Return to Transcripts main page
Laura Coates Live
Trump's DOJ Requests Meeting "Soon" With Ghislaine Maxwell; CNN Presents "America Asks"; Viral Video Of Violent Police Traffic Stop Sparks Controversy; DOJ Defies Court's Removal Of Alina Habba As U.S. Attorney In NJ; Ozzy Osbourne Dies At 76, Just Weeks After Farewell Show. Aired 11p-12a ET
Aired July 22, 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]
ABBY PHILLIP, CNN ANCHOR AND SENIOR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: "Jesse Jackson and the Fight for Black Political Power." It will be released this fall, on October 28, and you can preorder it now.
Thank you very much for watching "NewsNight." "Laura Coates Live" starts right now.
LAURA COATES, CNN HOST AND SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: You know what? Something really annoyed me today. Three words to be specific. Justice demands courage. Now, in isolation, of course, that's no big deal. Because, of course, justice demands courage. But it's who said it and the why they said it. Because those are the words of Todd Blanche, a former prosecutor for the Southern District of New York, Donald Trump's one-time personal attorney, and now number two at the DOJ.
He posted this early this morning: Justice demands courage. For the first time, the Department of Justice is reaching out to Ghislaine Maxwell to ask: what do you know? At Attorney General Pam Bondi's direction, I've contacted her counsel. I intend to meet with her soon. No one is above the law -- and no lead is off limits.
Now, I'm going to get into the rest of that tweet in his upcoming potential meeting.
Let me tell you why those three words, justice demands courage, just don't sit well with me tonight. Is Blanche implying that the courageous motion here is for the DOJ to meet with Ghislaine Maxwell? Because they actually did, in a federal courtroom, at her trial. Jeffrey Epstein's former associate, who is serving a 20-year sentence at federal prison for sex trafficking.
And I know everyone is talking about files as if it's just paper and not people and what happened to them in those files. But remember what this is all about. It's about the abuse of young girls that spanned years. More than a thousand victims, according to the FBI. All of them at the hands of Epstein. And for some of those victims, the abuse was facilitated by Ghislaine Maxwell.
And we know that because of the four women who had the courage to testify at Maxwell's 2021 trial. Speaking out about the horrific abuse that they endured. One was Carolyn, who used only her first name, and she said she was 14 years old when she began going to Epstein's home, testifying that she went there more than a hundred times and something sexual happened every single time. She recalled one instance involving Maxwell, telling the court, she came in and felt my boobs and my hips and my buttocks and said I had a great body for Mr. Epstein and his friends.
One identified as Kate testified that she first met Maxwell when she was 17. And she said Maxwell groomed her for sex acts with Epstein. Kate testified, I didn't want to admit what had happened. I has witnessed how connected they both were, and I was fearful.
She was afraid, but she still testified courageously against Maxwell, and so did three other women despite the unspeakable things that happened to them. That courage.
So, when Todd Blanche says, justice demands courage, I have to ask, courage from who? From the DOJ to sit down with a convicted sex trafficker when there's political pressure to do so? I mean, President Trump is signaling that he's okay with it.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNKNOWN (voice-over): Your deputy attorney general has reached out to Ghislaine Maxwell's attorney, asking for an interview.
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Yeah. I don't know about it. But I think it's something that would be sounds appropriate to do. Yeah. I didn't know that they were going to do it. I don't really follow that too much. It's sort of a witch hunt, just a continuation of the witch hunt.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: So now, the question, what could Ghislaine Maxwell possibly offer? What's in it for her? Well, let me look at her options. The first is to not say a word and let her Supreme Court appeal just play out. Remember her lawyers? Well, they argue that she should never have been prosecuted in the first place. Why? Because when Epstein got that sweetheart deal in 2007 with federal prosecutors in Florida, they promised not to charge his co-conspirators, meaning her.
Her second option, a writ of habeas corpus, the fancy way of challenging one's imprisonment. It'd be a Hail Mary and different than the Supreme Court appeal, but it's a tool for her to challenge her detention maybe on the basis of new evidence or misconduct by the government. We don't know.
And the third option, well, she could play ball with the DOJ, the courageous ones, in hopes of a lighter sentence, say, a commutation or even a pardon from, you guessed it, President Trump.
[23:05:05]
Remember what Congressman Jamie Raskin told me just last week? Whatever she says, he thinks, can't be taken at face value. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. JAMIE RASKIN (D-MD): Ghislaine Maxwell is a federal prisoner right now. Obviously, she wants a pardon. So, she will probably sing from whatever hymnal Donald Trump tells her to sing for him and will, you know, report exactly what he wants her to say.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: So, if Ghislaine Maxwell does or even wants to talk, who's listening with an open mind? Will they actually believe her? And what will they do with what they hear her say?
