Return to Transcripts main page
Laura Coates Live
ABC Yanks Jimmy Kimmel's Show Off Air "Indefinitely" Over Kirk Comments; Laura Coates Interviews Epstein Survivor; Fired CDC Director Speaks Out Against RFK Jr. Aired 11p-12a ET
Aired September 17, 2025 - 23:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[23:00:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
ABBY PHILLIP, CNN ANCHOR AND SENIOR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: Before we go, a quick programming note. Join CNN for one of the biggest concert events of the year as iconic musicians raise awareness for American family farms. "Farm Aid" airs Saturday at 10 p.m. right here on CNN.
And thank you very much for watching "NewsNight." You can catch me any time on your favorite social media X, Instagram and TikTok. "Laura Coates Live" starts right now.
LAURA COATES, CNN HOST AND SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Surreal. I bet many of you saw the headline and thought, this for real? Well, yes. Yes, it is. ABC is yanking Jimmy Kimmel's show off the air indefinitely. Why? His Monday night monologue that included comments about the alleged assassin of Charlie Kirk.
Just a short time ago, President Trump weighed in, writing, "Great news for America. The ratings challenged Jimmy Kimmel Show is" -- all caps -- "cancelled. Congratulations to ABC for finally having the courage to do what had to be done. Kimmel has zero talent, and worse ratings than even Colbert, if that's possible. That leaves Jimmy and Seth two total losers, on fake news NBC. Their ratings are also horrible. Do it NBC!!!" -- exclamation point, exclamation point, exclamation point.
Now, to be clear, ABC isn't actually using the word "cancelled." They say that Kimmel's show has been preempted indefinitely, not outright cancelled.
Another thing to point out, Trump happens to be in the U.K. right now. So, it was one o'clock in the morning when he heard the news. Posted that. Here's what Kimmel actually said in his opening monologue on Monday that seems to be the source of the backlash.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
JIMMY KIMMEL, TELEVISION HOST, COMEDIAN: We hit some new lows over the weekend with the MAGA gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and doing everything they can to score political points from it. In between the finger pointing, there was grieving. On Friday, the White House flew the flags at half-staff, which got some criticism. But on a human level, you can see how hard the president is taking this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNKNOWN (voice-over): My condolences on the loss of your friend, Charlie Kirk. May I ask, sir, personally, how are you holding up over the last day and a half, sir?
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: I think very good. And, by the way, right there, you see all the trucks? They've just started construction of the new ballroom for the White House, which is something they've been trying to get, as you know, for about 150 years. And it's going to be a beauty.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KIMMEL: Yes.
(LAUGHTER)
He's at the fourth stage of grief, construction.
(LAUGHTER)
Demolition --
(APPLAUSE)
-- construction. This is not how an adult grieves the murder of someone he called a friend. This is how a four-year-old mourns a goldfish, okay?
(END VIDEOTAPE)
COATES: Now, that was on Monday. And there was more of the monologue, of course. But then fast forward to today, when Trump's hand-picked chair of the Federal Communications Commission, the FCC, Brendan Carr, said that the FCC may take an action --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BRENDAN CARR, CHAIR, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION: You know, when you look at the conduct that has taken place by Jimmy Kimmel, um, it appears to be some of the sickest conduct possible. Obviously, there's calls for Kimmel to be fired. I think, you know, you could certainly see a path forward for, uh, suspension over this. And, again, you know, the FCC is going to have remedies that we could look at.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Carr suggests that local T.V. stations should punish Kimmel by not running a show. So, do you know what happened next? At least two owners of ABC-affiliated stations, they did just that. ABC itself pulled the plug shortly after. Now, as you know, Trump has long made it known that he is not happy with the late-night T.V. hosts, who he accuses of being too politically one-sided against him. After CBS announced in July that Stephen Colbert's show was cancelled, Trump said Kimmel and Jimmy Fallon would be next. We'll have reaction from comedian D.L. Hughley in just a moment.
Let's first turn to my panel to digest exactly what has happened tonight, and it is at a whiplash pace. CNN chief media analyst Brian Stelter is here, executive editor at "Deadline," Dominic Patten, also comedian and host of "Stand Up with Pete Dominick," Pete Dominick. I'm glad to have all of you here. I mean, everyone is drinking the news from a fire hose since this decision came out. Brian, how, why did they come to this decision at ABC?
[23:04:58]
BRIAN STELTER, CNN CHIEF MEDIA ANALYST, AUTHOR, SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT FOR VANITY FAIR: Well, ABC executives knew that some local stations were running scared, Laura. The ABC broadcast network is carried over the airwaves by local stations that are licensed by the FCC, and most of those stations are owned by other companies, not Disney. And several of those companies have pending business before the FCC.
