Return to Transcripts main page

Laura Coates Live

DOJ Makes New Epstein Files Revelation; Laura Coates Interviews Rep. Eric Swalwell; James Comey, Letitia James Press to Have Cases Toss; Inside the Trump-Epstein Relationship; Display Honoring Black Troops at WWII Quietly Removed. Aired 11p-12a ET

Aired November 13, 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]

KATE BOLDUAN, CNN ANCHOR: -- tomorrow evening. In the meantime, "Laura Coates Live" starts right now.

LAURA COATES, CNN HOST AND SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: A stunning claim from the DOJ's number two, the government's Epstein files were apparently incomplete. But breaking tonight, Epstein's estate is directly challenging that story. Plus, could Ghislaine Maxwell face any new trouble now that Epstein's emails appear to conflict with what she told the government? And allegations of mortgage fraud now coming for Congressman Eric Swalwell as he faces a potential criminal investigation. Congressman Swalwell is getting by live to respond tonight on "Laura Coates Live."

So, if there's one thing we know about the Epstein case, it's this: It has been a mess from the beginning. You got the sweetheart plea deal, the lack of proper video surveillance at Epstein's prison, the head- spinning back and forth by the administration, including A.G. Bondi saying the files were sitting on her desk, ready to be released, only for her to backtrack. Tonight, don't forget the infamous phase one binder photo-op.

Now, tonight, all of that seems to pale in comparison to what I'm about to tell you, because if the Deputy Attorney General is to be believed, the problem is even worse than we thought. Take a look. It's a post from Todd Blanche saying -- quote -- "When I interviewed Maxwell, law enforcement didn't have the materials Epstein's estate hid for years and only just provided to Congress."

Now, he is claiming that the Jeffrey Epstein emails we just saw released, emails where the notorious sex offender name drops Donald Trump, were never even in the DOJ's possession, meaning the Epstein files that they've been refusing to release weren't complete from the beginning.

Just think about that for a second. Say they had released what they had immediately released long ago, had they done so, it wouldn't have included his own emails? We are talking about emails spanning more than a decade about a man who was under federal scrutiny not once, but twice.

Why? I need this answer. As a former prosecutor, I can tell you that one of the most routine, not easy, but routine law enforcement tasks on earth is to track someone's digital footprint, particularly in this digital era. So, did the DOJ actually do that? Did they try to do that? What happened when they did?

Remember the case closed memo? The one from Trump's DOJ and FBI in July? The one that sparked all this fallout in the first place? Read it. It says the FBI uncovered more than 300 gigabytes of data and physical evidence after a -- quote -- "exhaustive review."

Look closely. Because here's the key. These were searches of the FBI's own databases, its own hard drives, its own network drives. Is that it? Because if so, in other words, a review of what the bureau already had? Not necessarily what they should have been collecting from someone else in the first place.

And that matters. It matters because even President Trump's FBI director, Kash Patel, admits the original sin in the Epstein case wasn't what the FBI reviewed last year, but what the government failed to seize years ago.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KASH PATEL, DIRECTOR, FBI: The original sin in the Epstein case was the way it was initially brought by Mr. Acosta back in 2006. The original case involved a very limited search warrant or set of search warrants and didn't take as much investigatory material it should have seized.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Okay. So, if you're admitting the case was botched from day one, it seems, wouldn't you want to do everything possible to fill in those gaps? I don't know, like trying to obtain Epstein's emails? And now, Todd Blanche is outright admitting they didn't have everything. I still don't know why they didn't have everything. They want us to believe the Epstein estate hid the same documents you've no doubt seen by now, including emails about and mentioning Donald Trump.

But there's some breaking news on this tonight. Epstein's estate says it's -- quote -- "It is inaccurate to assert that the Estate has 'hidden' anything -- rather, the Estate has always complied with its document production obligations, including in multiple civil lawsuits, in response to third-party subpoenas, and in the current Congressional Investigation."

So, were these emails provided in civil lawsuits and which third parties got the emails and could the DOJ have gotten them sooner?

[23:04:57]

I mean, it's hard to believe the Congressional Committee, with all the bureaucracy, turned up in a few months, but the long arm of the DOJ couldn't find an over what? About two decades? That's the DAG second in command. Blanche is excused for maybe not asking a follow-up question to Epstein's accomplice, Ghislaine Maxwell, when she claimed that Trump was never in Epstein's house. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GHISLAINE MAXWELL, CONVICTED CHILD SEX OFFENDER (voice-over): I think they were friendly like people are in social settings. I don't -- I don't think they were close friends or I certainly never witnessed the President in any of -- I don't recall ever seeing him in his house, for instance."

