Return to Transcripts main page
Laura Coates Live
Strike First, Answer Questions Never?; Palace Punishes the Prince; Awaiting Court Ruling in Shutdown Fight Over Food Stamps; Orwellian: Sources Inside DOJ Alarmed by Scrubbed Memo. Aired 11p-12a ET
Aired October 30, 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: Before we skedaddle, it's an exciting week here at CNN. We are now streaming in the U.S. That means you can watch "NewsNight" live or whenever you want to in the CNN app. You can stream the news live any time, exploring exclusive reporting and watch a library of award-winning original series and films. Scan the Q.R. code on the screen or visit cnn.com/watch for more.
And thank you for watching "NewsNight." "Laura Coates Live" starts right now.
LAURA COATES, CNN HOST AND SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Tonight, strike first, answer questions never? We'll take you inside this stunning briefing that has Democrats absolutely furious about the deadly strikes on alleged drug boats. Plus, the shutdown moves from Congress to the courts as we all await a high-stakes ruling that could stave off a major crisis over food stamps. And later, King Charles punishes his own brother, removing the title of "prince," as Jeffrey Epstein scandal once again rocks that royal family. All tonight on "Laura Coates Live."
Now, there are some things you never think you actually have to say, especially not when you're talking about the government of the United States of America. But here it is. You can't just kill people. Is there a death penalty? Yes. But even that is neither reflexive or automatic. It's a penalty.
Before you can even get to it, you got to have a crime, an investigation as to who committed that crime, probable cause to arrest the person you think committed that crime, an indictment, a trial, sometimes multiple phases of that trial, a prosecutor required to prove the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, and if they can, a conviction. Then there's a sentencing hearing. There's an appellate process. There's a requirement of humane treatment during incarceration.
So, no wonder the average time someone is on death row is what? Twenty-one years from conviction to execution. Because due process is a process. Being on one of those alleged drug boats in the Caribbean doesn't
erase that or at least it shouldn't. As of tonight, the U.S. killed at least 57 people across more than a dozen strikes. And for each strike, the same questions exist. What was the crime? Who committed it? Can you prove it? And the answer cannot just be, trust me.
The framers, by the way, were so untrusting, they devoted at least the Fourth, the Fifth, the Sixth, the Seventh, and the Eighth Amendment to try, and if not guarantee due process, at least pursue justice.
So then, why do we find ourselves here? With multiple rounds of military strikes on boats allegedly transporting drug traffickers? Well, it's unclear if the Pentagon even knows exactly who is on those boats, let alone any evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. We wouldn't know because there have been no arrests, no trials, no convictions, no due process. Just an execution?
Well, the president and his team say it's all justified, totally legal because of two words they keep using: narco-terrorists.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PETE HEGSETH, UNITED STATES SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: I said we smoked the drug boat. And there's 11 narco-terrorists at the bottom of the ocean.
J.D. VANCE, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: These are narco-terrorists who are trying to bring poison into our country and kill our citizens.
KAROLINE LEAVITT, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: This administration is not going to tolerate international narco-terrorist organizations from trafficking drugs into the United States.
MARCO RUBIO, UNITED STATES SECRETARY OF STATE: The president of United States is going to wage war on narco-terrorist organizations.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: And apparently, the administration believes that that label is enough to justify a kind of preemptive strike on those who bring fentanyl that has already claimed the lives of far too many Americans.
Now, if fentanyl is the sole justification, why hasn't there been strikes on vessels coming from the nations that are the main suppliers? And I -- we did some digging here to be sure about this, who those main suppliers were. You know, the DEA's own website identifies Mexico and China as the primary source countries for fentanyl and fentanyl-related substances trafficked directly into the United States. So, is there another reason? I'm asking honestly.
[23:04:57]
Now, Secretary Hegseth, who you see there, has said that these boats, they were known by our intelligence. That's his quote. Known by our intelligence and that they had been smuggling drugs. He warned that this would continue day after day to protect Americans. Known to intelligence. Fair question. What was known?
Now, I'm no fool. I know there are some things. Well, there are many things that are above my pay grade. And maybe I'm just not on the list of the need to knows. But Congress? Congress is also in the dark. You know what they hear? Crickets, apparently.
Leading us off tonight is Congressman Adam Smith, ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee that received a briefing today. I should also note that Congressman Smith has been demanding a hearing for a while now. Congressman, thank you for being here because I know that you have been dissatisfied about what the administration has shared today. I -- I want to begin with a very basic question. Does the Pentagon know the identities of the people being killed?
REP. ADAM SMITH (D-WA): They do not. Uh, and what was helpful to us was they did give us a little bit more in terms of information about who the strike, who was doing the strikes. And I'm sorry, but I'm hearing myself in my own ear here. So, I'm going to have to navigate through that as -- as -- as I'm talking to you. It's a little confusing.