Now, in the pre-Trump era, this -- this wouldn't matter very much. The government regulators that oversee the airwaves basically have just rubber-stamped licenses for decades. If you own a station, you get renewed every eight years.
But President Trump has weaponized the FCC. He has repeatedly threatened station licenses. And FCC Chair Brendan Carr has followed Trump's lead. That's why we heard him on our right-wing podcast this afternoon threatening Disney and urging ABC to suspend Kimmel, to punish Kimmel somehow.
Now, I'm told that Kimmel wanted to address this uproar during his taping tonight, but ABC pulled the plug about an hour or so before the taping could begin --
COATES: Oh.
STELTER: -- mostly because ABC was hearing from those other station owners that were afraid of the threats and wanted to make sure that they were not punished by the government. Now, we're hearing from fellow comedians, free speech groups, the ACLU, so many criticisms, so many, you know, condemnations of ABC tonight. Even the union that represents the musicians that play on Kimmel's show --
COATES: Hmm.
STELTER: -- has spoken out tonight, calling this state censorship, calling a direct attack on free speech. The one person we haven't heard from yet is Jimmy Kimmel.
COATES: I would love to hear what he -- I look forward to hearing what he has to say, frankly -- STELTER: Yeah.
COATES: -- and what his reaction would be. I'm sure it's a little bit of shellshock at this point. Pete, a fellow comedian, we've entered some new territory here. Do you think -- you heard what he said. Do you think he crossed the line? Are you confused?
PETE DOMINICK, COMEDIAN, PODCAST HOST: Oh, no. No, he didn't cross the line. First of all, comedy should be legal. This is -- hopefully, historians refer to this as the great capitulation. I mean, this -- listen, I'll just quote Tucker Carlson because just not too long ago today, he is now calling out Trump's own administration, accusing them of using Charlie Kirk's assassination as a pretext to abolish the First Amendment and round up Americans and Nazify the country. I mean, that's Tucker Carlson's words, not mine. So --
COATES: Hmm. I haven't heard that. I want to hear it.
DOMINICK: First, comedians. Comedians are outraged right now. Comedians are, uh, losing their minds right now because we are in solidarity. You're going to hear from Jimmy Kimmel and probably in Steven Colbert Show or all of the shows. Tomorrow night, I hope Colbert has Jimmy Kimmel on. I hope he has hundreds of other influential comedians on. This cannot last.
And, I mean, most importantly, we need to all be speaking out. And Michael Ian Black who, of course, in on the great show that you guys have on Saturday nights with Roy Wood and Amber Ruffin, hilarious comedian, has a great piece out about this because right now, we need to be speaking out.
Now more than ever, people are terrified. I've been inundated. He has been inundated with warnings. And he writes their well intention, these people who are concerned. I could not disagree with them. But now more than ever, it's vital that Americans not self-censor. Now more than ever, it is important for people to express themselves, especially comedians.
COATES: Let's talk about that, Dominic, because ABC, they say this is not a cancellation. Here is where we talk about the semantics of the conversation. It's an indefinite suspension. Hmm, sounds very similar to me. Indefinite off air. He is also the host still, though, of ABC's "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?" But like Brian has mentioned, his contract for the late-night show, I think it's up at the end of this year. Is --
STELTER: That's right.
COATES: Will he return to his late-night show? Should he, even if they offer it back to him? I mean, to take him off based on what has happened here, I -- I'm not sure where he goes from there.
DOMINIC PATTEN, EXECUTIVE EDITOR, DEADLINE HOLLYWOOD: Well, look, you always have to ask yourself, Laura. Do you want to get back together with the person who just broke up with you, even if they say they love you again? COATES: Hmm.
PATTEN: You know, the fact of the matter is Disney made a very, very hard decision here. This went on as we talk. Brian brought it up. We reported on "Deadline." There was a lot of conversations today about this. And there was a lot of trepidation about what Jimmy was going to say today. They hadn't let the audience into his Hollywood Boulevard studio today.
COATES: Really?
PATTEN: They're pretty close. So, I think the real question here is, what is the next? Because there's a greater context here.
We saw a "South Park" episode that criticized and mocked Charlie Kirk, whose death was an absolute tragedy. Please, nobody thinks that I or anyone should think otherwise. Anyone's death like that is a tragedy. But a "South Park" episode was taken off that mocked Charlie Kirk. MSNBC took a commentator off who made comments. Now, we've seen this happen. We saw in July, as you mentioned, Stephen Colbert go off.
Words like censorship feel very uncomfortable in America, but I think a man who shares the same surname as my Christian name just pointed out, that is a place where we are. The question is, where do we go next? And more importantly than that, how do we get there? Will Stephen Colbert address this more vehemently tomorrow? Unfortunately, today, everybody had already taped by the time this phone call was made this afternoon.