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Now, we now know that Epstein emailed Maxwell that Trump had been at his house, which she responded, "I have been thinking about that."

But Todd Blanche need the emails to follow up thoroughly? And will he now follow up? Because he knows exactly where to find her. Now, I repeat, almost daily, President Trump is not accused of any wrongdoing in this. But I repeat, almost daily, this investigation isn't about Trump specifically. And any attempt to make it just about the president might create the possibility that someone who has committed a crime and of that disgusting nature is hiding behind his attention shadow.

But here's the thing: If Blanche is telling the truth, if the DOJ really never had these emails and didn't have him before he went and talked to Ghislaine Maxwell, then it's yet another slap in the face to the victims who have questioned the government's handling of this case from the very beginning.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LIZ STEIN, EPSTEIN SURVIVOR: We really need this information to be out there so these crimes can be investigated.

DANIELLE BENSKY, EPSTEIN SURVIVOR: They just need to do their jobs and find the names and just be able to just be as transparent as possible.

CHAUNTAE DAVIES, EPSTEIN SURVIVOR: President Trump and members of Congress, why do we continue to cover up sexual abuse and assault? Who are we covering for? Let the public know the truth.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Well, my next guest, Congressman Eric Swalwell, asked the FBI director about the review of those files back in September. This is answer he got.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. ERIC SWALWELL (D-CA): Director, the first time you saw Donald Trump's name was in the Epstein files, did you close the files or keep reading?

PATEL: I have reviewed not the entirety of the files. So, I --

SWALWELL: You haven't reviewed all of the Epstein files?

PATEL: Personally, no.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Democratic Congressman Eric Swalwell of California joins me now. He is a member of the House Judiciary Committee and once a prosecutor himself, frankly. Congressman, um, do you believe that Todd Blanche, when he says that law enforcement didn't have the emails before his interview with Maxwell, do you believe that that, in fact, is the case because the Epstein estate is disputing that they hid anything?

SWALWELL: Well, all of the evidence right now, Laura, points to the Epstein estate as being the most forthcoming to the public. They're the ones who continue to give congressional committees --

COATES: Hmm.

SWALWELL: -- these emails and correspondence regarding Jeffrey Epstein, while Speaker Johnson and the Department of Justice seek to bury these files beneath the earth. So just by nature of who is being forthcoming and who is not, I believe the Epstein estate over the DOJ right now.

COATES: That's a, frankly, shocking statement, one that I believe you believe. But just think about that, the estate of the person who is known as this sexual predator, more transparent, more forthcoming than the department of -- the word is justice. We are seeing -- I mean --

SWALWELL: Laura, I bet, as a prosecutor, you -- you -- you probably understand, you know, what compels them to do this, too, because, you know, you and I have both prosecuted some awful people --

COATES: Uh-hmm.

SWALWELL: -- and oftentimes, it's the family members around them who are very decent people and want to see closure and justice for the victims, and they'll go out of their way to be cooperative. I think that's what's happening right here, is that these women are owed closure. And they're not getting it from the Department of Justice whose job is to stand up for victims. Instead, they're getting it from the least likely as of places, and that's the Epstein estate.

COATES: Well, Ghislaine Maxwell is someone that Todd Blanche sought to get information from. Now, the fact that he didn't have all the information in front of him, I don't know that you need the actual physical emails to ask follow-up questions and test the credibility. Do I believe what you're saying to me right now, Ghislaine Maxwell? Are you telling me what you want me to -- I think you think I want to hear because you want a pardoning commutation.

[23:09:58]

But there are certainly inconsistencies between what the Maxwell- Blanche meeting said and these emails. You know DOJ gave immunity, but with the exception that if she lies, they can prosecute her for a false statement. Is there any thought that DOJ, have you heard, is even considering confronting her again with the new information?

SWALWELL: They better, and that's what a prosecutor who cares about justice would do. I mean, look, she's essentially four seasons right now. I think she has like a comfort puppy. It was reported last week. And you know, Laura, like when you walk into a jailhouse, you should immediately be skeptical of anything that a witness in a jailhouse tells you, and they are powerfully motivated to find a way to their freedom. And so, you have to corroborate everything they say with independent witnesses, and that certainly has not been done here. In fact, she has not been corroborated, she has been contradicted.