COATES: I'm able to hear you fine. So --
SMITH: Yeah. Oh, no, I can hear you.
COATES: Okay.
SMITH: It's just that it's echoing back in -- in my ear --
COATES: Okay.
SMITH: -- which is, you know --
COATES: Sorry about that.
SMITH: So, they do not know the names of the individuals. What they've decided is there are 24 different of these narco-terrorist groups, which they have not been clear on exactly who they are. But if you are part of that group or affiliated with that group, they now consider you to be a legitimate target. And mostly what that means is you wind up on a boat with some of the drugs that are coming from these groups.
But to your point, the president has made himself judge, jury, and executioner on this, that basically dealing in the drug trade is now an offense whereby you can be summarily executed. And that is an enormous expansion of presidential power that even after today's brief, they have not really fully explained to us exactly what the plan is or what the justification legally is for doing it.
COATES: Does it matter if it's about fentanyl or a different drug or does this come down to the basic question of whether there has even been the due process that is required before the government can do this?
SMITH: Second point matters more than the first. I mean, obviously, it matters. Fentanyl has really been a massively deadly drug. I mean, cocaine has always been a problem in America. Fentanyl has killed more people than any other illegal drug that we've dealt with. That's why it's another important point that you made. And, by the way, it's 100% clear, none of these boats had any fentanyl on it. It's pretty much all cocaine.
COATES: How is that clear for you, congressman? I mean, the boats have been blown up. How -- how do you know that?
SMITH: It's clear because a lot of intel even before this started told us that this is not where fentanyl comes from. No fentanyl comes out of Venezuela or Colombia or Peru. It's -- it's cocaine and marijuana primarily. So, we know that there's no fentanyl coming from that part of the world. This is targeting cocaine.
And the other question is, so, we're targeting them in international waters because we don't want to hit people on their sovereign territory, at least not yet. We'll see what the president, you know, decides to do about that in the future. But -- so they are going to adjust, and the cocaine is going to come in different places.
So, how long can we continue to do this and is it really having an impact on the amount of drugs that are coming into America while it is greatly expanding presidential power and killing a lot of people in what most of the rest of the world would refer to as an extrajudicial killing, which basically means you don't have any process, you're not under the law of war, you simply decide to kill somebody without a legal justification.
COATES: Congressman, there have been those who have almost taunted Democrats or anyone saying this is not legal by saying, what would you have them do? Wait until they come to shore, bring the drugs, have them distributed all across the nation, lead to many deaths, and -- and then we go through the whole rigmarole of due process to which the Constitution probably says, yeah?
SMITH: Yeah. Yeah, does. Look, I mean, the reason you do that, a big part of the reason you do that is you want to make sure that you actually have the right person. I mean, that's the reason you go through the due process. And particularly if you're killing somebody because there's no fixing that. So, you want to make sure that you are -- that's why due process exists, so that innocent people don't get swept up in -- in criminal prosecution or in this case, execution.
[23:10:01]
So, look, drugs are a major problem in the United States of America.
COATES: They are.
SMITH: But -- but aside from the legal arguments, if you just want to say, well, screw the Constitution, screw the law, we got to do what we got to do to stop the drug trade. We've been trying to do this for decades. And what we've learned is there's always some other place where it's going to pop up. It is as much of a demand problem as it is a supply problem. And if you want to get after it, you have to figure out how to stop the demand. There's so much money to be made from this.
COATES: Uh-hmm.
SMITH: You blow up 24 cartels, another dozen, two dozen will pop up in six months to a year because the demand is there. So, will this even work to truly reduce the amount of drug deaths in the United States of America? It seems unlikely because how long can we keep doing this? We are -- and I'm classified, I'm not going get into the details here.
COATES: Yeah.
SMITH: A lot of assets, a lot of money is going into doing this. And is it really going to make that difference? So, what is legitimately a major problem in America, I don't think this is the right way to go about dealing with.
COATES: Sounds like a lot of information still needs to come in for Congress to be enlightened fully on those very points. I want to turn to different matter because CNN is learning that the president, apparently, caught a number of advisors by surprise when he announced the United States will resume nuclear testing. A senior military official or officer told lawmakers today that he's not reading anything into that statement. Are you?
SMITH: Well, we got to read something into it.
COATES: Uh-hmm.
SMITH: The president of United States says we're going to start testing nuclear weapons again. That's a pretty significant statement. Now, President Trump is unusual. He says a lot of things that he doesn't really mean. But a lot of times, we think he does it, and he does. So, yeah, we should -- should be worried about it.
Now, I don't think President Trump knows what it means exactly to test a nuclear weapon in this sense. Are we really going to start detonating them underground in United States of America again? I really don't think so.
