Return to Transcripts main page
Laura Coates Live
Republicans Sounded Off Ahead Of No Kings Protests; Trump Commutes George Santos' Sentence; Lawyer For Sean Diddy Combs Speaks After The Verdict. Aired 11p-12a ET
Aired October 17, 2025 - 23:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[23:00:37]
LAURA COATES, CNN HOST: Tonight on the night before nationwide protests against President Trump, two completely different stories about what it's actually all about. So who's getting it right and who's just turning up the volume?
Stephen A. Smith is here to cut through the noise.
Plus, George Santos is ordered free from prison after a commutation from President Trump. And this one ain't about mercy.
And how is Diddy doing behind bars after his sentencing? One of his attorneys talks to me exclusively tonight on "Laura Coates Live."
So, can we all agree that the First Amendment is a good thing? We can, right? I mean, we want people to be able to protest peacefully. Now, I don't mean quietly. I mean, what's the word? Peaceably.
It's like one of the most Americanist things about America.
So what happens when Americans exercise their right to protest, but get labeled something else entirely? You know I'm going to get this, don't you? Because tomorrow, millions of people are expected to demonstrate across the nation over what they see as President Trump's abuse of power.
The organizers are calling it the No Kings protest. Now, Republicans, they've got their thesaurus out for all the antonyms.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. MIKE JOHNSON (R-LA), SPEAKER OF THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: You refer to it by its more accurate description, Hate America Rally.
REP. STEVE SCALISE (R-LA): The Hate America Rally.
REP. LISA MCCAIN (R-MC): I Hate America Rally.
UNKNOWN: We call it the Hate America Rally.
SCOTT BESENT, U.S. TREASURY SECRETARY: The farthest left, the hardest core, the most unhinged in the Democratic Party. JOHNSON: You're going to bring together the Marxists, the Socialists,
the Antifa Advocates, the Anarchists, and the pro-Hamas wing of the far-left Democrat Party.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Okay, just to set the record straight. These no-kings protests, they have happened before. They happened back in June. And they brought about five million or so people together? And they were overwhelmingly peaceable.
Tomorrow, the demonstrations are expected to be even bigger. About 2500 are planned in all 50 states. And you can actually barely see a spot on the map where they aren't happening.
Well, tonight, President Trump is trying to brush it all off as no big deal.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: This is not a king. You know, they're saying they're referring to me as a king. I'm not a king.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: But all that Republican talk about Democrats hating America based on the no kings protests, it isn't just wrong. I can we call the ball on strike? It's getting worse as well.
And it's coming from the very top, the White House itself.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KAROLINE LEAVITT, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: The Democrat party's main constituency are made up of Hamas terrorists, illegal aliens, and violent criminals. That is who the Democrat party is catering to.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: The Democratic main constituency? That would mean your teachers, your nurses, your neighbors, anyone of any job description, anyone who voted for Democrats in 2024 would be the main constituency that the White House Press Secretary is calling or referring to as terrorists or criminals.
Better need a fact check for me on this Friday night, doesn't it? All you got to be is grounded in reality. Well, Hakeem Jeffries, wasted no time in responding.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. HAKEEM JEFFRIES (D-NY), HOUSE MINORITY LEADER: And then you got Karoline Leavitt, who's sick. She's out of control. And I'm not sure whether she's just demented, ignorant, a stone cold liar or all of the above. (END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: What happened to all the talk that we had been hearing about on both sides about the toning down of the rhetoric, about not vilifying an entire group of people as your enemy?
Because remember it was just two months ago when Charlie Kirk was assassinated. And at that time, this is what Republicans were saying right after.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOHNSON: Leaders cannot call their political opponents Nazis and fascists and enemies of the state because they disagree with their policy priorities.
[23:05:05]
J.D. VANCE, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: What is it that you want people to do when you call them Nazis? What is it that you want them to do when you call them fascists?
REP. WESLEY HUNT (R-TX): People that you disagree with are not existential threats. They are not Nazis, they are not fascists, they are not racist, they are not deplorable, they are not irredeemable. They are your fellow Americans who have a different perspective on how government should run and what government should look like.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
COATES: Republican Congressman Wesley Hunt was right. Americans have different perspectives on how the government should run. Like whether President Trump's troop deployment to Blue City should be happening at all.
