Return to Transcripts main page

Laura Coates Live

Trump Accuses Democrats of Sedition Punishable by Death; Trump Considers Plan to Ban States from Regulating A.I.; Vance Pleads for 'Patience' on Economy; Man Claims Diddy Sexually Assaulted Him in 2020. Aired 11p-12a ET

Aired November 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]

LEIGH MCGOWAN, AUTHOR: -- socks on because when little toes come up beside me, I have trouble with other people's toes --

(CROSSTALK)

RICHARD QUEST, CNN INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: Transportation secretary is right. You should dress up. There was a time when we used to wear our Sunday best --

(CROSSTALK)

I have found carrying a box of chocolate to give the woman at check-in or man at check-in and say, do you have a chocolate? Works a treat. Gets you an update (ph) --

(CROSSTALK)

TIM PARRISH, CONSERVATIVE STRATEGIST: -- I still believe in freedom in America.

ABBY PHILLIP, CNN ANCHOR AND SENIOR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: All right, guys --

PARRISH: Get what you want on internet.

QUEST: Standards. That's the problem.

PHILLIP: Everyone, thank you very much. Controversial one tonight. And thanks for watching "NewsNight." "Laura Coates Live" starts right now.

LAURA COATES, CNN HOST AND SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Tonight, President Trump rages at Democrats, accusing them of sedition punishable by death. Fallout from this stunning statement that's also stunningly off-base. Plus, markets dive yet again. More Americans sour on the economy, and Trump insists everything is great. So, why is Vice President Vance taking a different tack tonight? And a CNN exclusive interview with the man at the center of a brand-new investigation into Sean "Diddy" Combs. All tonight on "Laura Coates Live."

You know, many people question the media's coverage of a president. Is it appropriate to cover everything he does or says? Should we ignore some things? Nothing? Should we focus on everything? Nothing? The fact of the matter is he is the president of the United States of America, synonymous with the leader of the free world.

And when anyone speaks from that position as commander-in-chief of the world's most lethal military and head of the executive branch of a democratic system with both powerful allies and powerful geopolitical enemies, well, that person's words, they can speak volumes, they carry weight, they become orders, and they can change the course of history.

So, when a president makes a claim, even if it's on social media, we don't have the luxury of ignoring it. It is there for the entire world to see. And tonight, there is one I just can't scroll past. It's this. Quote -- "seditious behavior, punishable by death." Well, the president is referring to this. That video from six Democratic lawmakers, all who served in the military or the intel community, urging troops to disobey illegal orders.

Now, full stop. It is objectively absurd to suggest that what these six lawmakers did rises to the level of sedition. And it seems the president doesn't even know what seditious behavior actually is. But you know what? He should, especially considering he granted clemency to multiple people convicted of seditious conspiracy, all for their role in the January 6th attack, people actually found guilty of using force to try to overthrow the government.

But that's not even close to what we're talking about with these lawmakers. In fact, it's not even in the same universe. It is so out there, it led to this question at today's White House briefing.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNKNOWN: Just to be clear, does the president want to execute members of Congress?

KAROLINE LEAVITT, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: No. Let's be clear about what the president is responding to because many in this room want to talk about the president's response, but not what brought the president to responding in this way. You have sitting members of the United States Congress who conspired together to orchestrate a video message to members of the United States Military to active-duty service members, to members of the national security apparatus, encouraging them to defy the president's lawful orders.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Those last two words are very important. That's lawmakers actually said or did because if you watch the video, nowhere did they say anyone should defy a lawful order.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNKNOWN: Our laws are clear. You can refuse illegal orders.

UNKNOWN: You can refuse illegal orders.

UNKNOWN: You must refuse illegal orders.

UNKNOWN: No one has to carry out orders that violate the law --

UNKNOWN: -- or our Constitution.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: And, actually, they aren't wrong. I mean, take a look. It's the key part of Article 92 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. It actually says that any service member who fails to obey any lawful order should and shall be punished by a court martial.

