Return to Transcripts main page

Laura Coates Live

Trump Officials Accidentally Text War Plans To Journalist; Appeals Court Judge Grills DOJ On Swift Deportation Of Venezuelans; 23andMe Users Urged To Delete Data Amid Bankruptcy; Maryland Freshman Turns Into Hoops Legend With Buzzer-Beater. Aired 11p-12a ET

Aired March 24, 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]

LAURA COATES, CNN HOST: Well, tonight, a Trump administration group chat fiasco unravels as we speak. This after a journalist says that he got texted, get this, secret war plan. So, what's the president going to do about it? Plus, an appeals judge goes toe-to-toe with the administration and drops a shocking statement in court saying even the Nazis were treated better than Venezuelans deported by Trump. And the March Madness buzzer beater heard all around the country that's sending Maryland to the Sweet 16. Terrapins star Derik Queen is my guest tonight on "Laura Coates Live."

So right about now, the administration is scrambling to contain the fallout from a story about group texts, war plans, and checking social media in a supermarket parking lot. Yep, that's where we are tonight after this -- this bombshell article from journalist Jeffrey Goldberg in "The Atlantic," "The Trump administration accidentally texted me its war plans" -- unquote.

We're learning top officials are stunned, stunned that Goldberg got added to a group chat in the encrypted messaging app Signal about plans to strike Yemen. Now, he is talking directly to CNN about what happened.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JEFFREY GOLDBERG, EDITOR-IN-CHIEF, THE ATLANTIC: The attack plan said that 13:45, 1:45 p.m. Eastern Time, that the first bombs would be dropping in Yemen. Until that moment, until that period elapsed, the two-hour period between that text and the first bombs being dropped, I thought it was a hoax.

I'm sitting in a Safeway parking lot watching my phone and realizing oh, my God, this might be real. I think Pete Hegseth just sent this group actual targeting information, actual sequencing of an attack. I'm holding on to the phone. I don't want anybody to -- and then I thought to myself, well -- I mean, I guess they're lucky they didn't send this to a Houthi by mistake.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Can you imagine sitting in the parking lot and this coming on your phone? Really? Well, the spokesman for the National Security Council says the messages appear authentic. You can see one of them here, which came immediately after the strike on Yemen actually happened. It shows people in the chat congratulating one another. National security adviser, Mike Waltz, is one of them.

Now Goldberg says it was Waltz who actually added him to the chat, apparently, by accident. Eighteen people were said to be in the group, and they're pretty big names. Look at this yearbook photo, everyone. You've got Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. You've got the vice president, J. D. Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio. You've got the White House chief of staff, Susie Wiles. That's quite a list.

Hegseth is denying that any war plans were ever texted, and he's trying to trash the messenger.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PETE HEGSETH, UNITED STATES SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: You're talking about a deceitful and highly discredited so-called journalist who has made a profession of peddling hoaxes time and time again. Nobody was texting war plans, and that's all I have to say about that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: He meant to say a little bit more, because Goldberg -- Goldberg says that he's not posting the messages of the precise war plans for security reasons. But he does claim that it was Hegseth himself who laid out the targets.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GOLDBERG: No, that's a lie. He was texting war plans. He was texting attack plans: When targets were going to be targeted, how they were going to be targeted, who was at the targets, when the next sequence of attacks were happening.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: And I'm sure you're wondering what does the president of the United States, the commander-in-chief, have to say about all of this. Well, he said this early this afternoon.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: I don't know anything about it. I'm not a big fan of "The Atlantic." It's -- to me, it's a magazine that's going out of business. I think it's not much of a magazine. But I know nothing about it. You're telling me about it for the first time.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: But that was then. But now, two sources tell us that the president has been briefed on Goldberg's story. And he's not happy. Shocked, but he's not. One person close to him says, you couldn't have picked a worse person to add to the chat. And look, the beef between Trump and Goldberg, it runs deep. The president has not liked him ever since he wrote that story back in 2020 claiming that Trump described Americans who died in war as losers and suckers. He denies that happened, of course.

And the big question is, will Mike Waltz be forced to take the fall or someone else? Well, the White House is publicly standing by him, at least for now. The press secretary writing this in a statement: President Trump continues to have the utmost confidence in his national security team, including National Security Advisor Mike Waltz.

[23:04:58]

There are also some pretty big other important questions like, why was Trump's team using Signal to talk about extremely sensitive war plans? Could there be any legal consequences? Perhaps. This could violate laws about record keeping and the handling of classified information. There's one pretty big caveat here. The people who would actually call for investigations are the same people who might find their way in that group chat.