COATES: The real question is, why speak to her? What was the end game in getting information? Was it an eye towards investigating other people or something else? Because, obviously, the timing and the decision to even speak with her without having the follow ups is really head-scratching still to so many. And I wonder, from your perspective as a member of Congress, who should be brought in next to testify? And would you have buy-in from Republicans to bring them in?

SWALWELL: We want to hear from the victims, of course. And they're scared. They're terrified, right? They see a president who goes after every single one of his political opponents. He empties out the jailhouse for those who support him, and he's trying to fill it up with those who oppose him. And so, we want to create a space where they feel comfortable coming forward. But, as you said, this should be done by the Department of Justice. You don't need Congress to conduct this investigation.

And one other, you know, callback that I'll give you is, you know, every jury in America is told that, you know, when a witness or a subject to an investigation seeks to hide evidence or bury evidence or destroy evidence, you can imply what they call a consciousness of guilt, meaning that an individual would only do that to mask their own responsibility and guilt.

And, as you said at the beginning, you know, Donald Trump certainly is -- has a right to his, uh, day in court here, so to speak, in the court of public opinion, but he is acting like somebody who does not want to be tied to the most notorious child sex trafficker in the history of the United States.

COATES: Well, who would want to be tied to someone like that? But Congress is being looked at right now and there's talk on the Hill that a significant number of House Republicans support the vote to release the files. How important do think that will be in pressuring Senate Republicans to also back the effort?

SWALWELL: It's what we call a jailbreak in Congress. And so, on votes like these where members don't want to declare how they're going to vote, they'll look up at the board. There's like this voting board on the House floor, and they'll look up to see how other members are voting. And as soon as one or two break out from the White House pressure campaign and just say, you know, to hell with the White House, this is the right thing to do, we call something like that a jailbreak, where I predict there will be over 100 Republicans.

And this is what they've told me privately at the House, this is what they've texted to me, that Speaker Johnson can only protect them from this vote, but once they had to take the vote, they were not going to protect Donald Trump.

COATES: Federal Housing Finance Agency Director Bill Pulte apparently referred you to the DOJ over alleged mortgage fraud, and DOJ has not confirmed that they have received this referral at all. Is there any reason for DOJ to be investigating you, congressman?

SWALWELL: It's all nonsense. Of course, Laura, it's nonsense that they're investigating Adam Schiff, it's nonsense that they're investigating Tish James, it's nonsense that they're investigating Lisa Cook, all for the same thing. And next week, when we hear about someone else who's a political opponent of Donald Trump being investigated, it will also be nonsense.

And, of course, I am one of the most vocal critics against Donald Trump. I have the only lawsuit that survived him becoming president, me and the January 6th officers. I'm a little surprised, frankly, that it took them this long to get to me, but it's not going to shake me.

The other individuals, Schiff, James, Cook, and myself, we're not going to hide under the bed, we're not going to be silent or go away. We are going to hold a lawless president accountable. So, if the aim is to make us shrink, it's not going to work.

COATES: And, in fact, there are reports that tonight, you're considering a potential run for California governor. Any truth to that?

SWALWELL: No news here, and I think I've been in the news enough today for this political retribution tour. But California is the greatest country in the world, Laura.

(LAUGHTER)

And the next governor better be a fighter, a protector, and somebody who takes on the affordability crisis. I've been asked by many supporters to consider it.

[23:15:00]

Of course, I'm considering it. Again, greatest country in the world, California.

COATES: What's your timeline for consideration?

SWALWELL: Again, I'm -- I'm focused right now on, you know, the task ahead that we have on holding this president accountable, dealing with going after political opponents. And I'll make decision, you know, soon. But, you know, California, fighter, protector, someone to take on affordability, that's what people care about. And, by the way, I don't wake up every morning intending to fight Donald Trump. I'd rather fight for Californians. Donald Trump just happens to get in the way.

COATES: Congressman Eric Swalwell, thank you for joining.

SWALWELL: My pleasure. Thanks, Laura.