[23:05:05]

Now, it doesn't directly spell out, you must refuse unlawful orders, but, I mean, the implication is there. It's clear. If an order isn't lawful, you aren't required to follow it. That's what decades of legal precedent have essentially scribed. If a service member follows an order that violates the law, it opens them up to prosecution. So, keep that legal standard in mind as you listen to how the administration is describing its own actions.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LEAVITT: This administration has an unparalleled record at the Supreme Court because we are following the laws. We don't defy court orders. We do things by the books.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Of course, you're entitled to go to the courts and make your case. But the courts are supposed to respond, and they do. That's part of the system. And just today, a federal judge ruled that the administration wasn't following the law at all. Judge Jia Cobb found that Trump and the Defense Department illegally deployed the National Guard right here in Washington, D.C. She literally wrote that the administration was likely operating contrary to law.

And as for Leavitt's claim that the administration does not defy court orders, well, tried telling that to Judge James Boasberg. Remember him? He's now resuming his criminal contempt investigation to determine whether the Trump administration openly defied his order to stop deportation flights back in April.

And these issues, they aren't limited to immigration or domestic deployments. The very same legal questions are being raised about the president's use of military force overseas, including those boat strikes, nearly two dozen of them. And the problems are glaring. The people killed, they weren't given any due process. We haven't been given light into the decision-making process either. And the strikes themselves are raising serious questions under basic domestic and international law, so much so that there have been reports that these attacks have jeopardized intelligence sharing with our own allies. The pattern here is difficult to miss.

So many of the Trump's administration's actions are still being adjudicated. It's their right. That's our process. But some have already been ruled unlawful in lower courts, and they're now making their way up the legal chain. Others, they're still waiting for the day in court, yet to be resolved. Judges are actively deciding, I mean, day by day, what's legal, what's not, and what crosses a constitutional line.

So, when six lawmakers released a video reminding service members -- notice the word 'reminding service members' -- not to obey illegal orders, you've got to understand the backdrop. Didn't ask anyone to rebel or ignore lawful commands. That word wasn't there. They are asking them to know what they're being asked to do in an environment where the legal line is being pushed and it's being tested at every turn.

Well, my first guest was confronted with a similar situation during Trump's first term. You know what he chose to do? Blow the whistle.

Virginia Democratic Congressman Eugene Vindman joins me now. He is a retired Army colonel and former lawyer at the National Security Council. He, along with his brother, Alexander, helped reveal Trump's attempt to pressure Ukraine to find damaging information of then candidate Joe Biden.

Congressman, thank you for being here. I'm sure you have seen that the White House is saying that President Trump does not think the Democrats are committing sedition and should be executed, contrary to his Truth Social posts, but the fact that we are in an environment where the White House even has to walk back a statement in writing like that, what is going through your mind?

REP. EUGENE VINDMAN (D-VA): Well, it's absolutely outrageous. It's unacceptable in an environment, as you say, that has seen a rise in political violence, that has seen an unacceptable amount of attacks on both political and civil leaders. This president is inflaming the environment and calling for -- calling for really reprehensible attacks on Democrats.

COATES: Hmm.

VINDMAN: I mean, he has divided the country into Republicans and Democrats and, apparently, political violence only affects Republicans in his mind.

COATES: So, you think his statements would invite that type of, at least attention, negatively to the members of the House who issued this statement and beyond?

[23:10:00]

VINDMAN: Oh, undoubtedly. I've heard some of my colleagues talk about the need to ramp up 24-7 security because of the spike in -- in threats based on the president's comments, and totally unacceptable and just throwing gasoline on flame.

COATES: And, by the way, it's the speaker of the House who authorizes paid security, right, for members of the House. This is often out of pocket from members who now have to contend with the threats that might be looming.

I will mention that the House speaker, Mike Johnson, he did criticize Trump, saying that these aren't the words he would choose. But he then spoke about, well, the blame that maybe Democrats also enjoy. Listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MIKE JOHNSON, SPEAKER OF THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: The words that the president chose are not the ones that I would use, okay? Obviously, I don't think that these -- these are crimes punishable by death or any of that, okay? But what -- what the point that isn't -- that we need to emphasize here is that members of Congress and the Senate and the House should not be telling troops to disobey orders. It is dangerous.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Well, to be clear, what they said was -- talking specifically about illegal orders, which I understand already is largely part of what members of our military and services understand to already be part of their oath. What's your response to speaker?