[23:10:00]
COATES: Yeah.
PATTEN: Ability here is, how does Jimmy Kimmel come back?
COATES: I mean, Pete, I know you want to react to that, given the -- given the circumstances.
DOMINICK: I mean, it -- it's just -- it's really important that people understand that comedy is -- there is no sacred space. It's comedy. Nine-eleven, cancer, holocaust -- the worst things. I opened for Joan Rivers. She made the most offensive jokes I've ever heard, and she had a huge following. The market can decide.
But this is an attack on the career integrity of every comedian, writer, and performer. And we have to remain in solidarity and speak out together. Something has to be done, and it has to be done in solidarity across the board.
And, by the way, wait till, uh, Trump supporters Adam Carolla and Joe Rogan cracked their mics. I don't think they're going to like it much more than Tucker Carlson did. My friend, Greg Proops, by the way, just posted, comedian, "I hope everyone enjoys one channel with nothing but oral Roberts and he-haw."
COATES: Brian, I know you want to jump in. I know we don't have time, but please.
STELTER: Well, I'm thinking about what Timothy Snyder said tonight. He's the author of "On Tyranny." He said, "The general pattern in regime change is that the comedy gets better, and then it gets banned." We want to think that in the United States, we are somehow superior and safer, and we're not at risk of the democratic backsliding that we've seen in other countries. But this pattern has played out before in countries like Hungary, in Turkey, in numerous other countries. This pattern has played out before.
PATTEN: But Brian, it's also -- Brian, it's also played out -- it's also played out here in America. The irony of ironies, the reason Jimmy Kimmel went on the air in 2003 was because Bill Maher was cancelled in 2002 --
COATES: Hmm.
PATTEN: -- for saying that he didn't believe the 9/11 terrorists, and they were terrorists, he didn't believe it was fair to call them cowards. This has happened before. This is part of a cycle we have in this country. What we do, people saw in the late 60s and the 50s. And now, unfortunately, we're in a time, a dark time like that now.
(CROSSTALK)
DOMINICK: Nothing like this.
COATES: I tell you --
DOMINICK: Nothing like this.
COATES: Was that okay? A Republic if you can keep it. Gentlemen, we'll keep talking. Thank you so much.
With me now, comedian and radio host D.L. Hughley. He is joining me as a passenger from the car he's in. Had to get him on the go because I was so --
(LAUGHTER)
-- wanting to hear what you had to say about what happened tonight. What is your reaction to Jimmy Kimmel being pulled off the air indefinitely?
D.L. HUGHLEY, COMEDIAN: I think that -- I wish that, uh, MAGA was as angry as Epstein's pedophile list, as he is at comedians, as they are at comedians. We have Colbert, we got Kimmel, and we got Rosie O'Donnell. And we've heard more about them than the actual people who tried to assassinate him two times. We've heard more about him than the people on the Epstein list.
So, I think it's clear that they are -- uh, that -- uh, that all the people who are talking about the cancel culture and all the people who were talking about the First Amendment never really meant it. Um, so it's -- it's -- it's -- we were -- we were headed this way the whole time. It's the -- COATES: Hmm.
HUGHLEY: -- the ultimate nod to authoritarianism, when you can just tell people what they can hear and say and use the force. This is exactly what everybody was afraid of. They're using the power of governance to control what people are saying. It's not -- it's not just somebody at a job.
COATES: Hmm.
HUGHLEY: It's actually the FCC chairman. It was -- he's talking about investigating the comedian because of the jokes he tells us. If that doesn't -- if that is in North Korea or Venezuela, I don't know what is.
COATES: Do you take issue -- obviously, this was a decision that was made by ABC, it seems. They were under some sort of pressure. I'm using the word "some sort of" generously here, D.L. But they felt pressured in some way to pull him off the air indefinitely. It was not the exact immediate decision of the government. Does that make a difference for you?
HUGHLEY: I think that, ultimately, whatever pressure they would bring -- I don't know who else could bring pressure on the corporation --
COATES: Hmm.
HUGHLEY: -- except, I think, governance. But whatever pressure they were feeling, I just think it's indicative of where we are. I think, um -- I think we're always ahead of this way. And I think that I've heard more about the comedians that have angered him --
COATES: Hmm.
HUGHLEY: -- than many of the things that plague this country. And that tells you -- I think that there's a destructive element to it. And I think we are what we are.
COATES: Why do you think -- I mean, you and I have talked a lot in the past. And, obviously, you are an extraordinary comedian. You know, so often, comedians can be viewed as sort of the last line of defense to be able to safely see and speak truth to power, even when it takes on a comic or comedic tone.