With me now, retired Navy Admiral James Stavridis, a CNN senior military analyst and former NATO supreme allied commander. He's also a partner at the investment firm, The Carlyle Group. Admiral, thank you for joining us this evening. As you've heard already, President Trump kind of brushed off the report, basically saying it didn't stop the operation in Yemen. What was your take? Does this matter if the attack was ultimately successful?

JAMES STAVRIDIS, CNN SENIOR MILITARY ANALYST, FORMER SUPREME ALLIED COMMANDER OF NATO, PARTNER AT THE CARLYLE GROUP: No, it does not. I mean, these are two completely separate things, Laura. There's a whole process, which we'll talk about in a moment, guarding the nation's security. And then there's the operational context. How did the strike come out? Was it a valid strike? Two different conversations.

So, let's -- let's talk as we ought to about a failed process here. The idea of protecting classified information is crucial. And in this context, I'll give you several reasons why this is so important. Number one is the -- the example it sets to the millions of people who have clearances, who are told constantly, you can never reveal these classified secrets of the nation.

So, when that occurs, how do you then turn around and say, we're going to do a bunch of polygraphs in the Pentagon to find out who leaked information about Elon Musk visit while we are going to do nothing about the most senior members of the national security team who put classified information on unclassified circuits? So --

COATES: You're talking about Signal in particular, because Signal -- one --

STAVRIDIS: Correct.

COATES: -- called CNN that -- quote -- "everyone is on Signal all day and all night." I mean, all day and night. That seems pretty stunning given the process that ought to be used to have Signal be a default or even widely used vehicle.

STAVRIDIS: Absolutely. And, you know, having spent a decade as a four- star officer, nearly a four-star officer in the Armed Forces, I can assure you I've never seen anybody using an unclassified means like Signal to move information around. So, it sets a terrible signal.

Number two, our allies look at this, and they'd say, hmm, I wonder if the United States can be trusted with our most advanced secrets if they're going to be leaked, put into highly unclassified settings like this.

And number three, think about what we are revealing to our opponents. We've allowed them a value glimpse into the highest levels of our national security team as they make big decisions. Believe me, it's high fives in Moscow, in Beijing, in Caracas, Venezuela tonight.

COATES: Well, what should one do if they're trying to share -- I mean, just walk the American public through that process because, undoubtedly, there is going to be conversations, so-called offline or between a so-called principal's group where they're going to want to share information. What is the process for sharing sensitive national security information like this?

STAVRIDIS: The United States appropriately has invested billions and billions of dollars in creating systems that are truly hardened. They can't be penetrated by our enemies. One such mechanism is called the SIPRNet, which is effectively highly classified email. It is a common device. There are SIPRNet terminals in every secure facility.

Number two, we have invested billions in creating actual classified material spaces, rooms like the Situation Room in the White House. I had the equivalent of that in my headquarters at U.S. European command, at U.S. southern command. All of our major commands and many more junior commands even have these classified spaces. Every embassy in the United States has one.

So, there are classified email systems, there are classified spaces to have these conversations, and we even have handheld devices that provide this level of classified protection, SIPRNet --

COATES: Wow.

STAVRIDIS: -- cell phone, if you will. So, I just cannot understand why this team would default to using Signal and in particular sending highly sensitive operational documents.

[23:10:03]

That was the culmination of this.

COATES: Hmmm.

STAVRIDIS: Secretary of Defense Hegseth putting this on Signal. Very shocking. COATES: Sounds like you had to work to fall off this particular ladder in this way. Admiral James Stavridis, thank you so much.

STAVRIDIS: My pleasure.

COATES: You know, I'm going to guess there's a refrain ringing in a lot of people's head right now. But her emails. Some of the same people blasting Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server, they were also on this particular group chat.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PETE HEGSETH, UNITED STATES SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: Any security professional, military, government or otherwise, would be fired on the spot for this type of conduct and criminally prosecuted for -- for being so reckless with this kind of information.

MARCO RUBIO, UNITED STATES SECRETARY OF STATE: We're going to hold people accountable. Nobody is above the law, not even Hillary Clinton, even though she thinks she is.

JOHN RATCLIFFE, DIRECTOR, CIA: Mishandling classified information is still a violation of the Espionage Act. It started with Hillary Clinton. It has continued without accountability.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: The former secretary of state's response -- quote -- "You have got to be kidding me."

