Return to Transcripts main page
Laura Coates Live
Trump Eyes Firing of Thousands of Federal Workers Over Shutdown; Diddy Pleads to Judge on Eve of Sentencing; Trump Declares U.S. in "Armed Conflict" with Drug Cartels; Saudi Comedy Festival Divides the Comedy World. Aired 11p-12a ET
Aired October 02, 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: You are now the owner of "The Root."
ASHLEY ALLISON, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Thank you. Thank you.
UNKNOWN: Congratulations.
PHILLIP: We are very proud of you.
ALLISON: Appreciate it.
PHILLIP: Um, don't forget the low people. We're still here.
ALLISON: Oh, no. No, we won't.
(LAUGHTER)
PHILLIP: All right. Betsy?
BETSY MCCAUGHEY, FORMER NEW YORK LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR: A kiss from my five-week-old grandson, Michael. A beauty with --
UNKNOWN: You win.
MCCAUGHEY: -- red hair and blue eyes. I can't wait to give him a kiss. But I'd wait all day for that.
PHILLIP: Congratulations to you, too.
(LAUGHTER)
Those things are precious. Fresh babies. Um --
UNKNOWN: How about you?
PHILLIP: I don't know.
ALLISON: Nothing?
(LAUGHTER) PHILLIP: If you were to make me wait in line for a million bucks, I would do it. All right, everybody, thank you very much. Thanks for watching "NewsNight." "Laura Coates Live" starts right now.
LAURA COATES, CNN HOST AND SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Tonight, President Trump turns to his shutdown architect to fire thousands of federal workers. And the White House says the cuts may come as soon as tomorrow. Plus, tomorrow, Diddy gets ready to hear his sentence. This time, the judge, he lost his way in a plea for leniency. We had his letter. And the Saudi comedy festival dividing American comedians over speech, over principles, and the price of a punchline. Tonight on "Laura Coates Live."
All right, so, as we enter day three now of the government shutdown, we've got a much clearer picture of how President Trump sees it. DOGE 2.0. The big difference, this time, it's not a chainsaw being used, it's a scalpel cutting straight to the bone of the government and punishing Trump's enemies.
And the guy holding it, no, it's not Elon Musk, it's the president's budget chief, Russell Vought. Different instruments, maybe different tactics. I mean, he's not waving the scalpel on stage wearing sunglasses and shouting, but the same result, a plan to reshape the federal government. And what Vought is trying to do, it's expansive. He is one of the central architects in expanding President Trump's executive power. Remember that conservative project 2025? He helped write it.
And Trump just met with him today. Why, you ask? Well, the president says, to determine which of the many Democrat agencies to cut. And how many people could lose their jobs? Well, the White House, they have an idea.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KAROLINE LEAVITT, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: It's likely going to be in the thousands. It's a very good question. And that's something that the Office of Management and Budget and the entire team at the White House here, again, is unfortunately having to work on today.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: She said it's unfortunate. But if you look at that Trump post, he says he can't believe the Democrats gave him this unprecedented opportunity. Sounds maybe less like unfortunate regret, a little more likely. And Russell Vought, does -- does he think it's unfortunate?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. MIKE LEE (R-UT): Russ Vought, the OMB director, has been dreaming about this moment, preparing this moment since puberty.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Really? That's just one way to define ambition. But that ambition that -- what? Prepubescent dream? I can't. That may cost thousands of federal workers their jobs, as hundreds of thousands more will be asked to go without pay, they already are, with maybe back pay coming someday, and no end in the shutdown in sight.
And tonight, two Trump officials telling CNN the White House has compiled a list of agencies it's planning to target, and that also could be announced as soon as tomorrow.
I want to talk about all of these with my great panel here. I've got senior vice president of "TheGrio," Natasha Alford, Republican New York City Councilman David Carr, progressive Gen Z commentator Jack Cocchi -- Cocchiarella. Oh, my God. Tell me your name. I'll tell in a second. Don't do it. Jack Cocchiarella. There we go. And Republican strategist, Joe Pinion. I'm starting with you because I butchered your name. So, first of all, I'm sorry.
JACK COCCHIARELLA, PROGRESSIVE GEN Z POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: We'll let it slide.
COATES: Welcome. We'll let it slide. We'll let it slide. I love it. First of all, tell me, when you think about what's going on right now and the idea of this give and take between Republicans and Democrats, they, of course, are not giving any indication of when it's going to end, but what do you think it's going to take to get the job done? Are Democrats going to have to blink or Republicans?
COCCHIARELLA: It doesn't seem like much of a give and take right now. The only thing that Donald Trump seems willing to give is his Trump 2028 hat out to Chuck Schumer and, of course, Hakeem Jeffries who -- it doesn't really seem if he knows who that is at this point.
