Return to Transcripts main page

Laura Coates Live

Is Trump Using the Courts In Bad Faith?; New Epstein Allegations As Survivor's Book Hours Away From Release; Trump Commutes Sentence of George Santos. Aired 11p-12a ET

Aired October 20, 2025 - 23:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

[23:00:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SARA SIDNER, CNN ANCHOR AND SENIOR NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: We'll leave you with this: A brazen heist at the Louvre in Paris and it took just seven minutes. Video shows thieves breaking into display and escaping with priceless French crown jewels dating from the Napoleonic era. Eight of the nine artifacts still missing and the thieves are as well.

And thank you for watching "NewsNight." "Laura Coates Live" starts right now.

LAURA COATES, CNN HOST AND SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Tonight, from troops in Portland to James Comey's prosecution. Two very different cases with one common question: Is the Trump administration using the courts in bad faith? Plus, pressure mounts for the royal family and Prince Andrew over his link to Jeffrey Epstein. And now, a new memoir from one of Epstein's most well-known survivors is about to hit the shelves. And what do the people allegedly scammed by George Santos think about his release? You know what? One is going to join me tonight on "Laura Coates Live."

So, every courtroom, they run on one basic assumption: Good faith. A belief that the evidence is honest, that the prosecutors play fair, that when a president invokes his power, he's doing it for the public good. But what happens when that assumption is tested, when good faith might resemble bad faith in disguise, perhaps?

Well, tonight, there are two cases that are putting that very question to the test. The first one, an appeals court is green lighting President Trump's troop deployment to Portland. Now, this is reversing a decision from a federal judge who ruled just last week that there was no emergency to justify bringing in the National Guard.

Now, I want to be crystal clear about what we're talking about here, okay? Protests outside of this ICE facility in South Portland, they've been going on for months, actually. And local state officials, they argue they've got it all under control. They say what's happening is sporadic, that it's contained and it's mostly peaceful. But the federal government claims it is far worse. Attempts to burn the building down, rocks and fireworks launched at officers, lasers shined into their eyes. You know, in a two-to-one decision, the Trump-appointed majority agreed, writing, "State and local law enforcement have been unable or unwilling to assist the government's efforts to protect federal personnel and property."

But what that third judge who dissented, that third one, what that said? Well, she pointed out that most of the incidents the other judges cited actually happened months ago. And she wrote, "Today's decision is not merely absurd. It erodes core constitutional principles, including sovereign states' control over their states' militias and the people's First Amendment rights." She even says that on most days, the most notable aspect of the protest is people dressed in chicken and frog suits.

Now, remember, the ruling centers around one ICE facility. But you know, when a court gets involved, the stakes are much higher. If you listen to Trump, he is describing an entire city under siege.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: You see what's happening in Portland. This is like nobody has ever seen, anything like it. Every night. And this has gone on for years. They just burned the place down.

Portland is -- is on fire. Portland has been on fire for years. And not so much saving it. We have to save something else because I think that's all insurrection. I really think that's really criminal insurrection.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: This just isn't the case. And that's why local officials are arguing that Trump is not acting in -- wait for it -- good faith. Now, they say that he is creating a pretext for a wider crackdown.

Now, two things are going to happen next. The losing party is going to want the full Ninth Circuit. Not just the three, but the full to actually weigh in, which they can, in fact, do, called non-bank opinion. And two, no matter what the rest of the court says, it's going to the Supreme Court.

They're already talking about a similar case out of Chicago. Now, that's the first test of good faith principles for a court to consider. But the second test, where the president is using his power in bad faith, straight up.

[23:05:01]

James Comey is launching his first push to get the case against him thrown out. And his defense is arguing outright that his prosecution is both selective and vindictive. That's legal talk for bad faith justice.

I want to break down the difference between the two different terms, though, because there is a difference. Now, selective prosecution means they have singled you out, not others who were what they call similarly situated, all because you were exercising some particular right, maybe free speech. Now, vindictive prosecution means they had an animus against you, meaning they really did not like you, and you wouldn't have been prosecuted except for that so-called animus and that they did not like you when you were exercising, of course, a right.

Now, in a new filing, they point out and point to what they call the smoking gun evidence. Now, it's Trump's social media post ordering Pam Bondi to prosecute James Comey. Now, his defense says that wasn't just rhetoric, it was a directive, and that when the career DOJ prosecutor didn't file charges, he was replaced with the handpicked prosecutor, Lindsey Halligan.