And I also want to assure your listeners, we test nuclear weapons without setting them off. And this goes way over my head from a scientific standpoint. But we know how to look at the nuclear material, how to run computer tests and other things to make sure that they work. What Trump seemed to be saying is we're going to make sure that we have an adequate nuclear deterrent to deal with Russia and China.
COATES: Okay.
SMITH: And what I want to tell you is we can do that without testing more nuclear weapons. So, I'm not -- I'm not sure what point President Trump was making. I don't think anybody is right now. So, we'll see what he says in the days and weeks ahead.
COATES: You know what he just said? We've got some breaking news from the president on the shutdown. He is now calling on Senate Republicans through Truth Social, I believe, to initiate the nuclear option and get rid of the filibuster to reopen the government. What is your reaction?
SMITH: Yeah. Well, to a certain extent, I think that makes sense because the approach that the Republicans took on this is in order to pass their budget, they needed Democratic votes. And the reason the filibuster exists is to force bipartisan conversation. You've got to have Democratic votes, you've got to have Republican votes, so you've got to bring them both together to negotiate and come up with something they'll vote for.
The Republicans took a rather sort of unique Trumpian approach to this which is, yes, we need your votes, but you have to vote for our bill, and we're not going to negotiate with you. So, that kind of undermines the concept behind this.
The Democrats have a very legitimate concern. Millions of people within a couple of days are going to start to lose their health insurance. Millions more are going to see their health insurance go up dramatically in cost. We wanted that addressed. The Republicans said, no, you just have to vote for our budget.
So, I guess if they're going to jam through an incredibly extremist, partisan Republican budget, then they ought to do it with just Republican votes. Now, the better option would be to actually negotiate with Democrats. I've said these many times: The president is willing to negotiate with Vladimir Putin and Hamas, but he's not willing to negotiate with Democrats to protect healthcare for the American people. That would be the better response.
COATES: We'll see what ultimately happens. Congressman Adam Smith, thank you.
SMITH: Thank you very much.
COATES: Up next, the Andrew formerly known as Prince. King Charles stripping his own brother of his royal titles and exiling him to a distant castle. Did all the Epstein allegations finally catch up to him? And ahead, we are now hours away from millions of Americans losing their food benefits over the shutdown fight. Unless a court steps in. We are awaiting a judge's ruling that could come any moment. Stay with me.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:15:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: Look, I'll admit, I didn't even know you could do this, but, apparently, you can. Prince Andrew is now "Prince No More." King Charles making the rare move to strip his brother, Andrew, of his "prince" title. He will now be known as simply Andrew Mountbatten Windsor. It has been more than 100 years since the prince lost his royal titles. But that's not all. The king is also booting Andrew out of his role residence in Windsor, England. Where to? Apparently, a private property 100 miles away from London.
It's another black eye for the royal family following growing pressure from ongoing revelations about Andrew's ties to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, allegations Andrew has repeatedly denied. The pressure seemingly reaching a boiling point earlier this week when King Charles was heckled in public.
[23:20:00]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNKNOWN (voice-over): How long have you known about Andrew and Epstein? Have you asked the police to cover up for Andrew?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Buckingham Palace noting these steps were necessary despite Andrew's continual denials of the allegations.
Here to break down this extraordinary moment, a royal expert who has long covered Andrew's public life, Victoria Arbiter. Victoria, Virginia Giuffre, she wrote in her posthumous memoir that Andrew was entitled -- quote -- "as if he believed having sex with me was his birthright." Did this memoir tip the scale?
VICTORIA ARBITER, ROYAL EXPERT: Good evening to you. Well, certainly, I think this memoir renewed the focus on Prince Andrew. And since the memoir was released just a couple of weeks ago, there have been growing questions surrounding him. How is it that he has been able to afford to stay in his home Royal Lodge, who's funding him the transparency issues around him, and whether or not he should be allowed to keep his dukedom. That was the Duke of York and, indeed, his princely title.
So, today, the king did take bold, decisive action, and I think it's going to be well received largely by the public. Buckingham Palace is not in the business of offering a running commentary on what it's doing. There will have been legal and constitutional complexities surrounding this. They will have wanted to make sure that the T's were crossed and the I's were dotted before confirming the news with the public today.
COATES: Will this go far enough? Her family is telling CNN that the royal family has taken the right step. But they want a criminal investigation against him as well. Is there any likelihood that the U.K. officials will take that step?
ARBITER: Well, that remains to be seen. And it is important to note that up until this point, Prince Andrew, as he was known, has not been investigated for, charged or convicted of any criminal wrongdoing. He continues to deny the allegations against him.