COATES: Still ahead, James Comey in court today trying to get his case thrown out by challenging Trump's hand-picked prosecutor who brought it. The judge by the argument? Jeffrey Toobin, live with me to unpack it all. Plus, why he says it's actually the other Comey case, the one involving Comey's daughter, that may actually be even more consequential.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:20:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: Gasps in the courtroom as a federal judge questions President Trump's hand-picked prosecutor Lindsey Halligan's authority to even bring charges against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James, leaving a cloud of uncertainty on whether these cases will ever see the light of day of trial. But that's not how the DOJ sees it tonight.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PAM BONDI, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL: The Comey indictment is going to be just fine. I've also signed on to that, backing up what Lindsey Halligan did because they're coming after her. I read all the transcripts. She -- she's doing a great job.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: I want to turn to someone who knows very well the ins and outs of a federal prosecutor's office, let alone DOJ, former assistant U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of New York, Jeffrey Toobin. He is is also the author of "The Pardon: The Politics of Presidential Mercy." Jeffrey, it's good to see you here. I mean, do you think Lindsey Halligan, the handpicked attorney who is overseeing and oversaw that grand jury, will be disqualified?

JEFFREY TOOBIN, AUTHOR, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: Well, it certainly sounded like the judge was -- was -- was looking like he was going to disqualify her. And in similar circumstances, there have been other prosecutors thrown off -- you know, had their authority rejected by judges recently.

And I think it's worth pointing out that this is just not some technicality The -- the -- the system that is set up is that each district is supposed to have a U.S. attorney appointed by the president, subject to confirmation by the Senate. And this is a separation of powers issue. There is a role for the legislative branch in appointing and confirming U.S. attorneys.

COATES: Uh-hmm.

TOOBIN: What the Trump administration keeps doing is using these technical devices to get these U.S. attorneys temporarily in charge without the -- the approval of the Senate. And judges are -- are sick of it, and there are limited provisions where this can be done. But, you know, they can't be done permanently. The Senate has to have a role here, and they have not been giving the Senate a role here. And the judges are saying these U.S. attorneys just can't operate in those circumstances.

COATES: But let's -- let's follow that thread because, obviously, U.S. attorneys name is on the top of an indictment. And usually, the AUSA underneath that person is the one doing the legwork and the actual work. That U.S. attorney's name almost becomes a pro forma stamp. Would this mean, if a judge found that the Comey indictment had to be thrown out because she was unauthorized to be the U.S, attorney there, that anything that had her signature on it also goes by the wayside or is it the fact that she was the one to argue it in the grand jury?

TOOBIN: Well, I mean, my under -- you know, I just think it's worth it. I mean, Laura, you've been around in this system --

COATES: Uh-hmm.

TOOBIN: -- as I have. But it's routine stuff. You know, the -- the operation of grand juries is -- is completely routine. But because the Trump administration is operating in such a crazy way without U.S. attorneys, with -- you know, without confirmed U.S. attorneys, with assistant U.S. attorneys who don't believe in these cases and refuse to bring them before the grand jury, the -- the Trump administration is contriving all these bizarre situations with temporarily appointed U.S. attorneys that -- you know, the -- the legal framework is just -- is -- is very unclear. I would think that if -- if this case is inappropriate with Halligan in charge, it would be inappropriate with any case in which she's in charge.

COATES: Defense attorneys are going to line up to make that very argument if that is indeed the case, I should mention. And also, "The New York Times" reporting that DOJ finally found a U.S. attorney office to actually take up former federal prosecutor Maurene Comey, of course, James Comey's daughter, her lawsuit against the administration over her abrupt firing this summer. You wrote this really interesting op-ed for "The New York Times," that -- quote -- "Maurene Comey's case is more consequential than her father's." Explain why.

TOOBIN: Well, you know, the Jim Comey case, if it ever gets to trial, is about whether someone lied in Congress. And, you know, the law is pretty clear about that. And, you know, he either did or didn't lie to Congress, the indictment is or is not sufficient. And, you know, that's very consequential for James Comey, but it is -- there is not a major precedent at work in that case. The Maurene Comey situation is very different.

[23:25:00] Maurene Comey was an extremely highly-regarded assistant U.S. attorney in the Southern District of New York, that is Manhattan, for 10 years. She got repeated outstanding reviews. She was a supervisor for many years. She tried very many important cases, including Ghislaine Maxwell. And, all of a sudden, she was fired. Why was she fired? She was given no reason. The only apparent reason is that Laura Loomer, the social media influencer, decided to launch a crusade against her, and that's the kiss of death in this administration.

But the legal issue is she was a line prosecutor. She wasn't a presidential appointee. She had civil service protection. And the question is, can the president with no justification at all go around civil service protection, not give the reasons, not give the hearing, not give the due process that the civil service entitles you to, but simply fire someone for no reason at all?

