bannon, frankly, to be like the joker. He's quite destructive, quite dishonest, and I don't think we're going to get anything out of that.
The people I'm talking to, and I was in Missouri two weeks ago, and I was in Boise, Idaho this past weekend, and I'll be in Tampa, Florida next week, are, you know, Republicans who are affected by the tariffs, affected by the cuts, people who are in this Trump slump.
One man in Missouri named Dennis runs a health care company. He told me he has owed millions of dollars for services he performed for USAID, and he had to lay off a significant amount of his workforce. A Republican, never been to a political event in his life, and he just wanted his government to honor its deals and make his life better.
So, those are the folks I'm talking to. But again, he's the governor of California. He's clearly fearless. He has gone on Sean Hannity before. He has debated Ron DeSantis. I -- I just think we can learn a lot more from people who are not Steve Bannon or Charlie Kirk.
COATES: Well, certainly, as a president of the people, you want to hear from the people. But some of the people, and I'm using a general term, they agree with some of the things that Steve Bannon has said. Is there an issue with the governor, Gavin Newsom, as you say, hearing or airing that particular line of -- of logic, whether you agree with it or not? What's your -- what's your opinion of that?
SWALWELL: Yeah. I mean, Steve Bannon is, to me, an arsonist who doesn't contribute to our dialogue. You know, I'm -- I'm the son of two Republicans. I have to go on a rival network of yours if my parents are going to see me on T.V. So, I -- I was raised around this. My wife is from Southern Indiana.
[23:40:00]
My brothers, you know, are police officers. I -- I know this culture. I respect it. I understand it. But I -- I think we can learn a lot more talking to folks, you know, who are convertible. I don't think Steve Bannon is going to help us cut our time in hell in half by winning the midterms in 2026. And to me, that's the most imminent challenge we have right now, is getting out of this hell and winning the midterms.
COATES: Well, I'll be curious to see what -- what role Newsom will play in the future of either shutting down false claims of, you know, stolen elections or otherwise or whether he will just be a sounding board for information. We'll have to wait and see.
But for now, the clock is ticking to avert a government shutdown. Senator Schumer says that Democrats are ready to block the House spending bill. Will they hold the line in the end, do you think?
SWALWELL: Well, we shouldn't fund Musk's government. We also shouldn't accept any trap that Democrats are shutting down the government. You know, Republicans, they own the government. Donald Trump says he has a mandate.
And they have been shutting down the government for the last couple weeks. You know, when you get rid of FBI agents who protect us from terrorism, you're shutting down the government. When you get rid of bird flu monitors as egg prices are going up, you're shutting down the government. And when you get rid of CDC scientists as measles rages across our country, you're shutting down the government.
My only issue with what senator Schumer said, he says he wants 30 more days to negotiate a bipartisan agreement. That's a process argument. Americans don't want a process argument. They should only get 30 days because we don't trust them. It should be a probationary budget until Donald Trump shows that he will honor the spending that has already been authorized that keeps us safe and protects our healthcare and retirement guarantees.
COATES: Just hours away for what the ultimate deadline will be. Congressman Eric Swalwell, thank you
SWALWELL: My pleasure. Thanks, Laura. COATES: Up next, what could "Alice in Wonderland" have to do with the fight between President Trump and a law firm that he's trying to, well, punish? Quite a bit, actually. I'll tell you why next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:45:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: Tonight, a legal victory for a Washington law firm that President Trump called dishonest and dangerous. The firm, Perkins Coie, suing Trump over his executive order suspending the firm's security clearances and access to federal buildings. It has called the order a -- quote -- "direct and imminent threat to their ability to represent clients." A judge today halting part of that executive order.
Now, Perkins Coie represented Hillary Clinton in 2016. It is also involved in election litigation that Trump opposed. That may be why Trump is targeting the firm. The federal judge, Beryl Howell, called his order punishment for being disloyal, adding -- quote -- "This may be amusing in 'Alice in Wonderland' where the Queen of Hearts yells, 'Off with their heads!' at annoying subjects and announces a sentence before a verdict. But this cannot be the reality we are living under."