Trump, to me, is kind of this dementia-addled, really, nursing home patient in the White House right now. He's leaning on Vought, he's leaning on Stephen Miller because he doesn't want to get the job done. What Trump wants to do is take this as an opportunity, in my opinion, to go out and golf, to, I guess, maybe remodel some more parts of the White House. He just doesn't seem interested in negotiating.
[23:05:01]
He's taking pleasure in what Russ Vought said would be the traumatizing of federal workers. Like, that was their goal coming into this administration. And so, it seems like that's all they want to do.
COATES: Hmm.
COCCHIARELLA: And I don't know how that gets any Democrat, who actually cares about people, who are going to see their premiums double, triple, come to the table. And why would you? It's an administration that doesn't want to engage.
COATES: Joe, you're at the table. What's your reaction?
JOE PINION, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: There's a lot to digest there. I mean, look, I think, first and foremost, the reality is that Congress could have kept the government open. We needed Democrats in the United States Senate to vote in a manner consistent in which ways Congress has voted in the past. Democrats decided that, apparently, this time around, it was not good enough.
And so, yes, we can and should have a robust conversation about healthcare, about the fact that these premiums could go up if the subsidies go away, but that would require us to have a conversation about the fact that, in many ways, the subsidies are helping to drive the increase in the premiums, that would require us to have a substantive conversation about the fact that if I take David out and I'm spending $5,000 on his rent, then he can spend all the money on the dinner, right? That cash is fungible.
That on some basic level, Democrats don't want to acknowledge that the reason they want to keep the subsidies in place is because they want to be able to keep their powder dry at home to pay for the pet projects. They don't want to tell the American public that they're actually in favor of.
COATES: Well, counselor, how do you see it? Because, obviously, a lot of people who are going to be impacted personally are going to hear about the policy discussions that are happening. They're going to be leaning in intently until it starts to hit home. And, of course, mass firings hit home, pink slips hit home.
You have people like Senator Ted Cruz saying that the firings of, his words, left-wing bureaucrats is -- quote -- "fantastic." But that's going to possibly come home to roost if people believe the Republicans are taking some glee in their firings.
DAVID CARR, MEMBER, NEW YORK CITY COUNCIL: So, what I remember is that earlier in this year, Senator Schumer said that he wasn't going to hold the federal workforce hostage by forcing a shutdown when he voted for one of the past CRs. And now, we know that the Democrats are the ones forcing the shutdown. They're the ones holding the country hostage because they're the ones who came in with the list of demands. That's what hostage-takers do.
And so, now, we're forced into this situation where we could have passed a clean C.R. earlier this week. We could have had the important policy discussions that need to be had without the gun to our proverbial heads, with the shutdown now in place. And that's not what they decided to do. The House passed it. The Senate could have passed it. And hopefully, they pass a C.R. tomorrow. But that doesn't seem what congressional democratic leadership wants to do.
So, to me, this is absolutely a democratic-manufactured crisis. This is not the president's fault. The president is trying to lead. And we could have a conversation about the hard questions in the budget. But let's pass a C.R. and let's do it without putting everyone's jobs in jeopardy.
COATES: So, I wonder, Natasha, I mean, a civics lesson will tell you who's in control of the White House, the House, the Senate. And, of course, that means also all who are in the Cabinet, and they are an amplifying mouthpiece, I don't mean that pejoratively, for anything the administration wants to do. How can voters see it as a democratic issue if that's the case?
NATASHA ALFORD, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT OF THEGRIO: Well, I actually think Democrats have an opportunity here, right? Because the Donald Trump who said he didn't know anything about Project 2025, who is Russell Vought, I mean, that is a different person from the one who is now tweeting, saying, I'm meeting with Russell Vought, and we are here to target these Democrat agencies.
So, I think the winner is the person who is able to weave a narrative about caring most about the American people's interests. And so, this fight about healthcare premiums is really tangible, going from paying 300 something a year to over $1,500. That's real for families who are struggling to pay bills right now.
So, if Democrats can seize on that narrative and seem as -- as -- is -- if their fight is a righteous one, they may have people who understand why this is, uh, sort of a line that they don't want to cross. If Donald Trump continues to lean into the pettiness of it --
COATES: Hmm.
ALFORD: -- right, that this is about the radical left, it makes us -- it makes it seem as if this opportunity is about inflicting more pain rather than actually trying to help all Americans.
COATES: What might be a clue about inflicting pain or petty, and I'll have you all say that -- do this right now, Trump has just posted another meme. This time, it's Vought as the grim reaper. So, while you all process for a moment this, can you just explain a little bit to me, Joe, about if -- if what the councilman is saying is correct and many Republicans believe that this is a Democrat issue, that that's the problem, and they want the focus to be on Democrats' obstinance, why give this sort of candy to Democrats who look at Trump as being unserious?