With me now, former DOJ pardon attorney who was fired by the administration earlier this year, Liz Oyer, and James Marsh, the attorney representing Jeffrey Epstein's alleged victims. They both join me now.
Liz, I want to begin with you because a lot of people, obviously, are assuming that this meeting that Trump wants or Trump's DOJ wants, I should be clear, with Ghislaine Maxwell means a pardon or a commutation might be being considered. What do you think?
LIZ OYER, FORMER DOJ PARDON ATTORNEY: Well, Laura, this administration's favorite way to solve a problem is with a quid pro quo, and it looks like we are teeing up another quid pro quo here.
It's entirely possible that a pardon could be on the table or some other way of resolving the prison sentence that Ghislaine Maxwell is currently serving. She is somebody who was sentenced to 20 years in prison just a couple of years ago, so she's looking at a lot more time. And if she decides to talk to Todd Blanche, the deputy attorney general, it is not out of the goodness of her heart, it's because she hopes to benefit personally from that.
So, certainly, a pardon or some reduction in her sentence is a possibility.
COATES: Or the goodness out of his heart either. Right? I mean, talking about the quid pro quo, unless there is a commutation or a pardon on the horizon with the appellate process not exhausted for her, what would be in it for her, just to speak?
OYER: So, there is a rule under the rules of criminal procedure that allows a judge to re-sentence somebody who has provided cooperation. So that could be another legal path potentially.
But the issue here is that she did not come forward with any information at the time she was charged with these crimes. That would have been the time for her to come forward. And undoubtedly, it was discussed between her legal team and the prosecutor at the time --
COATES: Or even a sentencing, by the way.
OYER: Yep. Yeah, yeah. She had plenty of opportunity to come forward. So, there are really two possibilities. One is that if she does talk to Blanche, she's not going to have much to say. And the other is that she's willing to play this game of trying to come up with some piece of information that will solve a political problem for the administration. And you have to question at that point, is that even credible? Can you really even rely on that information provided under those circumstances?
And one thing that I find really interesting and bizarre about this is the timing of it. I don't know if -- you noticed that this particular prosecutor, Maurene Comey, was fired last week. She was the lead prosecutor on Ghislaine Maxwell's case. So, there is no one in the Department of Justice who knows more about what information Maxwell might have than her. And they fired her and bring in Todd Blanche, who is a loyalist of Trump and his personal attorney, instead.
COATES: And somebody who knows what she does not know to test that credibility as well. James, I mean, a person close to Ghislaine Maxwell was telling CNN that she will argue against the unsealing of any grand jury materials. Why do you think that is?
JAMES MARSH, ATTORNEY WHO REPRESENTS ACCUSERS OF JEFFREY EPSTEIN: Well, I mean, there are so many unanswered questions still in this case despite almost, you know, decade of scrutiny.
I know that your coverage has been really greatly appreciated by the victims and survivors that I represent very thoughtful and very thorough, but there's so much information that we -- that we aren't aware of.
And we've been seeking to unseal the Justice Department records with regards to our client, Maria Farmer, for at least three to four years. This started under the prior administration.
COATES: Uh-hmm.
MARSH: So, this is not us, a political issue. This is about transparency and accountability by the Justice Department for our own clients' records. And a lot of what has been seen in Maria Farmer's file has been redacted, and we would like that unsealed.
COATES: Do you want it unredacted as well? I mean, because it is a lot of things to protect the victims.
MARSH: Absolutely.
COATES: What specifically about the documents or exhibits or otherwise -- what do you expect is there to be released?
MARSH: That's a really good question.
[23:09:58]
And what we do know in Maria's case, and I think this has been lost in the discussion about Trump and all the intrigue, is that she went to the FBI and to the New York police 20 years ago and reported somebody who was already known to law enforcement. She was very credible. She made these complaints. COATES: Uh-hmm.
MARSH: She went to the FBI.
COATES: Sure.
MARSH: And those original complaints were reflected in the files. So, we want to know what else is there. And I think it will help --
COATES: I think there are --
MARSH: -- a lot of questions.
COATES: As they say, many inquiring minds have that same question as to what's there. What's interesting as well is to have people who are alleged victims as well wanting transparency. It's very difficult sometimes to get a victim into a grand jury and to be very forthcoming. They want the secrecy and the protections it provides.
But, you know, outside of the criminal context, it's not just the DOJ who wants to hear from Ghislaine Maxwell. Congress wants to hear from her as well. I'm talking about the House Oversight Committee. They plan to actually subpoena her to testify. It's outside the context of a criminal investigation or a criminal case. Does she have an incentive at the legislative level to do so?