VINDMAN: Well, the speaker, unfortunately, his criticism of the president was milk toast, and he demonstrated a lack of leadership in that regard. I think he should have forcefully denounced the president's statement against the Democratic members. The Democratic members again said that the statement was unlawful orders and the speaker is twisting their words.

And you know what? I think we need to flip this on its ear. The idea that soldiers, service members, can follow unlawful orders and not be subject to liability is -- is not true. We saw in the wake of World War II how German soldiers said that they were only following orders and that was not a sufficient defense.

For U.S. Military soldiers, officers to be put in a position where they have to follow potentially illegal orders is unacceptable. We've seen that in Venezuela where I have serious concerns about the operations attacking those drug boats. And my greatest fear is that these service members may one day be in a position to be held accountable for it.

COATES: Let me play devil's advocate for a second, and let's just imagine that the concern is that a soldier, a member of the military, is unable to decipher a close call on whether it's an illegal or a lawful order. If that is the core of the criticism for calling for them to not obey it, is that valid?

VINDMAN: Well, look, I approach this issue as a -- as troop leader, a 25-year Army veteran, a prosecutor, an Army lawyer. And so, we train our soldiers. We have the finest service members on the planet. We train them to be able to make split-second decisions, right? And I've -- I've heard other folks offer that, you know, if there is a potentially unlawful, illegal order, let's litigate that in court. Well, that's not how this works. These are split-second decisions where we expect soldiers to act in a lawful, ethical, and moral manner.

If the -- if it's a close call, then soldiers will follow the order. But if it's an obviously illegal call, and I think there's sufficient evidence and reason to believe that there are, the administration is pushing policies that are certainly on the border and probably across the line, then service members have an obligation not to follow those orders or they can themselves be and commanders can be held accountable. It's as simple as that.

COATES: Senator Lindsey Graham was calling on Democrats to -- to show -- show some evidence that President Trump had issued an illegal order to the military. Do you think there should have been that requirement or that box checked before this particular statement was issued or was it simply just a reiteration of what, as you say, our esteemed military already know?

VINDMAN: Well, look, these -- these are all service members. These are folks like me that have sworn the oaths. Some of them were in the national security world. But they have actually put themselves on the line.

[23:14:58]

And so, this is a simple reminder of service members, what their obligations are, the obligations that already exist. It's a restatement.

COATES: I want to turn our attention to something that -- when I read this today, I had to read it more than once, because I thought, this -- this can't be right, but indeed, "The Washington Post" is reporting that the Coast Guard will no longer classify the swastika and the noose as hate symbols, but instead designated as -- quote -- "potentially divisive."

A spokesperson tells CNN the report is -- quote -- "false," adding, "These symbols have been and remain prohibited in the Coast Guard per policy. Any display, use or promotion of such symbols, as always, will be thoroughly investigated and severely punished."

Obviously, the Coast Guard not under the Department of Defense, under the Homeland Security instead. But tell me, how do you see this issue?

VINDMAN: Well, look, part of the job that I had when I wore the uniform as a -- as an Army lawyer, as a prosecutor, was to help the commander ensure -- enforce good order and discipline. And there are regulations, whether it's in the Coast Guard, it's a uniform military service, or in the Army, Marine Corps, about what is acceptable conduct, what are symbols of hate. It is extremely hard for me to imagine that the swastika and the noose could be declassified as symbols of hate. I would have serious concerns.

But on the other hand, we've seen us going down a really slippery slope in -- in renaming back military bases to names of confederate seditionists. We've seen the elimination of -- and demonization of diversity, which, you know, has always been, in my opinion, a strength. We attract people from all around the world that bring their -- their deep, intimate knowledge of culture and language. No other country in the world attracts folks, and we attract them into -- into the military and national security establishment. And that diversity is a strength, despite what the secretary of defense says.

COATES: Congressman Eugene Vindman, thank you.

VINDMAN: Thank you for having me.