Comey's team, though, didn't just wait on the two forms of bad faith justice. They also started a second argument, arguing that Halligan's appointment wasn't even valid, meaning she can't even bring the case against him.

We'll see what actually sticks. We know what is sticking, though. Trump's dislike of Comey. It's no secret the president does not like him and wants some form of retribution.

Another truth? Cases are rarely tossed on claims of either vindictive or selective prosecution. The bar is very high. Why? Because of prosecutorial discretion. Courts give a lot of weight to it. You got to prove intent and pattern and motive.

That's exactly what Comey's team is trying to do. They are arguing this wasn't just a prosecution, it was a punishment. A case not born from evidence, but from an enemy's list. And, you know, they attached like a 60-page exhibit of statements that Comey and Trump have made about each other. It ain't friendly, people.

And now, the court has to decide whether the president will get the assumption of good faith when it talks about going to the prosecutors and whether it's attributed to them or whether the case ought to be dismissed entirely. Remember that bar because in case after case, the question isn't just what he's doing, it's why he's doing it. And that, more than anything, is going to be the court's test for good faith.

We have two individuals, experts with a wealth of experience and knowledge on the powers of the executive. David Schoen, who is the lead counsel for Trump during his second impeachment. He'll join me in just a moment. But first, to former Nixon White House counsel, John Dean, the central figure in the Watergate scandal. Well, I guess that would be Nixon, but the other central figure, of course, is just John Dean and that his bombshell testimony led to -- Congress led to President Nixon's resignation.

John, you join me now. Welcome. Um, Comey's attorney is pointing to two different arguments, vindictive and selective prosecution, of course, and the legitimacy of Lindsey Halligan's very appointment. Are these arguments, in your opinion, are they strong enough to challenge, to toss this case? JOHN DEAN, CNN CONTRIBUTOR, FORMER NIXON WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL: I think they are, Laura. They're very -- very solid briefs. There are very experienced attorneys filing them against what appear almost to be rookies that they brought in from North Carolina to the Eastern District of Virginia, Northern Virginia, uh, to just to try the case because the U.S. attorney's office, nobody there -- none of the experienced prosecutors want to touch this, which tells you something about the case.

But I think these briefs are good. I think both arguments are solid. I think the -- the appointment of the U.S. attorney is their first big problem, showing that she was -- followed both the Constitution and the statutes that are involved. They did not follow the statutes. And so, they got to (INAUDIBLE) --

COATES: Wait. Unpack that more.

DEAN: -- and then the vindictive prosecution that you mentioned.

COATES: Hold on, John. I want to unpack that more because it's not an obvious point. The idea of an interim U.S. attorney, there's a certain amount of time one can be in that position. Why? They want the Senate, of course, be able to confirm people. If you try to skirt around that, they don't have a say in that.

The argument he's making here is that this person was not legitimately known as an interim U.S. attorney. They'd already outlasted that particular period of time. If that's the case, though, that would mean that they're outside of that period of time when you can actually bring a case against James Comey.

[23:10:00]

That's a strong case for a judge who doesn't want to touch the other part of executive power, right?

DEAN: That's right. That would be a very easy procedural way to end this case. Uh, what happened is the woman who was appointed to become the U.S. attorney and to handle this case for the president, a former White House aide who just sent over to Virginia to do this, uh, she was replacing somebody who had already served over the 120 days and the district court had moved in and affirmed his staying there.

So, the statutory period had expired before Trump even sent somebody over, a second person who would do his bidding. Uh, that's the hurdle they're not going to be able to easily leap. The statute is very clear, and they didn't take any protective steps to get them around it.

COATES: So, the extension of the other person would not be applicable and transferable to Halligan is their argument. I wonder what the courts will say about that.

But I'm also really curious about this line, John, between a president's directive to an attorney general and what's unlawful or vindictive and selective. Is there a clear line between what a president can direct an attorney general to do or consider and then the idea of discretion on behalf of the prosecutors?

DEAN: They certainly can. What they're -- what we have here is the situation of a stalking horse where somebody's out there doing the president's bidding. And I think you can show a direct line to a White House aide who was given the assignment to go over and prosecute this former head of the FBI and enemy of the president.

Not only is the atmosphere filled with vindictiveness, the procedure and use of this woman who has never prosecuted a case in her life and was plucked out of the lower staff levels at the White House because she was an attorney and sent over to handle this. So, it is a pretty easy case in many regards to show -- if this isn't vindictive prosecution, Laura, I don't know what is.