So, really what next steps could be taken? I think Andrew would certainly win himself some favors if he was to voluntarily offer to help the authorities. Whether or not he partook in some of Epstein's less than salubrious activities, I don't know, but what I do know is that being around Epstein and Andrew choosing to remain friends with a convicted pedophile means that he will have been privy to some of the information and some of the people that were in that circle, and I think, certainly, people would be very happy if he would step forward and voluntarily offer to speak to the people that are conducting these investigations.
COATES: He has daughters in the public eye with titles. Does this removal of his title impact them?
ARBITER: No, it really doesn't. That's because in line with the 1917 Letters Patent, they have their titles because they are daughters of a prince in the royal line. So, no, they do not lose them, and there's no reason they should lose them. They're not caught up in their father's wrongdoing nor should they be punished for their father's wrongdoing.
Both of them are keeping a very low profile, and I think they will have found this incredibly dramatic and, I was imagining, devastating to see their father going through something like this. But I think, certainly, Buckingham Palace will be hoping that they'll be drawing a line in the sand under Andrew with these latest -- these latest moves.
COATES: Would the queen have taken the step?
ARBITER: That's a very interesting question. And I think it's important again to note that, ultimately, the job of the monarch is to protect the monarchy at all costs. Remember that this is a family as well as a business. And so, while this has been a public crisis, it's always -- it has also been a personal crisis.
And I think the queen did take decisive action back in 2019 after Andrew's disastrous interview for BBC Newsnight. She did remove that HRH style. She stripped him of his military honors and patronages. Had it come to this and she was still on the throne, then yes, I think probably in line with the public mood, pressure from parliament, pressure from the media, social media, she will have read the mood across the country. And yes, I think she would have taken decisive action. It would have pained her to do so, but as we saw back in 2019, she was prepared to protect the monarchy as she is charged.
COATES: Victoria, thank you so much.
ARBITER: Thank you very much.
COATES: Next, the breaking news on shutdown, and I mean day 30 of the shutdown. The president now calling on Republicans to use the nuclear option and remove the Senate filibuster to get the government back open. I got Congressman Tim Burchett standing by to react.
Plus, Kristi Noem is asked to pause the immigration crackdown for Halloween but --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) KRISTI NOEM, UNITED STATES SECRETARY OF HOMELAND SECURITY: We're absolutely not willing to put on pause any work that we will do to keep communities safe.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:25:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. JOHN FETTERMAN (D-PA): We can't even get our shit together and just open up our government. Americans are not leverage. This is not -- this is not some shitty game show about who's winning or whatever. It's just like -- like we have to be better than this and just open this up.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: That's Pennsylvania Democratic Senator John Fetterman expressing how many voters feel about all that's going on. I mean, on the left and on the right. Because just about 24 hours from now, those SNAP benefits will expire. Crucial money to help low-income families pay for food and groceries, gone.
[23:29:57]
Despite all the hand-wringing from lawmakers on Capitol Hill, there's still no solution to help the 42 million Americans who will be impacted by this funding lapse. Some states, they're suing. They argue there's a pot of emergency funds the administration could tap for SNAP, but isn't. The administration says there are legal hurdles in accessing those funds.
But a federal judge today seems skeptical, saying -- quote -- "It's hard for me to understand how this isn't an emergency when there's no money and a lot of people are needing their SNAP benefits." The judge says that she'll rule quickly. The clock is ticking tonight and there's still no decision 30 minutes before midnight.
Joining me now is one of the people who could help solve this looming crisis, Tennessee Republican Congressman Tim Burchett. Welcome back to the program.
I -- I have to ask you about the breaking news first, and I want to talk about what's going on in Capitol Hill. But the president is writing on Truth Social, congressman, that Republicans need to go for the nuclear option and get rid of the filibuster to end the shutdown. Would you support that?
REP. TIM BURCHETT (R-TN): Well, of course, it's in the Senate. Yes, ma'am, I would. But the -- the nuclear option is in place, of course, to -- to -- to keep us from stacking the courts. We have a -- we -- Republicans do have a majority. But, as everybody knows, it has taken a seventh-grade citizen's (ph) class at Bearden Junior High School that you have to have 60 votes in the Senate to pass bills of this -- of this magnitude.
And so, the nuclear option is just another tool in the -- in the arsenal or the toolbox of Senator Thune. And I -- and I trust him to do the right thing. It's a Senate -- it's a Senate discussion. The House has already passed the bill.
As you know, I voted to keep the government open and to fund SNAP benefits, frankly. I -- you know, I was a county mayor, and I can remember when we had a tornado that blew through and blew the roof off of the building that was housing our -- the group, the meals on wheels-type situation.
COATES: Hmm.