[23:15:03]
But why do you think comics are the ones? Why do think he, in particular, is being targeted, or Colbert as well, based on what you're saying? What is it about the comedians that is making this --
HUGHLEY: I think that -- I think there are two things. One, uh, most Americans, unfortunately, get their news from social media and particularly from satire. And the comedians, obviously, they're satirists.
COATES: Uh-hmm. HUGHLEY: But they also element -- if you want a merger, if you want your broadcasting license, you're going to have to deal with the FCC, and they are using the power of governance to, uh, bring pressure to bear on people.
I mean, if you look at what Kimmel said, we had a man who on -- on -- last week talked about euthanizing homeless, mentally-ill people. Nothing happened there. That's not an accident. And that's because Fox is, you know, is an entity that he favors. But somebody tells a benign joke that he doesn't like, and now we're here.
COATES: I want to play -- I want to play that, D.L. Hold on. I want to play that because I want you to -- I want the audience to hear it again. I think it cannot be explained or demonstrated enough to give people a really clear understanding of what we're talking about. Listen to this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KIMMEL: We hit some new lows over the weekend with the MAGA gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and doing everything they can to score political points from it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Do you see the issue at all?
HUGHLEY: No. I don't. I don't. And I -- and I defy you to tell me how that -- that pales in comparison to a man on a broadcast network telling people that they need to involuntarily inject homeless people and kill them.
COATES: Hmm.
HUGHLEY: So, it would be -- it would be -- it would be an argument that I agree with if it were -- first off, I wouldn't agree with it any way. I think that Kimmel has the right to say whatever he wants to say just like -- I think Kimmel has the right to say.
Why is it more, uh -- why is the hammer being brought down more on a man who told a joke than the man who advocated the murder of American citizens? I just -- and I defy anybody to make that -- make any reasonable sense. No one -- no one -- freedom of speech means that people might say things that you don't like, but like any number of things and not defend it.
But I think we are here now because we have people who will -- will do the bidding of Trump and -- and -- and who will use the power of governance to get what they want.
COATES: You know, you often hear --
HUGHLEY: We're talking --
COATES: D.L., one sec. I want to -- I want you to continue, but I can't help but think -- I've seen some similar movie like this before, when there's an apology expected --
HUGHLEY: Yeah.
COATES: -- or an apology then given. Do you think Kimmel will be asked to apologize? Should he apologize? Would you apologize?
HUGHLEY: No. For telling a joke? No. No. I think -- I think that I've watched people say any number of offensive things that I've defended. I mean, from (INAUDIBLE) to (INAUDIBLE) to Rocker to, you know, Michael -- Michael Richards, like all of these guys, I've watched them tell jokes and I've defended them.
Ultimately, you have a group of people who were at one point talking about the cancel culture and woke mand all this kind of stuff. And now, they're actually doing the very same things that they say. There was anathema to it. Whatever -- all of those people were once vociferous protectors of the right of free speech.
I think that if you look at what Charlie Kirk stood for, it was a right to express himself in a manner that made society uncomfortable. I think that it's disingenuous for society to take that away from somebody else who says something they don't like.
COATES: D.L., we often talk about a chilling effect when it comes to the media or otherwise. This decision, do you think it will have a chilling effect on comedians, on the entertainment industry, on people's willingness to speak their mind?
HUGHLEY: I obviously will. I think -- I think that there -- there was -- they've always been a problem to me, when corporations are -- all the entertainment companies. Because, one, they just -- they -- immediately, they'll ask each other. One is concerned about the bottom line and one is concerned about a creative outlet.
I think that you can always tell when they are people who are more concerned about a fiduciary outlook as opposed to a creative one. I think we are here now because, when you look at LL Cool J, he was hosting the MTV Awards, he said that's not the place for this.
[23:20:05]
By definition, is a place where artists express what they're seeing. It is oftentimes when we're being entertained. When you now have people who are telling you what you can't see and can't say, every American should be offended by that. Every American should be up in arms about that because what people don't seem to realize, it won't always be you, the people who you like in charge.
COATES: Hypocrisy is a cancer, isn't it? D.L. Hughley, thank you.
(LAUGHTER)
HUGHLEY: Always.
COATES: Stay with us. Jimmy Kimmel's ousting housing has a lot of people asking, who gets the title, the party of council culture, now? My political panel will debate it next. Plus, new tonight, former Vice President Kamala Harris is revealing Governor Walz wasn't exactly her first pick for running mate. We'll tell you who she actually wanted and why she didn't think it is going to work out.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:25:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: President Trump celebrating Jimmy Kimmel's suspension. His glee should come as no surprise to those who've actually heard him rail against late night for years. Listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: The guy at CBS is -- is -- what a low life. What a low life.