COATES: Does the grand jury's indictment interrupt that through line between the president's directive and James Comey's motion? Because if the grand jury found probable cause to indict, would that interrupt the ability to make that smooth case?

DEAN: We don't know what happened in the grand jury yet, and we don't know what the grand jury was told. There are some suggestions that they may have been misled at the grand jury. They did not follow the all three requested accounts for the indictment. One of them, they wouldn't go near. They voted against it. And it was a fairly -- it wasn't an overwhelming vote on the ones they did. And that's the question.

We had to see the transcript of what happened in the grand jury, which the Comey team will get and which they'll know pretty soon, what was -- what was said.

COATES: A great point speaks to the burden and who it's on right now. It's the defense arguing, but the prosecution has to show that it's not selective or vindictive or offer some other reason. Thank you, John Dean. I want to turn now to --

DEAN: Thank you, Laura.

COATES: -- David Schoen, who -- I will remind you -- did represent the president during his second impeachment trial. Now, you heard what John had to say, David. Um, Comey's attorneys, they are seizing on the president's many social media posts, attacking the former FBI chief. By the way, Comey has been critical as well. Will Trump's own words jeopardize this case or is the bar too high for prosecution and the idea of vindictive or selective?

DAVID SCHOEN, FORMER LAWYER FOR PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP DURING SECOND IMPEACHMENT: First of all, I think you gave an excellent and fair analysis of the issues in your opening. I think it's very important because these are issues of great public interest.

Um, you asked me to comment on what Mr. Dean said. He said, if this isn't vindictive prosecution, I don't know what is. I do. Letitia James campaigning on a platform of getting Donald Trump when he wasn't even under investigation at the time, the New York district attorney getting Donald Trump vowing to during his campaign, those look vindictive. Vigilante prosecutors like Norm Eisen, Andrew Weissmann making prosecution model memos to go after Donald Trump, those were all vindictive prosecutions. But not one of those cases that a vindictive prosecution or selected prosecution motion prevail.

The bar is too high. In this case, it can be as "The Wall Street Journal" said this week. It can be that comments indicate vindictiveness, but that the person also ought to be amenable to prosecution because maybe he or she did something wrong, and we should let that process play out. I think that's what we have here. I don't think he'll prevail on his vindictive or selective prosecution arguments.

The validity -- excuse me -- of the prosecutor's appointment, first of all, you know, I hear Mr. Dean and others, and they didn't do it in particularly pejorative terms but sort of putting down the prosecutor because she didn't have much experience. Don't take her for granted. I haven't ever met her, but I'm impressed with the courage she's showing.

[23:15:00]

With all of the media attacking her and so on, she seemed to have a ride on the ball. And it looks like the grand jury did its job by discounting one count and not the others.

But let me say this: The law right now, as you know, Laura, there are a number of cases going on around the country right now with -- making the same challenge.

COATES: Yes.

SCHOEN: The challenge in the validity of the appointment under Section 546 on the interim U.S. attorney. And the trend of those cases appears to be going the defense way right now, the Alina Habba case and so on. But there are many arguments out. These are fascinating questions. Many arguments that haven't been made yet and that will be made.

For example, Professor Steven Calabresi from Northwestern University, distinguished conservative legal scholar, has said that he believes 546, the statute under which this appointment is made, the subsection D, which allows a federal judge, after 120 days expired, to appoint an interim U.S. attorney, he believes it's unconstitutional, it's an infringement on the president's exclusive power. And he points to recent cases like (INAUDIBLE) LLC case that says these are exclusive powers of a president.

We have another conservative scholar, Paul Cassell, who says it's constitutional but still, it's the attorney general's call. So, there are lot of arguments out there. I don't mean to get into the weeds too much.

COATES: No. The weeds are important, but it also has to factor in, of course, that Congress has a role. They want a role to play. That was what was contemplated as well. And so, if you're able to constantly extend indefinitely, you could expectedly take away Congress's ability to give advice or consent in the role of it. A lot of questions here. I think you guys both point out very well, this is an issue that's going to likely go higher and higher up as we grapple with all of the policy implications at issue here.

But let's talk about what's going on in Portland as well. There was a big win for the administration today. The appeals court delivered it. They overturned a lower court judge ruling and cleared the way to deploy National Guard to one ICE facility in Portland. They're taking a victory lap. How long is this win going to look?

SCHOEN: Hmm. That -- that's the question. You alluded to it earlier. That they've asked for en banc consideration of the case. Um, I think they may well give a rehearing en banc in this case. I don't know. And it may go all the way up after that. It's moving on a rapid course. The judge has set a full trial in the case, like October 27, something like that.