[23:10:00]
PINION: Well, look, I think that the reality is that some people love the memes, some people hate the memes. But the reality of the shutdown is that we needed seven Democrats to come to the table and keep the government open, and they refused to do so.
Again, we can have a very broad conversation about the deficiencies in healthcare in this country. Part of the reason why you have people like AOC and Bernie Sanders that want you have universal health care and Medicaid for all is because of the many things the Republicans are trying to attack it. They don't agree with the manner in which we are trying to attack it, but they understand that it's a problem nonetheless.
COATES: But is this an effect -- excuse me, is it effective to use the memes as some vehicle to convince potential voters, federal employees that you are on the righteous side? I mean, I'll ask you, my resident Gen Z, frankly, on this, on the idea of how this battle of the memes is coming out. In fact, let's play some of the kitty memes that you all enjoy at 11 p.m. Do you see this? (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNKNOWN (voice-over): Republican kitties control the Senate, House, and the White House. So, they're using that to cut your healthcare --
(LAUGHTER)
-- and give money to billionaires.
(LAUGHTER)
Democrat kitty tries to negotiate, but Republican kitty keeps running away. He has a vacation to get to. Uh-oh, suddenly, the money you pay for your health insurance has tripled. Thanks, Republicans.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: I mean, this is one way to communicate. And, by the way, you've had, obviously, the sombrero discussions as well. You have this. You've got other things that are going on right now. But who are they trying to reach? And are those the voters that will persuade either Democrats or Republicans to stop the fight?
COCCHIARELLA: Well, what I'll say is who they're reaching is us right now. That was one of the most popular TikToks to go up on the Democrats' account in weeks. It's also important to recognize, and I hope no one who's watching knows this, but that is a TikTok trend, right? You have to be like kind hyper online to see that. But it's reaching people.
And it's tapping into something that I like to call the Republican insanity immersion. Like, Donald Trump is a perfect example of this. If you say the outlandish thing, which kind of gets the ha-ha line, Democrats are forced to share it and responding to it, but it's still getting the message out there.
So, we saw, you know, Steven Cheung, I think, reposted this and said, oh, the Democrats are doing a terrible job. It was a big conversation online. But what the conversation was about is, is this how Democrats should be packaging their message about Republicans shutting down the government and taking away healthcare from millions of people? You're still having the conversation that we want to.
So, whether it gets people upset, gets them to laugh at it, at least it's getting the message out there. Like, we are having the conversation about it right now. And if it was just, you know, Ken Martin looking into a direct to camera that didn't get that much engagement, we wouldn't be having that conversation. So, I'd say --
COATES: -- same true then the sombrero in A.I.? if it's a generative way of getting a conversation, is it distinct for you, Natasha?
ALFORD: I mean, I think the thing about memes is they simplify, right?
UNKNOWN: Uh-hmm. COATES: Of course.
ALFORD: They make it very simple. What many politicians have struggled with, and I would say even in the Biden administration, you can do all of this great work if it's packaged in this political jargon that the average person doesn't understand. They don't know what your wins are. They don't know what it is that you actually believe in.
But the thing -- the flip side of that is that the racism, the sort of privilege that comes with mocking an entire group of people, right? Putting a sombrero on somebody, uh, which traditionally has sometimes been used as a stereotype for Latinos. If you do that, it also reveals the privilege that you are sort of sitting in as you do that. As you have someone like a J.D. Vance who says, oh, it's just a joke, right? There people who see through that, and they see that it's a problem.
COATES: Natasha, you have a wonderful book, by the way, about your heritage and about how the political alignments go for that. You have to read it, everyone.
Councilman, what's your thought on this issue? Obviously, there are effective ways to reach audiences. Then there are the TikTok kitty ways to reach audiences. Democrats, Republicans, desperate to try to get someone like Jack to be on their side. Is this the right way to address this shutdown or could it backfire?
CARR: Well, look, you use everything in your arsenal to get your message out there. But the truth is that, in addition to memes, there's words. Right? And I think that the Trump White House has been very focused on getting the words of Democrats in the past on shutdowns out there, about how much they believe that shutdowns were never the way to go in times past, as early as this year.
And that's why, again, I refer to the words of Leader Schumer where he said that shutting down the government over a policy difference is self-defeating. I wish that congressional Democrats would heed the advice he was giving to all of them back --
COATES: Excuse me. On that point, you do hear also from then vice president -- Vice President J.D. Vance now, saying something similar about the idea of hostage-taking and why it's advantageous in the shutdown.
You also hear Trump, I think it was Greta Van Susteren in 2013, talking about getting in the room, you got to -- I got to hurt, you got to cry, you got to scream, all these things, has to negotiate. Their words are also being used, but that's not as effective to you.
[23:14:57]
CARR: No. I think the reality is that we've had a decade plus of people telling us on the left side of the aisle, we can never shut down the government for any reason. And we have an administration and Republican leadership saying, look, we'll pass a clean C.R., we'll pass a C.R. that's based off the budget of the previous administration, and then we can have a conversation again about the tough issues. That's all everyone is trying to say.
