Return to Transcripts main page

Laura Coates Live

Trump DOJ Indicts Ex-FBI Director James Comey; White House Threatens Mass Firings if Government Shuts Down; Hegseth Orders Massive, Mysterious Military Meeting. Aired 11p-12a ET

Aired September 25, 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]

OMAR JIMENEZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: -- five years if he's convicted and it's a big if. We'll get to why in a moment. But this indictment is the biggest prize yet for Trump's retribution agenda. Comey is facing two charges. One for making false statements and another for obstruction.

And tonight, the president is weighing in. He writes, "Justice in America. One of the worst human beings this country has ever been exposed to is James Comey, the former corrupt head of the FBI. He has been so bad for our country, for so long, and is now at the beginning of being held responsible for his crimes against our nation."

We should note, the previous Justice Department under Trump in 2019 declined to prosecute Comey over his handling of FBI memos. But in this particular case, Comey released a video statement tonight, 30 minutes after we saw that statement from Trump, telling Trump, let's have a trial.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JAMES COMEY, FORMER DIRECTOR, FBI: My family and I have known for years that there are costs to standing up to Donald Trump. But we couldn't imagine ourselves living any other way. We will not live on our knees and you shouldn't either.

Somebody that I love dearly recently said that fear is the tool of a tyrant. And she's right. But I'm not afraid. And I hope you're not either. I hope instead you are engaged, you are paying attention, and you will vote like your beloved country depends upon it, which it does.

My heart is broken for the Department of Justice, but I have great confidence in the federal judicial system. And I'm innocent. So, let's have a trial and keep the faith.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

JIMENEZ: And look, this is a few that goes all the way back to the 2016 campaign and the start of the Russia investigation. But everything started to really heat up in the last week. And by that, I mean, Trump posted this over the weekend, a demand to Attorney General Pam Bondi, telling her to prosecute Comey, Senator Adam Schiff, and New York Attorney General Letitia James.

And at the same time, we were learning about all kinds of chaos inside the Eastern District of Virginia. That's the DOJ office that was looking into Comey. The top career prosecutor there was essentially forced out. Trump made publicly clear he wanted him gone. He was replaced by a Trump loyalist, Lindsey Halligan, which gets us to the indictment today. It was Lindsey Halligan who signed it. The two charges appear to relate to Comey's testimony in September 2020, alleging he lied about authorizing leaks to the media.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. TED CRUZ (R-TX): What Mr. McCabe is saying and what you testified to this committee cannot both be true. One or the other is false. Who's telling the truth?

COMEY: I can only speak to my testimony. I stand by what -- the testimony you summarized that I gave in May of 2017.

CRUZ: So, your testimony is you've never authorized anyone to leak. And Mr. McCabe, if he says contrary, is not telling the truth. Is that correct?

COMEY: Again, I'm not going to characterize Andy's testimony, but mine is the same today.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

JIMENEZ: So that seems to be the crux of what we're dealing with here. But there's also another piece of important information. Halligan presented a third charge against Comey, but it was rejected by the grand jury assigned. This case might face some serious hurdles. Comey is expected to be arraigned in court on October 9th.

A lot to talk about. With me now, former assistant U.S. attorney in the Eastern District of Virginia, Gene Rossi, and former chief of staff of the Department of Homeland Security under President Trump, Miles Taylor. Good to see you both.

Um, look, I wasn't joking when I said we have a lot to get into. And Miles, look, you have a unique perspective on this, uh, because the president signed an order for you to be investigated earlier this year. How are you thinking about this indictment of James Comey? How are you processing this?

MILES TAYLOR, FORMER CHIEF OF STAFF AT DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, AUTHOR, PODCAST HOST: Well, look, I think it's seismic. And we've learned two very, very big things this year about what has happened to the rule of law.

In April, with the order the president signed against me, we learned that the president of the United States can now launch investigations into individual critics for First Amendment protected speech with the stroke of a pen. That had never happened before in American history until that order in April. And tonight, we learned with a Truth Social post, with a social media post, the president can pressure an indictment into one of those critics. This is a very, very big deal.

Now, I've said in the past few days that I'm calling death, time of death, on the rule of law this past Saturday, September 20th at 6.44 p.m., when that message went out because the rule of law would not allow an American president to do something like this, to order this type of investigation without that initial predicate.