Let's talk more about the fallout with Adam Kinzinger, a CNN senior political commentator and former Republican congressman, Mark Zaid, a national security attorney, and Eli Stokols, a White House and foreign policy correspondent for Politico.

Let me throw it to you, congressman, because "The Atlantic" reports that the defense secretary revealed operational details, details about targets and weapons and timing. What are the implications of that having happened?

ADAM KINZINGER, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, FORMER ILLINOIS REPRESENTATIVE: I mean, it's -- it's huge. It really is. I mean, first off, I'd like to point out that I didn't have a security clearance anymore. But three days ago, Trump took away my nonexistent security clearance while this was going on among his Cabinet.

If I was still in the military and did what they did, I would definitely either be kicked out of the military or potentially even be brought up on charges because what you have in there is a level of detail, according to -- according to the author, that went into the details of what strike packages were, when they were happening, etcetera.

And here's another quick point. So, I saw Olga Lautman on Twitter, she did a timeline, and basically came to conclusion that Steve Witkoff was, apparently, in Moscow when he was added to this group chat, when he was added to the Signal chat. Now, if that's the case, you have to believe.

And we were told this every time we travel to hostile nations, that they will be monitoring your chest, they'll be monitoring your -- what you do on your phone while you're there.

And also, Russia was spying on Ukrainians in their military by exploiting a loophole in Signal. So, this very well may not be a victimless crime. It's very possible that Russia had access to this through Steve Witkoff. So, this is --

COATES: Wow.

KINZINGER: It's obviously terrible, and I don't think even enough anger is from what we've seen from this administration.

COATES: Mark, I want to hear more about what possible legal consequences there could be for something like this given even what Tulsi Gabbard, by the way, posted on X. This was just 10 days ago, gentlemen. Any unauthorized release of classified information is a violation of the law and will be treated as such. Could someone be held legally responsible for what happened here?

MARK ZAID, NATIONAL SECURITY ATTORNEY: They could. Would they, is another question. But under the Espionage Act, which is in Title 18, Section 793, going back a hundred years, there are multiple provisions at which this could apply. In fact, one of them was what so many of these members who are on this text message were shouting for Hillary Clinton to be prosecuted under Section F, which deals with gross negligence.

Now, it didn't apply to that situation. I'll point out the one thing where everyone holds Clinton responsible. And 10 years ago, when this happened, I was repeatedly saying, what a poor choice of judgment it was that she and her senior staff, who should have known better, were using this private server. But people are accusing her of destroying the emails.

And yet, in this Signal message, which is not going -- not being discussed enough, they had -- anyone who uses Signal knows this. You can set when the messages delete. And they had set these messages to self-destruct like on "Mission Impossible" for the older people out there back in the 1960s.

And that would be a violation beyond the Espionage Act if there's national defense information, which sounds like there was, be a violation of the Federal Records Act, possibly the Presidential Records Act that requires preservation of these records.

COATES: So, would that be considered possibly in an effort to circumvent the federal law or even if Signal has this mechanism for everything you talk about?

ZAID: Yeah. Absolutely. Now, federal workers can sometimes use their personal devices --

COATES: Uh-huh. ZAID: But they're supposed to CC their work account so that the records are preserved.

[23:15:00] COATES: Hmmm.

ZAID: And we dealt with that in the -- when I did FOIA litigation, Freedom of Information Act litigation, regarding Hillary's emails, actually, for the daily caller, of all places, trying to get at what was the personal communications on personal devices regarding work- related issues. So, this -- the hypocrisy of this is just through the roof.

COATES: Well, Eli, I mean, are you hearing that there is -- I mean, publicly, there is support for the national security team. Is it true behind the scenes, though?

ELI STOKOLS, WHITE HOUSE AND FOREIGN POLICY CORRESPONDENT, POLITICO: Well, that's what we're trying to find out. We've talked to a lot of people inside the White House. They have been sort of rocked by this as well. And people inside the White House have been having a lot of private conversations today, and those have centered on the national security adviser, Mike Waltz, the person who added Jeff Goldberg to the Signal chat.

Now, has that chatter about him possibly needing to resign, has that reached the senior staff level? Our understanding is that, you know, sources say that, yes, there's been some talk about that, but it's not being seriously considered at that time. He's had, you know, strong statements of support from Speaker Mike Johnson --

COATES: Uh-hmm.