BURCHETT: Everybody was fighting, the insurance companies and the lawyers. And I said -- I said, forget you all, we're going to put a new roof on that building, we're going to feed our hungry people. And we even had a telethon and all the media. All the local media chipped in and gave us and helped us with the telethon as well --
COATES: Okay. Well --
BURCHETT: -- we fed hungry people.
COATES: Well, hold on. How do you put the roof on this issue?
BURCHETT: That's what Americans need to do.
COATES: I mean, how do you put the roof on this issue? Because you've got a judge who seems to believe that the president can use emergency funds to cover SNAP benefits. If judging (ph) is legal, why couldn't the president do that in -- in the emergency fund right now? Should he?
BURCHETT: I -- I don't know all the legal ramifications but yeah, I think -- I think if that's the only option he has -- that the president has put the other option on the table, which is the nuclear option --
COATES:
BURCHETT: -- and to end the Senate filibuster. And frankly, people -- people claim, and -- and we recognize that we have a -- we have a democracy. And it is a -- you know, 50 plus 1 is how a lot of people got to Congress. Fifty percent plus 1. And that's all that -- that's all that does, end that -- end that discussion and allow that to take place.
And so, I would support any method we have in our arsenal to feed hungry people, ma'am. I think it is kind of ridiculous either party to hold those people hostage, and I think that's what's happening right now. COATES: I mean, the Senate is, I think, gone until Monday. There's no deal happening before then. But, as you know, several states are using their emergency funds already to cover SNAP benefits or to help food banks. Tennessee, though, is not one of them. Are you okay with your governor not stepping in in this way?
BURCHETT: I don't know that it's the role of the states. But I think what you'll see in Tennessee, ma'am, is that we're going to unite our churches and all of our charity. I visited with one of our local food banks here, and they're ready. They're taking charge, and I think you're going to see that across the state of Tennessee.
I don't -- over the weekend, I don't see anybody going hungry. I honestly don't. I think we've got enough resources in place and enough -- just good church-going people that -- that believe that we can feed our hungry people, and that's what we're going to do. But if you imagine the size of this, 42 million people, the state of Tennessee is just 8 million. So, it's five to over five times the --
COATES: Hmm.
BURCHETT: -- population of state of Tennessee across our country. And that's -- that's unacceptable to me. It was unacceptable when I was mayor.
And we -- and we -- we -- we didn't wait on the federal government. We just did it. And the federal government, as you know, tried President Trump, paid the -- got a donation to pay the military. And some people in the Democrat Party said, in fact, that was illegal, and tried to stop him from doing that.
So, I think what you're seeing is more political gamesmanship than trying to take care of the poor folks, and that's very unfortunate.
[23:35:02]
COATES: Yeah. As a mayor, though, if you didn't want to wait for federal government, should your governor be waiting for federal government? It sounds like -- I mean, you've got a crisis that's 48 hours away.
BURCHETT: Again, I think our state is going to take care of it when it comes to it. I know Governor Lee. He's a fine Christian man. I believe when it's -- when that option is left up to him, he'll -- he'll take -- he'll take care of it. But until then, I believe that our state, the individuals will take care of our hungry folks. I honestly do.
We're the volunteer state for good reason. We don't just volunteer for wars, we volunteer for disasters all over the country. When Hurricane Helene hit North Carolina and upper east Tennessee, we didn't wait on Joe Biden's administration. We went into action, and that's what we'll do under this.
COATES: People are relying on so much, congressman. You know that well. Thank you. BURCHETT: I do. Thank you, ma'am, and thank you for showing this to the country because people really need to discuss it. We need to put our partisan differences aside and get to work. And I think -- honestly, I think President Trump, on the nuclear option, will solve it overnight.
COATES: We'll see. Thank you so much, congressman.
We are just minutes away from the start of Halloween as well. And tonight, it's becoming political because Illinois Governor JB Pritzker made a plea to the DHS secretary, Kristi Noem, pause immigration raids on Halloween for the safety of the kids.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GOV. JB PRITZKER (D-IL): Can we at least agree that our children should not be victims, especially on Halloween? Can we agree that there is no imminent threat that should disrupt their holiday? No child in America should have to go trick-or-treating in fear that they might be confronted with armed federal agents and have to inhale tear gas. I honestly can't even believe that I have to make this plea.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Well, neither could Kristi Noem. Because just hours later, she said no.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
NOEM: We're absolutely not willing to put on pause any work that we will do to keep communities safe. The fact that Governor Pritzker is asking for that is, um, shameful.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Let's bring in our panel, former Republican congressman, Joe Walsh, who is now a Democrat. Also with me, CNN political commentator and Republican strategist Shermichael Singleton. So. first of all, talk to me about your reaction to what Kristi Noem has had to say. Should she be pausing any operations and accepting the plea of the governor?