COATES: Up next, the White House tells states, don't you dare. We'll talk about the potential executive order that could keep states from regulating A.I. And ahead, patience. J.D. Vance says, have patience, because an economic boom is coming. But is it?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:20:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. MARK WARNER (D-VA): What I'm particularly concerned about is not so much the elimination, but the fact that entry-level jobs may very quickly disappear. We're already at 9% recent college graduate unemployment. I think that number will go to 25% very shortly.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Well, that was Senator Mark Warner explaining just how brutal he thinks A.I. could be for the job market, especially for young people. And we know that poll after poll shows that Americans can't decide whether A.I. is a good or a bad thing. And considering how fast A.I. is developing, it makes the next story all the more important.

According to CNN's reporting, the president is considering ways to stop states from enacting their own A.I. regulations. We're told there's an executive order that has been drafted that would do just that. It would let Pam Bondi, the attorney general, basically challenge any state law that is passed. And we should note that the White House told CNN that any discussion about a potential order is just -- quote -- "speculation."

Well, joining me now is the attorney general of North Carolina, Jeff Jackson. He just recently launched a bipartisan task force to deal with A.I. Attorney general, thank you for being here. Do you have any concern about a potential executive order like this that could possibly limit what a state could do to regulate A.I.?

JEFF JACKSON, NORTH CAROLINA ATTORNEY GENERAL: I do. A lot of states have laws on the books. They're pretty commonsense safeguards. The intent of this executive order would be to roll back all of those safeguards, to take all the things that states have done and basically rip them up. The idea of not having any safeguards for A.I., especially with how quickly it's developing, how powerful it's going to be, and all the ways that it can be abused, is really unacceptable. We need safeguards. COATES: You know, the president seems to be making the argument that there needs to be safeguards, but a federal standard, not a patchwork of different laws for each of the different states. And one of the things he says is -- quote -- "If we don't, then China will easily catch us in the A.I. race." Do you buy that part of the argument? Is that what you think is going to happen?

JACKSON: Well, we need America to lead in the A.I. race. There's no question about that. But the problem here is if you don't have states leading, then Congress has to lead. And Congress isn't doing that. They're not getting anywhere close to that. They put up basically no safeguards in this space. And if we look at their track record with things like internet privacy or social media, they've almost never done anything real in the space where there's new technology.

That's why you need the states to come forward and do stuff. And it's not just the blue states. We've got lots of red states. We've got Utah and Alabama and Tennessee erecting basic safeguards. The notion of tearing them all down in the hopes that Congress is going to do something is, I think, something that would make most Americans pretty nervous.

COATES: So, why are the states so better equipped to deal with this than, say, the federal government?

JACKSON: I think you can make a good argument that the best-case scenario, the ideal, would be to have one uniform standard across all 50 states. There's always a risk of having a patchwork approach.

[23:25:04]

But I don't think it's a choice between a federal approach and a patchwork approach because I don't think Congress is going to do anything here. I think it's a choice between allowing states to put up safeguards versus nothing, and we just can't allow nothing.

COATES: The task force that you're involved with is in partnership with OpenAI, also with Microsoft. How can people trust that those companies are not going to influence you or others in ways that are self-serving?

JACKSON: Well, I'm sure they're going to have their own agenda. We decided to invite them to be part of this conversation because, first of all, I think there is an opportunity for voluntary safeguards to be adopted. I think that's an opportunity that we need to fully explore because that's the quickest way to get some safeguards up.

But also, I think it's worth having the experts at the table. This is such a rapidly evolving state of technology. The frontier edge of it is so sophisticated. I think we'll really benefit from having people at the table who know the details. But, look, you're absolutely right, which is why this task force is being led by AGs. Our mission is to keep people safe.

COATES: It's rare to see anything bipartisan these days. We're coming off of a government shutdown that was anything but. When it comes to A.I., you do see some glimpses of it. I mean, Governor Ron DeSantis, obviously, a high-profile Republican, he's worried about A.I.'s impact. He's against blocking states from making their own rules. Are you encouraged that for the time being, it's not just a one-party issue?

JACKSON: You're right, for the time being, it's not. For as polarized as we are with everything falling into red or blue, this A.I. issue hasn't really polarized yet. So, we still have the opportunity to form a task force among AGs that has folks from both parties. My co-leader is the Utah AG, Derek Brown, and I think we're going to end up with a lot of AGs from both parties.