STOKOLS: -- from other people in MAGA universe, saying that Mike Walt is doing a great job. They know his job may be on the line here as Trump watches the coverage, digest this, decides how frustrated he's going to be and who he personally holds responsible. Everybody we talked to said this will come down to what the president wants, how he feels about it.

And more than one person has noted that the fact that this was Jeff Goldberg, someone who has history with the president, who the president personally does not like, the fact that this could happen on accident because Jeff Goldberg was in Mike Waltz's phone in his Signal contact list, that is something that a lot of people have said they may not -- they may stand by him for now, but that just may not be something that Mike Waltz can overcome over time.

And there are certainly people in this White House who have been skeptical of Waltz all along, people who are very pro-Trump, absolutist about, you know, if you've ever worked for anybody or had any association with someone who has been critical of Trump. There are people in the personnel office who have made a point of keeping Waltz's people off of the National Security Committee. So, there are people out there who see this as an opening to go after Waltz. COATES: You have to wonder if Waltz or somebody who is a more junior staffer in some way. I mean, Adam, you have the question about what Congress is going to do about it. I mean, the House minority leader, Hakeem Jeffries, he's calling for a swift investigation. Realistically, though, there's a question of what they can do versus what they should do.

KINZINGER: Yeah. I mean, ultimately, if it was breaking the law, that comes from the Justice Department --

COATES: Uh-hmm.

KINZINGER: -- and, you know, we kind of know where that's going to go. When it comes to Congress, they should. And, in fact, the Democrats would be smart to actually start talking about this from a campaign perspective, like, look, we will get to the bottom of this, and we're calling on Speaker Johnson to -- you know, let's have a bipartisan committee to figure it out. If he does it, we will do it, if we win the majority.

And this is the kind of thing that the Democrats are going to have to do, start painting how things can be done under them. But I think -- look -- I mean, had this been a Democratic president and a Democratic number of Cabinet members, they would be going apoplectic.

But I think the other interesting thing about all this, with all those people on the chain, all of them -- and by the way, way too many emojis for a bunch of adult men. But --

(LAUGHTER)

-- with all those people on the chain, not a single person on there protested. Not a single person on there was smart enough to say we should not do this, and that's disturbing.

COATES: Wow. That's a good point. There's not an emoji for that. Maybe it's a thumbs up to what you just said. Adam, Eli, thank you. Mark, please stand by.

Up next, the administration comes up with a new legal argument to avoid revealing information about deportations. Will it work? Plus, that critical court hearing today that had one federal judge telling Trump's Department of Justice that Nazis were treated better than the migrants being deported. More next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:20:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: The bitter fight between the Trump administration and the courts, well, it's continuing. This round, the Justice Department lawyers arguing in front of the D.C. Court of Appeals. It's the latest front in the search for answers over the use of a wartime deportation law to deport Venezuelan migrants. Not back to their home country, though, but to El Salvador's most notorious prison. The act drawing a searing rebuke from federal appeals judge, Patricia Millett.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PATRICIA MILLETT, FEDERAL APPEALS JUDGE (voice-over): There were planeloads of people. There were no procedures in place to notify people. Nazis got better treatment under the Alien Enemies Act.

DREW ENSIGN, DOJ ATTORNEY (voice-over): Well, your honor, we certainly dispute the Nazi analogy.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: But breaking tonight, the DOJ teaming up with Homeland Security and the State Department. Why? Well, to invoke state secrets privilege to avoid giving any more information on those deportation flights.

I want to bring in senior legal affairs reporter for Politico, Josh Gerstein. Josh, a lot has come out just today alone. I want to begin with the judge who certainly looked at this analogy and this metaphor of the treatment of Nazis, say, over due process not extended to the Venezuelan migrants. What was that moment like? You were in the courthouse. How did that go over?

JOSH GERSTEIN, SENIOR LEGAL AFFAIRS REPORTER, POLITICO: Well, it wasn't that surprising they would have these historical analogies because they were already talking about World War I and World War II. There has only been three times in American history that this law that Trump invoked has been used.

I think there was kind of an intake of breath of people in there. I wouldn't really say it was a gasp, but people are always surprised to hear Nazis being brought up. And the government lawyer, as you heard there, Drew Ensign, said that he didn't think it was an apt analogy.

[23:24:58]

But I think the point Judge Patricia Millett was making was that during World War II, if you were interned as a potential sympathizer with Germany, you were given a hearing. You had the opportunity to contest that and say, I'm not a sympathizer, I'm not German, or I don't agree with the Nazis. And there was no hearing for these people that were sent --

COATES: Uh-hmm.