So, we'll see what happens. It's a very, you know, heated issue. There is also a question as to whether if the president makes a particular decision, invokes Insurrection Act, etcetera. But that's reviewable by a court. So, these are important and powerful questions.

COATES: The reviewable part, just explain quickly why you make that consideration. It's about the president's prerogative and what the idea of deference should be given, correct?

SCHOEN: Yes, correct, exactly, because if the executive makes a finding, for example, that there is a rebellion, insurrection or that the violence in one of these cities has gone so far, that it requires federal intervention. State authorities can't handle it or aren't willing to handle it. The question is -- excuse me -- is that factual determination and the underlying legal determination reviewable by a court or is it exclusively within the president's prerogative?

COATES: I know what the president wants. We'll see what the courts decide. David Schoen, thank you so much.

SCHOEN: Thank you very much.

COATES: Up next, a sneak peek at the bombshell book that will be out tomorrow morning. I'm talking about the memoir of Epstein survivor, Virginia Giuffre. And it's already having ramifications for a very powerful man. Plus, the president mocking the "no kings" protesters, posting an AI-generated video that no one asked to see. You're watching it. It's -- yeah. Don't go anywhere.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:20:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: A haunting posthumous memoir by Epstein accuser Virginia Roberts Giuffre. It is set to hit bookshelves in just a few hours. And in one new excerpt obtained by the BBC, Giuffre reveals harrowing details of what she allegedly endured at the hands of Epstein and his inner circle.

In it, she writes, "In my years with them, they lent me out to scores of wealthy, powerful people. I was habitually used and humiliated. And in some instances, choked, beaten, and bloodied. I believed that I might die a sex slave."

The royal family is under mounting pressure over Giuffre's shocking allegations against Prince Andrew and his links to Epstein. I want to bring a royal insider, former publicist for Princess Michael of Kent, Rob Shuter. He's also the author of the upcoming novel, "It Started with a Whisper."

Rob, thank you for being here as we try to make sense of what has happened and, of course, the eyebrow-raising allegations and claims in this memoir. One that's bound to do so is Prince Andrew's team allegedly tried to hire online trolls to attack her around the time that she brought that civil suit against Prince Andrew. If that's true, describe how big of a deal that would be.

ROB SHUTER, ROYAL INSIDER, FORMER PUBLICIST FOR PRINCESS MICHAEL OF KENT, AUTHOR: Massive. It would be absolutely massive. But let me put this into perspective. There are so many allegations. There's so much news. This book is not out until a few hours and already, he has lost his royal title. So, it's not going to get better for him. There's going to be nothing in this book that is going to make him feel any better, make the royal family feel any better. So, it's only going to get worse.

An insider, a friend of mine in Britain, has seen the book. And they told me that there are not many new revelations about Andrew.

[23:25:01]

However, having all the accusations in one place, in one document, it's really overwhelming.

COATES: Tell me about how the royal family, I know it's known as "the Firm," but how they would operate to try to respond to this? Obviously, there is some proactivity in terms of the loss of certain privileges that he once had. But what does this look like in terms of a response from here?

SHUTER: Yeah, when I worked with the British royal family, they didn't really respond. It's not their style. They bury their head in the sand and they hope things go away. They carry on. And I think that's the mistake that they're making again.

These accusations, they're not new. We've now been talking about them for years. And it actually takes a book like this coming out in a few hours that made them move. They didn't want to move. They hoped all this would go away. It clearly isn't.

And I think we should emphasize here, my reporting tells me that William has really stepped up in the old ways of his grandmother, of his father, of ignoring crises, which the royal family has done for centuries. That isn't how they're going to do it anymore. So, I think the reason he lost his titles was because William stepped up.

COATES: Too little, too late?

SHUTER: Yeah. Oh, absolutely. The damage to the family, to the institution is monumental. It's absolutely shocking. There's a new report in the London Times that he will not be at William's coronation. God forbid the day comes when Charles is no longer the king and William is coronated, will Andrew be there? And sources are saying absolutely not. His time with his family is done. He will remain in a royal palace behind the palace walls. He will have a life of luxury, but it will be the golden handcuffs.

COATES: So much more to ponder for hours away from the book's release. Rob Shuter, thank you.

SHUTER: Good to see you.