And if the courts ultimately approve this, that means that every federal employee, hundreds of thousands of federal employees who have civil service protection can have those protections overturned by the whim of the president. That's a very big deal, and that's the legal issue at stake in this case.

COATES: And why would anyone join the federal government, but alone DOJ, if that was ahead of them? We deeply need prosecutors.

TOOBIN: You know, Laura, this -- this is something that really, you know, hits home with me, and I'm sure it does with you as well.

COATES: Uh-hmm.

TOOBIN: You know, the assistant U.S. attorneys I worked with were some of the finest lawyers I've ever known, public-spirited people, and that's true of many other U.S. attorneys other than the ones I worked with in Brooklyn. But, you know, the idea that they are political pawns is so foreign from how that job is supposed to operate and how it does operate as far as I'm aware. It's really just a tragedy, and it's a tragedy for the country to lose the kind of people who'll say, the hell with this. They don't want to apply for a job where politics can get them fired at any moment.

COATES: Jeffrey Toobin, you're right about that. Thank you. Still ahead tonight, a curious line from one of Epstein's 2018 emails about Donald Trump. It's wild because I'm the only one -- I am the one able to take him down. What's he talking about? I'm going to ask Julie K. Brown, the prize-winning reporter who first exposed the Epstein story. And later, the vote to release the Epstein files likely to pass the House. What about the Senate? Were Republicans there to defy the president? The panel is live to debate it next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:30:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: President Trump says his friendship with Jeffrey Epstein ended years before Epstein was even charged with sex trafficking in 2008. But Epstein kept bringing up Trump's name well after the friendship ended, like in this message Epstein sent to someone about Trump. Quote -- "It's wild. Because I am the one able to take him down."

It's important to note that Trump was not on these emails. He's not accused of any crime. Let's talk about this though with what this might mean with the reporter who helped expose Epstein's alleged sex trafficking ring. I mean, "Miami Herald" investigative reporter Julie K. Brown. She's also the author of the book, "Perversion of Justice: The Jeffrey Epstein Story."

Julie, thank you for being here. I mean, more than 20,000 pages of documents released in the Epstein case, including emails. What stands out to you in this batch?

JULIE K. BROWN, AUTHOR, INVESTIGATIVE REPORTER FOR MIAMI HERALD: Well, you know, Trump's name is mentioned in these emails more than anyone else's name. Um, it's very clear that Epstein sort of -- Trump lived rent-free in some ways in Epstein's head because a lot of these emails surround Trump. You know, they involve his presidency, his campaigning, his friendship. I mean, there are all kinds of conversations between Epstein and other people, reporters, authors, artists, all kinds of people who are really trying to find out more about Trump and his administration --

COATES: Hmm.

BROWN: -- trying to get dirt on Trump, for lack of a better way of putting it. So, the big person in all these messages really is Donald Trump, even though it doesn't really implicate him in any wrongdoing.

COATES: You have to wonder. And I, sitting here today, don't know the true motivation of Epstein as to why he was mentioning him and what his thoughts were at the time. But this email, the one from 2018, it says -- quote --"It's wild. Because I am the one able to take him down." Do you have any idea what Epstein might have been referring to there?

BROWN: Yeah, because that was written on December, I think, 2nd, which was only a couple of days after my series in the "Miami Herald" ran, and it went viral at the time.

[23:35:00]

So, they were clearly talking about my series and what someone, which we suspect may have been Steve Bannon, was sort of saying to him, don't worry, this is going to blow over, which now we look at that comment and sort of laugh because here we are seven years later and, of course, this story is not blown over. But, you know, he sorts of being told, don't worry about this. This is really about them trying to get -- get at Trump.

And, of course, that's not what the point of my series was. My point of the series was of how the Justice Department, particularly the prosecutors in Florida, mishandled this whole case and essentially covered up the scope of what Epstein had done.

COATES: Let's talk about the second in command at the DOJ because there's a lot of questions about why these emails are surfacing now. But the deputy A.G., Todd Blanche, who interviewed Epstein accomplice, Ghislaine Maxwell, says they didn't even know those files existed, saying -- quote -- "When I interviewed Maxwell, law enforcement didn't have the materials Epstein's estate hid for years and only just provided to Congress." Now, I wonder if you buy that they had no access or knowledge of these emails.