GERSTEIN: -- to El Salvador. They were simply put on planes in the middle of the night and sent down there. Some of them, apparently, were given a paper saying the president had decided they were a member of this Tren de Aragua gang. And -- and they were gone.

And the real question coming up at this hearing today was, you know, are people entitled to some kind of process, some kind of hearing, some ability to plead their case, or can they just be summarily kicked out --

COATES: Yeah.

GERSTEIN: -- on the -- it's not even the president say so. It's the president's order. But you have bureaucrats in the Department of Homeland Security making the decision that you're -- you are a member of a gang and, therefore, you're gone.

COATES: Remember, due process is notice and opportunity to be heard. Right? We shortchange -- we shorthand it, but it's a notice and opportunity to be heard. She was really fixed on this particular point because she repeatedly questioned how someone could have that level of due process before they were deported. Listen to what she said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MILLETT (voice-over): You all could have put me up on Saturday and throw me on a plane thinking I'm a member of Tren de Aragua and given me no chance to protest, and say somehow it's a violation of presidential war powers for me to say 'excuse me, no I'm not, I'd like a hearing.'

ENSIGN (voice-over): Your Honor, obviously nothing of the sort is presented by the record here. I think what --

MILLETT (voice-over): We don't -- we don't have any record on whether these individuals are members of Tren de Aragua or victims of Tren de Aragua.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: An important point. She says absence of record. But also, it's alarming that there is without evidence to the contrary. She's concerned that there might be people who have been, you know, in this wider sweep who have no recourse. Do they?

GERSTEIN: Well, the Trump administration has made a pretty significant concession here, which is they are saying that at least in theory, these deportees had the right to go to federal court and file habeas corpus petitions to contest their deportation from the country.

The problem that Judge Millett was raising is you have to be able to do that. If you're in detention, you're going to need to get access to a telephone. And perhaps the most important thing is you have to know that you're about to be deported, and you have to know that you're about to be deported to a different country than the one you're a native of or a citizen of.

And remember, these are Venezuelan citizens or that's what the government is telling us, and they were sent to El Salvador, which is not the country that they came to the U.S. from, and put in a prison there. And people either didn't know about that in advance or if they did, it was within hours before the flight.

And so, the point that was being made again and again at the hearing today by Judge Millett and the lawyers for the ACLU was that, you know, you need some amount of notice here to do that. And if you look at cases involving the other uses of this law, there was, in fact, some opportunity for people to protest. And here, it doesn't seem as a practical matter that there was.

COATES: Let's talk about this idea of state secret privilege. It's a fancy way of saying, I don't have to tell you anything. It's about national security. You know, it's either above your pay grade or whatever way of saying, I can tell you, but I have to kill you. Right? Colloquially.

This is being said now to the judges as a reason to shut down any further discussion. In fact, Attorney General Pam Bondi and other DOJ officials are now invoking that very notion. Does that mean that Judge Boasberg, for example, has no other means to get the information?

GERSTEIN: Well, I mean, he can hold people in contempt. He could say that the record in front of him doesn't justify what the Justice Department and the other agencies did and that, therefore, he's going to proceed to hold them in contempt. And they have to prove that they complied with his order because he thinks that they violated it. So, that's one step that he could take.

But the information they're saying is subject to state secrets here, is not only diplomatic national security information. But it seems to me one of the questions they're refusing to answer even is hard to believe, Laura, is what time did Trump sign this --

COATES: Hmmm.

GERSTEIN: -- proclamation, you know, declaring this gang to be subject to the Alien Enemies Act. They -- they say it was sometime on Friday, March 14. They won't even say exactly when, which is pretty important given the sequence of events here. And it's hard to see how that particular fact could really be true, you know, national secret.

COATES: Important point. We'll see how the judge looks at it. Josh Gerstein, thank you so much.

Hey, still ahead, fight or cut a deal? We'll take you inside the very real choice that law firms are now having to face as President Trump turns them into a brand-new target.

And later, the downfall of 23andMe. How the company with the DNA of millions of people went bankrupt, and the new concern about what happened to that data next.

[23:30:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: Fight or cut a deal. Some law firms are starting to face that very choice as President Trump wages a new war against big law. Already, the prominent Paul Weiss firm agreed to pro bono work and legal causes for the administration. It came after the president revoked the firm's all-important national security clearance. The conflict is apparently not resolved. But Trump is making it clear that other law firms got to fall in line.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) TRUMP: I just think that the law firms have to behave themselves. And we've proven that. We have others that want to make a settlement also. They -- having to do with the election and other things.