COATES: Hmm.
CARR: And I think that if we actually got into a debate without the looming sort of Damocles over our head of a shutdown, then we could actually have a constructive debate and maybe we'd have less --
PINION: I think part of the problem --
COATES: -- here in spite of several hundreds of thousands of jobs.
PINION: Yeah. I think part of the problem is that we're not going to have the substantive debate. And I think, unfortunately, I don't believe that my brothers and sisters on the left want to have the debate. I think the truth remains. And I just think we can't avoid it. That if we're having process conversations, we lose.
Republicans should not be trying to sit in D.C. and let Democrats make a fool of themselves. I firmly believe we need to get out into districts. We need to talk to people and explain to them in a very detailed but specific manner that there are projects the Democrats care about, whether it's trying to expand Medicaid at the state level to make sure that we have coverage for people who are here in an undocumented capacity. You have a right to believe that that is the right thing to do.
But we have to ask you for us, Democrats, to acknowledge what they're in favor of. The reason why we spent two and a half months talking about the Maryland man was because of the fact that Democrats didn't want to have a conversation about what should accountability look like for people that are in this country illegally. So, of course, they tap into things that enraged people across the aisle. And we never actually get around to having a conversation about how --
COATES: Oh, Joe, I do --
PINION: -- these policies --
COATES: I do think that --
PINION: -- are actually, I think, really impacting people --
COATES: I hear you.
PINION: -- in a substantive way.
COATES: I think both sides are quite guilty of rage-baiting. I'll tell you what, I have been a federal employee during a shutdown, asked to work without pay and back pay coming. Don't talk to me about the policies if I have a pink slip coming. That's just my advice for all of you strategists out there.
Thank you so much, everyone, on this. We have more to talk about. Up next, tonight, we are hearing from Sean "Diddy" Combs a few hours before his sentencing. I have the letter that he just filed tonight asking for a second chance. What did he say about his victims? I'll tell you that, too, next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:20:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: Sean "Diddy" Combs making one final plea to the judge on the eve of his sentencing. He was found guilty, as you know, back in July on two counts of transportation to engage in prostitution, acquitted on the far more serious claims of RICO. The prosecution now upping the recommendation, though, from about four or five years to at least 11 years. And that makes them worlds apart from what Diddy's attorneys are asking him to serve, 14 months.
Diddy writes in a three-page letter to the judge, "I lost my way. I got lost in my journey. Lost in the drugs and the excess. My downfall was rooted in my selfishness. I have been humbled and broken to my core. Jail is designed to break you mentally, physically and spiritually."
"Over the past year, there have been so many times that I wanted to give up. There have been some days I thought I would be better off dead. The old me died in jail and a new version of me was reborn. Prison will change you or kill you. I choose to live."
He pleads the judge to give him a second chance to be with his family, his mother, a father to his seven children. But he also begs for the judge not to add some kind of celebrity tax, he thinks, saying, "I realize that this trial has received a tremendous amount of global press and Your Honor may be inclined to make an example out of me. I would ask Your Honor to make me an example of what a person can do if afforded a second chance. If you allow me to go home to my family, I promise I will not let you down and I will make you proud. Today, I humbly ask you for another chance."
Now, there will be victim impact statements. Letters have already been sent from not only Cassie Ventura, but her parents and others. And we're also told of some kind of video played in support of Diddy. He' be presented tomorrow at 10 a.m. in the morning, and he will be presented in street clothes and likely to speak. I wonder if any of it will change the judge's mind, who surely has considered it since July, what he plans to do.
Joining me now, Stacy Schneider, a criminal defense attorney, CNN legal analyst Joey Jackson, and Rob Shuter, Diddy's former publicist and the host of the podcast "Naughty but Nice with Rob Shuter." Well, you are nice. I'll start with you, Rob, on that.
(LAUGHTER)
Look, you knew Diddy. Obviously, any statement was made for him. He has written it, saying to the court. I'm sure the lawyers have looked at it as well, knowing what the consequences could be. Did anything in letter surprise you, especially given how he did address at least two of the women who testified against him? ROB SHUTER, SEAN "DIDDY" COMBS'S FORMER PUBLICIST, PODCAST HOST: What surprised me was how good this is. For somebody that has been in jail for over a year, he's still got that Diddy real vibe of understanding, of taking the temperature of a room.
I've seen a lot of these statements. I've drafted many of them for celebrities. This is a really good letter. It made me really want to root for him. It felt like the ending episode of "The West Wing" where you really want your hero to bounce back.
So, I think he pressed all the buttons. I'd like to believe he's being honest. I'm an optimist about this, but I thought it was a really impactful, a really wise statement.