Fallon has no talent. Kimmel has no talent. They're next. They're going to be going. I hear they're going to be going.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Well, then, there are the president's online posts. How bad is Seth Meyers? Jimmy Kimmel is next to go. Shortly thereafter, Fallon will be gone. The one-sided hatred on these shows is incredible. Colbert is very boring. CBS should terminate his contract. That could go on.
I want to bring in Democratic strategist Chuck Rocha and CNN political commentator Brad Todd. Glad to have both of you here. I mean, the news came in fast and furious today on this issue, even while the president is overseas, even when there's other news coming in. This is a really big focus because it goes to the heart, really, of people's discussions on free speech.
Brad, the FCC, they're supposed to be independent. But there's, obviously, this idea of what Brendan Carr had to say today, the White House's views on late night and between. Can the criticism and also statements from Brendan Carr today, does this give you pause about the independence and how the public will view it? Because, ultimately, their credibility makes them legitimate in the long term or not.
BRAD TODD, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: Well, their commissioners are appointed by the president. They're Democratic commissioners or Republican commissioners. They are confirmed by the Senate. So, it's -- it's a dependent agency in that format.
You know, I think one thing to remember here is Jimmy Kimmel has all the free speech he wants. He's going to go on Substack and say everything he can think of starting tomorrow. And that's his right. It's the public square.
And T.V. news network using the broadcast airwaves is a little bit different because they operate under license from the FCC, and that license is dependent on their cooperation with the public interest obligation.
And the Supreme Court has consistently said that the FCC has a right to interpret that and enforce it. So, the FCC can decide if networks are acting in the public interest obligation or not.
COATES: But it would be counter to the First Amendment and Supreme Court longstanding precedent, that you cannot engage in viewpoint discrimination. You have a reasonable time, place, manner, restriction that applies to everyone. If I was at your speech (ph), then that's one thing. But the idea of saying, I don't like what you're saying and, therefore, I'm going to make sure that my policies or my punishment is accordingly, that would run counter to the Supreme Court.
I want to read through a second before you answer because the FCC chair back in 2022 said, this is his words, "Political satire is one of the oldest and most important forms of free speech. It challenges those in power while using humor to draw more people into the discussion. That's why people in influential positions have always targeted it for censorship." That strikes a chord. That's the person --
TODD: Satire -- satire is very important. And, of course, what happened tonight was you saw a business decision by network, by station groups that did not carry it for a while as they assess things. And then you saw the ABC decide, well, maybe if our stations aren't going to carry it, maybe we should not carry it for a while. I would also --
COATES: Make it sound so lovely. It sounds like saying, I'm not breaking up, we're on a break right now.
TODD: They said this is suspension. Now -- but let's also go back and think about -- Joe Biden tried to come up with a thing called -- remember the disinformation governance board that he tried to set up?
COATES: Uh-hmm.
TODD: Jimmy Kimmel would be guilty of disinformation. He said that the shooter of Charlie Kirk was, in fact, a part of the president's movement, which is not true.
COATES: Well, those weren't his exact words. Actually -- no, there isn't. I know there was an intimation. That's the criticism.
TODD: It's clear that's what he meant.
COATES: Well, you said that's what he said. So, there's a distinction there in terms of what he was suggesting and the idea in place. Let's just play his words. Why am I interpreting for Jimmy Kimmel? Do we have what he said? You decide for yourselves. Listen to this. We don't have it? Well, I'm not going to paraphrase. This is not my first rodeo. Chuck?
CHUCK ROCHA, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST, FORMER SENIOR ADVISER FOR BERNIE SANDERS'S 2016 AND 2020 PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGNS: I'm going to tell you about these -- these station groups that Brad bring up. I don't think this is much about the First Amendment as part that bothers me the most. It's these station groups. And that this happened on Monday, and we're just talking about it today.
Because these two small -- they're not small, they own a ton of local ABC stations -- want to do more mergers. So that's in front of FCC. That is their job. They have to approve these mergers to make sure somebody don't have a monopoly. And that's how the system is set up and it's a good system.
But what happened today is you had the FCC commissioner go on a podcast and go, did you all see what crazy Kimmel said on Monday? I don't like that. We should do something about it. Signaling to these folks that I'm going to be the one approving this merger and you all need to get your boy right or I'm not going to approve this. That's the part of this that bothers me.
COATES: Well, I have the clip.
ROCHA: Now, we have the clip.
COATES: Here's what he said. Listen.
[23:30:00]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KIMMEL: We hit some new lows over the weekend with the MAGA gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and doing everything they can to score political points from it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Now, hearing what he said. Obviously, we can quibble with the specificity. But I want to tell you one thing that Don, Jr. wrote in reaction. I thought it was very interesting. I want to hear your reaction, Brad. He said, "They're not losing their jobs to cancel culture, they're losing them to consequence culture. Consequences and accountability are something Democrats haven't had to face in a long time." Is that the right take?