[23:35:01]

They behave very badly, very wrongly. And I appreciate the one -- you know, these are the biggest firms. And they all came back realizing that they did wrong.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Back with me, national security attorney Mark Zaid. Okay, so, what does behave mean?

ZAID: You know, I'm not a big law firm, so I'm -- I'm not going to cave to the president of the United States. What does that mean? I guess it means to do what he wants rather than to actually represent our clients.

COATES: What's the risk of that?

ZAID: Ahh --

COATES: My question is almost rhetorical. But go ahead.

(LAUGHTER)

ZAID: Right. Well, as Congressman Kinzinger said, where he said he lost his security clearance Friday, even though he didn't have one because members of Congress don't have security clearances. I've lost my clearance. I was in that same message from the White House Friday night. For the third time, the third time, I have apparently lost my security clearance. In fact, I'm the only one of the group of people, so far of the lawyers, who generally is up against every administration. I am -- I'm not a partisan. I go after every administration since the Clinton administration.

COATES: But losing a security clearance can be very detrimental to any practice. Why have you been able to survive that theoretically as opposed to big law?

ZAID: So, well, they're more about money than, frankly, that I am, although, you know, money is great. It's nice to have, as Elon Musk knows. It has come down to really -- I have so much work to do and there are so many cases. The ones that really hurts for me are the federal employees. There's not many of us who have security clearances as private lawyers.

The reason why I would, is because my clients -- I'm an employment lawyer, but I'm an employment lawyer for spies, American spies, people who work at the CIA, the NSA, the FBI. And I have held this clearance for a quarter century.

And I know how to handle properly classified information, I know how to protect it, and I do so in defending my clients at their agencies when they are facing whatever issue it could be in investigation, civil, administrative, criminal, security clearance, disciplinary actions.

And I know how to do it in a way that protects the national security interests of the United States, but also the due process rights of the individual employee, which is why the government gives me the privilege of holding a clearance, including the Trump administration, the first one.

In fact, the Trump administration increased my access to classified information a year after I represented the intelligence community whistleblower, which is what he's so pissed off about, that led to his first impeachment, increased my access to what's called TSSCI, Top Secret Sensitive Compartmented Information. That's the highest level you could have, and it was the Trump administration who gave it to me.

COATES: You know, we saw what happened on Friday night about this. But it's also -- speaking of just lawyers more broadly and who he values and who he seems to want to silence in some way in terms of clearances, he just tapped his personal lawyer, Alina Habba, to be the interim U.S. attorney for New Jersey. What is your response to that?

ZAID: She has clearly been very skillful for her -- for him. She's great -- camera wise, she's great from a presenter. Is she qualified to be the interim U.S. attorney? You know, look -- look what her background is. I mean, I don't think -- I don't think I'm qualified to be an interim U.S. attorney, and I've got 35 years-worth of experience.

It's concerning because so many of his legal team, people I've been litigating against for years, are now all in the administration, at some of the highest levels of government.

You know, we look at what is Trump trying to do with the lawyers. He's Dick the Butcher. People don't know what that is anymore. But it's a Shakespeare character from Henry the sixth. Everybody knows the saying, let's kill all the lawyers. We all have heard it when we were in law school and T.V. shows, movies. And it's always used in a derogatory fashion. You lawyers, you're sleaze. I think Trump called me that once, if I remember, sleaze ball. You're all sleaze. You're -- you know, you are ambulance chasers. You should all die.

Well, that's actually a compliment because the character was saying it to being an authoritarian. He needed to kill the lawyers because the lawyers were going to stop him. And that's what this administration is trying to do to myself and my colleagues.

COATES: Unbelievable to think about where we are. Thank you so much, Mark.

ZAID: Thanks, Laura.

COATES: Still ahead, have you ever used 23andMe? How about a relative of yours? Because you're going to want to hear this next part, because the one time billion-dollar company is going bankrupt. And now, there are serious questions about what happens to all that genetic data. [23:40:00]

My guest tonight says you need to delete all of that. We'll explain why next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: All right, you know those spit tests to find out more about your family tree? Well, if you have ever taken one through the company 23andMe, you should probably listen very carefully, because the company is going to bankruptcy court to sell its assets, which includes, of course, your data, data that could now be used in ways that you maybe never expected or wanted it to be used.

The company says they are -- quote -- "committed to continuing to safeguard customer data and being transparent about the management of user data going forward, and data privacy will be an important consideration in any potential transaction" -- unquote. But experts, they're warning, delete your data now.