OYER: It seems very unlikely that she would speak to Congress without cutting some sort of deal with the Department of Justice. It's interesting that this matter is now being handled personally by Todd Blanche, who's the number two official at the Department of Justice. He is handling it rather than a line prosecutor because he has the authority to bind the Department of Justice to a deal if they choose to go in that direction with Maxwell.
COATES: Yet it's still very uncommon that there would ever be a DAG, as they call him, doing this.
OYER: It is so uncommon. The fact that he is personally handling this is extremely unusual. It reflects the importance of the matter to the political interests of the Trump administration because he's somebody who is trusted by Trump.
And it also reflects some lack of confidence in Pam Bondi, frankly, that she has been taken out, and they brought in the relief pitcher, the deputy attorney general, to handle this matter. It suggests that either the president or the MAGA public has lost confidence in her ability to resolve this matter satisfactorily.
COATES: That's a very important point. I wonder if that's what is behind the decision to be Todd Blanche and not Pam Bondi. James Marsh, thank you. Liz Oyer, please stand by.
I know you all have questions at home, and I want to hear them. So, send them to me at cnn.com/epsteinquestions. We're going to answer them live on the show in just a few moments. Now, remember when you were in school and someone asked the teacher a question he couldn't answer and, suddenly, the next words out of his mouth were class dismissed? Yeah, well, that's what Speaker Johnson just did for the House.
What was the question? A vote on a bipartisan push to release the Epstein files. And poof, time for recess, the now five-and-a-half-week August recess, a full 180 for Speaker Johnson. It was just, what, last period when the teacher said, there's no such thing as a stupid question. A week ago, he wanted full transparency.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MIKE JOHNSON, SPEAKER OF THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: It's a very delicate subject, but we should -- we should put everything out there and let the people decide.
The president has said clearly, and he has now ordered his DOJ to do what it is we've all needed DOJ to do for years now, and that is to get everything released. So, they're in the process of that. There's no purpose for Congress to push an administration to do something that they're already doing.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Joining me now, two people I'm sure with perfect students, CNN political commentator Xochitl Hinojosa and Republican strategist Lance Trover. Glad to have you both.
I have to go right where he said, Lance, because there are sources that are telling CNN that Speaker Johnson essentially told House Republicans, of course, behind closed doors, that the administration needs some time here to deal with whatever it is. Is the speaker essentially saying that our congressional authority or our interest for the public is not as important as that time?
LANCE TROVER, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: I don't think so. I think there are folks in the media and some on the Democratic side who want to spin it that way. But I think, look, it's the president's prerogative. He's the one who is giving the orders to DOJ and others or at least nudging his Justice Department to move forward on this.
COATES: But it's Congress who asks for it. They have to wait for the president to say --
TROVER: Well, you don't have to. Look, it's the speaker's prerogative. He's the speaker of the House. If he wants to give the president the leeway, that's certainly his prerogative.
And the quote that came after that was -- you mentioned the transparency. He agrees and still says everything should come out. That was not included in that video that we just saw.
COATES: Well, let me play for you another -- I like transparency. I like full quotes as well.
TROVER: Me, too.
COATES: There you go. Speaker Johnson, Sochi, seemed to suggest that the congressional oversight actually would hamper DOJ's efforts at the time. That was part of why he wanted to delay. And there are some conservative hardliners who are not having it at all. Listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. RALPH NORMAN (R-SC): It's not going to die down. I know you assume that. The public decides that anyway. I don't assume anything, particularly with this. You had -- this transcends politics.
[23:15:00]
REP. KEITH SELF (R-TX): Seventy-nine percent of the American public wants some sort of transparency.
REP. ERIC BURLISON (R-MO): It's the number one phone call that we get by far. It's probably 500 to one.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Five hundred to one? I mean, of all the issues, that might shock people, I have to say, that this is the issue. But it's very symbolic, it seems, of other issues. How do Democrats deal with what's 500 to 1 for Republican calls?
XOCHITL HINOJOSA, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, FORMER DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS AT JUSTICE DEPARTMENT: Well, it's very obvious that what Speaker Johnson is doing is he's trying to protect Donald Trump politically. And I think that Democrats are just sort of along for the ride and just watching this all unfold. They don't control anything. And it's just funny that the administration has sort of been caught up in all this.
In terms of the push and pull with Congress and DOJ and who gets, you know, the oversight capability to interview witnesses, et cetera, there is always this push and pull with DOJ and Congress.
COATES: It happened during Mueller.
HINOJOSA: It happened during Mueller. But it's normally for investigative purposes. It's normally when there is an ongoing investigation and when you could potentially hurt the ongoing criminal investigation within the Justice Department. It's never really about a political issue per se.
And this is something that's a little bit different because what you have here is you have Congress and Republicans in Congress who are hearing from their base. Their base is clamoring. They're getting the phone calls. They want to do something about it, so people will back off of them.