TODD: Well, I think what he's trying to get at there is we've had people at the head of large institutions and large media organizations and large cultural institutions in our country that were all pretty bit toward one ideological direction. That's changing some. The American public began pushing back. There was a populist uprising 10 years ago. It was continuing on to this day.
That's bringing a lot more accountability to what Charles Murray, the sociologist, called super zips, right? People who live in these zip codes that are untouchable. They run corporations, they run institutions, and they tend to all think the same way. That accountability has been coming, and I think this is part of it.
COATES: I want to turn for a second to the politics of another big story that came out. As you know, there's a book coming out from the former vice president and presidential candidate, Kamala Harris. We're talking about it right now. This was new tonight. There's a new reveal from Vice President Kamala Harris about the running mate she really wanted, but did not choose. Pete Buttigieg was actually her first choice.
She writes in her new book, "We were already asking a lot of America to accept a woman, a Black woman, a Black woman married to a Jewish man. Part of me wanted to say, screw it, let's just do it. But knowing what was at stake, it was too big of a risk." What's your reaction?
ROCHA: Finally, we get to talk about some politics. Just how this went down and why it went down in the way that it went down. Stay with me on the go downs. And what I mean by that is she picked a white football coach from Minnesota who talked like every day Americans, a little bit like me, but whatever. She needed help with those demographics. And she still lost them dramatically. Stop it. We lost them. I get it.
(LAUGHTER)
You know who we won overwhelmingly? Were gay men that went to Harvard and Oxford, which is who he represents, Governor Pete. Great guy, nothing against him. It's great that he got to go to Harvard and go to Oxford. I don't care if he's gay or straight. But she won them at 95%. She didn't need more help with that demographic.
So, the decision, whether she liked him or not, was trying to appeal to a group that she was very weak with. Now, I think there was a lot of mistakes with the campaign. They could have done a lot of things. But what she's saying there is not absolutely wrong because she didn't need any help with the demographic that she skipped.
COATES: I'm curious as to how this is perceived and the rest of the excerpt because the idea of the risk, I wonder if people will read more into this, and what the reaction will be. Chuck, Brad, thank you both so much.
Up next, FBI Director Kash Patel grilled for a second straight day over the Epstein files. A survivor is here to respond after he dodged everything from Epstein's credibility to how many times Trump's name appears in the files.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. ERIC SWALWELL (D-CA): It sounds like if you don't know the number, it could at least be a thousand times.
KASH PATEL, DIRECTOR, FBI: It's not. It's not.
SWALWELL: Is it at least 500 times?
PATEL: No.
SWALWELL: Is it at least a hundred times?
PATEL: No.
SWALWELL: Then what's the number?
PATEL: I don't know the number, but it's not that.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:35:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: FBI Director Kash Patel returning for round two of fiery testimony on Capitol Hill, fielding tough questions from House Democrats about Jeffrey Epstein just a day after shouting matches with the Senate Judiciary Committee. He defended the administration's handling of the Epstein files. And you know the line he repeated over and over again? Well, he claims he has released all credible information he legally can. Keyword, credible.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PATEL: We have released where President Trump's name is in the Epstein files, and everybody else, um, and all credible information that we are legally allowed to release has been released. We are also not in the habit of releasing incredible information. That's not what we do. But multiple authorities have looked at the entirety of what we --
UNKNOWN (voice-over): Okay.
PATEL: We have released everything, the president and anyone else's side, that is credible and lawfully be able to be released.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Patel says the FBI will investigate any new credible leads. So, you would think he'd want to meet with Epstein's survivors, those who would want to tell the administration what they endured and provide, they believe, credible testimony. One of those survivors, Haley Robson, will join me in just a moment. Patel, he was pressed if he would interview them.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. PRAMILA JAYAPAL (D-WA): If you are so interested in getting the public to submit any information, why have you not met with them? You said you haven't met with them. Have you met with them? I'll give you one more chance.
PATEL: My job as the FBI director is to invite --
JAYAPAL: Is the answer yes or no to whether or not you met with these women who were sexually abused and raped? PATEL: Any insinuation by you or any people on your side that I am not manhunting child predators and sex traffickers, just look at the stat.
JAYAPAL: Mr. Patel --
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Not a direct yes or no answer. And then he was asked this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JAYAPAL: Mr. Patel, are the victims of the Jeffrey Epstein horrific trafficking ring, are they credible?
[23:39:58]
PATEL: Any person with information about ongoing sexual trafficking --
JAYAPAL: I'm asking you if they're credible.
PATEL: Ma'am, I'm commenting on the evidence we have.