With me now, CNN legal analyst Elliot Williams. Glad you're here, my friend, because that ruling was certainly not pulling any punches. Do you agree with this interpretation that this was retribution --
ELLIOT WILLIAMS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: Yeah.
COATES: -- by Trump?
WILLIAMS: Yeah. I think it's a few things where she's correct. I think, one, getting in the way of clients of Perkins Coie and their ability to seek the representation that they want is problematic. Two, Perkins Coie doesn't really have a right to represent anybody. You know, people transact with them, but they are being impaired in their ability to do their jobs. And three, most importantly, it's a free speech question that a lot of the behavior that Perkins Coie is being punished for here is actually protected conduct, and the government is coming down on them.
So, the judge, like you said, came down quite hard on them, but I think she was correct here.
COATES: You know, sometimes, there's going to be deference to the executive branch, the president of the United States, and you have to sort of follow the UN wood army. But there was one where the DOJ argued in defense of the executive order that what Trump should be -- was doing -- should be trusted -- should be trusted without question, should not be at all undermined. And the judge said that that argument sent -- quote -- "chills down her spine."
The idea of that legal theory of, well, it's the president and what he says goes, that's not sustainable in most quorums.
WILLIAMS: It's really not. And the bigger picture point here that the judge is winking at, if not saying explicitly, is that what -- what the president is doing is chilling other attorneys for potentially taking on clients that might be an adverse to the president.
There's a market wide concern that if people take on clients that are going to have interests that are an adverse to the president, then, you know --
COATES: Client has no recourse. Right?
WILLIAMS: Client has no recourse and has nowhere to go. And so, yes, it's bad for the industry generally, and I think the judge is getting at that.
COATES: And if you think about it, I mean, the idea, it's -- it's in the Constitution, kind of right to counsel in a lot of instances.
WILLIAMS: Yeah.
COATES: Right? But the notion that a law firm could be closed off of being able to access federal buildings and the like means that --
WILLIAMS: Yeah.
COATES: -- they could have client representation that has nothing to do with Donald Trump. And now, those clients can no longer be served. And they could also think to themselves, well, I don't want to take on a case no matter how legally righteous because this might run afoul to a potential issue.
WILLIAMS: Right. Now the right to counsel things a little bit touchy only because, yes, criminal defendants are entitled to counsel.
COATES: It's a civil. WILLIAMS: Yeah. But that doesn't mean that everybody gets to have a counsel. But look, this is a private business entity that is being punished. And -- and again, the chills that that can send through the whole industry, that's just intensely problematic for the nature of the conduct that they're being punished for and what it says. I mean, look, this is punishment and targeting of individual business entities just because they got crossways with the president.
[23:50:02]
COATES: You know, this is also a judge who ruled against Trump in this case that said, a president is not a king. This is in a separate matter as well. We've heard that from other judges as well in Washington, D.C. in particular.
Elon Musk, though, has been calling for judges who disagreed with Trump to be impeached. You have to wonder, will this now be a new target or that leaves judges all the more vulnerable that if they make a ruling that might run afoul to what the president wants, they also have a chilling effect?
WILLIAMS: Look, you know, honestly, when it comes to Elon Musk, he's entitled to hold whatever views he wants --
COATES: Sure, and he will.
WILLIAMS: -- And he will. The problem is that when he has a Twitter or X following of 200 million or whatever else, people hear this stuff and think that it's actually plausible or reasonable to start impeaching judges because we disagree with their opinions.
Judges have not been impeached. You know, few have been impeached throughout time, but not for rulings that people disagreed with. It's usually for showing up drunk to work or whatever else. And it's a very dangerous road to grow down to say that we're going to start impeaching judges simply because we don't like their rulings, which actually are supported by law.
COATES: Hmm, dangerous roads. D.C. specializes in them now. Elliot Williams, nice to see you, my friend.
WILLIAMS: Thank you.
COATES: Up next, something to cheer us all up on this Wednesday night. Have you heard about the little boy who called 911 on his mom for eating ice cream? It was his ice cream, though. Well, the two cops who actually went to the house to check it out will join me next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:55:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)0
COATES: All right, don't mess with this four-year-old. His own mom learned that the hard way because he wasn't afraid to actually call her out to 911.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNKNOWN (voice-over): My mommy is being bad.