JOE WALSH, PODCAST HOST, FORMER ILLINOIS REPRESENTATIVE: Laura, it's stunning that -- right? That this is what we're talking about in America. Kids in Chicago are afraid to trick or treat because -- and, by the way, just last weekend, a neighborhood in Chicago was tear gassed as kids and families were getting ready for a Halloween parade.
Look, it's stunning that a governor in this country has to plead with the federal government. Please, keep your mass federal agents away for just Halloween so our kids can trick or treat and not be worried about tear gas or having their parents detained. Shame on Kristi Noem.
COATES: Do you think that it was shameful, as she has said, Shermichael, for the governor to make that request? SHERMICHAEL SINGLETON, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: This is, Laura, what I think is shameful. I think it's shameful that kids in Chicago can't go trick-or-treating safely because they may fear gun violence in their city. I think it's also shameful that the net migration loss in the state of Illinois is over 500,000 people wide because of high taxes, property taxes, because of crime, because of poor education system if you live in Chicago, and if you're a small business owner because of bureaucratic red tape.
So, to me, for someone who wants to run for president of the country, my advice to the governor would be to improve your stats and your metrics as an executive over Illinois before you try to consider running for president of the country.
WALSH: But what about Halloween? Let's just take tomorrow --
SINGLETON: Sure, let's go to Halloween.
WALSH: Wouldn't you like the federal agents, these mass federal agents, tomorrow to stand down so that kids can trick-or-treat, not worry about tear gas?
SINGLETON: You know -- you know what I would like, Joe?
WALSH: Just answer the question.
SINGLETON: I would like -- I will -- I will -- I would like federal agents to be in the toughest parts of Chicago so that those most vulnerable citizens can trick-or-treat with their children without fear of gun violence. That's what I would like.
WALSH: I love you, my friend, and you and I --
SINGLETON: Would you not agree with that?
WALSH: You and I agree on -- on gun violence, but you're completely avoiding the issue --
SINGLETON: I'm not avoiding the issue at all, Joe.
WALSH: You had the governor, Shermichael. You had the governor pleading with the federal government. Keep the tear gas away for one night so that our kids can trick or treat. That's all.
SINGLETON: Joe -- Joe, why -- why isn't -- why isn't a governor pleading for federal help to keep the vulnerable in his city safe, who reside in very high crime areas? Why isn't he doing it?
WALSH: Why don't you want to talk --
SINGLETON: No, no, no. I would -- I would actually agree --
WALSH: I'm with you on all of that.
SINGLETON: Joe, no, wait a minute. I agree with your premise and say, you know what? Let the kids trick or treat. Okay -- WALSH: So, you're fine with that?
SINGLETON: I'm not opposed to that. But what I am opposed to --
[23:40:00]
WALSH: Was Kristi Noem on the line?
SINGLETON: -- is the governor not asking for federal help to protect kids who live in high crime areas in his city, which he should. I think you would if you were governor of Illinois.
WALSH: How about all of it? I just don't want you to avoid Halloween. Was Kristi Noem wrong? Was Kristi Noem wrong to say, that's shameful, that Governor Pritzker pleaded?
SINGLETON: You know -- you know what -- you know what Kristi Noem should have said, governor? This is what we'll do. We'll direct our agents to the most violent areas of your state to keep those kids safe. That's what I would have done.
WALSH: They were tear gassing in some of the nicest neighborhoods in --
SINGLETON: What about the rough neighborhoods in Chicago, Joe? What about those kids?
WALSH: Shermichael, all of them. What are you talking --
COATES: Let me ask you. If violence is the standard --
SINGLETON: Sure.
COATES: -- and crime rates are the issue --
SINGLETON: Uh-hmm.
COATES: -- there is disbursement of -- in other states, everything to do with Chicago or Illinois, if that's the criteria, why is that not being done there as well?
SINGLETON: Oh, I don't disagree with that at all, Laura. I would say send in federal help for places like Memphis, Tennessee which is in a Republican-led state, Republican legislature. I don't think you should be biased or indiscriminate, only focusing on liberal states because liberal states aren't the only places that are facing high crime. So why not send them everywhere where people aren't safe? Why not? I will not be opposed to that.
COATES: The biggest point -- I'm not going to make a case for the governor. He can speak for himself.
WALSH: Sure.
COATES: But I would assume, part of his argument is that they believe, on the state level, they have the crime rates under control. SINGLETON: Do they?
COATES: I'm telling you what he has said when (INAUDIBLE) into the court and what the court essentially talked about being pretextual reasons --
WALSH: Sure.
COATES: -- to send these federal ICE workers and everyone else. So, if that's his issue, is this not the appropriate request to make to say, we have this under control, could you stand down on this particular night?
WALSH: And this isn't even about crime. Those masked federal agents are there, going after people in this country illegally. It's got nothing to do with crime.