JAYAPAL: But I'm --
PATEL: We have routinely asked for people to come forward with more evidence, and we will look at it. And the evidence that we have was the same evidence that the Biden --
JAYAPAL: Mr. Patel --
PATEL: -- and Obama Justice Departments had.
JAYAPAL: Mr. Patel --
PATEL: They determined, not me, they determined --
JAYAPAL: Mr. Chairman --
PATEL: -- that that information was not credible.
JAYAPAL: Mr. Chairman --
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: With me now, Haley Robson. She is one of the Epstein survivors who came forward for the very first time on Capitol Hill along with other survivors to push for the release of all of the Epstein files.
Haley, welcome and thank you for being here and continuing to share your personal journey here. You heard the FBI director, particularly evasive on questions about whether he has met with or will meet with survivors, refuse saying whether he finds survivors credible. What would you say to him tonight in response? HALEY ROBSON, VICTIM OF JEFFREY EPSTEIN: I mean, it's a hoax. Now, we're not credible.
COATES: Hmm.
ROBSON: Um, it's hard to follow everything, honestly, as it's coming out. Um, I have to chuckle to myself because the only credible people in the room are the people that said they were coming through with the Epstein files and campaigned on it for their whole campaign, and now, when it's time to pay the piper, they all of a sudden don't know where the files are or there's -- all of a sudden, there's nobody that's credible.
It's just the imagination and the creativity behind these stories are astounding to me. Of course, we're credible.
COATES: Would you meet with him? He talks about new, credible. He talks about meeting with survivors in terms of the FBI investigators, not himself personally.
ROBSON: Yeah.
COATES: Would you meet with him, the director of the FBI, if he agreed to?
ROBSON: Absolutely. I have no hard feelings. I have no animosity. As hard as it is to hear anyone say that it's a hoax or say that the survivors aren't credible or they didn't feel there was credible enough evidence to release the files, um, yeah, of course, it's very hurtful to hear because we all know it's not true.
Um, but I am willing to meet with anybody from this administration. I am willing to work with anybody from this administration, including Kash Patel, if it means that we can come together in some type of resolution and actually be able to put this behind us while also being transparent.
COATES: Haley, has anyone from the FBI sought to interview you? Have you given such an interview at all?
ROBSON: Not lately. The last time the FBI wanted to interview me was when Jeffrey Epstein was arrested for the second time, which was in, I believe, New York. So, unfortunately, since then, I have not heard anything. But my offer stands. And if they're not comfortable speaking to me, I urge them to reach out to Brad Edwards, which is my attorney, and they can speak to him directly if not comfortable meeting with the survivors. We're okay with that as well.
COATES: To your understanding, has there been that offer extended to even your council?
ROBSON: There has been absolutely nothing offered to my council, to any of the other girls' council. It's extremely disheartening to see everything play out. But I'm going to stay hopeful and optimistic, and I'm going to just keep hoping that within the next few months, there will be something huge, and maybe the time will come where somebody does actually reach out to us.
COATES: Now, I want to be clear, I asked about the FBI, the House Oversight Democrats did meet with your counsel ahead of their interview with Alex Acosta. I know you're aware of that. And, of course, that is that prosecutor who negotiated Epstein's -- what they're calling as sweetheart deal back in 2008. Can you talk to me a little about the meeting with lawmakers? What are you hoping the lawmakers will ask Acosta about that deal and anything else?
ROBSON: Well, one of the questions that has been on my mind since the very beginning in 2008 when it was originally arranged between -- arranged between Alex Acosta and this plea deal is, who told you to offer that deal? Who authorized that? Who -- who oversaw you doing all this? Who -- I mean, surely not one man. Himself came up with this idea of let's give him this specific sweetheart deal and let's make a move and let's -- let's do things this way.
Clearly, there was other people that were involved in giving Jeffrey Epstein this sweetheart plea deal, and I would like to know the names of those people. I would really like to know who's responsible for offering that, especially to do it in such a way where it's harmful to the survivors.
COATES: Hmm.
ROBSON: And, basically, they did it behind our backs. We didn't even know.
[23:45:00]
COATES: Unbelievable to think about that and what that must have felt like, Haley. Learning about it the way -- frankly, the rest of the world was learning about it as well. I mean, the House Judiciary Committee, they rejected a request from Democrats to vote on whether to subpoena four major banks to investigate their relationship with Epstein and some kinds of suspicious transactions. Are you concerned that this could be a dead end for the investigation, when people are normally saying, follow the money?
ROBSON: Well, I'm going to say, if you follow the money, you're probably going to have a lot more answers. One thing is for certain. There is a trust with money in it after Jeffrey Epstein passed away. And I think it is time that we go back into that trust and find out who's on the receiving end to it.
COATES: Hmm.