Trump wants to see a montage of mug shots of his adversaries. That's not how the justice system works. It starts with evidence of a crime and it builds towards charging with someone. It doesn't start at the top with the president saying, I want to see that man or woman in jail.

[23:04:59]

JIMENEZ: And, you know, I alluded, Gene, to this idea of this being a big if in terms of actually seeing the consequences of this indictment in the form of a conviction here. And I wonder, for you -- look, the grand rejected a third charge against Comey. How unusual is that? But how also do you assess the strength of the actual case that prosecutors have here?

GENE ROSSI, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: Let me answer that question in --

JIMENEZ: Okay.

ROSSI: -- a couple minutes or a couple sentences. I want to say this about James Comey. I worked on an organized crime and drug trafficking case back in the day with Jim Comey. We're not the best of friends, but I can tell you, from my experience, he's a man of honor, integrity, and courage.

And I want to go to another date. Saturday, October 20th, 1973, Richard Nixon called the attorney general, Elliot Richardson, and he wanted Archibald Cox fired, the special prosecutor, for issuing subpoenas for the tapes. And Elliot Richardson did what Pam Bondi should have done. When the president calls the attorney general to do something that the attorney general knows is wrong, you do one thing, you resign. Elliot Richardson resigned.

Nixon then called the deputy attorney general, William Ruckelshaus. Now, it's Todd Blanche. He asked Ruckelshaus to do the same thing in fire. Ruckelshaus resigned.

And what happened here? Our attorney general, our deputy attorney general, and the U.S. attorney who was appointed, I think, Saturday or Monday of this week, who has zero justification to be head of one of the best, if not the best, U.S. attorney's offices, she was the one who signed this indictment because no prosecutor in my old office where I worked for 20 years dared sign this piece of paper. Let's get to the charges.

JIMENEZ: Yeah. Do they have a case on not signing?

ROSSI: Do they have a case? Omar, this case is so weak. No prosecutor, line prosecutor, or career prosecutor, or the former U.S. attorney, Erik Siebert, who also has honor -- they wouldn't sign it. But Lindsey Halligan would because who is she? She is a person who will do whatever Mr. Trump wants. And that is wrong. That is the antithesis of what a career prosecutor and a U.S. attorney should do.

The merits of this case are so weak. If you play back that clip, Mr. Cruz falsely summarized what Andy McCabe said. So, their charge is this: A false summary of what Andy McCabe said, and Jim Comey says, I stand by what I said. That's obstruction. That's a false statement. By itself, it's not a criminal violation.

Let's go to the judge in this case, Judge Michael Nachmanoff.

JIMENEZ: A Biden-appointee.

ROSSI: He could not have gotten a better judge, Jim Comey could not, because Mike Nachmanoff, and I've had cases with him, I appeared in front of him, he's an outstanding judge, he's honest, he's fair, he's balanced, and he will be the worst nightmare for those prosecutors pushing this indictment.

JIMENEZ: And, you know, one of the things here, and Miles, I want you to speak to this, because, you know, in some aspects, it's not so much the strength of the legal case and trying to get to a conviction, but the fact that there is an indictment creates a set of investigations, it creates the scrutiny, it creates -- I mean, a large headache, I think, is the fair way to put it at the very minimum.

Um, and -- and while Comey is the first, seemingly not the last, sources telling CNN top DOJ officials are pushing for a charge against former Trump national security adviser, John Bolton, uh, this week, because some political leadership see this case as a way to sort of placate the president.

I know we mentioned the aim that has been put your way, Miles. But do you worry about the administration going after you? And how are you assessing the overall dynamic outside of just this Comey case?

TAYLOR: Well, look, you just said it. There are sources inside the administration saying that they are looking to bring that case against John Bolton to placate the president, not to make sure that justice is upheld, not because there was an initial predicate and evidence of a crime, but because they need to satiate the president's desire for revenge.

This, Omar, is why I believe this is a constitutional crisis. This is why I believe what we are watching today is an impeachable offense. The president of the United States, very openly in front of the American people, is going far beyond Watergate and persecuting his enemies.

[23:10:05]

He has violated today James Comey's 14th and 5th Amendment rights. If ever anyone had a case for selective and vindictive prosecution, it will be James Comey. And I'm sure that's going to be part of what his lawyers take into court.

But this is an extraordinary moment. As far as it relates to us personally, look, I'll say this: Uh, the consequences have been very, very real to be on the president's blacklist. But people don't need to have sympathy for me. They need to worry about themselves. A violation of my rights, a violation of James Comey's rights, a violation of John Bolton's rights is a violation of your rights.