SINGLETON: So, could we not read --
COATES: It's also not about Halloween, though. We get -- I mean, I love candy.
WALSH: Sure, sure, sure.
COATES: But this is not about Halloween. We get this point, right? His point really is about wanting to have safer communities for children, you're talking about, and not having the concept of Damocles. Halloween is but one day. He's talking about a whole policy shift. Should there be one?
SINGLETON: I'm not opposed. That's -- that's the point that I'm making here. I'm not opposed to a policy shift. The critique that I have of the governor is if you're going to require a policy shift, then say I need your help here. The governor -- I disagree with the premise of the argument that they have it under control. You don't have it under control when nearly half a million people have left your state to other states since you were elected governor. The stats speak for themselves.
WALSH: Look, I thank God this is Trump's America. You've got a governor pleading to have mass federal agents off of his damn streets on Halloween so kids can trick or treat. It's shameful.
SINGLETON: So, should they come back Saturday after Halloween, Joe?
WALSH: Those masked federal agents shouldn't be tear gassing any neighborhood.
SINGLETON: So, should they come back after Halloween?
WALSH: Shermichael, you don't even want to -- just say it's shameful that the governor has to ask for that.
SINGLETON: What's shameful is that the governor isn't asking for federal help to deal with the issues in his state.
WALSH: How about both?
SINGLETON: That's what shameful.
WALSH: How about both?
SINGLETON: Well, I'll meet you halfway.
COATES: Wait. Stop. Hold on.
WALSH: I will meet you halfway.
COATES: I don't know where the halfway mark is. We'll figure out during the break. Thank you both.
WALSH: Drop the mic.
COATES: There's big news for CNN this week. Here in the U.S., you can now stream conversations just like that at "Laura Coates Live" whenever you want right in the CNN app. For more, go to CNN.com/watch.
Up next, Orwellian. That's how a source inside DOJ is describing the department's rewriting of history. And they're not alone. Multiple prosecutors telling CNN they're alarmed by DOJ's scrubbing mentions of January 6th and President Trump from a sentencing memo. And now, a judge is weighing in. The reporter who was in court for all of it is next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:45:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: Would you show up to your job if you got suspended? Essentially what these two federal prosecutors did. They were suspended after describing January 6th as a mob of rioters in a sentencing memo.
But today, they still showed up for sentencing of Taylor Taranto. He was sentenced to 21 months in prison for bringing illegal guns to the D.C. home of President Obama. That happened after he had been at the Capitol and charged. But like all the other rioters, as you know, he was pardoned by President Trump. His January 6 cameo was mentioned in the sentencing memo, but it was scrubbed after reporters first noticed it. Well, today, D.C. U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro was asked about it, but she didn't say much.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNKNOWN (voice-over): Did you order that memo taken down?
JEANINE PIRRO, U.S. ATTORNEY: I think the -- the papers speak for themselves, and what goes on in this office is not something that I'm going to comment on to the press.
(END VIDEO CLIP) COATES: I want to bring in senior legal affairs reporter for Politico, Josh Gerstein. He was in court for today's sentencing. You know, I've been in that office before as a prosecutor. I do wonder about the chain of command. But these two suspended federal prosecutors, they showed up in the courtroom, they were there for the sentencing, and the judge actually acknowledged their work. Describe what happened.
JOSH GERSTEIN, SENIOR LEGAL AFFAIRS REPORTER, POLITICO: Well, it was a very strange sentencing, Laura, because I felt like the sentencing was sort of a sideshow and afterthought almost, and this drama around the prosecutors really took center stage.
At least at the beginning of the proceedings, the judge, pretty close to the outset. This is Carl Nichols. He's a Trump-appointee, we should point out. He said that he thought these two prosecutors had done a superb job, had acted with the utmost professionalism, and he said he just wanted to put that on the record.
[23:50:00]
And he didn't question the other two prosecutors who had showed up, one of whom is the criminal chief of the U.S. Attorney's Office. And, as you know, Laura, usually, when the criminal chief shows up and sits at the table, that's usually an indication that something serious is going on or that the prosecutors think they're going to be called on the carpet by the judge.
That did not happen today. The judge didn't start interrogating him or them about what had happened. But he did sort of raise some questions about this filing that you talked about that was filed and then unfiled.
COATES: He read both of them.
GERSTEIN: Yeah, he made a point of saying he read both the filings, and he did tell the prosecutors, if they want to keep that sealed, they're going to have to give him some kind of explanation for why. Of course, it seems a little academic at this point since, you know, we have a copy and it's out in the public domain.
COATES: Right. One source telling CNN that -- our DOJ source telling CNN that the changes to this memo seemed -- the word they used was Orwellian. And it seems to have struck quite a nerve inside of DOJ. Usually, you would explain a chain circumstance to a judge, you wouldn't try to erase it. How has this impacted DOJ? What are you hearing?