ROBSON: And I'm sure we can scramble some more answers that way. But I do think the safest and probably the best most accurate way, 100% follow the money. Follow the money. Find out who was pulling money, who was involved in the transactions. That's huge in this. Absolutely.
COATES: Well, we will continue to follow this story. And Haley Robson, thank you for being here.
ROBSON: Absolutely. COATES: Up next, RFK Jr. said that she was fired because he couldn't trust her. Tonight, the former CDC director is telling her story as she warns America there is reason to be worried about what the CDC might do this week. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:50:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: The U.S. public health system is headed to a very dangerous place. That's the message tonight from the doctor who used to run the CDC. That is until HHS Secretary RFK Jr. fired her just 29 days into her role.
Well, today, Dr. Susan Monarez got to tell her version of events. And she says she wasn't fired because, somehow, she couldn't be trusted. She says she was fired simply because she would not replace evidence with ideology.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SUSAN MONAREZ, FORMER DIRECTOR, CDC: I was fired for holding the line on scientific integrity. I had refused to commit to approving vaccine recommendations without evidence, fire career officials without cause or resign, and I had shared my concerns with this committee.
My worst fear was that I would then be in a position of approving something that would reduce access of life-saving vaccines to children and others who need them.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Joining me now is Dr. Dan Jernigan. He is a former director of the National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases at the CDC. He resigned from the agency after Dr. Monarez was fired. Dr. Jernigan, welcome. You heard what she had to say. She says that she was fired for -- quote -- "holding the line on scientific integrity." How important was it for the public to be able to hear her story?
DAN JERNIGAN, FORMER DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL CENTER FOR EMERGING AND ZOONOTIC INFECTIOUS DISEASES, CDC: I think it's very important. I think what you saw were two career scientists there, Dr. Howard and Dr. Monarez, who were describing why they could not support the secretary.
For Dr. Monarez, it was not firing leadership without cause and not rubber-stamping recommendations that don't follow an evidence-based, science-driven process. So, in that sense, her integrity was primary, and she had to make that hard decision.
COATES: Dr. Monarez says that she was worried and she is worried about changes to the childhood vaccine schedule. We know the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices is meeting tomorrow and also Friday to review various vaccines. Do you have any expectations of how those meetings might go, especially given her stated concerns?
JERNIGAN: I think it has been a very unusual process that has been underway here. I've actually been trying to follow it. And even up until just a few hours ago, the documents were just showing up on the web. So, normally, there are months of preparation. The public knows what's going to happen, and we know what votes are going to happen. Things are different this time. We don't know exactly how things are going to end up.
COATES: What's the risk of having them just online? What's your thought here? That they're not being vetted properly, researched sufficiently or something else?
JERNIGAN: Right. Normally, these kinds of things would go through a working group that would look at all the different evidence, and you'd weigh that evidence. You have the things that are for the issue and things that are against it, not just one side. And what we're seeing right now, I think, with this secretary is its conclusions first, and then figure out the science afterward.
COATES: That reverse engineering sounds very concerning as has been described today. Senator Rand Paul took issue with the idea of giving COVID vaccine shots to six-month-olds. He also took issue with giving hepatitis B shots to newborns. Can you just respond to the senator's concerns and explain where is the science on those issues?
JERNIGAN: That's a great question. And so, there was science that was used to get to those recommendations that are part of the childhood schedule now. And I think as you heard Dr. Monarez say, she's not against the changes to the childhood schedule, it's the process used to get there.
So, everyone is okay thinking through how that childhood schedule could be changed, but the data for why to change the hepatitis B vaccine for infants and the data for why to change the COVID vaccines, that kind of information, that science needs to be presented in the working group and then to the committee.
COATES: You know, I remember having newborns, six-month-olds, and young children now. And I got to tell you, I've been following this story. And as a parent, you can't help but be a little bit confused as to what is the appropriate steps for your child and what should be done.
[23:55:00]
How can everyday people understand the context and the guidance? Who are we to believe?
JERNIGAN: I think that's part of the reason why there are recommendations that are on the web by the CDC and by groups like the American Academy of Pediatrics, et cetera. We can't expect every parent to try and read through all of that science and try to make up their own mind. They have to be able to trust somebody.
And so, right now, I'm not quite sure if we can trust what's going to come out of the recommendations tomorrow. But we'll see. Maybe it will be something that is different. But parents have to be able to trust something.
And so, right now, I'm hoping that the American Academy of Pediatrics and others will be helping to put a good housekeeping seal of approval, some kind of an assessment on these kinds of recommendations so that a parent can know who to trust.
COATES: We just want to make the best decisions for our kids. It's important to think about that. Dr. Dan Jernigan, thank you.
JERNIGAN: Sure. Thanks a lot.
COATES: And thank you all for watching. "Anderson Cooper 360" is next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