And we have seen that with this administration's censorship war in the United States. People are waking up and realizing Jimmy Kimmel getting censored actually affects them and their personal lives. Their free speech rights are threatened.

Every American should be worried right now about their due process rights in this country because of what this president has shown himself willing to do. That's how serious this is. We're planning for it. We think it's as serious as a heart attack. But it's not just about us and our family and these other people inside the Beltway who are being targeted. This is about all Americans. This is about a bill of rights that's being lit on fire.

JIMENEZ: And Gene, look, you talked about some of the resignations back --

ROSSI: Sure.

JIMENEZ: -- in the Nixon era. We saw Comey's son-in-law, a federal prosecutor at the Eastern District of Virginia, resign --

ROSSI: I tried a case with him.

JIMENEZ: Well --

ROSSI: Against him.

JIMENEZ: Well, I guess my question, though, is, do you foresee a rank-and-file exodus? And if so, what is -- what is the real-world implication of that? Because I guess the dilemma is, on one hand, you stay inside the administration, as you did that symbol of resistance in the first Trump administration and sort of try to fight from the inside, or you leave to not be a part of it.

ROSSI: That's a very difficult decision.

JIMENEZ: Yeah.

ROSSI: I want to talk about Troy Edwards, Jim Comey's son-in-law. I represented an Oath Keeper, the first Oath Keeper to enter the Capitol in January 6. I'm not a Trump supporter, but I believe in due process and the rights of defendants. Troy Edwards was the prosecutor in my five-defendant case. I had one defendant. He has integrity, he has honesty, and he was fair. And he struck hard blows, but they were just ones. I didn't win, but he was a class act. And it breaks my heart that Troy Edwards resigned.

To answer your question, there are scores, scores, hundreds of attorneys, career prosecutors at all levels within the Justice Department who tonight are seriously questioning how long they can stay under the reign of this attorney general and this deputy attorney general. Scores. I've talked to many who have been thinking about leaving. This indictment may push them over the edge.

And what's so sad is that the morale and esprit de corps, the esprit de corps, which is the heart and soul of the Justice Department, it is plummeting. And that just breaks my heart.

JIMENEZ: Gene Rossi, Miles Taylor, I appreciate you both being here. Thank you for the time and insight.

ROSSI: Thank you.

JIMENEZ: All right. And, obviously, we got more news coming up. Democrats ringing the alarm that James Comey's indictment will not be the last. So, who could be next? And will any Republican speak out against it? We'll talk about it all next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:15:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

JIMENEZ: "The Washington Post" editorial board tonight putting it this way on James Comey's indictment. "In the president's view, he suffered through an ill-advised process of criminal prosecution and wants to inflict it on his foes. That might give him satisfaction. The rest of the country will more likely regard it as at worst an abuse of power and at best a waste of time."

What a way to set up our conversation. Joining me now, New York Times reporter covering the Justice Department and the FBI, Devlin Barrett, CNN political commentator Shermichael Singleton, and former Democratic congressman, Tom Malinowski. Good to see all of you.

Um, Shermichael, I want to start with you because the response from Republicans I'm seeing to this point --

SHERMICHAEL SINGLETON, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: Uh-hmm.

JIMENEZ: -- is part of what I just read, that Trump was subjected to a bunch of prosecutions they thought were bogus and were eventually thrown out in large part or paused in large part because of the Supreme Court. But with this so telegraphed ahead of time, in a sense, the president wanting this to happen, including pushing urgency on social media, do you see this indictment as a one-to-one response to what was lodged against the president?

SINGLETON: That's a good question. So, many conservatives will absolutely say yes, clearly you have a legal argument. Many of our attorneys on air have said that this gives Comey's defense attorneys an opportunity to potentially get this dismissed. Um, I do think, though, if I'm being candid, I do wonder how much of a distraction this becomes with an economy that isn't as great as I had thought it would have been at this point.

I'm thinking about midterms. I'm looking at the number of special elections that Democrats have won despite the fact that my side, we have an advantage in terms of registered voters and we're still losing some of these races. There's a number of governor races coming up. Those numbers are not looking good for us either. And so that, to me, gives an indication that midterms will be tough.

And I think the best way to get vindication for yourself is to win elections. Let's improve our majority in the House. I want to see that. President Trump, 21% Black voters compared to 12% the first time around.