Joining me now to discuss is Geoffrey Fowler, a technology columnist at "The Washington Post" and the author of the article -- quote -- "Delete your DNA from 23andMe right now."

[23:45:05]

Well, let's get right to the point of that. You deleted your data on that particular site. Why are you calling on others to do the same?

GEOFFREY FOWLER, TECHNOLOGY COLUMNIST, THE WASHINGTON POST: I sure did. I deleted my data. I told my family to delete their data. I've told all my friends to delete their data. Look, the company says that it's going to protect your data the way it always did while it goes through this. But the truth is that your data is now up for grabs. It could be up for grabs in a whole bunch of different ways.

First of all, you're relying on this company that is now bankrupt to protect your data and keep hackers out. This is a company that has had big problems with that in the past. And second of all, and the biggest one probably, is that it is looking for someone to sell that data to. And whoever they sell it to can choose new ways to use your data.

That's what's so tricky about genetics and all kinds of personal data. You can imagine one use for it one day, but you have no idea what it might be used for 10, 20 years down the road.

COATES: The company, as I said, put out that statement saying they're committed to the safeguarding of the customer data. But -- but their website actually says this: Quote -- "If we are involved in a bankruptcy, merger, acquisition, reorganization, or sale of assets, your personal information may be accessed, sold or transferred as part of that transaction."

So, maybe best intentions, but look at what it actually says. So, how do people navigate this? If they delete it in the way that you say, how can they be sure that it's really gone? FOWLER: First of all, Laura, I love talking to a lawyer because clearly, you read the privacy policy, which most people skip right over, but there it is right in there.

But look, how can you believe this is actually going to happen? Well, there's a tiny bit of good news for consumers here. California and about 20 states in total now actually have privacy laws. The federal government has failed to ever pass a comprehensive digital privacy law, but we have them in the states. And the California law, which is pretty strong, says very clearly, if you ask to have your data deleted, they have to do it or else there's some pretty big penalties.

COATES: So, what are some of the things that people's data or DNA data specifically could actually be used for? We're talking criminal cases or what?

FOWLER: Yeah. You know, DNA, that is the keys to your body. Right? It tells a lot of things. It can tell your ancestry. That's one use that many people have found for these services. It can tell things about your family history. So, you know, some families have what are called non-paternity events when maybe somebody isn't related to who they thought. So, there's a lot of family tree information in there.

And then the biggest one of all is it can give clues about your health. Right? Because there could be parts of your DNA that suggest you may be more or less inclined for certain traits or for certain diseases. And you know who would like that kind of data? Insurance companies and also pharma companies that want to develop drugs.

So again, when you first spit into that little vial to send your DNA off to 23and Me, is that what you thought was going to happen with your DNA?

COATES: Certainly not. But a lot of people didn't do it because they were afraid that this might happen one day, not necessarily a bankruptcy, but something would happen. You have to wonder, Geoffrey, is there enough consumer protection for people when it comes to their data in general? I mean, is there -- is there a state by state solution then?

FOWLER: I don't think a state by state solution is a good idea. You're absolutely right, we need federal laws, not only giving people the right to delete this kind of data, but putting limits on how it's used in the first place. Right?

But at least in this case, we have these state laws where people do have the right to delete. But you got to be proactive and you got to go in and do it. In fact, today, so many people were going in to delete their 23andMe data that the site went down for long periods of time. I've been having -- "The Washington Post" readers email me all day long, saying, how do I get in there? I can't. I would say just be patient and do it when you can.

COATES: Well, they're reading your article. That's for sure. Geoffrey Fowler, thank you for joining.

FOWLER: You bet.

COATES: Look, up next, you don't even have to like sports to appreciate this next story because Hollywood could not have scripted it any better. A Baltimore-born college freshman hits the game winner to keep his home state team alive in March. But it's what he said before the shot that's earning him some legend status. He's with me to talk about it next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:50:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNKNOWN (voice-over): From the out of bounds to the freshman Queen who's driving. Floats it.

(APPLAUSE)

Maryland on the right side of a buzzer beater with life into the Sweet 16.

COATES: Oh, my god. Every kid dreams about this. Derik Queen lived it. The Maryland freshman banking the buzzer-beater over Colorado State to keep the Terps dancing. It is Maryland's first trip back to Sweet 16 in nearly a decade. The fans loved it. But they would have loved it even more had they known what that huddle was like right before that shot, because head coach Kevin Willard revealing a moment straight out of a Hollywood movie.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KEVIN WILLARD, HEAD COACH: I asked everybody. I said, who wants the ball? And he said, give me the MF ball.