COATES: Would you challenge an executive order if they did this?

JACKSON: I think there would be a potential challenge. I think that there's a constitutional issue because the executive order says if states don't roll back their safeguards for A.I., then they could lose broadband funding. The issue is that broadband funding was authorized by Congress. This would be the president basically trying to claw back money that has been allocated by Congress. I think that's a constitutional issue under separation of powers.

COATES: Attorney General Jeff Jackson, thank you.

JACKSON: Thank you.

COATES: Up next, 76% of voters say the economy is bad. But the White House says it's booming or about to be booming. So, WTF is going on. I'll ask our favorite economist. Plus, when Rachel Maddow goes to Dick Cheney's funeral, but the current Republican president doesn't, that's what we're not talking about (ph), but we will after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:30:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: Vice President J.D. Vance out with a brand-new message tonight for anyone worried about the U.S. economy. Just be patient.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

J.D. VANCE, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: As much progress as we've made, it's going to take a little bit of time for every American to feel that economic boom, which we really do believe is coming. We believe that we're on the front end of it, but we also recognize that we've got a lot of work to do to undo the damage that Joe Biden did to the American economy.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: You heard him there, predicting an economic boom. And the White House totally leaned into that idea when it celebrated the September jobs report that came out today. It shows 119,000 jobs gained, which is a huge rebound from the 4,000 jobs that were lost in August. But the unemployment rate, it went up to 4.4%, and that is the highest in nearly four years.

If there anyone that can help us make sense of all of this, it's the man you see on the screen, Justin Wolfers, professor of economics and public policy at the University of Michigan. Professor, welcome back. I've been waiting to have this conversation because we had several months of weak hiring, and then all of sudden, this pop in September. What's your read on all this and is it all helpful given that the data is just from two months ago?

JUSTIN WOLFERS, PROFESSOR OF ECONOMICS & PUBLIC POLICY, UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN: Yes. So, this is for September, but you were coming out of this blackout. So, everything is helpful right now. It was a little stronger than people expected. These numbers bump around quite a lot.

So, I think the key thing to focus on is the thing you focuses on Laura, which is the unemployment rate. That's the single best measure for figuring out how things are. And 4.4% is not a bad number, but it's creeping up and it is the worst that it has been in four years.

So, look, this is an economy that's maybe slipping down into a B or a B minus. That's sort of okay, but you might hope for a little better.

COATES: Certainly would, but you hear the Vice President saying that he believes an economic boom is coming. Is it a wishful thinking or do you see the makings of that?

WOLFERS: Look, I don't think he believes it. If he believed it, if the White House believed you're on the cusp of an economic boom, they wouldn't be demanding that the Fed cut interest rates. They're demanding that the Fed cuts interest rates as if we're on the cusp of a recession.

So, I don't think the White House believes it. I also don't think financial markets believe it. And it's certainly not the central forecast of any of the mainstream economists out there. We never know what the future can hold, but it would be warfully brave to say we're on the cusp -- say we're on a cusp of a boom.

COATES: So, what should the average layman like myself on this, what should we expect to be seeing if we were on the cusp of an economic boom? What's our indicator?

[23:35:00]

WOLFERS: Well, I think if you wanted to make the case we were, you'd point to the stock market, you'd say the U.S. stock market is really high, then I'd argue with you a little bit. I'd say, yes, it's high, but it's mostly high because of A.I. spending. And the problem with A.I. spending is big rooms full of computers are not big rooms full of workers.

More than that, I'd also say that if you look at what's happening to the American stock market, it's doing okay but, actually, the rest of the world is doing a whole lot better. So, if -- if you're going to read the American numbers is suggesting a boom here, you'd be really optimistic about the rest of the world. COATES: Let's talk about the other big financial story right now. It's around the fear of an A.I. bubble. Nvidia crushed it in their earnings yesterday, but that obviously wasn't enough. Their stock, it fell 3%. And the S&P 500 ended down nearly, what, 2%? So, where do you fall on whether we're in a bubble that's about to pop or not?