[23:20:02]

Look at his numbers with Latino voters. Look at his numbers with younger voters. I personally want to submit those votes, right, because I want to maintain the majority in the House in '26. But I'm also thinking of how do I curate a strategy that leads me to '28 to make J.D. Vance competitive so that we have another four years in the White House. That's the way I'm thinking about this.

I get the president's position, but I just don't want this to become a distraction of the overall goals of electoral politics, and that is to sustain victory and power so that you can move forward with your legislative agenda.

JIMENEZ: Congressman, how are you looking at tonight?

TOM MALINOWSKI, FORMER NEW JERSEY REPRESENTATIVE: Um, Jim Comey is going to be fine. I feel sorry for the prosecutors who are going to have to live with the stain that this will place on their professional reputations for the rest of their lives.

And there's something else. When we're talking about dumb things that this Justice Department and the FBI are doing because of the president's personal obsessions, I'm concerned about what they're not doing.

So, let me -- let me give you an example. Forty-five percent of FBI agents at the top 25 field offices across the country are now on petty immigration enforcement. They're not doing their job, which is to protect us against terrorism, which is to protect us against organized crime and child trafficking and foreign espionage and things that could actually hurt the United States of America.

The office at the Justice Department that is supposed to prosecute political corruption, the prosecuted Democrats like Bob Menendez, prosecuted Republicans over the years, has been almost entirely dismantled.

And what do you think that the head of the FBI and the attorney general wakes up every morning worried about? It's not about threats to the country. It's not about threats to law and order. It's about what the president of the United States is personally obsessed with, and that's revenge against his enemies. That makes Americans less safe.

JIMENEZ: And, you know, Devlin, prior to this, you know, I think it is safe to say the president has put out many times on social media the people he would like to be prosecuted and he would like to face the consequences of whatever ill he perceives to have happened against him.

But, for example, the DOJ under Attorney General Bill Barr at the time decided not to charge Comey. That was for handling of FBI memos and potential leaking. But Attorney General Pam Bondi's DOJ, you get this intense pressure from the executive branch, decides otherwise, and it comes after the previous U.S. attorney essentially is pushed out, a loyalist is put in, and then all of a sudden, magic, we have this indictment. Have -- have you covered anything like this? How did we get here?

DEVLIN BARRETT, JUSTICE AND FBI REPORTER, THE NEW YORK TIMES: Trump has, for a long time, put this type of pressure on the Justice Department. But now, it is much more intense and it is creating real results. He fired a senior Republican prosecutor to get here. I think that's a really important point in everything that follows since.

I think, you know, Comey, to your point, I think Comey has a lot of good arguments to make in court. I think those arguments will get made, and we'll see a lot of this aired out in court.

Um, I think there's a lot of shock in the world of current former law enforcement officials who never thought they would see this day that the Justice Department would be used this way, would be pressured this way, and would to some degree buckle this way.

Um, but this is what court is for. You fight it out and you figure out like what are the facts, and we'll see -- we'll see what they put forward as their case.

JIMENEZ: And just based on what we've heard, too -- I mean, you've covered federal law enforcement for a long time. I mean, federal law enforcement used in enforcement, I think it's fair to say, has swelled to levels, I mean, maybe we haven't seen in a long time, if you want to include ICE into this. What is the morale and talk among the rank- and-file right now over not just this but -- but over how the start of this is gone?

BARRETT: I think it depends a lot on which agency you're talking about.

JIMENEZ: Sure.

BARRETT: At the FBI, I think there's a lot of shellshock. I think there's a lot of consternation, worry, and anger, frankly, at the way they feel. A lot of those agents feel the bureau is being misused for some things. To your point about immigration cases, you know, the FBI was originally designed to tackle the toughest and hardest and most complex cases.

The Trump administration has, I think, you know, entirely within their rights argued, well, we want you to go do street crime now. But I think it's hard to argue that you don't lose something when you tell the FBI your main priority now is street crime, and they can't do everything all the time. So, you have to make choices, and we'll see how it goes.

SINGLETON: I just want to say, in terms of the politics, though, I absolutely get your point, Devin, the president, smartly, I would argue, in terms of crime, recognizes that a lot of people feel that it's a problem.

JIMENEZ: Totally.

SINGLETON: And he has addressed that to the point of immigration. That was a number two issue, arguably, in the previous election. The president has somewhat of a mandate. Democrats may disagree with this to tackle that issue.