And the White House is essentially telling Congress, hold, wait a minute, this is a political problem that we have --
COATES: Uh-hmm.
HINOJOSA: -- and we're trying to deal with it. And so, I find it interesting that it's not the law enforcement. This isn't for law enforcement purposes that they're asking Congress to wait. It's more for political purposes. And that's very clear when you see Todd Blanche sort of taking this meeting with Maxwell and sort of taking the reins of this sort of whole political problem within the Justice Department.
COATES: And yet there are some in MAGA who would say this is about criminal investigation, we want to know the full truth, we haven't heard everything. But to a larger point, this isn't just a partisan issue. I mean, you have Republicans who are calling for this.
Well, obviously, Speaker Johnson is saying no to August. But walk me through what you envision August being like for Republicans who are going home with their districts. We know what town halls look like when people were irritated about mandate-related things. This was part of a mandate.
How do Republicans grapple with the public who might say, you told me I was going to see something, where is it?
TROVER: First off, I think Democrats are a little more than just along for the ride. They gummed up the House Rules Committee all day with amendments, and that's a reason it got shut down. So, a little bit more than just along with the ride.
COATES: I get your point.
(LAUGHTER)
TROVER: Look, there is -- there's a divergent view inside the Republican Party. We're having this divergent. It is being discussed out in the open right now. But -- so --
COATES: What divergent view hurt your party? Because --
TROVER: No, I don't think so because I don't think -- I don't think this is -- I don't think this is necessarily the number one issue for every single voter in America. Is there -- is there a discussion here inside the Beltway, in the House of Representatives, because Democrats are gumming up the works and we have to shut it down? Yeah, of course, that's what's going on.
But I think the problem the Democrats are going to have, and we should speak to that, is they have zero credibility on this issue because you guys didn't care about this issue until it just came up recently and spent the last four years on transparency defending Joe Biden.
COATES: But Democrats did care about the Acosta sweetheart deal in 2007. Right? They talked about why.
HINOJOSA: That's absolutely right and especially because Acosta is the one who cut the deal, et cetera. I think that here, it's very clear that the MAGA base is very concerned about this. This is not going to go away. They're not going to let it go away. You hear -- continue to see Laura Loomer and others essentially putting the pressure on this administration to do more, to release more. And it's just very odd.
And the reason why Democrats care about it now is because this Justice Department has been clearly political to protect Donald Trump at every turn and something that they wanted so badly during the campaign season. All of a sudden, they completely take a turn in order to protect Donald Trump. So, you have to wonder what the motive is behind Pam Bondi's decision and Todd Blanche's decision to now protect Donald Trump.
COATES: Laura Loomer told our own Alayna Treene, why didn't this happen on day one? Her words, not mine. Different Laura. Xochitl, Lance, thank you both so much.
Up next, the new images uncovered by CNN that shed new light on just how close Donald Trump was to his friend, Jeffrey Epstein. Plus, answering your questions live. Submit yours at cnn.com/epsteinquestions. A reporter who knows this case inside and out is standing by to help me answer them. And later, the violent traffic stop gone viral that has sparked a heated debate and may soon lead to legal action.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:20:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: The friendship between President Trump and Jeffrey Epstein continues to be scrutinized. And tonight, CNN has exclusively obtained new photos of Jeffrey Epstein at Trump's wedding to Marla Maples. Now, that's Epstein entering the Plaza Hotel in New York for that wedding on December 20th, 1993.
A few months before, in October, this photo was taken. It was of Trump talking with Jeffrey Epstein with two of his children, Trump's children, by his side at the opening of the Harley-Davidson Cafe in New York.
Now, as you know, and Trump has spoken about frequently, Trump had a falling out with Epstein years later when they were once friends. And that falling out? The mid-2000s, reportedly over a real estate deal. CNN called Trump about the photos. He picked up and said -- quote -- "You've got to be kidding me" -- before hanging up the phone.
White House Communications Director Steven Cheung said in a statement -- quote -- "These are nothing more than out-of-context frame grabs of innocuous videos and pictures of widely attended events to disgustingly infer something nefarious. The fact is that the president kicked him out of his club for being a creep."
[23:25:07]
America has questions over their relationship. And here to answer some of them, senior legal affairs reporter for Politico, Josh Gerstein. It is all over this story for a long time. We've got a question coming up, Josh. Let's see. Richie in Texas is asking this question. Does anyone believe that we can actually trust anything Ghislaine Maxwell says if she talks?
JOSH GERSTEIN, SENIOR LEGAL AFFAIRS REPORTER, POLITICO: Well, I mean, that's a good question, I think, in part because when she was prosecuted by the Justice Department, which you were talking about earlier, she was actually charged with two counts of perjury for various denials that she had made during civil cases that were brought.