WOLFERS: We're in a crazy, upside-down, topsy-turvy world right now, Laura. There are two sets of A.I. stories to think about. There's the short run one, like what's happening this year to the economy, and that is people are buying Nvidia chips like they're the coolest thing in the world. That might be enough to support the economy in the short run.

The longer run questions here are much more important. The reason they're buying those chips is that they hope that those chips can do things like think about economics for us or perhaps those chips will create a new Laura Coates A.I. that will take all of our jobs.

And, you know, I'm joking a little bit about you and I, but I really shouldn't because it's very serious issue for folks at home. If you're in a white-collar job, these computers, not tomorrow, maybe not even next year, but over the next decade, they're coming for your job.

COATES: Well, Justin, you have no idea if I'm A.I. or not. You've never seen me in person. Nice talking to you.

(LAUGHTER)

WOLFERS: I have no idea.

COATES: Different story, different time.

WOLFERS: Mind blown.

COATES: Mind blown. Justin Wolfers, thank you so much. I want to talk now more --

WOLFERS: Take care, Laura.

COATES: -- with our political insiders who are joining me tonight, former New York Democratic congressman, Joe Crowley, and CNN political commentator and Republican strategist Shermichael Singleton. Both of you can confirm that I'm real.

SHERMICHAEL SINGLETON, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: You are real.

(LAUGHTER)

COATES: Thank you. So, let's talk really about what's going on.

JOE CROWLEY, FORMER NEW YORK REPRESENTATIVE: Warm-blooded.

COATES: There we go. There we go. The vice president is striking a more realistic tone, it seems, on the economy than his boss is doing. So, the idea of being patient, is that a viable request for the American public right now?

SINGLETON: I mean, it takes time, but I don't think people are willing to wait. I mean --

COATES: Why?

SINGLETON: So, I think if you think about the average millennial, you can't afford to buy a home. A lot of millennials my age and slightly younger or maybe even slightly older are waiting to get married, waiting to start families. And when you look at generations before, those things appeared to be a lot more tangible.

Now, Eric Levitz, who writes for Vox Media, had a fascinating article that came out, I believe, yesterday that talked about 25-year-olds today, annually, their incomes are a lot higher than millennials at 25. That may indeed be the case. But then you have to ask, what about upward mobility? How tangible is that for them, comparatively speaking to 15, 25 years ago? And most would say it's out of reach.

COATES: Let's hear what the vice president is saying. We want to underscore this point because it is in contrast from sort of just the praising of where we are. He seems to be pragmatic here. Listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

VANCE: Even though we've made incredible progress, we understand that there's a lot more work to do. And the thing that I'd ask for the American people is a little bit of patience. This economy was not harmed in 10 months.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: So, obviously he's talking about, you know, the harvest season of politics that comes. It wasn't my economy, it was a person before me and beyond. Given the call for patience and the reality that we're seeing today, which went over?

CROWLEY: Well, I don't recognize that administration right now. It's unusual to say the least. But hang on just a moment. This is kind of a read my lips moment. No new taxes. You know, this president said on day one, he would lower inflation.

(LAUGHTER)

He said it. And inflation was Joe Biden's fault. Everything was -- we're 10, 11 months into this now. This is no longer Joe Biden's economy. This is Donald Trump's making. It is because of the tariffs. It's because -- you know -- you know, the -- the cost of living has -- it's why this election that just took place was so overwhelming. It's about affordability.

And Trump can cry about the fact that Democrats have stolen his message. Well, reality is it worked. And we saw a record turnout. We saw in both Virginia and New Jersey, you know, massive real -- in terms of the breadth of -- of -- of -- the losses for Republicans were astonishing, I think.

SINGLETON: I mean, the congressman is making a very good point. I would argue that I think between Q1 and Q3 of next year, there's an opportunity for the party to reorient itself, to focus on some policy issues. Let's focus on building more houses. That accomplishes two things, making housing more affordable and accessible.

[23:40:00]

But two, you also focus on employing younger men, which was a big part of Donald Trump's constituency last November. And a lot of my friends who are on the Democratic side are focusing on Epstein right now and not the message that the congressman just laid out to our viewers.