[23:55:00]

And I said, all right, you're getting it. And I said, don't mess around, go after it and do it. And I gave him a lot of credit, man. The big dog came up and threw.

COATES: Give me the ball. And the story gets better, everyone, because as clutch as that shot was -- do you know? It turns out it was a first from the hometown kid from Baltimore.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNKNOWN (voice-over): This is your first game winner ever or --

DERIK QUEEN, BASKETBALL PLAYER, MARYLAND TERRAPINS: Yeah. WILLARD: I wouldn't have given it to him if I had known that.

(LAUGHTER)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Well, joining us now, the man himself, Maryland Terps Center, Derik Queen. Derik, congratulations. You have become, like, the Maryland hero and this tournament hero overnight. How does it feel?

QUEEN: It's a blessing. It's so great to come back home and endure it in front of, like, thousands or millions of people that's watching.

COATES: I'm going to say it's millions. Everyone has obviously seen it. They've actually seen it. It has gone viral. They're replaying it over and over again. Every kid, every adult, frankly, dreams that moment. You told your coach in the final time out, give me the mother effing ball. Now, that is some next level of confidence. Tell me what's going through your head.

QUEEN: I mean, so first, one of my teammates, Deshaun, so he was, like, we're not about to lose like that, we're not about to lose a fifth time like that. And then Deshaun was, like, we're going to come down and score. And then Coach Willard asked, who wants the ball? I was the first one, the loudest one, to say, I want the ball. And then everybody was behind me, the coaches, my teammates, probably even the fans were even behind me, and then -- and then they trusted me to take that shot.

COATES: That must be something. You're a freshman. Obviously, you've had an amazing career even up till now. But one, to be the loudest person to ask for it and then your team to be behind you, what does that say and mean to you that they trusted you in that moment?

QUEEN: Yeah. So, like I've been saying before, we do a lot a lot of stuff together, the team. And then -- so, like, we we're with each other, like, a lot. And then -- so, like, that's how we built the chemistry and them trusting me. And then every day, I practice. I just try to go out there and just do what I'm good at. And then, I just went out there and showcased that.

COATES: It's obvious you're having fun at what you do. I mean, I'm an AAU mommy. And let me tell you, all these kids, they practice this last two seconds, everything. They're going -- they're imagining what you've actually done. You will now be the standard.

But you said your teammates said, we're not going to have this happen to us again, because you had some moments this season when it didn't go the team's way. Was that you guys saying, not again, never again, not now?

QUEEN: Yes, because I feel like we lost in every way possible. And then -- and then we came down like -- so, when we lost off those buzzer-beaters, I don't think we had no time to come back down and --

COATES: Uh-hmm. QUEEN: -- and, like, redeem ourselves. But now this game, we had enough time to redeem myself, and then we just -- I just went out there and made a tough shot.

COATES: You're being very modest. I know you're humble. I've heard great things about you. You got another matchup this coming, what, Thursday? You got a number one seed, Florida. You got to get your head right back into the game. I think you're going to be able to do it again. But how are you staying focused?

QUEEN: Just -- so, yesterday, the game is behind us. So, we celebrated a little yesterday, hung out as a team. And now, today and through Thursday, we're just going to focus. They have really -- they have really good players, a really good team. Just focusing, watching film, practicing, and getting ready for them.

COATES: Well, you're going to have a target on your back and fans in the crowd waiting to cheer you on. I tell you that at the same time. Look, your high school is doing big things in this tournament. I mean, you play on the same high school team with Duke's Cooper Flagg. You guys won national championships, plural. Have you guys been talking about this experience?

QUEEN: Yeah. So, we were just saying, like, we can't wait till we get to college because I feel like we also were going to be, like, the best freshmen or even the best players in the country to compete. And then I think we all chose the right decision to go to the schools we went to, and then all of us all of us performed really well.

COATES: Well, we are all cheering you on. You're performing exceptionally well. Cannot wait to see more. And congratulations. I'm now going to be a little bit of a hero on my son's basketball team. I talked to Derik Queen. They didn't. Nice to talk to you. Good luck in the tournament.

QUEEN: Thank you. Thanks for having me.

COATES: Congratulations, Derik. Hey, thank you all for watching. "Anderson Cooper 360" is next.

[00:00:01]