COATES: You know who was pessimistic about the letter and pessimistic about his ability to change? I'm not sure if she has read it, but she was looking at who he was in their relationship. It was Cassie Ventura, who is not expected to speak in court tomorrow. But she did submit a victim impact statement, which is her absolute right and is sought by the court.
[23:24:57]
And in it, she writes, "He will always be the same cruel, power- hungry, manipulative man that he is. If there is one thing I have learned from this experience, it is that victims and survivors will never be safe. I hope that your decision considers the truths at hand that the jury failed to see."
I'm going ask you, Joey. And also, by the way, I should mention, not just by the way, as an aside, but Sean Combs did also mention Cassie in his letter. I'll just read a portion before I have your response. And he said, "The scene and images of me assaulting Cassie play over and over in my head daily. I literally lost my mind. I was dead wrong for putting my hands on the woman that I loved. I'm sorry for that and always will be. My domestic violence will always be a heavy burden that I will have to carry forever."
Tell me about how, as defense counsel and as a judge, this might be balanced, these two opposing statements.
JOEY JACKSON, CNN LEGAL ANALYST, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: You know, Laura, that's the issue, the balancing of them. Now, to Rob's point in terms of evaluating the letter, I was looking for three things, really. Let's talk about Combs. Number one, are you contrite? Are you remorseful with respect to what happened? Do you recognize it? Do you own it?
Which is then goes to number two. Are you accountable? Have you accepted accountability and do you really get it? Right? Do you read that room as you need to read?
And number three is, what about rehabilitation? What have you done in jail and what will you do once you're out of it to make yourself a better example to humanity?
And so, the judge needs to look at that, and I think we'll look at that very reflectively.
COATES: One thing he's talking about -- I'm going to ask you this. Um, he mentions a -- I think it's called like free games with Diddy, and that was a business enterprising course he put together in the jail prior to his trial. They have touted that as example of him trying to do community service.
JACKSON: That's a big deal, Laura, because you can say anything. And many people do say anything. What are you doing? What are you doing specifically to show the element of rehabilitation? And I think that has to be taken as a whole.
Now, when you get to the balance that you asked me about, of course, you look at Cassie Ventura. She's someone who certainly was a victim here. Now, he may have only been, that is Diddy, convicted of the account relating to the transportation of prostitution and not the coercive elements, right? Still in all, she was involved in that transportation to another state. And as a result of that, Cassie Ventura has something to say. And she believes, based on the conduct, that he was manipulative.
And so, I think the judge has to look at all those things. But what my hope is, final thing, is that the judge sentences him on what he did and not the other things, which we call acquitted conduct, meaning things for which he was alleged to have done but was found not guilty of. If the judge focuses on that, I think Diddy will be in a better place. If he doesn't, then we're in a different world with respect to the amount of time he can get.
COATES: We'll see if he does. Of course, given that in his decision to hold him until this date, he factored in the violence that was spoken about and not necessarily charged. I mean, convicted of.
But there was something we didn't hear from at trial. Victim number three. Um, and at some point, the prosecution said they had lost touch with her attorney and this person. She was not called to testify. A lot was made of this moment, Stacy. Well, victim number three, Gina, wrote another letter to the judge explaining why she did not testify, saying -- quote -- "I felt pressured to feel like a victim. I told them I was not but they insisted that I was, even when I expressed my truth otherwise." How helpful is that?
STACY SCHNEIDER, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR AT U.S. NEWS AND WORLD REPORT: That was pretty helpful. I'm not sure it's going to erase the sting of Cassie Ventura's letter. But it does present another side in that this victim number three was in the indictment. And I know, and I think you were probably wondering why that witness was never called to trial --
COATES: Right.
SCHNEIDER: I mean, the prosecution took pains to introduce testimony about victim number three in the grand jury, and yet they're just in the wind at trial. So, she's explaining now why that is. The defense's side was always at the prosecution, was going after charges on him, like the racketeering charge that the jury acquitted him of and the sex trafficking charges. There was no domestic violence charge here, yet they were trying the case --
COATES: Right.
SCHNEIDER: -- as if it was a domestic violence case. And the prosecution -- the defense, in its closing statement at this trial, was always trying to point out that the prosecution was overreaching. They weren't saying he was a choir boy, but they were overreaching. This kind of gives a little bit of insight into maybe -- maybe there's some validity to that.
COATES: We'll see. And, of course, I mean, one less prosecutor will be there, the lead prosecutor, Maurene Comey, who you know was fired shortly after the actual verdict. We don't know the exact reason she suspects in a lawsuit. Why? Rob, let me ask you because he'll be there in street clothes. He had been in like, I would say, a business casual.
SHUTER: Uh-hmm.
COATES: Vest or sweater. He's always almost always in gray while he was there. He'll be in street clothes, so to speak. He is expected to speak on his own behalf.