[23:25:01]

And so, I think if you compartmentalize this, if you become more nuanced, sure, you can sort of break down and say, well, this isn't what people specifically ask for. More broadly speaking, we say, hey, do you want to address crime? People say, absolutely. Do you want to address the immigration issue? People are going to say, absolutely. We don't really care how you do it. Just get it done. And I think the president, for the most part, is doing that. Again, you may disagree with how he's going about it, but I don't think you can necessarily change those political dynamics.

MALINOWSKI: Well, sure, but if there's a terrorist attack on the United States, people are going to ask, why was the FBI chasing Uber drivers --

SINGLETON: Oh, I see that point, congressman. That's a fair point.

MALINOWSKI: That's their job. I want to be protected against street crime. That's the job of my city police department, which needs to be funded, which needs to be supported. It's not the job of the FBI.

JIMENEZ: Gentlemen, I appreciate all of you for being here. Thank you for the time and perspective, as always.

SINGLETON: Thank you, Omar.

MALINOWSKI: Thank you.

JIMENEZ: Everyone else, my next guest predicted this moment months ago, writing, "Once state agencies are packed with loyalists, they may be deployed to investigate and prosecute rivals and critics. In the United States, this may be done via the Justice Department and the FBI." That was written in February. Harvard professor and author of "How Democracies Die," Steven Levitsky, standing by next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:30:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

JIMENEZ: Our breaking news tonight, former FBI Director James Comey indicted after the president repeatedly and publicly pressured DOJ officials to prosecute him. And the professor I'm about to speak with, he laid out some of this playbook back in February.

Joining me now is Steven Levitsky. He is a professor of government at Harvard University and author of the book, "How Democracies Die." Professor, the president has been pressuring the DOJ, publicly demanding they prosecute Comey, and here we are tonight. I just wonder your thoughts on how he is using the Justice Department or how the Justice Department is being used, I guess, in this moment.

STEVEN LEVITSKY, AUTHOR, PROFESSOR OF GOVERNMENT AT HARVARD UNIVERSITY: Well, there's nothing new here. First of all, this is what autocrats across the world do. They capture the referees, they politicize the agencies that are in charge of investigating and prosecuting, and they then weaponize them and use them to go after their rivals.

Donald Trump has always said that he wants to do this. He has never hidden any of this. And so, finally, he's got enough loyalists in power that they're willing to do what the boss wants, which means we've entered a new phase of -- I mean, this is really tin pot dictator stuff. The boss wants an opponent arrested or indicted, and then he gets it.

JIMENEZ: And, you know --

LEVITSKY: It doesn't matter what the evidence.

JIMENEZ: Sorry. I didn't mean to interrupt. But you actually, back in February, wrote an article in "The Atlantic" explaining that our country is entering what you called a competitive authoritarianism where loyalists are installed in key government positions, as you mentioned, and deployed to investigate and prosecute rivals, the point being to -- to intimidate those rivals into submission even if they can't win in court. Obviously, we will see what happens with this case in particular. But why does that dynamic that you laid out again months ago, why does that work?

LEVITSKY: Well, it works because it imposed costs on people. I mean, even -- luckily, the United States still has an independent judiciary, so it's going to be very, very difficult to actually put Trump's rivals behind bars, at least in the short term.

But you can harass the heck out of people in the meantime. You can force people to spend their savings on lawyers. You can force people to take time off their jobs or even have to leave their jobs and cost them hours and hours and hours of anxiety because they've got these charges against them, they've got to defend themselves. And so, you can disrupt people's lives even if you don't end up with a conviction. This is harassment, political harassment. And it raises the cost for James Comey, for his political allies, and really for any citizen who might have spoken up against the government. It shows that there is a cost to exercising one's legal right to opposition. There's a cost to speaking out against the government. People now are going to think twice or beginning to think twice and three times before engaging in constitutionally-protected acts of opposition.

JIMENEZ: And you've written about that dynamic. You wrote about the difference between what the public can observe when players sideline themselves, like a congressman choosing not to run again or someone resigning, for example, but that we can't see the opposition that never materializes, the potential critics, activists and leaders who are deterred from getting in the game.

If we see a wave of resignations over this, which I don't think is a far-fetched possibility to consider here, does that play further into that dynamic of, I guess, strengthening the will of those in power right now to impose their will?

LEVITSKY: I mean, that's a really tricky dilemma for those who are working within these agencies and who are professionals and who are trying to do the right thing.