Some of the women that were allegedly involved here with Epstein, victims of Epstein, girls at the time, many of them, sued him. And she was called as a witness, unsurprisingly, since she seems to have been Epstein's right hand for so many years. And she denied sort of anything untoward, insisted everything was consensual, et cetera, et cetera. And prosecutors said that she lied, and they charged her with perjury.
Those charges were interestingly never resolved by the court or a jury because they were sort of set aside during her trial, and she was convicted on more serious sex trafficking charges.
COATES: A really important point. Thank you. Also, Freddie in New York is asking this question, Josh. Where did the idea that an actual list of possible abusers was available, in addition to the files and testimony? Where did the idea come from?
GERSTEIN: Well, I'm not totally sure for certain where it came from. But we know that Epstein had a little black book that people talked about for years and years. It was mentioned by the FBI early on. A couple of reporters at one time got it. Some friend or associate of Epstein was trying to sell it at one point.
And it had, like, a big, big contact list of people, sort of such a wide list of people that I think it's implausible that -- certainly that all of them were involved in some kind of impropriety with Epstein.
COATES: Uh-hmm.
GERSTEIN: But there was page after page listed as massages in this book and name after name. It just went on and on and on. I think that is something that has intrigued people for a long time.
COATES: Here's a question. John wants to know, why did Epstein receive such a short and later commuted sentence in Florida? Who allowed that to happen?
GERSTEIN: Well, I mean, I think most people chalk that up to the very tough legal team that he had at that time representing him. I mean, these are names like Alan Dershowitz, Ken Starr, Roy Black who just passed away down there in Florida. These were all the kinds of people that were negotiating for him with the Justice Department. He had hundreds of millions of dollars, so money was no object in getting good defense lawyers. And they put up a tremendous fight. I think one of the concerns here on the part of prosecutors was the fact that if this went to trial, some of these young girls were going to have to testify and they wanted to see if they could come up with an outcome that would prevent that from happening.
And so that's why you saw him ending up getting a state sentence of 18 months behind bars when I think a lot of people with less successful representation might have gotten a much, much stiffer sentence.
COATES: Even behind bars was kind of a fluid --
GERSTEIN: Right. Exactly. Got a very cushy arrangement in the jail down there.
COATES: Josh Gerstein, thank you for expertise.
GERSTEIN: Sure.
COATES: Thank you so much. Still ahead, have you seen this video yet? It's a driver resisting police orders before he is then violently removed from his car. The video is going viral, and everyone has an opinion. I'll explain next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:30:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: You probably seen this disturbing video pop up on your timeline today. It's a man filming his own traffic stop in Jackson, Florida when officers shatter his window to arrest him.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
WILLIAM MCNEAL, JR., DRIVER RESISTING POLICE OFFICER'S ORDER: Can you call your supervisor?
D. BOWERS, POLICE OFFICER WHO PULLED WILLIAM MCNEAL OVER: What?
MCNEAL: Can you call your supervisor?
BOWERS: All right, I'll go for it. Exit the vehicle now! Exit the vehicle! Show me your hands!
MCNEAL: Here. I'm here. What is your reason, sir? What is your reason?
BOWERS: Step down now.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: This actually happened back in February. We're just learning about it now, though, because the Jacksonville Sheriff's Office released body cam video showing how the incident started.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) MCNEAL: Yes, sir?
BOWERS (voice-over): Is there a reason why you're popping the door open like that?
MCNEAL: Yeah, I don't have a window that works. Is there a reason that you're pulling me over?
BOWERS (voice-over): Yeah, absolutely, there's a reason why I'm pulling you over. For one thing, inclement weather and you don't have your lights on. Two things, you're not wearing your seatbelt.
MCNEAL: It's daylight. I don't need the lights. And it's not weather. It's not raining. It's not raining.
BOWERS (voice-over): Okay. I'm not arguing with you. I'm telling you why I'm pulling you over. Give me your driver's license, registration, proof of insurance.
MCNEAL: No. Call your supervisor. Why?
BOWERS (voice-over): Excuse me?
MCNEAL: Call your supervisor. Why did you pull me over?
BOWERS (voice-over): Uncooperative adult driver. I've already told you.
MCNEAL: Why did you pull me over?
BOWERS (voice-over): Step out of the vehicle.
MCNEAL: No.
BOWERS (voice-over): Step out of the vehicle.
MCNEAL: No.
MCNEAL (voice-over): Driver just slammed the door and locked it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: And what you just saw is one officer repeatedly telling William McNeil, Jr. that he was under arrest and ordered him to open the door. McNeil did not do that.