So people call for turning down the rhetoric. It doesn't actually mean turning the people off, muzzling them. Americans still have the right to criticize their government to speak out when they feel that it's failing them. After all, the full text of the First Amendment, it does talk about the right to petition the government for redress of grievances, fancy way of saying, protest.
The challenge, and it is a challenge, and I'm not being dismissive of it. I's challenging finding that right balance, the balance between passion and personal attack, between protest and provocation. And yes, the government has a duty to try to prevent violence. They can't be caught flat-footed and just be reactive, thinking, oh, should I have planned for something? No.
They've got to be proactive. But how is the question?
Homeland Security officials are warning police about the potential for certain events to become violent tomorrow. But here's the thing, I'm going back to that First Amendment and the Constitution more broadly. Because if the duty becomes an excuse to silence dissent, well that's not really protection, that would be a violation of the very right people, the people out there are defending the First Amendment.
So the big question and the way to think about this tonight and of course going into the weekend and thinking about this in the long term is, is this new rhetoric from the GOP? Is it really about quieting danger or quieting dissent?
Let's talk about all this with my first guest who has no shortage of political opinions. He's the host also of "Straight Shooter" on Sirius X.M. and of course the host of "First Take" on ESPN; I'm talking about Stephen A. Smith. Good to see you.
Look, this weekend everyone's talking about over 2500 anti-Trump, no- kings protests. They're a plan for tomorrow alone. Republicans are calling them everything from hate America to even Hamas. Does this rhetoric concern you?
STEPHEN A. SMITH, HOST, "STRAIGHT SHOOTER WITH STEPHEN A." ON SIRIUS X.M.: Listen the rhetoric always concerns me because it's an indication of how divided of the nation we truly are and how you know just I would say just vitriolic we're willing to be towards one another that can't be a good thing for us in the long run nevertheless people have their reasons feeling what they feel in a lot of cases the Trump administration because of their rhetoric in the way they go about doing things give you ammunition to go at them that way that is true.
The flip side to it is that there's a midterm election that's coming up is that what's better going to better position you to win, that's what I'm hoping is the attitude of the Democratic party that everything that they're doing is something they deem to be strategic in a fashion that they believe will help them regain some level of significance within our within our government in terms of regaining some power on Capitol Hill.
That should be the goal because anything else is just a bunch of lip service is a bunch of pomp and circumstances not going to amount to anything, you've got to strategize come up with a formula that's going to ultimately be something that forces the government the Republican party to take a step back, because they have been marching forward since Trump has regained office and they have pushed the pedal to the metal and they don't seem to give a damn what anybody feels because they know they have their base intact.
And in the case of the Democrats, the Democrats have made a legitimate case for being rudderless and leaderless. And that's really what's going on right now.
COATES: So what are you identifying as the political strategy? Is it the grassroots protest, separate and apart from what's happening on Capitol Hill? Is it the fight of even the shutdown in and of itself? Is it the rhetoric coming back from Democratic Party? What is the strategy that you think is in play right now?
SMITH: My apologies. I didn't mean to give an impression that I think they have a strategy because I don't. That's my problem.
See, this is the whole point, there's the whole point. I'm glad you asked that question Laura.
[23:10:01]
I'm not a person I'm going to be unapologetic about this and I don't want Trump serve in the third term of second in the twenty second amendment the constitution which we all don't believe will happen. I don't want the J.D. Vance to be our next President of the United States of America but in the same breath. I don't want the Democratic Party to resemble what it did in the past.
I think that there needs to be a purged it needs to be a change they need to have a strategy I think the Democratic party needs to be move more to the center reminding the American citizens that issues like affordability and health care even though that's something that they're arguing with this whole shutdown thing in terms of ACA subsidies and what have you.
The bottom line is it's about the economy, it's about dollars a sense, it's about affordability, it's about safety in the streets. And I think they need to move towards the center back towards the center where most of the party is as opposed to being sub-submissive and at the mercy of the progressive-left. That's what I think is the strategy that the Democrats need to employ in order to have a snowball chance and you know what every game now and at the beginning of house and the I say the Presidency.
Anything else I consider to be lip service pompous circumstance that's going to be much ado about nothing.