COATES: Stay with us. The president planning to send troops to San Francisco next. I'll talk to a leader there. And why was the president posting AI video of literal S-H-I-T being dumped onto Americans? I said it. He did it. We'll discuss.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:30:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: One state combing over the fine print and the ruling over Oregon's National Guard? California. President Trump has already taken over the state's National Guard and sent troops to L.A. That case working its way through the courts, as you know. Now, the president is threatening to send in the guard to the city by the bay, San Francisco.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MARIA BARTIROMO, FOX BUSINESS CHANNEL HOST: We're going to go to San Francisco next.

TRUMP: We're then going to go to San Francisco. The difference is I think they want us in San Francisco. We're going to go to San Francisco, and we're going to make it great. We're going to make it great. It'll be great again.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: One San Fran politician is responding to Trump's threat with two words: Back off. California State Democratic lawmaker Scott Wiener joins me now. He represents San Francisco. Scott, welcome. I mean, your governor, Gavin Newsom, says in a court filing tonight that Trump has extended federal control of the guard until February. Are you concerned about this Ninth Circuit ruling that's making it easier to deploy the guard, at least in places like Portland?

SCOTT WIENER, MEMBER, CALIFORNIA STATE SENATE: Yeah, I'm very concerned. First of all, it's all illegal and it has to stop. The National Guard, the military should not be sent by presidents into American cities. That is just a straight up violation of the law. But on top of it --

COATES: -- doesn't think so. Of course, that's the issue. At least these two judges don't agree. But it will likely go up higher. Go ahead.

WIENER: Yeah, for now, and that's why we have appeals, and that's underway, and our attorney general is fighting hard. But just to be clear, apart from the law, in San Francisco, we don't need the National Guard. And no offense to the National Guard. These are great Californians. I know a lot of people in the National Guard.

And we are handling our business in San Francisco. Crime is down in San Francisco. Violent crime is at historic lows. Even property crime, which we've struggled with over time, property crime is down. (INAUDIBLE) are down. Our mayor, our police department, our district attorney, are doing a really good job. Our downtown is recovering. We have economic vibrancy. Our neighborhoods are amazing. People should come visit. And we don't need the military in San Francisco.

This is about Donald Trump trying to punish his perceived enemies. It has nothing to do with crime or public safety.

COATES: So, you don't see a correlation because, obviously, there has been a lot made about crime in San Francisco. Now, I know crime and property crime is distinct from a rebellion and insurrection, which is a threshold that's much higher than what you're talking about normally.

But the idea that there has been the crime traditionally, there has been a lot of focus on the area in particular, does that give any credence or credibility to a statement that the actual local officials are unable to prevent or stop it?

WIENER: I know. First of all, the idea that anything happening in San Francisco rises to the level of a rebellion or an insurrection is just absurd on its face. Violent crime has been low in San Francisco for a long time. And property crime has been coming down.

[23:34:58]

And if you're going to start sending in the U.S. Military because some cars got broken into which, by the way, car breakings are way down in San Francisco, but it's just that when you even just see the words, it's ridiculous.

We need to be very clear that none of this in San Francisco, Portland, in Chicago, in L.A. and D.C., none of this has to do with crime or public safety. Donald Trump doesn't care about crime or public safety in cities. He wants to exercise power and control, and punish places that didn't vote for him. That's all this is about.

COATES: Let's talk a little bit about what's been going on in terms of leadership in particular because, as you know, Democrats are searching for a path forward after Vice President Kamala Harris of California, of course, lost to President Trump. The midterms are about a year away. We're seeing several Democrats in Congress are facing challenges from younger Democrats. Is it time for a new generation of Democrats in Washington? Do you want to be among them?

WIENER: Um, thank you for that question. I've been, you know, very transparent that it has been an honor to represent San Francisco at the local and the state level, and it would be an honor to represent San Francisco in Congress.

You know, it -- we have some really amazing people in Congress, and we could use more. And it's great to have new voices and fresh perspectives about how we get the Democratic Party to focus more and more on reducing the cost of living, having more housing, having broader access to healthcare, more clean energy, and so forth. And so, we need fresh thinking always, and it would be an honor to be a part of that effort.

COATES: Does that mean you are, State Senator Scott Wiener, or are we being a little bit cagey today?

(LAUGHTER)

WIENER: Stay -- stay -- stay tuned. It would be an honor to represent the greatest city on Earth, San Francisco, in Congress.

COATES: Thank you for your time. We appreciate it.

WIENER: Thank you.

COATES: Many of the cities facing the National Guard threat took part in "no kings" protests all across the country. And Trump mocked those protests by posting this AI video of him flying a military jet emblazoned with King Trump dropping poop on protesters. Of course, that's "Danger Zone" from Kenny Loggins in one of the greatest movies, it's playing in the background, who, by the way, posted on Instagram that he wants the video removed immediately.