BROWN: You know, I don't -- I -- it's hard to know. I -- I wouldn't discount what he said completely because, quite frankly, the FBI and the DOJ has screwed up this case from the very beginning. So, it wouldn't surprise me if they didn't think to subpoena those records. As I understand it, the way that that happened was that one of the lawyers who represented the victims had publicly said, if you want the birthday book, ask his estate for this information because they have it, and that's what gave the members of the oversight committee the idea to subpoena his records.

So, we don't really know exactly what the -- that's why we want the files to be released because we don't know what the FBI has or what the DOJ has. So, it's -- either way, one would think the deputy attorney general would have been a little bit more prepared when he went for that interview with Ghislaine Maxwell.

COATES: Or the many attorneys who would have supported his effort to actually get prepared and the idea of not subpoenaing the estate. I'm skeptical as to the nature of why. We'll see if we can learn more information. Julie K. Brown, thank you.

BROWN: Thank you.

COATES: I want to bring in my political insiders, CNN political commentator Shermichael Singleton and Karen Finney. Let's just jump right in because we've heard Trump supporters grappling with the Epstein emails in a variety of different ways. You have the podcast host, Megyn Kelly, who says that she's not excusing Epstein's behavior, but explained why she thought he wasn't a pedophile. Listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MEGYN KELLY, PODCAST HOST: This is this person's view, who was there for a lot of this. But that he was into the barely legal type --

UNKNOWN: Uh-hmm.

KELLY: -- like he liked 15-year-old girls.

UNKNOWN: Uh-hmm.

KELLY: I don't know what's true about him, but we have yet to see anybody come forward and say, I was a -- like a --

UNKNOWN: Uh-hmm. KELLY: -- I was under 10, I was under 14 --

UNKNOWN: Uh-hmm.

KELLY: -- when I first came within his purview. I -- look, it's -- you can say that's a distinction without a difference.

UNKNOWN: No, it's not.

KELLY: I think there is a difference. There's a difference between a 15- year-old and a five-year-old.

UNKNOWN: Yeah.

KELLY: You know, it's just -- whatever. It's sick. Every time we start talking about Epstein, it makes your skin crawl, right? The whole thing is just disgusting.

UNKNOWN: Totally.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: What in the hell? You had to be under 10 to be preyed upon by a grown man? No, that's not the definition at all.

KAREN FINNEY, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: You know, at best, it was just a completely stupid, ignorant thing to say from somebody who knows nothing about any of it, like doesn't understand having worked with survivors, how they -- you know, how they groom people, how they go after people.

But it also, at worst, sounded like despite the protestation, like creating some kind of permission structure. Oh, it's okay, because they weren't under 10. I mean, I -- if you've seen some of the -- I think when we look at these young women now, they're women, but they were girls when this happened. One of them had braces, for God's sakes, when she was first being courted by Ghislaine Maxwell.

And I think the real problem with this story, it's not going away. These women, God bless them, are not going away. And now that they've even said, now that they are aware of each other and have created this kind of sisterhood, they realized they're not alone.

COATES: Yeah.

FINNEY: But I think for the Republican Party, part of the problem is the question is going to become very quickly, when this discharge petition comes for a vote on the floor, House floor, and then to the Senate, whether it passes there, and potentially to the president's desk, are you on the side of protecting pedophiles or are you on the side -- like, are you going to protect pedophiles or are you going to do the right thing?

[23:40:09]

COATES: Shermichael, how do you see this? Because I wonder if this -- that sort of, as she calls it, a distinction without a difference, how's it going to fly with the MAGA base who seems increasingly wanting to hear who may have done wrongdoing?

SHERMICHAEL SINGLETON, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: Yeah, I think the base just wants this released. That's why I think you'll see overwhelming support from Republicans in Congress. Senator Kennedy from Louisiana was on earlier today on our network talking about it. He said that --

COATES: The Senate as well?

SINGLETON: Yeah, he expects the Senate to take up some type of a legislation. He wasn't sure if the language would be exactly the same as what will ultimately likely pass the House. But he suspected that many Republicans would probably vote in favor of it because a lot of Republican voters want this information released.

And I don't think it's just the information that needs to be released. I also want to know why the JPMorgan Chase settle for 200 plus million dollars. We haven't necessarily gotten to the bottom of this. And as someone who's a father, I would imagine there's a lot of fathers out there who would lose their crap if this happened to their daughters. Let's get this information out there. The American people should know.