COATES: Do you see a move to the center reclamation of that higher ground. The reason I ask that is because for many years people were critical and sometimes praising of Democrats because they would identify themselves as the so-called adult in the room that they were going to take the more high ground, they were going to preserve their moral compass. It sounds like in the times we're in right now that strategy, if there is one, has been abandoned to an extent in an effort to go toe-to-toe and deliver what they believe the voters want. Do you think that's right?
SMITH: Here's what I think is right, Laura. I think you need to pay attention to the voters and what they're telling you they really want. Over 152 million people voted in the last presidential election. Last time I checked, the Republicans got 77 million of those votes.
It's not about the fact that they only got 1.5 percentage points more than the Democratic Party. It was about how the Democratic Party slid from 2020 to 2024 because most Americans who went to the polls said we don't like the direction that the Democratic Party is going in. We find them to be less normal than he was.
Think about that for a second. Donald Trump was considered more normal and a safer bet to the American way of life. They want to make sure you're willing to give them what they want, but you're also showing a willingness to work across the aisle and compromise, that's what they're saying that they want.
Are you going listen to it? Are you going to ignore it? That's the question for the Democratic Party.
COATES: Let's analogize the idea of the editorial discretion that you're giving to the voters and consumers and audience, along with what message they are providing. You think about ratings as votes, let's turn to what's happening at these rallies, these protests over the weekend.
You have voters, some who comprise that millions and millions of voters who turned out for the last election, they're showing up to the streets and they're saying, we are protesting according to our First Amendment rights. In return, in some of these areas, you're talking about the National Guard being there, being present. Now we do know that voters, Americans, from frankly, the inception of our country and the Constitution, have rejected the idea of the military as law enforcement.
Do you see an inconsistency about politicians listening to what the people want and are saying and the presence of the military whether it's proactive, reactive, trying to quiet dissent or prevent harm, do you see an inconsistency that you must be listened to by both Republicans and Democrats?
SMITH: I think most politicians' middle names are inconsistency. I think most politicians do what's politically expedient.
COATES: Is this expedient for politicians to have the presence?
SMITH: I don't think so and I'll tell you something right now. Let me be very clear. I'm not an advocate of the military being in the streets of America, I'm certainly not down for that but I also pay attention to the Constitution because I know that's ultimately what they're going to throw in our face when an argument is made against it.
So if you're in Washington D.C. and obviously the federal government oversees that territory you can get away with doing that. Bringing in the National Guard or bringing in the military. Okay we all know that the military is trained to kill, they're not trained to police.
We know that they're not policemen and women. There's no reason for the military to be in some of these cities. We get that part.
The flip side to it, however, is that if you are in a city like Chicago, it's Baltimore, it's Memphis, whomever, the reality is that the Trump administration has no right to put the National Guards in those cities because the governors of those states are the commander in chief of those respective states, therefore, assigned to oversee the National Guard.
Trump is challenging that like he challenges a lot of things you know that's a matter of law because ultimately he wants to position himself to change the laws.
[23:15:02]
The Democrats are right to fight in certain situations and other situations like I spoke to you about Chicago. You know what, I'm not going to say they don't have the right and I'm looking for to cover the talk in the Governor Spritzker coming on my show in a couple of days because I want to ask him about the city of Chicago, I want to ask him about Black Lives Matter and how many black lives have been lost over the years before Obama, during Obama, after Obama; during Trump, after Trump; during Biden, after Biden.
I want to talk about this stuff because at some point in time I would say to you I don't want Trump bringing the military in the city on his own but I would like the option if I were the Governor of a state to pick up the phone and say okay sir if I needed your help and I told you what I needed your help for would you be willing to bribe that that assistance to me if I was willing to be specific about what I wanted for my state. That's an entirely different thing, but what that involves Laura is a conversation.
It's communication and it's a willingness to work with one another to get something done on a bet for the betterment of the people you represent. That's what we need to see from our officials on both sides and unfortunately, we're not seeing that.
COATES: I look forward to that conversation with the governor on your show. I'll be tuning in, but there is an area that the President of the United States, you can't contest. He has power in pardons, commutations. Tonight President Trump says he's commuting the sentence of former New York Republican Congressman George Santos. He pleaded guilty, you remember, just last year to charges of defrauding campaign donors.
What do think the President sees as what he might be gaining by commuting his sentence?
SMITH: Why does he have to be gaining anything? Why can't he see a figure that he's sympathetic to? The man George Santos. Let me explain--
I mean by being sarcastic here, what I'm is, what I'm saying is George Santos is a pathological liar. Okay. Why afford identity theft? The list goes on and on.