Let's talk about more with T.W. Arrighi, who was a former senior communications aide to Senator Lindsey Graham, and Lulu Garcia- Navarro, CNN contributor and New York Times journalist and podcast host. I'm glad you guys are both here.

First of all, I happen to love "Top Gun" and "Top Gun: Maverick." Just saying. So, it's a good tune.

(CROSSTALK)

It's great, too.

T.W. ARRIGHI, FORMER COMMUNICATIONS AIDE TO LINDSEY GRAHAM: I love it.

COATES: And Kenny Loggins, well, let's go there for second.

LULU GARCIA-NAVARRO, CNN CONTRIBUTOR, JOURNALIST FOR THE NEW YORK TIMES, PODCAST HOST: Yeah. COATES: But he went on to say that -- quote -- this is Kenny Loggins -- that "there is no us in them, and we're all Americans, and we're all patriotic." But why send this message if you're Trump? Like what -- why do think he has done this?

ARRIGHI: First of all, I always think it's so lame when artists are like you can't use my music, even though I love everybody. I always hate that for some reason. It just cringes me.

COATES: You hate intellectual property litigation in law?

(LAUGHTER)

ARRIGHI: No. I just think like --

COATES: Copyrights.

ARRIGHI: -- music is made for all people. Let it -- like making political statements with it, it just bothers me. He might have a right to do it. I just -- it bothers me personally.

In terms of the message being said, I just don't know why we're surprised anymore. You know, he has been doing this sort of thing, either through spoken word, videos, tweets, mean tweets, video, now AI videos. He has been doing this since 2016. Some people hate it. Some people love it, they find it funny. It clearly has broken through. He had 77 million people vote for him. People said, we're sick of democratic government, we're sick of the way the country is going, we want the guy who sends mean tweets back in office, even though we might not like it.

Look, Harry Sisson was the guy getting the poop dumped on him. He has been known to dabble in meme world. And I can't use that word, but blank posting. So, look, you're free to dislike it. Some people find it very funny. It's the way he communicates.

COATES: It's a larger issue, though. This is not just any particular set of weekend events. It's the "no kings" protest. And he has been very critical of what that stands for and what this means, saying that he's not a king, he's not an autocrat, he's doing all these different things, authoritarian. When he sent this message, it's more than just I'm doing a meme, he's commenting. Is he not on the ability to criticize him?

GARCIA-NAVARRO: You know, I think what it shows actually is that this is a government that is flailing in the face of what were really large protests. I think one of the most serious challenges to the Trump administration since he has come into office, they first started by saying that these were antifa, that these were terrorists, these were terrible people that were going to be incredibly violent, and when that didn't materialize and it was people in sort of animal suits and friendly messages, they were really trying to figure out what is the way to discredit this.

[23:40:05] And they came up with Trump on a plane dumping excrement on millions of Americans, and then having to have the, you know, kind of head of the House Republicans, Mike Johnson, defending it.

This -- by the way, whether you like memes or you don't like memes or whether it's to break through to, you know, your average voter, this is basically a tactic that doesn't help Trump because it just shows that he doesn't know what to do in the face of what are very, very serious protests against what he's doing.

COATES: Democrats harness the energy from the weekend in a way that Republicans could not simply just, well, poo-poo on.

GARCIA-NAVARRO: You know, I think Democrats are trying to find their way, clearly. They have not been able to harness a lot of this energy. And the reason you see Democrats not doing very well in polls is because their own constituents don't like them. This isn't Republicans who are angry at Democrats. These are Democratic voters who are angry at the leadership for not doing enough.

COATES: So, how do you -- how do you -- as a Republican and a strategist, how do you deal with that? How do you seize on that dislike in a way that overlooks the memes and propels the voters towards Republicans, even through a shutdown?

ARRIGHI: Looking to New Jersey. Right? New Jersey, that's close to a margin of error race. Jack Ciattarelli lost by three points. Donald Trump only lost by about five points in New Jersey. The Democratic Party shrunk last month. They lost registered Democrats in New Jersey last month. Republicans have been gaining consistently for the last two plus years.

That's how you win. You get a great candidate running a great race. And the Democratic Party's brand is so badly damaged that even someone somewhat moderate can't break through. And that was, you know, resorting to these horrible tactics where she's saying Jack Ciattarelli is responsible for the deaths of thousands of people due to opioids, which "The New York Times" said was completely bunk. That's how you win. We are winning.