[23:30:01]
He didn't testify at trial. But there's also going to be a 15-minute video --
SHUTER: Hmm.
COATES: -- which -- not normal to have in a courtroom. Is that the producer in Diddy to the end?
SHUTER: Yeah. Absolutely. It is highly irregular, but I think it will probably work for him. He knows how to produce this stuff. I've been in edit suites with Puff, and I've seen him take footage and interviews, and whip them into something really magical. Music videos, which don't exist so much anymore, but they did when he was at the peak of his success, he could tell a story in three or four minutes of a song. He knows how to do this. This is his skill. And so, I think that's what that video is going to be about.
And I think, too, he wants people to see him as Puff. He was never a guy that we saw in a business suit. He was Puff. His Sean John collection was about street clothes. It made him a very wealthy man. And so, tomorrow, I think he wants to come out swinging as Puff.
And I think he's going to be really, really powerful. Don't get me wrong here. He's a bad man. I've seen him do bad things. We've heard about him doing bad things. But we have to believe in our system. And I think that's the takeaway here. It has worked. This is working. We've got to see the process through.
COATES: The jury made the decision. Now, it's in the hands of the judge, and it will begin at 10 a.m. Eastern tomorrow. I'll be at the courthouse. When I know the sentence, you will know. Thank you, everyone.
Still ahead, the president who changed the name to Department of War now seeking to expand his war powers with a major new declaration against the drug cartels that could see even more alleged drug boats bombed. Is any of it legal? The debate, next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:35:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: The cartel crackdown launched by President Trump is entering new and shadowy territory. For weeks, the U.S. Military has targeted suspected drug smuggling boats in the Caribbean. Now, the administration has formally told Congress that the U.S. is in a -- quote -- "armed conflict" with the cartels.
That's according to a notice from the Pentagon that CNN obtained. It says the cartels are threatening Americans, adding -- quote -- "The president determined these cartels are non-state armed groups, designated them as terrorist organizations, and determined that their actions constitute an armed attack against the United States."
It's the administration's legal justification for the strikes, strikes that some legal experts believe may not be legal. One of them joins me now. John Yoo, Emanuel S. Heller professor of law at UC Berkeley and former deputy assistant attorney general in the George W. Bush administration.
John, welcome back. I mean, you had previously warned that the attacks on drug boats -- quote -- "risk crossing the line between crime fighting and war." Does this memo that we're learning about from the administration of Congress, does it change your view at all?
JOHN YOO, LAW PROFESSOR AT UC BERKELEY, FORMER DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL IN BUSH ADMINISTRATION: I'm sorry to say the memo doesn't really answer the questions that would allow us to decide whether this is an appropriate use of force. The United States can't wage war constitutionally, I think, or legally, against criminal groups.
The foreign drug cartels are not really using armed force against the United States. They're trying to sell drugs. They're trying to send a product into the country. And certainly, those products kill a lot of Americans. They kill more Americans in any one year, probably the most wars, but so do a lot of crime. A lot of crime harms America more than most wars. That's -- the amount of harm caused to the country doesn't dictate whether it's war crime.
What dictates it, in my view, is, are we fighting either a nation or are we fighting something like a terrorist organization like Al-Qaeda that is attacking us for our political or national security policies and has the violence at its hands that are in the hands of a nation?
COATES: Well, they're using the phrase unlawful combatants. How is that defined in this context and the idea of a drug cartel distinct from what you believe would be an unlawful combatant?
YOO: You know, that's a great point. Whether you're an unlawful combatant or a criminal suspect really depends on the initial question. Is this war or crime? And so, for it to be legal to use force against any combatant, it has to be a war. So, first, you have to step back and say, can the United States wage war against a drug cartel? I don't think we have the facts there to say that the United States can.
These terrorist groups, like Al-Qaeda, they certainly can be combatants because they're attacking the United States with armed force. And the president, the Congress, and the Supreme Court have all agreed that terrorist organizations can be enemies of war.
COATES: Uh-hmm.
YOO: But we don't have any kind of Supreme Court decisions or congressional declarations against drug cartels.
COATES: So, obviously, the phrasing of the war on drugs does not somehow transform it in your mind. That's more of a colloquial political saying than what would be needed to determine that.
But you did mention different branches of government. They're all co- equal, presumably. The White House did notify Congress about this designation. So, how should lawmakers handle it? I mean, can they do anything given what is oftentimes in the Supreme Court an extraordinary amount of deference given to the president for matters under the umbrella of national security?
[23:40:02]
YOO: That's an excellent point. And I think one way to answer your question is to look back at what happened after 9/11. I was in the Justice Department at the time. I advised the White House from the Justice Department that we thought the 9/11 attacks started a war between the United States and a terrorist group. That's the first time the United States ever waged war against a non-state actor.
But we also went to Congress because we knew that this case would eventually get to the Supreme Court. And when the Supreme Court addressed the question, two years after the 9/11 attacks, it was important to the court that the president and Congress agreed.