That's why I ended up being sentenced to seven years in prison. Okay. Primarily for being a pathological liar. And we're sitting here in shock that Trump found sympathy for pathological liar. Think about that for a second here they've got irony and all of that because we all know that Trump can twist the truth with the best of them.
That's just the fact of life so we understand that we get it we understand it but again what are you going to do to strategize against it?
Name calling them going off on them and doing all of that stuff ankle get it done, it's understanding who he is what you're dealing with and planning accordingly. You've got to come up with a different strategy to deal with this man, it would have surprised me at all. If he did this just to irritate politicians on Capitol Hill. He's playing these kind of games with them for example when he talking
about how we went out and he talked about how transgender individuals should have guns confiscated from them everybody was in an uproar and then you had people talking about the irony because it was going to be people on the left who obviously are perceived as being against folks against folks gun rights even though that's not totally true they'll have to turn around and support individuals having their gun rights because they got to go against what Trump said.
He does stuff like this to agitate, to irritate people and to get them off their game. And even though I have not spoken to him but once in like 11 or 12 years, I knew him like other sports figures knew him for years prior to him ever running for President.
This is what he does lower he plays this game any plays a like a fiddle he's funny provokes reaction to get folks off the gate to distract them from waiting they should be focused on to get them focused on something else for the twist them in the making them look inconsistent and there are say hypocritical this is the game that he's playing when are you going to play chess when he's playing chess instead of playing checkers. That's what you've got to figure out if you're a member of the opposition, which I don't think they've mastered yet because they haven't had a leader to direct them to master it.
COATES: As my son would call it, rage bait. Steven A. Smith, thank you.
SMITH: Thank you.
COATES: So now what's this story we're hearing about, about Prince Andrew giving up his royal titles over Epstein perhaps? Apparently the family, or as they call it, the firm, is on board.
Plus, exclusive interview, Sean Diddy Combs' attorney is here. We're talking how he's doing in jail, if they're to appeal, if they're asking the president for a pardon, and a whole lot more.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK
[23:20:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: A loyal fall from grace again. Prince Andrew relinquishing his royal titles in a cloud of scandals, two of which involve Jeffrey Epstein. Now first, there are reports from several papers in the U.K. about previously unknown emails between the Prince and Jeffrey Epstein.
And then there's what Virginia Dufray wrote in a new memoir that's to be published after her death next week. She wrote about the prince, quote, "He was friendly enough, but still entitled - as if he believed having sex with me was his birthright."
Now Prince Andrew has repeatedly denied Giuffre's allegations, saying tonight, quote, "As I have said previously, I vigorously deny the accusations against me. Juffre died by suicide earlier this year.
Joining me now, editor in chief and co-founder of "All Rise News," Adam Klasfeld. Adam, you have these revelations from this forthcoming book, as well as reports of alleged emails that Andrew had sent Epstein in 2011 saying we're in this together.
Now that date is important because Andrew told the BBC in 2019 that he cut ties with Epstein in 2010. How damaging are these revelations and is this what's led to giving up his titles?
[23:24:59]
ADAM KLASFELD, "EDITOR IN CHIEF, ALL RISE NEWS": Well, it seems like more than a coincidence that he gives up his title as you noted Laura, just days before the publication of Virginia Giuffre's new book. And when you have the contradictory evidence from these emails, it reminds me of the disastrous interview that Prince Andrew gave on "BBC Newsnight" where he denied a whole host of allegations and he at one point had denied that the photo that everyone saw that you showed on the screen a little bit earlier of him and Virginia Giuffre questioned the authenticity of it.
But when the chip soared down and when he came to having to confirm or deny the allegations in the lawsuit, he did not deny the paragraph. He said that he needed more information about the authenticity of the photo. So he did not deny it at the time. And it seems that this is just part of a piece of that story.
COATES: So is this upcoming book, will it ramp up the pressure to release the obscene files?
KLASFELD: Absolutely. I think that the fact that he is giving up his royal titles and the lead up to this book shows the pressure building and the fact that is going to build up more anticipation to the book and the revelations within it. This story isn't going anywhere.