You know, there has been so much critiques about the "no king" rallies. By the way, side note, I think it is kind of -- I don't know if many kings would wait on the appeals court to send troops somewhere. But -- but the point is that's how you do it.

COATES: Well, we'll see. If not, there's always A.I. memes.

ARRIGHI: Yes.

COATES: T.W., Lulu, thank you both so much. Up next, a veteran allegedly scammed by George Santos reacts to his release. And ahead, it only took seven or steal seven minutes to steal priceless jewels from the most visited museum in the world. Harry Enten has got the facts and the figures about the Louvre heist we don't yet know.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) [23:45:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: Now, how do you think George Santos found out that the president was commuting his 87-month sentence? Watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEORGE SANTOS, FORMER NEW YORK REPRESENTATIVE: I wasn't even aware until I learned it off of the chyron of mainstream media inside of the prison myself.

DANA BASH, CNN CHIEF POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: So sorry. I just want to --

SANTOS: I learned it from the T.V.

BASH: Yes. I just want to --

(LAUGHTER)

I mean, that's incredible. You were standing in prison, you looked up at television, and that's where you saw that your sentence was commuted?

SANTOS: More like I didn't see it. Other inmates saw it and called me over to see it. I was not in the room at the time. And then I -- I made my way to see it. I called my family, and they told me it had happened. But I -- I was not aware. It was a surprise.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: He was in prison after pleading guilty to charges of aggravated identity theft and wire fraud. He was ordered to pay by a judge $373,000 in restitution before his commutation. Here's what Santos said tonight when asked if he would still commit to repaying his victims.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SANTOS: I will definitely explore those avenues. It's right. It's -- it's -- you're not wrong. It is the right thing to do and it's definitely the godly thing to do. And I will do the best I can and in my best efforts to find a way to do it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Navy veteran, who alleges he was scammed by Santos, saying the former congressman stole money from a GoFundMe for his dying dog. George Santos denies these allegations.

Richard Osthoff joins me now. Richard, for a long time since we spoke about this, he is apologizing for his actions. And now, he says he'll explore ways to repay those he defrauded. The president's commutation, I will note, absolves him from paying further fines and restitution. Do you believe he should or will make the effort, anyway?

RICHARD OSTHOFF, DISABLED VET WHO SAYS GEORGE SANTOS SCAMMED HIM: I definitely believe he should make the effort. But knowing him and his past track record, everything he's about is ripping people off and stealing from people. He'll wait for this to blow over for it to not be a really big news story anymore, and he'll keep that money. He's laughing his way to the bank.

COATES: He was back on the app Cameo just a day after his release, where people can pay 300 bucks for him to send them a personal message. And prosecutors, they have said that he has made more than $400,000 last time he tried to monetize his brand in that way. How do you think he ought to be showing remorse?

OSTHOFF: You know what? He made $400,000 from a couple of cameos. Where's the $3,000 you owe me, George? That'd be a really good start. If you got that type of earning capability, you can pay some people off. Turn a leaf. You know, do something right so you don't wind up on the wrong side of the grass when you pass away.

COATES: Let me ask you what your reaction was when you first heard that Trump was commuting his sentence?

OSTHOFF: I was devastated, completely devastated that the president would do this to me and the veteran community. The president, from the bone spurs to the VA cutbacks this year, I lost my psychologist and my primary care provider this year.

[23:50:03]

He doesn't like veterans. He -- I think he's got something against the military, probably from his days in military school. I mean, good for you, George, you're out. I know jail sucks. I've been there for a couple of days here and there myself. Good for you, George. Congratulations on getting out. Now, you can maybe start doing the right thing.

But the thing that really strikes me the hardest here is the hypocrisy of the administration. You got ICE, Kristi Noem, Tom Homan, and little Stephen Miller deporting all these brown immigrants mostly from South America and Central America. You have a Latino immigrant that is a 23- time convicted felon now. Go after him. Deport George.

COATES: Well, one thing you're pursuing, I understand, is the idea of planning to sue him for defamation. Is that still the case? We are talking about George Santos.

OSTHOFF: Defamation and emotional trauma because every time I see him on T.V., it reminds me of what he did to me. Brings up the memories and sour taste in my mouth every time I see this man. And now, the president has commuted him, and the president is putting that same sour taste in my mouth.

COATES: If George Santos or the president is watching right now, what would you tell them? OSTHOFF: What is wrong with you, both of you? You're treating this country like it's your own personal piggy bank. And you're treating the people, everybody that doesn't wear a hat, like they're garbage, like they're shit under your swollen (INAUDIBLE) shoes, Trump. This is horrible.