CROWLEY: But I also do get to recognize that they just had 50 days of not even being here in Washington. That's not because of -- that's not because of Democrats. That's because the speaker of the House of Representatives did not call members back. They could walk and chew gum at the same time. We could wait and see what was happening with other issues. They couldn't -- in terms of the shutdown, they could have come in and debated. They could have come in and had hearings. They didn't do it.

COATES: Well, let's talk about the reorientation for a second of the Republican Party in many ways. There was, obviously, the funeral today of former vice president, Dick Cheney, who passed away two weeks ago. The president of the United States, Donald Trump, was not invited to this. Cheney last year called him, as you remember, the greatest threat to United States. But you know who was invited? Rachel Maddow as just one example of people.

What does it say to you that the list included some, including Rachel Maddow, which we've learned the history, of course, and how people criticized Dick Cheney for a variety of reasons, particularly since 9- 11 and beyond, but what does it say to you about the current state of your party?

SINGLETON: It has definitely changed. There's no doubt about it. I mean, look, at 35 years old, I have a very different perspective on Dick Cheney, and I would argue many of the decisions made during the Bush-Cheney years made it extremely tough for people my age to have that economic upward mobility that we expected. Go to college, get an advanced degree, do everything right, and America is at your fingertips. Well, that's not the reality.

COATES: I don't want to put word to your mouth but -- so, Dick Cheney is the abomination, not the current state?

SINGLETON: I would say that many of his decisions led to a lot of disillusionment, anger, anxiety among a lot of working class, middle class people, and even younger folks who did decide to go to college and do the right thing under the guise that things would be better for them than their parents. That wasn't the case.

And so, I -- I feel sorry for the Cheneys, and I certainly understand their loss, but I don't hold the former vice president in very high regard for some terrible decisions that were made during that administration. I really don't.

COATES: His daughter, obviously, somebody that people have had varying changes and views about her politically, Liz Cheney, she eulogized in this way.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LIZ CHENEY, FORMER WYOMING REPRESENTATIVE: But he knew that bonds of party must always yield to the single bond we share as Americans. For him, a choice between defense of the Constitution and defense of your political party was no choice at all.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: He endorsed Kamala Harris last year as well. Is the era she describes bygone?

CROWLEY: I think you have to take this in the full perspective of his life. He was a congressman. He was a Cabinet member. He was vice president of the United States. And I think what that really demonstrated, people who had real -- real differences of opinion, you know, seeing Joe Biden there, he didn't agree with Dick Cheney on much of anything --

COATES: Right.

CROWLEY: -- but he respected the office of the vice presidency. And getting back to that point, in death, can we -- can we at least recognize that the human beings fail, you know, make mistakes? Donald Trump can't make a mistake. People make mistakes.

One thing about, I think, that Cheney did do in terms of rehabilitating and why maybe reach him out, I was there, was that he was very outspoken after the January 6th events and went to the Capitol to commemorate that as well. I think that is a -- it doesn't fully make up for his issues, but it adds to in terms of that comedy that we should have.

SINGLETON: And I'll just quickly add, that's one side of it, but he never really addressed destabilizing the Middle East. He never really addressed the thousands of American soldiers who lost their lives. Iran grew stronger as a result of us being over there. I mean, there are so many conflicts as a result of the Bush-Cheney years that was never addressed by the late vice president.

COATES: Oh, are we waiting for apologies to correct what they've done in the past?

(LAUGHTER)

SINGLETON: Should I not hold my breath?

COATES: Oh --

(LAUGHTER)

COATES: -- you better breathe right now.

CROWLEY: Not for this president.

COATES: Time to exhale. Joe, Shermichael, thank you both.

SINGLETON: Thanks, Laura.

CROWLEY: Thanks, Laura.

COATES: Still ahead, a new law enforcement investigation launched into Sean "Diddy" Combs after a music producer makes new allegations. And tonight, Diddy's accuser is talking exclusively to CNN. That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:45:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: If you thought the allegations against Sean "Diddy" Combs were done, you would be wrong. The L.A. County Sheriff's Department is launching a new investigation, this time based on allegations from a male accuser who had previously filed a civil lawsuit against Diddy as a John Doe, which Diddy's attorney is denying. But this is a big deal because it could potentially lead to new charges. And Combs is already currently serving a four-year prison sentence.