[23:35:00]
He said he asked for a supervisor as more officers arrived. And here's what happened next. When an officer warned that he was about to break McNeil's window to arrest him, well --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BOWERS (voice-over): Hey, I'm about to break the window.
UNKNOWN (voice-over): What?
BOWERS (voice-over): I'm about to break the window.
UNKNOWN (voice-over): All right, go for it.
BOWERS (voice-over): Exit the vehicle now! Exit the vehicle! Show me your hands.
MCNEAL: What is your reason?
BOWERS (voice-over): Step out. Step out.
MCNEAL: What is your reason?
BOWERS (voice-over): Step out now.
MCNEAL: All right.
BOWERS (voice-over): Get on the ground.
MCNEAL: No, no, no, don't --
BOWERS (voice-over): Get on the ground.
UNKNOWN (voice-over): Stop fighting.
UNKNOWN (voice-over): Put your hands on the back.
UNKNOWN (voice-over): Stop resisting.
BOWERS (voice-over): Hands behind your back!
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: McNeil was arrested on charges of resisting an officer without violence and driving with a suspended license. He pleaded guilty the day after the stop and served two days in jail.
Now, that body cam video does not show the officer hitting McNeil. It' is why McNeil's video is raising new questions about the conduct of the officers.
The sheriff's office says it was notified of this angle on Sunday. And by yesterday, the sheriff said prosecutors determined the officers did not break any laws. There is, though, an administrative probe, and the officer who hit McNeil is on leave. But the sheriff claimed that McNeil is trying to distort what happened.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SHERIFF TK WATERS, SHERIFF, JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA SHERIFF'S OFFICE: As a leader of this agency, I will not remain silent while important facts and information are buried to advance an anti-police agenda.
(END VIDEO CLIP) COATES: With me now, the attorney for William McNeil, Jr., Harry Daniels. Harry, welcome. Police say the body cam video gives more context to the incident. Do you think it changes the substance of what happened to your client and the violence that then happened?
HARRY DANIELS, ATTORNEY FOR WILLIAM MCNEIL, JR.: Thanks, Laura, for having us on. It doesn't give any additional context. The sheriff talked about that social media is not reality. Well, Mr. McNeil's video is an unedited video, which is reality of what happened. He can present all videos by cameras that he would like. The fact remains his officers was out of control. The video speaks for itself.
You know, you can say there's no criminal action there. One, you didn't even talk to the alleged victim in the case. You can't even get to the conclusion. There's no criminal action. It's really absurd and it's really sad that a person that's over an agency will even come to this conclusion. But, nevertheless, we are here, Laura.
COATES: He never spoke to your client? He never talked about his side of what happened, only this video?
DANIELS: Laura, he never spoke to our client. I mean, you know as well, as you've been a lawyer, that at least the prosecutor, which is the ambassador of justice, he pointed to the state's attorney's office to see what their take was on this issue. They never spoke to Mr. McNeal. He never spoke to Mr. McNeal. So, to come to conclusion that there's no criminal act is ridiculous.
COATES: Talk to me, what is your reaction to hearing that police chief or the sheriff, excuse me, suggests that this was all chalked up to an anti-police agenda? What was your client's motivation in publishing this video?
DANIELS: Well, one of my clients, he would have published video before, but he was afraid. As you can see, the day after he was arrested, he went to court without a lawyer. He didn't know anything about the criminal justice system. And he pled guilty at first appearance and got two days in jail.
The constitutionality -- the legality -- legal stopped everything that had been thrown now. He knew it would be better. Unfortunately, I mean, (INAUDIBLE). Nevertheless, we are here.
To the question of how do I feel about sheriff taking orders discussion, you know, as a -- as a Black man, I was kind of -- I felt uneasy. I almost felt embarrassed for that he would stand up and make those representations as such. He was challenged by the other reporters in the room when clearly -- his officer clearly sucker- punched Mr. McNeal. There's no way you can get around it.
You know, there is a lot of explaining to do here. But this is a case of a young African-American male who did nothing wrong. It was not raining. No fog, no smoke. You can see other officers coming on scene with no headlights on. This was simply a racial profiling, unlawful stop. They wanted to pull him over, get in his car. And doing so, they broke the window and punched him. He was injured here. It caused injuries to him.
COATES: Oh, God. It's difficult to watch the video.
[23:39:56]
You know, there are people, Harry, who are -- have quite an opinion on this case, as you can imagine, including the sheriff, TK Waters, who said several times during his press conference yesterday that McNeal should have just complied, and added that people may disagree with an arrest, but the side of the road is not the time or place to do that. Can you address what the sheriff is saying as to why he didn't just comply?
DANIELS: You know, that's something that you can look hindsight 2020 on. Mr. McNeal felt like that he was unlawfully stopped. He wanted to speak to a supervisor. They should afford him the opportunity to speak to a supervisor. They did not.