I think I deserve an apology. And I think all the veterans and military members deserve an apology for letting that guy out after what he did to all of us. He did it to me, but he did it to everybody that ever wore a uniform.

And also, letting him out of prison this early -- he -- he -- he said that he was a Holocaust survivor's kid or grandkid. He said that his mother survived 9-11. That was all lies. He stabbed all these people in the guts, too. Holocaust survivors, 9-11 survivors. George is a horrible person, and Trump is more horrible for allowing him out of jail. He should have at least let him serve half of his sentence. This is -- it is a travesty of justice.

COATES: Richard Osthoff, thank you for joining.

OSTHOFF: Thank you for having me again. It was really good to see you, Laura.

COATES: Thank you. Thank you for your service. Up next, you have probably heard about the brazen jewelry heist at the Louvre. But did you know that the Louvre Museum was robbed dozens of times last year? Harry Enten is here with your Monday facts after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:55:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNKNOWN: What do we do? What do we do?

UNKNOWN: Start arresting people. Come on. Excuse me, sir. One moment.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Who can forget that epic final heist scene from the hit movie "The Thomas Crown Affair?" Well, someone better give Rene Russo a call because the clock is ticking to find the four suspects who used a truck-mounted ladder to break into the Louvre and steal the priceless French crown jewels for just seven minutes.

Now, some experts say that it's only a matter of time, the jewels are never seen again. Sounds like the kind of stuff you only see in the movies, right? Well, we'll ask Harry Enten if we've ever seen anything like this before. Harry, have we?

HARRY ENTEN, CNN CHIEF DATA ANALYST: Hey there, Laura. Welcome to this edition of "Monday Night Facts." This edition, we're going to be talking about the heist heard all the way around the world. That is the heist of the great Louvre Museum over in Paris. And, of course, when we're talking about this heist, what's amazing is not just the fact that it happened in broad daylight, my goodness gracious, but just about how much was stolen. And the numbers here are absolutely outstanding. Oh, my goodness gracious. Not just outstanding, but astounding as well.

Diamonds alone, look at this. We are talking about more than 8,700 diamonds. You can then add in the more than 200 pearls, the nearly 40 emeralds, and the nearly 35 sapphires. My goodness gracious. You know, you try and put a dollar amount on how much this stuff is worth, you simply can't do it. It's priceless. It's priceless. That is what all the experts say.

Now, what is also so amazing is not just the fact that we're talking about priceless jewels that got stolen, it's the fact that perhaps this shouldn't be so surprising even though it occurred in broad daylight. Why? Because take a look here. French museum burglaries over the last decade. It turns out they actually happen fairly frequently. In 2015, we're talking about 31. In 2023, Laura, we're talking about nine. How about last year in 2024? We're talking about 21.

So, the idea that a museum could get heisted ain't that surprising. Now, of course, these are broad numbers talking about all the museums in France.

What about the Louvre specifically? Well, you go back through the years, and it turns out, what happened this weekend, not an isolated incident. Let's go back through the years. We're going to jump into the DeLorean, though that's perhaps a little bit more of an American reference to "Back to the Future." Big Louvre heists in addition to yesterday's.

Look, in 1911, (INAUDIBLE) Mona Lisa was taken out of the Louvre. How about in 1976? Charles, the tenth sword, was out of the Louvre. In 1983, the Suits of Armor was taken out of the Louvre. And back in 1998, well, this looks like a very nice painting, but I ain't going to try and pronounce that. I'm sorry, I speak English, not French.

But, you know, yesterday went so far beyond that because of how much money these things were worth, right? And how many different jewels were taken. Although I would dare argue that the Mona Lisa is pretty gosh darn impressive.

[00:00:00]

Now, if there is one good thing that came out of what happened over the weekend, it is now that there is more interest in a certain film that I really do enjoy. What are we talking about? Well, take a look at "Thomas Crown Affair" Google searches. That, of course, was a 1999 film about a museum heist. Of course, that was based upon the Met Museum here in New York City. Get this, Google searches up 300% for that film this week versus last week.

So, look, jewelry heist not so great over in Paris, but at least more Americans getting interested in the film that I think is quite gosh darn good. And those are your "Monday Night Facts," Laura Coates.

COATES: It's a hell of a movie, and they're playing Nina Simone? Thanks, Harry. Thank you all so much for watching. "Anderson Cooper 360" is next.