[23:35:00]

What do you do? Do you become an accomplice in this or do you leave and allow yourself to be replaced by a hack, which is what just happened in the prosecutor's office in Virginia? It's a very, very difficult choice. There's really -- there's no -- there's no -- um, it's a lose-lose situation. Either way, the situation gets worse

Um, what really has to happen is the Republican Party has the power to control Trump. The Republicans in the House and the Senate could put a stop to this. Again, I'm not surprised that Trump is doing this and Trump filled his government with loyalists, with hacks. And so, I'm not surprised that they're carrying out their orders.

What I am surprised is that not a single senior Republican is speaking out, that nobody in the U.S. Congress on the Republican side is speaking out to put a stop to our slide into autocracy. These guys are standing there while a 200-year-old democracy goes into the toilet. I mean, they ought to be ashamed of themselves.

JIMENEZ: And you were just -- just for our viewers, you're referring to Lindsey Halligan, who is now atop the U.S. district for the Eastern District of Virginia, who is now leading this indictment, and it was a previous interim U.S. attorney that -- that hadn't really taken this step, that was essentially pushed out over the course of last week.

Professor, I've got to leave it there. Thank you. Stick around. We'll come back to you on a different topic. Thank you for your perspective on this.

LEVITSKY: Sure. JIMENEZ: And coming up, Democrats now having to juggle, responding to Trump's retribution, and the very real risk of mass firings and a government shutdown now potentially just days away. Congresswoman Debbie Dingell standing by to respond to all of it next. Stick around.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:40:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

JIMENEZ: As you might imagine, Democrats in Congress are slamming the indictment of former FBI Director James Comey tonight. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries saying in a statement -- quote -- "Donald Trump and his sycophants in the Department of Justice are completely and totally out of control, and have viciously weaponized the criminal justice system against their perceived adversaries. Anyone complicit in this malignant corruption will face accountability."

Joining me now, Democratic Congresswoman Debbie Dingell. Congressman, appreciate you taking the time. Just -- I want to start with what -- what is your reaction to former FBI Director James Comey being indicted tonight?

REP. DEBBIE DINGELL (D-MI): Well, I guess we almost knew it was going to happen since we have U.S. attorneys resigning or being fired because they're not bringing charges up against, uh, President Trump's perceived enemies or, I guess, real enemies.

He has been very clear. He gave directions in a tweet to his attorney general last Friday, going after several people, Jim Comey being one of them. Previous U.S. attorneys didn't find enough evidence. But someone was going to get fired or these charges had to be brought up. And you see what political revenge looks like. It's not what you should see in a democracy. Uh, but surprised, no.

JIMENEZ: Do you -- does it concern you, uh, to see -- obviously, threats on social media is one thing. But to actually see the pressure campaign sort of play out in real time and end in an indictment, does that concern you?

DINGELL: Concerned me. It scares the blank out of me, about what's happening across this country. Things that we have all taken for granted can never be taken for granted again in this democracy. You -- and this country should not -- your enemies, political enemies, should not be -- and, by the way, we can have the difference of opinion. Sometimes, they don't become political enemies.

Some of the things that have been said in the last two weeks, I've found to be so horrifying and against everything that I stand for. We should be worried. Going after someone like this makes you question your whole judiciary system. Yes, I'm worried. But, unfortunately, this year has made me not surprised at almost anything we're witnessing.

JIMENEZ: How do you get voters to see, you know, some of the concern that you just laid out? Do you worry that there have been so many opportunities of outrage, even stemming back to January 6th, that something like this doesn't land with the same level of concern that you just shared with me?

DINGELL: So, I want to say this to you. It really -- I did multiple -- multiple town halls in August. It was with a lot of people while we were home. And what I saw was fatiguing people, scared people. They didn't think they were making a difference. They didn't know what they could do or should do. People can't get tired.

We have got such a -- if you don't watch the news for an hour, you don't know what the latest thing is that has happened. We have chaos. People don't know where to focus the concern or the energy. We have to stay focused. We have to care. It is the collective we that is the power of our democracy.

[23:45:00]

So, you know, I'm talking to people. I'm out there fighting with people. It is not unusual for me to make 14 or 15 events a day, trying to keep people ginned up. But now, we also have to worry about people's safety. We have to worry about political violence. It is a real concern. People are becoming afraid to go to events where people are talking because of what could happen. And that worries me greatly in this country, too.