And I understand that compliance is important because, especially as an African-American male, compliance is very important because you may get shot and killed but not have a seat belt on. But I do understand that people would like to exercise their rights. Citizens, taxpayer citizens, ask for explanation.
You know, those who have polarizing positions, well, he should have complied, he should have done that, I hope they have the same scrutiny on the officers' acts or unlawful engagements in this action.
COATES: Harry Daniels, thank you for joining and telling us what was happening behind the scenes here. I appreciate it.
DANIELS: Thank you. I appreciate you.
COATES: Up next, a new and dramatic flashpoint in the administration's battle against judges. And this time, it has everything to do with the U.S. attorney in New Jersey, Alina Habba, or should I now say the former U.S. attorney? I'll explain next. And later, he transformed metal and reality television. We'll remember the bat-biting family man, Ozzy Osbourne.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:45:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: There's a new face off tonight between the Trump administration and the federal courts. But this time, it's not about an injunction or really even a case. This time, it's over who the president wants to be the top prosecutor in New Jersey.
Earlier, a panel of district court judges voted not to extend the interim appointment of Trump's ally and former personal attorney, Alina Habba. Not only did they not extend it, they went ahead and invoked a rarely used power to elevate Habba's deputy to the position, the first assistant attorney, Desiree Leigh Grace. We'll note that Grace is an experienced line prosecutor who originally had been named to position by Habba herself, according to "The New York Times."
But the people leading Trump's DOJ are making one thing very clear. They don't care if Habba would have chosen her as well. Trump chose Habba, not her. And they're not going to let it slide. The AG, Pam Bondi, announced tonight that she is removing Habba's replacement from her new post, saying -- quote -- "This Department of Justice does not tolerate rogue judges, especially when they threaten the president's core Article II powers."
Liz Oyer is back with me now. Liz, what is your reaction to the fact that Bondi has fired this newly-appointed replacement who I think was a career prosecutor, not a political appointee?
OYER: What's shocking about this is that it is totally lawless. There is a system in place for appointing U.S. attorneys, and what it says is that an interim U.S. attorney can be appointed for 120 days and, after that, it is up to the courts to decide who is to serve as the U.S. attorney.
The courts decided that Alina Habba was not fit to serve in that role as a permanent replacement, and the Justice Department is now ignoring that decision by the courts, which is made according to the law. So, the Justice Department is saying the president can do essentially whatever he wants in this realm without regard to laws.
And this is really shocking because the Justice Department, as you know, is entrusted to uphold the laws of our country, which they have decided not to do here because they don't like the outcome.
COATES: Well, follow the thread. This is the head of the office, but there are dozens, if not more, prosecutors who are going to be in that office who are now watching this unfold.
OYER: Yeah.
COATES: And I can't imagine they are not considering how politics has impacted their own work now.
OYER: What is really concerning about this is -- well, there's a couple of things. One is that Alina Habba is somebody who has no actual qualifications to serve as the U.S. attorney. She has never been a federal prosecutor. She has little or no federal court experience of any sort.
COATES: She has civil litigation experience.
OYER: Right. Yeah, yeah. So, she doesn't have the type of qualifications you'd expect. She's somebody who has made it clear that she is blindly loyal to Donald Trump. She served him in a personal capacity prior to his presidency, and that's also concerning for someone who is a U.S. attorney.
And finally, what's just really so unusual here is that the U.S. attorney is a position that's very consequential because that person signs every single criminal charging document that is returned in that district. So, if it is later determined, as it very well may be, that she is not legally in this position any longer of U.S. attorney, having her sign off on all these indictments gives every single criminal defendant in that district the opportunity to file a motion to dismiss their case because the charging document is not legally authorized, which is something that should be really concerning to the Department of Justice.
You wouldn't want to take that risk of opening up years of litigation over the validity of charges that are brought throughout an entire district.
COATES: Can you imagine? These are felony offenses we're talking about.
OYER: That's exactly right.
COATES: Serious crimes that could be jeopardized. Liz Oyer, thank you so much.
OYER: Thanks so much, Laura.
COATES: Up next, we remember the heavy metal legend, the man they call the Prince of Darkness, Ozzy Osbourne. He transcended music and culture on the stage and on television. And tonight, the executive producer of his hit show, "The Osbournes," joins me with a behind-the- scenes tribute next.
[23:50:01]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
(MUSIC PLAYING)
[23:54:57]
(MUSIC PLAYING)
COATES: You know, that was Ozzy Osbourne performing his hit song "Mama, I'm Coming Home" during his last ever performance in his hometown of Birmingham, England, of all places. And it was less than three weeks ago.