COATES: So, why is there any time spent by Trump to even prevent the information or the deal? I mean, calling it a hoax and beyond. Why not just get it out there?

FINNEY: I mean, it certainly gives the appearance. Let me give the benefit of the doubt. It gives the appearance. And then when you hear things like Lauren Boebert saying, I was in the Situation Room while they were trying to pressure me to withdraw my name from the discharge petition, that pressure campaign, that -- you know, Todd Blanche saying, we didn't have this information, well, it's like, are you incompetent? That's ridiculous.

It gives the impression that basically, there's something there. They're trying to hide something. They're afraid of something in there. And frankly, this is not a partisan issue. I mean, under the Biden administration, Ghislaine Maxwell was prosecuted and she was sent -- sentenced to prison. So, now, we're in the next administration, let's keep the case going, and let's get to the bottom of it.

SINGLETON: Look, I think it's certainly embarrassing. That's why I don't think the president wants to deal with it.

COATES: What's embarrassing?

SINGLETON: Just this whole episode. I think that's why he's just trying to move on. I would imagine, if there was something truly damaging here, I would suspect Democrats would have potentially used that information last November. I would imagine, that's something that you think could have maybe swayed some people one way or the other.

That said, we need to just move on beyond this. You have a lot of survivors out there. I don't like the idea of bringing them through the mud, having to remind them of this experience. But at the end of the day, they need closure. They deserve closure. So, let's vote on it, put it out there, let the American people decide for themselves and move on.

FINNEY: But don't forget, you also still have criminals out there because we know that if you were a pedophile who was a client of Jeffrey Epstein's, you didn't stop when he died.

SINGLETON: Well, that's true.

FINNEY: So, if we want to really fight crime, let's fight crime, and let's find out who those criminals are and bring them to justice.

SINGLETON: And that's not a partisan issue like --

FINNEY: It shouldn't be.

SINGLETON: It shouldn't be, yeah.

COATES: Shermichael, Karen, thank you both. Still ahead tonight, a slap in the face to American soldiers who served during World War II as a plaque honoring their efforts was suddenly removed, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:45:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: You need to hear about this mission that happened in World War II, one that you probably may never even heard of. I'm talking about 260 Black soldiers serving in a segregated unit in 1944, tasked with burying the bodies of 20,000 of their countrymen in the southern Netherlands. They had nothing but pickaxes, shovels, and worked in some of the most brutal conditions of winter. The story of this unit of Black soldiers known as the 960th Quartermaster Service Company, it went untold for nearly 65 years.

That is until one of those soldiers, First Lieutenant Jefferson Wiggins, decided people should know about this. He, just 19 at the time, said the task of digging these graves was so traumatizing the troops could hardly talk to one another. He said the men cried as they lowered bodies into the graves. He also pointed out an important irony. He would not have been even allowed to sit next to the white soldiers he buried back home when they were still alive.

Tonight, CNN is reporting that a display at that very cemetery in the Netherlands, which commemorates Wiggins and Black soldiers in World War II, was quietly taken down months ago. Why? Well, in a statement from the American Battle Monuments Commission, they say the part about Wiggins was fine but -- quote -- "portions of the panels were outside the scope of ABMC's commemorative mission." Which portions are they referring to? The part that mentioned a -- quote -- "strict policy of segregation, the civil rights struggle, relegation of Black troops to certain units?" Which part? Joining me now is Robert Jefferson, assistant professor of history at the University of New Mexico. Professor, thank you for being here with us. We've heard from Wiggins's widow and others earlier who fought very hard to have that display put up. And the indignity of the removal is overwhelming. What message does this send to the families of these Black service members who risked their lives for America, for their countrymen, despite the way they were treated in that era, even back home?

ROBERT JEFFERSON, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO: Well, thanks -- thanks for having me, Laura.

[23:49:56]

Um, first of all, the experiences of Lieutenant Wiggins and other African-American GIs during the Second World War was one in which they were fighting on two fronts. They were fighting against racism basically here at home and then fighting against fascism and Nazism abroad. But all the while, while they were fighting this fierce fight, their family members were being buffeted by denials of their own humanity.

COATES: Hmm.

JEFFERSON: And I think due to the courageous service that they performed in the war, their family members have had to take up the mantle of preserving their memory by fighting for their legacy long since they've been gone. These stories are not -- they're not uncommon.

COATES: Hmm.