JIMENEZ: And, you know, congresswoman, I want to bring up another worry right now, is that the deadline to avert a government shutdown, five days away. You know, Democrats have said they won't vote to fund the government unless Congress extends Affordable Care Act subsidies, which are set to expire this year. The White House Budget Office is telling agencies to plan for mass firings if a shutdown happens.

I just wonder, what is your assessment, what is your reaction on the possibility that Democrats risk giving the White House an excuse to further shrink the federal workforce? I mean, how -- how do you see the priorities here?

DINGELL: Well, first of all, let me be really clear. If there is a shutdown, Republicans, President Trump controls the White House. Republicans have the majority in the House, and they have the majority in the Senate. If this government shuts down, it is a Republican shutdown, pure and simple.

And already we are seeing millions of Americans worried about affordability of food, of healthcare, their housing. Because of the big blank bill that passed earlier this year, insurance companies across the country are raising rates. Michigan Blue Cross Blue Shield is raising it 22%.

If that Affordable Care Tax Credit is not extended, you are looking at a family -- a couple in my district that is 60 years old, if this Affordable Care Act is not passed, their healthcare is going to go to $11,200 a year. On an income of $82,000, they can't afford it.

We are hurting people. Healthcare is, I believe, that if you're sick, you need to be able to go to the doctor. And people are going to have to choose between housing, paying rent, paying food or health insurance. It's not right.

And at some point, we got to stand up and speak out. And when you talk about the employees that -- the federal government employees he's threatening to fire, he has been doing it all year. Hundreds of thousands of employees have already lost their job. Many have had to be fired back.

So, you got to stand up for what's right at some point. And Republicans can keep the government open and keep hurting people on health care if they want. Democrats have to fight for health care for Americans.

JIMENEZ: And while the CBO does estimate, you know, this could add -- extending the subsidies could add as much as $350 billion to the deficit. You know, the premium is also a part of that fight, which is what you mentioned as well. Congresswoman Debbie Dingell, I got to leave it there. Thank you for being here tonight.

DINGELL: Thank you.

JIMENEZ: All right, still ahead, it is being called the 'general squid games.' I'm not kidding. A rare and mysterious in-person meeting of America's top military officers ordered by Secretary of War Pete Hegseth. But what's it all about? I'm going to ask retired Lieutenant General Russel Honore about it next. Stick around.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:50:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

JIMENEZ: It may be the most mysterious military gathering in years. I'm talking hundreds of generals and admirals stationed around the globe are being ordered on short notice by Secretary of War Pete Hegseth to convene at a military base in Virginia on Tuesday.

And tonight, multiple officials are telling CNN that nobody, not even the generals themselves, know what the meeting is about. A source says there are a few theories, like a group physical fitness test, a briefing on the state of the Defense Department, even a mass firing of officers. One official tells CNN -- quote -- "It's being referred to as the general squid games." Not kidding.

So, a lot of different theories here, but President Trump and Vice President Vance tried to brush off any concerns this afternoon.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: You act like this is a bad thing. Isn't it nice that people are coming from all over the world to be with us?

J.D. VANCE, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: It's not particularly unusual that generals who report to the Secretary of War and then to the president of United States are coming to speak with the Secretary of War. It's actually not unusual at all. I think it's odd that you guys have made it into such a big story.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

JIMENEZ: So, joining me now is retired Lieutenant General Russell Honore. He's also the author of "Leadership in the New Normal." General Honore, you heard Vice President Vance say this meeting is not unusual. Um, is there any precedent for an in-person meeting of this scale, of this size, and on such a short notice?

RUSSEL HONORE, RETIRED LIEUTENANT GENERAL, U.S. ARMY: Well, maybe different a little bit with the vice president. Thirty-seven years doing this and a couple years in the Pentagon, it's not unusual for the combatant commanders, the four stars to come to town and meet with the secretary in normally a scripted event on what they were going to talk about, strategy change, reorganizing the force. And in some years, they even go over and have a big dinner at the White House, the president hosts the full stars. And generally, they take the word back.

This is not normal in modern times, to call all the generals. We have about, on the books, 870 general officers. And "The Washington Post" reported and kind of confirmed in the Department of War that 800 would be coming.

So, there's some exceptions because we do have some things to worry about. We've got NATO airspace being challenged, we got a shooting war in Ukraine we're supporting, we got a situation in Gaza, we had some semblance of a potential cyberattack up in New York this week, and we have Russian planes in the last 24 hours off the coast of Alaska.