Legendary front man of Black Sabbath passed away this morning at the age of 76. He was surrounded by his family. He was dubbed the Godfather of Heavy Metal, the Prince of Darkness, known for his often outrageous antics on stage like when he famously bit the head off of a live bat.
Many of you also might remember Osbourne from his second career as a reality T.V. star. I know I do. His hit T.V. show on MTV, "The Osbournes," made him a household name in the early 2000s. It also paved the way for other families who were focused in reality shows like "The Kardashians." (END VIDEO CLIP)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNKNOWN: It's not illegal.
UNKNOWN: I am going to --
UNKNOWN: It's not illegal. Look how --
UNKNOWN: I am going to --
UNKNOWN: Look how small -- pocket knife blades are bigger than that.
UNKNOWN: You (INAUDIBLE).
UNKNOWN: Okay.
UNKNOWN: I'm suing.
UNKNOWN: Okay. Uh-hmm. It's a 1-inch blade.
OZZY OSBOURNE, HEAVY METAL ICON, REALITY T.V. STAR: (INAUDIBLE).
UNKNOWN: No. Dad --
OSBOURNE: If you get (INAUDIBLE), I'll (bleep).
UNKNOWN: Okay.
OSBOURNE: Don't call out with (bleep) t-shirt with cocaine and (bleep) t-shirt and (bleep). Give me the (bleep) knife.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: With me now is the former executive producer of "The Osbournes," Jeff Stilson. Jeff, I remember watching that show. I thought I always knew that family and watched them over the years, especially after that. But Ozzy Osbourne, I mean, a legend has died. What was your reaction when you heard that he had passed away?
JEFF STILSON, EXECUTIVE PRODUCER, "THE OSBOURNES": Really sad. I love the man. I got to spend five years with him working on the show and great five years. He's -- he's an amazing person, funny, wise, a little bit crazy, smart, just kind of the perfect stew. Really, really enjoyed being with that family for five years.
COATES: Yeah.
STILSON: Can't say enough about them.
COATES: I mean, we all watched the love in that family as well. I thought it was always very touching to see that they were vulnerable, they were close. There was -- the love story between him and, of course, Sharon.
I want to play for you something that he told CNN's Larry King back in -- oh, I think it was 2003. Listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
OSBOURNE: I never realized the power of T.V. I mean, rock and roll is this big, TV is this big.
LARRY KING, CNN HOST: You ain't kidding.
OSBOURNE: And so, I was in Boston and this woman stops me, very conservative woman stops me and she goes, what are you doing in Boston? I'm doing a show. She goes, what kind of a show? I'm doing a rock and roll show. She goes, oh, you do that as well?
(LAUGHTER)
OSBOURNE: I go, ma'am, I've only been doing it for 36 years. She goes, you have? Because people know me just primarily from the show, you know.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: You know, I mean, people thought if you watch "The Osbournes," maybe you knew him from there, maybe you knew his other, of course, career. But tell me about the kind of cultural impact that show had, particularly when it was airing.
STILSON: We had no idea it was an MTV show. So, you know, you go for a small market share, you're on basic cable at that point, but we ended up competing with primetime shows. People love the family. And the truth is we don't have much in common with "The Kardashians" because we never set anything up, we just turned on the cameras. And that family is -- well, you hear the word authentic a lot now.
COATES: Yeah.
STILSON: That family is authentic. Ozzy is authentic, sharing the kids. We just turn the cameras on, and they did their thing. I mean, it was impactful and it was a lot of fun. I can't tell you how much fun it was. They're wonderful people.
COATES: Hmm. It certainly was magnetic. And, of course, his aura on stage was also magnetic and incredible. Think about the amount of time that he has been in the world as this icon in music. What was your favorite memory of Ozzy and what do you think his legacy really is?
STILSON: Well, his musical legacy -- well, we just lost Brian Wilson, we lost Sly Stone, and we lost Ozzy. They're all musical geniuses. They share more than that in common. They share that they're kind. And they had their struggles, but they overcame them, ultimately.
And as far as his legacy, well, just when it comes to his personal life, look at his wife, look at his kids. I mean, that says it all. Those kids, I can't tell you how great those kids are. And Sharon is -- there are very few great shooters in our business, but she's one of them. She is an amazing woman. And just to watch that group interact every day, we were in there six days a week, and cameras were just there, there were flies on the wall, and that was their real dynamic.
[00:00:06]
We didn't have to set anything up. They were just this wonderful family.
COATES: We all got a chance to see him in that light. And, of course, his music will go on forever as well. Jeff Stilson, thank you so much.
STILSON: Thank you. And thank Ozzy for everything he gave us.
COATES: So true. Thank you all out there. Thank you, Ozzy. And thank you all for watching. "Anderson Cooper 360" is next.