So, I think, equally here, if the United States is going to try to stretch how far the concept of war goes, if the Trump administration wants to do that, they really need to have Congress on their side. And if Congress actually were to pass something that said, we do not believe we're actually at war, and they start to cut funds, and they start to limit the use of troops, I think that's going to have a very powerful influence on the Supreme Court when it ultimately hears cases that come out of these strikes.
COATES: Really important point. Of course, their silence will be noted by the Supreme Court as well. How they'll interpret that, very different story. John Yoo, thank you so much. YOO: Thanks, Laura. Thanks for having me.
COATES: Well, the comedy world is divided tonight over that controversial festival in Saudi Arabia featuring some of America's funniest comedians. Up next, how Bill Burr is defending his choice to perform as critics turned into a punchline.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNKNOWN: I mean, how do you even promote that?
(LAUGHTER)
You know like from the folks that brought you 9/11.
(LAUGHTER)
Two weeks of laughter in the desert. Don't miss it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:45:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: One of the biggest comedy shows of the year has turned out for some to be no laughing matter for many comedians. The Riyadh Comedy Festival is happening right now, and it features some of the biggest names in comedy like Dave Chappelle, Bill Burr, Kevin Hart, Whitney Cummings. The problem? The location of the festival, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. It is seen as another push by the kingdom to use culture and cash to cover up human rights abuses and suppression of free speech.
Comedian Tim Dillion says he was offered $375,000 to take part, and he claims others were offered more than a million bucks. And Dave Chappelle doesn't seem the least bit bothered by the controversy. He already performed in Saudi Arabia. "The New York Times" reports he joked that talking about Charlie Kirk could get him canceled in America, before adding -- quote -- "It's easier to talk here than it is in America."
I want to talk now about this with comedian Pete Dominick, who is the host of the show "Stand Up with Pete Dominick." Pete, let's talk about this because Chappelle may have joked about free speech in America, but comedians are very frustrated with two things I would look at. Number one, their ability to speak freely here, and two, the choice to speak there. You couldn't criticize the Saudi royal family or the kingdom, apparently, during their sets as well. Is the free speech message lost when it happens under constraints like that?
PETE DOMINICK, COMEDIAN, PODCAST HOST: Yeah. This is -- this is both tough and easy, Laura. And thanks for having me. The comedy community is -- I don't know how divided people are over this. People aren't necessarily surprised by comedians taking this opportunity. But in Saudi Arabia, I mean, they're an authoritarian monarchy who -- they limit free speech. They were paid by the Saudi government. This is a government, of course, that, you know, has modern-day slavery execution for nonviolent crimes like adultery and blasphemy.
So, seeing these comedians who -- you know, it's not your responsibility to speak truth to power as a comedian, but if you do do that, you can't uphold that same moral authority once you go and perform for the Saudis.
COATES: Is it -- I mean, is it unfair, particularly given where we are in the United States, criticized when others are holding a mirror to us and critical of the United States, even recent choices about free speech and the government and beyond?
DOMINICK: Yeah.
COATES: Is the pot calling a kettle black?
DOMINICK: Absolutely. There's no doubt about the hypocrisy there. You know, Egyptian comedian Bassem used that. He has, like, been considered the Jon Stewart of Egypt comedy. He went on and made the point that America has supported Israel in a genocide. That's what he said. I mean, it's not like we are not human rights violators ourselves. We invaded Iraq. We remember that after 9/11.
And most importantly, yeah, we're trying to curtail free speech right here in America. Last week, I was on your show talking about how important it was to stand up for free speech. And then these guys, many of them who've done this -- just that, are going and performing there.
I mean, we need to have, I think, a larger conversation about how ethical considerations have evaporated from so much of American life, Laura. And I think that's a bigger conversation than comedians upholding those ethical considerations. But you can't hold on to that moral authority if you're going to go take that kind of money from that type of human rights violating regime, the state itself.
COATES: And to be clear, I don't think either of us believes there is a direct comparison point to Saudi Arabia and the United States of America. The larger point we're talking about, Pete, right, is the idea of what grace or critique should be given to those who choose, as you're talking about, a particular platform in a place where we have seen these issues.
[23:50:04]
DOMINICK: Yeah. I mean, I'm not -- I'm not making that that comparison. You're not making that comparison. But drawing the distinction like we can't here at home fighting for gender equity, women's reproductive rights, and then go to Saudi Arabia, who curtails women's rights.
I mean, Bill Burr once, you know, went off on Beyonce in a joke for being a woman who embraces feminism. But then he went to -- you know, but then she went to Libya and performed for Muammar Gaddafi who is a, you know, misogynist. Burr criticized Beyonce for doing that. But then he's doing that. Chappelle criticized Israel and Gaza, but he just took money from Saudi Arabia who's back to civil war in Yemen because of famine and the death of 85,000 children, killed hundreds of thousands of Yemeni citizens.