GERSTEIN: Well, I mean, I think it's another sign of sort of -- I wouldn't call it panic, but sort of deep concern within DOJ. A lot of prosecutors, as you know, have left over the course of the last nine months or so. You had some that are still sticking it out because somebody needs to prosecute important cases. But then they see a case like this, which is really an offshoot of January 6th.
And Taranto, who is being sentenced today, as you say, he was pardoned for his January 6th crimes. He was being sentenced for something he did elsewhere in the city. But they were just mentioning that he had this background and a propensity, you might say, towards committing various kinds of offenses. But even that was too much, either the mention of that or the language.
And, in fact, one other thing that they deleted from that memo, Laura, was the fact that Taranto, when he went to Obama's house, was reacting to a social media post that former president, then former President Trump had put up on Truth Social, giving basically the address of Obama's house which, obviously, has a tendency to, you know, get people that are somewhat deranged to perhaps respond in an inappropriate way.
COATES: Yeah. I wonder what impact this will have. I'm interested. There's a new -- really quickly, there's an investigative journalist, Carol Leonnig, who essentially has a new book saying, this didn't start with Trump, this also was part of the Biden administration, and had concerns raised about how DOJ is operating. Does that have legs?
GERSTEIN: I think it possibly could have legs. I mean, we may be seeing turmoil at DOJ. That's going to be very, very difficult to correct, I think, in the long term. Just the number of people that have departed, that have careers of 15, 20, 25 years through Republican and Democratic administrations alike is really just staggering when you tally it up.
COATES: Josh, thank you so much.
GERSTEIN: Sure.
COATES: Well, it's almost midnight, which means it's almost Halloween.
(LAUGHTER)
And what we've got for you next will make you scream.
(SCREAMING)
(LAUGHTER)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:55:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: All right, we're just minutes away from Halloween here on the East Coast. Time to check in with our friend, Elex Michaelson out on the West Coast. How you doing?
ELEX MICHAELSON, CNN ANCHOR AND CORRESPONDENT: I'm doing well. Our crew is doing well, too. We're having a good time here.
(LAUGHTER) COATES: I can tell. I love the show. And look, we all know that Hollywood is obsessed with sequels and also, of course, remakes, especially when it comes to horror. I mean, how can -- how many times can Jamie Lee Curtis be hunted down by the same guy? Different conversation.
(LAUGHTER)
But now, we have a new trailer for the seventh installment of "Scream," teasing the return of a key character. Watch this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNKNOWN (voice-over): Nice little town you found. You and your pretty daughter reminds me of where we grew up.
UNKNOWN: Well, you sure know a lot about me for another asshole hiding behind a voice changer.
UNKNOWN (voice-over): Oh, I'm not hiding, Sydney.
(TELEPHONE RINGING)
UNKNOWN (voice-over): Not this time.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Oh! Are you here for this or are we out of ideas? What's going on? I love horror movies.
(LAUGHTER)
MICHAELSON: At some point, didn't you like block the calls? I mean --
(LAUGHTER)
-- you turned off. You've not learned the lesson at this point. Seven -- we need seven. We need seven screams, really. Like it wasn't enough screaming the first time. Look, if you can make money, though, these are the guaranteed way to make money. And that's why Hollywood keeps doing it. A horror movie is not really my thing. But what about you? Are you a big horror movie fan?
COATES: Well, I am not. I don't want to pay to be afraid, okay? That's just not my thing. And I'll watch it and be like laughing at the moment, and then at night, I'm thinking, oh my God, oh my God, is my phone ringing?
But let's talk about this debate. First of all, I want to know, even though we both hate them, what is the ultimate Halloween horror movie to you?
MICHAELSON: Well, this isn't really a Halloween horror movie, but I think the scariest movie I've ever seen is "Silence of the Lambs"
COATES: Oh! MICHAELSON: -- because it just -- Anthony Hopkins and I was like literally had nightmares about that movie. What about you?
COATES: Well, first of all, absolutely, because I would never help someone put a couch into their car backwards, and it does not put on the lotion in my house.
[00:00:03]
But my favorite one is "Beetlejuice." It's not that scary, and that's how I can take it, except for the whole shrimp thing.
MICHAELSON: Yeah.
COATES: I don't like the whole day-o with the shrimp in the face.
MICHAELSON: Speaking of sequels, did you like the equal to "Beetlejuice," though?
COATES: Yes, says Warner Media.
(LAUGHTER)
I did like it. Seriously, I did. I really did. I'm just kidding. It was great. And your show will be great tonight, too. Have a great show, Elex.
MICHAELSON: Thank you very much, Laura.