COATES: So the House Oversight Committee, as you know, releasing transcripts tonight, by the way, from their interview with Alex Acosta, that's U.S. attorney who oversaw Epstein's so-called sweetheart deal back in 2008. Now he says it would have been a crap shoot to take the case to trial then, and he appeared to put the reason on the victims. And he said, many victims refused to testify.
Many victims had changing stories. All of us understood why they had changing stories, but they did. And defense counsel would have, cross- examination would have been withering. What do the survivors feel? Are they saying?
KLASFELD: Well, the survivors, absolutely. Oh from the statements I've read and seen, they are angry about that narrative. The fact of the matter is, he also said in that transcript that he entirely believed the victim, and everyone on the team believed the victims. And he was also asked pointedly during questioning that there were 32 victims that were part of this case. Did he really feel that all of them could be discredited? I thought that was a very effective line of questioning. COARTES: And a lingering question still. Adam Klasfeld, thank you.
KLASFELD: Thank you.
"COATES: Up next, a "Laura Coates Live exclusive. Diddy Combs behind bars at one of the toughest well holding facilities in this country. How's he doing? Looking for a comeback? Or what? One of the attorneys is going to tell me after this.
And ahead, new Friday night firings in the Justice Department. Trump's hand-picked U.S. Attorney leading some of his retribution lawsuits, firing more prosecutors tonight.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:30:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: Two weeks ago tonight, I was telling you about the sentencing of the disgraced music mogul Sean Diddy Combs. Four years in prison on his federal prostitution-related convictions. But it could have been more had he been convicted of the most serious charges like RICO or sex trafficking. He was acquitted of those.
Well now for the first time, one of Diddy's attorneys is speaking out an exclusive interview about the trial, the verdict, and Diddy's future.
With me now, one of the attorneys for Sean Diddy Combs, Xavier Donaldson. So glad to have you here.
XAVIER DONALDSON, LAWYER FOR DIDDY: Thank you.
COATES: I watched the trial. The outcome obviously desirable at least in part for his team including you but it has been nearly what two weeks now since the sentence was handed down nearly more than four years for Diddy how is helping with this new reality?
DONALDSON: I think he's still in jail so that's first, he's not happy about that. He wanted to be out, we wanted him out. But he's doing the best he can. It's a difficult situation, he's in the worst jail that we could think of. MDC is pretty bad.
COATES: He won't stay there for his actual federal sentence. He'll be moved.
DONALDSON: He'll be moved, but right now he's still there. He's been there for over 14 months.
COATES: Until when?
DONALDSON: Until he gets designated by the Bureau of Prisons, at which point in time they'll move him to another facility.
COATES: He wants Fort Dix in Jersey obviously, have family time. Drug Treatment Program is there as well. It's not Club Fed, don't get me wrong, but he wants there. Why?
DONALDSON: Because it's close and because it has the federal drug program there, it's close to the families, close to friends, and it'll allow him to, I think, have visitation a lot sooner, a lot quicker, a lot easier.
COATES: In reality, he likely won't serve the entire sentence of four years, although he has been in before. That'll be credited. Could behavior might be credited as well, the drug treatment program will be credited as well.
But that's still a very significant amount of time for somebody who thought he's going to get out two weeks ago.
DONALDSON: It is the four years is significantly more than we wanted it to be. And to be perfectly clear, we thought the 14 month sentence that we asked for was appropriate. And I'll tell you why.
The data showed that that was a good sentence, plus the fact that he's been incarcerated 14 months, plus the fact that he has suffered significant what we call collateral consequences. So the 14 months plus the collateral consequences make this a significant punishment for Sean Combs.
COATES: What collateral?
DONALDSON: So when we say collateral consequences, mean those extra things that occur with the sentence or with the conviction. So for him, I mean, we're talking about loss of business, we're talking about loss of reputation, we're talking about loss of money, we're talking about loss of contracts, we're talking about loss of just a variety of things.
COATES: Reputation.
DONALDSON: Reputation.
[23:35:09]
And you know, even the government's witnesses, one of them said that this type of case will destroy him.
COATES: He did not testify in his own defense, he didn't have to. It's the government's burden to prove his guilt, not for him to prove his innocence. You know that quite well.
But he did choose to speak on his own behalf for the sentencing. And there's a lot made about that video, about 11 or 12 minute worth, a documentary, "This Is Your Lifestyle", pointing out his philanthropy, his status in the community, him as a family man, depicting his children as younger than they were in the courtroom which was so emotional to see them throughout the duration of the trial.