So, you can't really have it both ways. We're not surprised when certain people do certain things. But I think that you lose the higher ground here. And I think that comedians -- I think we should be better than that, even though I'm not surprised.
COATES: I wish I could hear what they had to say. I wonder if they addressed any of this. Pete Dominick, thank you for being here. I appreciate it.
DOMINICK: Always. Thanks for having me, Laura.
COATES: Up next, talk about a plum assignment. Traveling the world and breaking bread along the way? Well, Tony Shalhoub got that assignment, and he understood it. He's standing by to tell you all about it next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:55:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: Well, you may recognize my next guest from a variety of roles that he has played on your screen. But guess what? There's a new CNN Original Series, and we are seeing Tony Shalhoub in a whole new role as himself. The award-winning actor is traveling all around the globe to break bread and learn how different cultures and traditions can bring people together. The first episode takes Tony on a culinary journey throughout New York City, where he finds himself on a pilgrimage to Jersey City and a pizza lover's haven run by Chef Dan Richer.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TONY SHALHOUB, ACTOR (voice-over): Dan continues to draw his community together in all kinds of imaginative ways.
DAN RICHER, CHEF: I had a dream one night. And I came up with the clam calzone.
SHALHOUB: No.
RICHER: Yeah.
UNKNOWN: The reveal --
RICHER: So --
SHALHOUB: Oh!
UNKNOWN: Oh!
RICHER: Think of it as a bowl of steamed clams.
(WHISTLING)
SHALHOUB: My two favorite things in the world, clams and bread. It's actually my three favorite things. Leeks --
UNKNOWN: You like leeks?
SHALHOUB: I'm a leek freak, okay? I'm just going to --
UNKNOWN: A lot of clams in Green Bay?
SHALHOUB: No.
(LAUGHTER)
UNKNOWN: I'm just asking.
SHALHOUB: Waiting for it.
UNKNOWN: Let's go. Come on. Oh, it's nice and salty from the salination of the clams. Hmm. Come on. Welcome to our world, Tony. It's not going to get better than this.
SHALHOUB: No. Thank you. It's delicious.
RICHER: Thank you.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Oh, my God. All of our mouths are watering now. Tony Shalhoub joins me now. Tony, what could be more fun than to combine all of your favorite things and then share it with us? I mean, you have this journey in and around New York City, the place you currently call home. What's it like?
SHALHOUB: Well, first, let me start by saying it's the best job I ever had, which is a line I keep going back to during every episode, because I'm -- I'm always just so stunned and amazed and feeling so fortunate to be in this position where I get to meet all these great people, sample all these new and interesting things, and -- and -- and just -- just -- just get into this -- just get into this realm of watching people do -- do -- do their work in such a -- such a passionate, focused, devoted way.
COATES: Hmm.
SHALHOUB: It's inspiring, really.
COATES: I mean, bread takes time, brings people together, makes people show how much love they're literally putting into it. I mean, this episode, at one point, he's cutting open a calzone with steamed clams inside. You can sop up everything all at once. I'm telling you, watching it makes me hungry. And then it's New York. It's known for pizza. It's known for bagels. But what else stood out to you while filming this episode?
SHALHOUB: Well --
(LAUGHTER)
-- that -- that -- that pizza place and that clam calzone is actually in Jersey City --
COATES: Uh-hmm.
SHALHOUB: -- which I also consider New York because it's right across the river.
COATES: Don't tell them that.
(LAUGHTER)
SHALHOUB: It's so -- it's so easy. It's so convenient. But, oh, yes, we go to Chinatown. We go down to the lower east side to a little -- a little shop on the lower east side called Mary O's Irish Soda Bread, scones and bread Store. It is just brilliant, something I had not experienced before. She's a delightful character people will get to see in the New York episode.
And then we also -- my friend, Lynn Manuel Miranda (ph), joined me for a visit to Orwasher's Bakery, which is on the upper west side, near where I live. And then we took a stroll through Central Park with our -- with our sandwiches.
And so, it's -- there's just -- there's a lot of really cool stuff going on in the New York episode.
[00:00:00]
COATES: Wow! I mean, talk about bringing cultures together. I cannot wait to watch this. I'm so glad that you're the one who's behind it, and we get to watch you as well. Everyone is a big fan of yours. Now they get to see you, the authentic Tony Shalhoub with their favorite carb. Thank you so much for joining.
SHALHOUB: Thank you. Thanks for having me. A pleasure.
COATES: And be sure, everyone, to tune in to the new CNN Original Series, "Tony Shalhoub: Breaking Bread." It premieres Sunday at 9 p.m. Eastern and Pacific, only on CNN.
And hey, thank you all so much for watching. "Anderson Cooper 360" is next.