JEFFERSON: They are very much a part of -- I think a part of the American saga of basically race and basically 20th century. So, what we see unfolding in front of us --

COATES: They ought to be told.

JEFFERSON: Yes, they need to be told, and they need to be told and be widely circulated. And I think the family members themselves intuitively understand that. And this is something that I think is one of the intrinsic values or qualifications of what we know of as being democracy today.

COATES: You know, the agency responsible --

JEFFERSON: As somebody told me a long time ago --

COATES: Go ahead.

JEFFERSON: Oh, go ahead.

COATES: I was going say, the agency responsible did not give a clear reason for this, by the way. They said that they were reviewing -- quote -- "interpretive content" and that certain words did not meet their mission. What does that even mean? JEFFERSON: Well, what they're -- what they're saying explicitly is that they are actually discounting the service of basically Lieutenant Wiggins and others who fought during the war and valorizing the -- basically the performances of other units that fought and other servicemen who fought during the war altogether.

And I think that is a part of the intense struggle that has taken place ever since that war has ended. If we think about war as being basically one of the crucibles for democracy, then we understand that why family members have felt compelled to come forward to talk about the memories of those of their loved ones and to also make sure that successive generations understand what -- basically what the -- what is at stake?

COATES: Uh-hmm.

JEFFERSON: Who are the stakeholders?

COATES: Right.

JEFFERSON: What is -- and then also, how do we as a society basically recognize them for the very selfless service that they perform? We can do no less, I mean, in terms of thinking about --

COATES: Yeah.

JEFFERSON: -- thinking about their service and thinking about the service of countless others.

COATES: It's very true. I mean, these were known as -- they were called Black Liberators in Netherlands for the work that they've done. And the idea that another nation would honor our armed forces and soldiers and it would be our own agencies who would remove their name, I'm not sure how that honors our troops in the way that they should be at all. Professor Robert Jefferson, thank you so much.

JEFFERSON: Thank you.

COATES: Up next, you're worried about the robot takeover? Maybe don't be. We got the clip, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:55:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: It's almost midnight here on the East Coast, which means it's time to speak to our favorite West Coast anchor, Elex Michelson. Good to see you. How you doing?

ELEX MICHAELSON, CNN ANCHOR AND CORRESPONDENT: Doing well, Laura. Good to see you.

COATES: Well, listen, I thought Russia's first ever A.I. humanoid robot was ready to make its much-anticipated debut tonight. The unveiling was cut short because, well, this happened.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

(MUSIC PLAYING)

(LAUGHTER)

(MUSIC PLAYING)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Wow! I mean, he gets no yo, Adrian for me at all. What?

MICHAELSON: How much better is that because of the "Rocky" music?

COATES: I know.

(LAUGHTER)

It's probably because he's back there eating those raw eggs. That was nasty in the movie.

MICHAELSON: Oh, man.

COATES: There you go. Maybe that's what it is.

MICHAELSON: Boom, boom, boom.

COATES: Oh my --

MICHAELSON: Win one -- win one for the humans, right?

(LAUGHTER)

COATES: That's not getting up those steps. I'll tell you that right now. But you know who might be trying to climb into a different space? See what I did there? I'm talking about Congressman Eric Swalwell, who I had on the top of the hour. And you know what I asked him? I asked about his plans to run for California governor. Here's what he said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SWALWELL: California is the greatest country in the world, Laura.

(LAUGHTER)

And the next governor better be a fighter, a protector, and somebody who takes on the affordability crisis. I've been asked by many supporters to consider it. Of course, I'm considering it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Hmm. A shakeup for the primary?

MICHAELSON: I mean, does that not sound like he's in?

COATES: It does.

MICHAELSON: First off, nice -- nice job to you and the team. Great interview there. Uh, that sounds like that's making news. That sounds like that's going to be his campaign. I haven't heard him say that before, California is the greatest country.

[00:00:02]

COATES: Hmm.

MICHAELSON: And -- and so, yeah.

COATES: That might be the new -- the new bumper sticker headline theme. I don't know. It's got a ring to it. Others might take it. But tell me, what else you got coming up tonight?

MICHAELSON: We're going to talk about that because that was really interesting with our political panel. We've got -- Congresswoman Sydney Kamlager-Dove is joining us. And we've got another congressional candidate making news on our show because that's we do here on CNN.

COATES: Well, have a great show, Elex.

MICHAELSON: Thanks.