Whose idea was it to have that video? And do you think it made a difference in the sentence?
DONALDSON: I think so. And it was a team decision.
COATES: Including Diddy?
DONALDSON: It was a team decision, including Sean. We had significant strategic conversations about everything in this case. And in order for the judge to give a fair sentence, he had to look at the history and characteristics of the defendant, of Mr. Combs, that includes the bad part and the good part.
It was important that we show the good part. Mr. Combs is a dynamic father. I mean, they show his kids are magnificent.
What he did for his family, what he continued to do for his family was, I mean, incredible. And so we wanted the judge to see who Sean Combs was, who he is, but more importantly, who he can be when he gets back to what we thought Sean was before his addiction problem. So it was really important for us to let the judge know who Sean Combs was as a person prior to this addiction that we think played a significant role in that crime of conviction.
COATES: What would end Diddy's decision not to testify?
DONALDSON: We just didn't feel like the prosecutor made their case. I mean, the charges we thought were completely. They overcharged him completely on the sex trafficking in RICO.
I mean, RICO charged him the only person being charged, you know, the sex trafficking. We just knew that those were just inappropriate charges. However, being a defense attorney in the Southern District for a long time, I know that quite frequently the Southern District of New York and other districts, I think, overcharge but the Southern District still has over 95 percent conviction rate.
COATES: They did.
DONALDSON: That was the problem. They did. We hopefully we lowered that.
COATES: Well, let's talk about the appeal. One of the arguments that I'm sure will be raised in the appeal is the judge's consideration of what you all will call the acquitted conduct, whether it was the threat of force or violence or fraud or coercion, that's a specific element in the crime of, sex trafficking.
RICO and all the different entities uh taking place there. The judge said at sentencing, I'm not thinking about those things. But there were moments I had to say, well, if violence was not a specific element of what he was ultimately convicted of, you taking consideration of violence does speak to that.
Is that the heart of the appellate argument that the judge is factoring in the very things the jury said we don't buy?
DONALDSON: That is one of our primary arguments that the court, and to be clear, I respect our judge immensely. I think he gave us a fair trial. I would never say anything different. But we do disagree on some legal things, I think.
And one of our chief appellate issues are going to be that the court used acquitted conduct, we believe, to enhance Mr. Combs' sentence to something more than he would have if he had not used that acquitted conduct.
COATES: You've got the appellate process, but there's a pardon that could happen. Listen to what President Trump said contemplating the notion.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: I have a lot of people have asked me for pardons. I call them Puff Daddy, has asked me for a pardon.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Have you asked for a pardon?
DONALDSON: I haven't personally--
COATES: As a team asked for a pardon?
DONALDSON I'm sure based upon a thing hearing that the team has spoken to or reached out to Mr. Trump, or President Trump's people regarding the pardon.
COATES: What's the likelihood of getting it?
DONALDSON: Let me say this. I think, of course I can't speak for the President, of course, but objectively speaking, I mean, there are good grounds for a pardon.
COATES: Like?
DONALDSON: Objectively. I mean, objectively speaking, Mr. Combs was sentenced to, well, strike that, Mr. Combs served 14 months in a maximum security prison, suffered significant collateral consequences, and we believe that in and of itself is sufficient but not more than necessary to accomplish any federal sentencing.
COATES: I want you to finish that point but I want to pick up on this collateral point. Are you suggesting that because of his fame or his wealth that that is the collateral?
DONALDSON: That's exactly what I'm not doing. I'm saying that don't treat Sean Combs differently because he's wealthy and Sean Combs. I'm saying that there is significant, as a matter of fact I think the case is United States v. Stewart that specifically says that collateral consequences must be considered by the court before it issues a just sentence.
[23:40:10]
It doesn't say collateral consequences unless you're rich. It doesn't say collateral consequences unless you're wealthy. It says collateral consequences.
So rich people, wealthy people can suffer collateral consequences. But mostly, and I will definitely agree with you, most of the time I'm arguing about black and brown people suffering significant collateral consequences.
Michelle Alexander, Professor Michelle Alexander talked about this in the New Jim Crow about how mostly black and brown people suffer these significant collateral consequences. That is true. They do, we do, we know it all the time.