UNKNOWN (voice-over): Okay, what's going on?
UNKNOWN (voice-over): Come and get my mommy.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Now, if you're concerned, don't be, because the line his mommy crossed, eating his ice cream. And his call for help, well, they actually showed up.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNKNOWN: I didn't get ice cream.
UNKNOWN: So, is that why you're upset?
UNKNOWN: Yeah.
UNKNOWN: So, no calling 911 unless it's a real emergency, okay?
UNKNOWN: What were you calling for?
UNKNOWN: I ate his ice cream.
UNKNOWN: You ate his ice cream?
UNKNOWN: Mommy has to go to jail?
UNKNOWN: Should we take her to jail for eating your ice cream?
UNKNOWN: Yes.
UNKNOWN: I agree.
UNKNOWN: I would let you arrest me.
UNKNOWN: I agree.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Can you imagine? Joining me now, the officers who responded to the call, Officer Francesca Ostergaard and Officer Rachel Gardinier. Officers, thank you both for joining.
I -- I cannot imagine. I have kids. I don't know if that would be as smiley as that mom was, but thank God, you guys responded to it. Rachel, I'll start with you. Officer Gardiner, what was going through your head when you found out the actual reason for that 911 call?
RACHEL GARDINIER, POLICE OFFICER, VILLAGE OF MOUNT PLEASANT POLICE DEPARTMENT: I was just, like, this must be a true emergency for him. And if she needs to go to jail, we have to let him know what the rules are for this.
COATES: I mean, this is serious. I mean, ice cream going away, a very big problem. But Officer Ostergaard, let me ask you. In your line of work, I mean, you -- you never really know what you're walking into. How do you make sure that you come with the same level of concern that it could be something serious even though, in this time, it was about ice cream?
FRANCESCA OSTERGAARD, POLICE OFFICER, VILLAGE OF MOUNT PLEASANT POLICE DEPARTMENT: I'd say you just have to treat every call the same. You have to make sure you treat it with the same urgency and delicacy and respect that you would give to anyone. So, in this case, the emergency was his mom ate his ice cream. So, I have to treat it as an emergency for him.
COATES: What I love about this story, I think people read the headline and thought at first, oh my gosh, please tell me this story ends well, please tell me this is the kind of levity and nice moment that we all need in this world from time to time. But do you think, Officer Gardinier, that he understands now that 911 is for -- I'm going to call it real emergency as a little boy?
GARDINIER: Yeah, he definitely understands now what situations arise for when you call 911. He definitely learned that.
COATES: What was so cute, too, is that both of you actually went back to the house, Officer Ostergaard, and you gave him exactly what his mommy had taken away a few days later. Tell me about that moment.
OSTERGAARD: So, it was kind of just, like, the next day, Officer Gardinier texted me and said, hey, do you want to bring him some ice cream? I think after yesterday's lesson, you know, we could give him the ice cream that he was upset about. He learned his lesson on what to call 911 about, so let's give him a little treat. So, it was kind of just like a moment where we're like, all right, this isn't a call, we're just going to show up and give him his ice cream because he was really upset, and we wanted to make his day.
COATES: What did he do when you there, Officer Gardinier?
GARDINIER: He came running out with a huge smile on his face, and he grabbed the ice cream from us and had to run inside ready to eat it.
COATES: Oh, this -- this is -- this is such a beautiful and good joy. Look at this little boy with both of you there. What a sweet moment. Thank you so much. Officer Gardinier and Officer Ostergaard, thank you so much.
GARDINIER: Thank you.
OSTERGAARD: Thank you.
COATES: And, hey, thank you all for watching. "Anderson Cooper 360" is next.
ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST: Tonight on "360," two of the most powerful CEOs in America expressed their concerns about the president's tariff policies as he promised to respond to new tariffs from Canada and the E.U.
[00:00:02]
Also, tonight, one day after Ukraine accepted the terms of a ceasefire, Vladimir Putin dresses up in fatigues for cameras. What does that signal about --