[23:55:07]

So, we almost got too much damn breaking news when it comes to securing the nation and the Department of War to be concerned with. But this, obviously, is something very important to the secretary, but it's an unusual way to do it. And the one-liners you shared earlier, I thought about them, but I didn't have the nerve to say them, and you've already shared them.

(LAUGHTER)

Is this a big physical fitness run or is it something that's that important you want to look at every one of them in the eye? Eight hundred of them and in four -- sort of four. And people are generally scared because there have been so many general officers released from the service in the last six months --

JIMENEZ: Yeah.

HONORE: -- plus that people are running a little scared. Well, what is going on? Why are we doing this? This is not normal. It's not illegal. It appears they've got enough general officers they're leaving behind to be able to execute the most dangerous of all our missions.

JIMENEZ: Well, that's my question.

HONORE: Execute the nuclear exercise.

JIMENEZ: Just from a tactical standpoint, are there security concerns when you have hundreds of top military officers convene at the same place and time when there are so many different fronts of concern, whether it's a shooting war or still in deterrence phases?

HONORE: Yeah. Normally, usually, generally, if you bring 800 up to 870, that means you've got colonels doing and lieutenant colonels doing general officers' jobs that require an analyst, provide recommendations. And I imagine this is just going to be a short period of time.

JIMENEZ: Yeah.

HONORE: But some of these places where people come from, in the Pacific, it takes over a day to get here and a day to get back. And it's right on the eve of what might be shut down in the government. We got too much damn breaking news.

JIMENEZ: Hey, you tell me ---

HONORE: It's time to be dealing with this. But I hope for the best --

JIMENEZ: Yeah.

HONORE: -- that it would have some significant advantage to the Department of War. But we've never seen this before --

JIMENEZ: Yeah.

HONORE: -- and is really questionable to do it this way. But he's the secretary of defense and the generals do what they're told. We serve at the pleasure and at the orders of the secretary of defense.

JIMENEZ: General Russel Honore, appreciate you being here. Thank you.

HONORE: God bless America.

JIMENEZ: Since President Trump has re-entered the White House, he has pressured all sorts of American institutions to bend to his will or face the consequences: Law firms, media companies, and even colleges.

In my upcoming documentary for "The Whole Story with Anderson Cooper," I go inside the clash between the Trump administration and the country's oldest, richest, and most prestigious university, Harvard.

I want to bring back in now Harvard professor Steven Levitsky who we spoke to as part of this documentary here. And professor, I just wanted to get your further perspective on what does the president have to gain by taking on Harvard, and does that fight carry added significance given what we're seeing today? LEVITSKY: It is a pretty common practice among authoritarians of the left, right, and center to go after universities. Universities are -- in any democracy, universities are going to be centers of dissent and pretty culturally influential centers of dissent. So, if you have authoritarian instincts and you don't like dissent, your eyes are going to eventually find universities.

And it's difficult to think of a contemporary authoritarian regime really across the spectrum that has hasn't gone after universities: Orban, Erdogan, the Chavez government in Venezuela.

And so, part of this is this is just what authoritarians do. But there's also a faction in the Trump White House, a more sort of ideological faction, that shares an ideology with the far-right in Europe, which is that our country's institutions, public and private, have been captured by communists or Marxists or whatever we want to call them, and that they need to be purged and packed.

And so, whether it's private universities or the so-called deep state, the idea is to remove the so-called leftist from positions of influence and as much as possible either weaken them, break them or replace them with conservatives. And universities are right in center in that project. How far they're going to be able to get is another question. But that's the motivation.

JIMENEZ: Well, I think that's the question right now that a lot of other universities are watching for at this point. That's one of the things we get into in the documentary that whatever Harvard is able to accomplish or not accomplish then spells the fate for other universities that don't have the resources or the prestige or the power that Harvard does.

[00:00:05]

I'm excited for people to see it and to see your great insight as part of it, too. Professor Steven Levitsky, thank you for taking the time then and thanks for taking the time tonight.

LEVITSKY: Thanks. Have a good night.

JIMENEZ: And be sure to tune in an all-new episode of "The Whole Story with Anderson Cooper: The United States Versus Harvard," airs Sunday at 10 p.m., Eastern and Pacific, only on CNN. You will see me in that. And you've seen me tonight. Thank you all for watching. "Anderson Cooper 360" up next.