But we cannot say that Sean Combs, because he's wealthy, did not also suffer collateral consequences. It is important to know that Mr. Combs worked, he wasn't born with this money, he worked very hard to get to a place where he is. That's true, no one would deny that.
The fact that--
COATES: The judge said as much.
DONALDSON: The judge agreed. The fact that one of the witnesses testified that this will destroy him. This case will destroy him.
COATES: Do you believe it will? There's no comeback and the judge say lay at the end of the tunnel?
DONALDSON: No, I think Mr. Combs will bounce back.
COATES: Do you really think so?
DONALDSON: I don't think we're talking about Sean Combs, Puff Daddy, dancing on stages. No, I'm talking about Sean Combs' pre-drug addiction, pre-you know, staying up six, 23 hours a day partying. I'm talking about Sean Combs who is, who was committed to helping out, who was committed to giving back, who was committed to starting schools, was committed to doing all the right things for his community.
That Sean Combs is still there. We know that because once he got clean in jail, he started this magnificent curriculum that helps out uh persons incarcerated that's you know, helping them have a purpose, helping them have goals, making them come to class and try to just learn from this man. So I think that part of Sean Combs is coming back.
COATES: You heard and you read the letters of say Cassie Ventura, obviously the government star witness in this matter. She does not buy for a second according to what she's written, that he is a changed man, that reform is on the horizon or that he'll ever be anyone but the violent person that she knew.
DONALDSON: I respect. Her words, I'm not going to cast any dispersions on Cassie's words. She's entitled to believe and feel how she feels, she is absolutely entitled to that, she has a right, and she should, honestly.
COATES: She should what? DONALDSON: She was a victim of domestic violence. There's no doubt
about that. No one that I know of is saying anything except that.
You know, we have to believe that everyone has the opportunity of a second chance. We have to, I mean, we have to believe that he can bounce back. We have to.
He can't be damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. If he tries to do the right thing, we can't say, oh, we don't believe it. If he doesn't do anything, we'll say, well, why isn't he doing something?
COATES: Xavier Donaldson, thank you.
DONALDSON: Thank you for having me, I appreciate it.
COATES: Well, it's Friday night and the Trump administration, you know what that means. Career government officials were learning, getting fired. We'll tell you who and why after this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:45:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: Tonight, more firings at the key U.S. Attorney's Office behind the indictments of Trump's political foes, at least two of them. Sources telling CNN the President's handpicked U.S. Attorney, Lindsey Halligan, has fired two senior career prosecutors, with one source adding that Halligan believed that they were leaking unauthorized information to the press.
Well, note this is the latest in a string of firings and resignations at this very office in just less than a month, following, of course, the indictments of Leticia James and James Comey.
For more, let's bring in senior legal affairs reporter for Politico, Josh Gerstein. You've been talking to sources about these firings. What do we know about them?
JOSH GERSTEIN, SR. LEGAL AFFAIRS REPORTER, POLITICO: Well, we know that these firings have something to do with that office's investigation into New York Attorney General Leticia James. And it seems like these two women were involved in the investigation. And apparently they resisted the direction of indicting her because we know that Lindsay Halligan was the one that ultimately had to make the presentation to get her indicted, their names are not on the case and then within a couple weeks we find out they're fired.
They're both veterans of the office, Beth, you see 18 years and Kristen Bird 6.5 years in the office. And also Laura, we heard about another firing today, a prosecutor not in the same office, but here in Washington D.C. named Liz Aloy, who was pretty much the lead prosecutor on Trump trade adviser Peter Navarro's contempt of congress case. She was demoted earlier in the year and sometime this week apparently fired. COATES: So that the issue? Effective tissue here, is there a threat?
GERSTEIN: I mean worse, we've seen these waves of firings for political reasons and the administration's pretty straightforward that they're for political reasons. We know the same person at the executive office of U.S. attorneys who formally carried out the firing of Maureen Comey up in New York has carried out these firings today.
[23:50:01]
And when Maureen Comey was fired, they literally wrote on her paper Article 2 Constitution as the reason she was fired, which people in the government tell me they have never seen before this administration in their lives. Career people protected civil servants being dismissed apparently on the notion that the President has the power to fire almost anybody and maybe everybody in the executive branch.
COATES: We're saying the phrase career prosecutor, line prosecutors is also used as well, essentially meaning that they are not political appointees who will serve no matter who is the president of the United States. So what will be the impact of these career prosecutors who are seeing obviously what's going on and we don't know whether the belief that any leaking has occurred is in any way well founded?
GERSTEIN: Right. We don't know, but obviously it will create more fear in those ranks of people. And you'll continue to see people depart.
I mean, in various offices at the Justice Department, we've seen enormous turnover with really hundreds of people resigning, taking the buyout, all this type of thing, real diminishment in the ranks of people, you know, people with 18, 20, 23 years of experience in the government just walking out the door and the Trump administration seeming to be delighted that they're departing even though they're left shorthanded as a result.
COATES: Well, the former National Security Advisor, John Bolton was in a courtroom today. Take me inside. What did you see?
GERSTEIN: Well we saw him arrive at the courthouse about 8:30 in the morning and he was there for about half of the day. He wasn't arrested.
So that's somewhat interesting, right? We know that Trump allies wanted to see him given a perp walk, basically pulled out of his house by the FBI in jackets, something akin to what we saw with Roger Stone years back. That did not happen, he was allowed to turn himself in.
It's kind of a different prosecution crew than we saw on the Comey case.
COATES: In what way?
GERSTEIN: Well, it's career prosecutors and it's a lot of them. There's five of them that were in there yesterday in this courtroom when the indictment was handed up by the grand jury. It's headed by a man named Tom Sullivan, who's the top national security prosecutor for the U.S. Attorney's office in Maryland.
And just seeing the interactions between him and the defense attorney, Abbe Lowell, they're both very seasoned and very experienced. They look very confident in the courtroom.
COATES: About their positions the --
GERSTEIN: Yes, they have experienced It wasn't the kind of diffidence that I saw among the prosecutors in the Comey case when they had their first uh Court appearance and as for Bolton himself, you know, he's 76 years old and he looked you know to be an older gentleman. He has this sort of professorial appearance I would say and he doesn't look like someone incredibly comfortable with the notion of being behind bars.
Not that anybody would be comfortable, him in particular, you think about the potential jail sentence that he's facing. That's a pretty serious matter when you're 76 years old.
COATES: Josh Gerstein, thank you.
GERSTEIN: Sure, Laura.
COATES: Up next, from breaking barriers, the first black principal dancer with the American Ballet Theater, to helping others achieve that same goal. You've got to see what Misty Copeland is up to.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:55:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: Next week, American ballet dancer Misty Copeland will take her final bow with the American Ballet Theater. She made history in 2015 as the first African-American woman to be a principal dancer there. Anderson Cooper shows how Copeland is opening doors for young dancers all across the country.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
MISTY COPELAND, PRINCIPAL DANCER, AMERICAN BALLET THEATER: With ballet, the reason I got into it was because of the joy that it brought me, this beautiful escape.
ANDERSON COOPER, AC360 ANCHOR (voice-over): Ballet star Misty Copeland broke barriers as the first black female principal dancer with American Ballet Theater. Now she's working to make the art form more accessible for the next generation.
COPELAND: I started the Misty Copeland Foundation in 2021. Really with the idea of bringing dance to under-resourced, underserved communities, I wouldn't be who I am if I hadn't been introduced to this incredible art form out of Boys and Girls Club. I just felt like we have to keep this going and give other children the same opportunity. COOPER (voice-over): Be Bold is a free after-school ballet program
offered to community centers in the Bronx and Harlem serving more than 500 children of color ages 5 to 12.
COPELAND: It's really with the idea of introducing them to moving their bodies, the vocabulary of basic ballet technique, and live music.
What's different about this from just your traditional ballet class was that this framework was made with black and brown children in mind.
UNKNOWN: Majority of other kids don't get to do this stuff like I do. I've learned how to respect myself and others and I've learned to just be yourself.
COPELAND: It's not about creating professional dancers. That would be fantastic. But this is about creating future leaders.
There's so many incredible skills that you learn by being a part of dance, but ballet in particular. It's dedication, it's discipline, it's community, it's empathy.
[00:00:02]
COOPER (voice-over): Misty's foundation recently expanded classes to include people over 50, demonstrating that ballet is truly for everyone.
COPELAND: Eventually, I want to have this program in community sites all over the United States and maybe beyond. You know, we say we want to take over the world one plie at a time.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
COATES: To learn more, go to cnn.com/heroes.
And hey, thank you so much for watching. "Anderson Cooper 360" is next.