As for what the new accuser claims, he is speaking out for the first time since the investigation was launched. CNN entertainment correspondent Elizabeth Wagmeister has the exclusive interview. Elizabeth, what did he tell you?

ELIZABETH WAGMEISTER, CNN ENTERTAINMENT CORRESPONDENT: Laura, I spoke with Jonathan just yesterday for two hours. He went into great detail about what he alleges happened to him, and he told me that just this week, a detective from the Special Victims Bureau with the L.A, Sheriff's Department reached out to him. So, this is an active investigation, and he is cooperating with authorities. Now, let's take a look at what he told me, but I do want to warn your viewers that the details are graphic.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

JONATHAN HAY, SEAN "DIDDY" COMBS ACCUSER: Violated me like I've -- like I've never been violated.

WAGMEISTER (voice-over): Jonathan Hay in his first T.V. interview since the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department opened a new investigation into allegations that Sean "Diddy" Combs forced Hay to perform oral sex on him.

[23:50:05]

HAY: Someone is listening, and I feel like I'm so close to justice finally. WAGMEISTER (voice-over): Hay, a music publicist and producer, says his first incident with Combs came in 2020 when they collaborated on new music honoring Biggie, the late rapper Notorious B-I-G. This is Hay modeling Biggie's actual clothes, a photo, he says, he gave to the police, taken on the day he says he found himself alone with Combs.

HAY: He took a phone call, sat down. I could hear like sex noises. He was really like masturbating. This goes on for a few minutes. I just like want the whole thing, you know, to be over. The next thing you know, he ejaculates into one of Biggie shirts, shows the shirt. I mean, it was like -- rest in peace, B.I.G.

WAGMEISTER (voice-over): Hay, in this police report, says that he kept the incident to himself, but it began to eat at him, and eventually told Biggie son, CJ Wallace, who was collaborating with him on the new music.

HAY: I finally got that off my chest after almost a year.

WAGMEISTER (voice-over): But Hay told police that the dynamic of the partnership changed. In March 2021, Hay went for what he thought was an interview for Combs's Revolt T.V. Instead, he says he was taken to a house where Combs entered the room.

HAY: Chaos erupted. And he was screaming at me. He was in a rage. And that's when he violated me.

WAGMEISTER (voice-over): Hay told police Combs stuck his penis inside of his mouth. Hay says he pulled away, but Combs pulled his head back and allegedly did it again, approximately three to four times.

WAGMEISTER: What was going through your mind in that moment?

HAY: Shock, like blur. I didn't know if I was going to die at that point. It's the first time in my life where I felt suicidal.

WAGMEISTER (voice-over): Combs's attorneys told CNN, "Mr. Combs categorically denies as false and defamatory all claims that he sexually abused anyone."

In July, Hay filed a civil suit against Combs and Wallace, Biggie's son. Wallace is now suing for defamation, claiming Hay became irate at the decision to not release the remainder of the songs that Hay had produced and retaliated. His attorney adding, "The allegations will be shown to be complete fantasy."

HAY: C.J. knows what has happened. He was there.

WAGMEISTER (voice-over): Combs is now serving four years in federal prison. Hay hopes that his case will add to that.

HAY: Biggie was like -- supposedly his best friend. To just do that in his shirt and to attack me like he had, he doesn't need to be out on the streets.

(END VIDEOTAPE) COATES: Elizabeth, my goodness, what did he tell you about the next steps given where this has started, the litigation process, and now you say an active investigation?

WAGMEISTER: Yes. So, this is an active investigation, but we don't know the scope of it. Of course, we don't know if it will lead to charges. Jonathan tells me that he hopes that it leads to more criminal charges because for him, justice would look like seeing Combs behind bars for life, not just for four years.

But Laura, this was really significant to me. Jonathan told me that he actually considered coming forward in early 2023 prior to Cassie Ventura suing Diddy. So, prior to this public downfall of Diddy. I have reviewed email correspondence between Jonathan Hay and an attorney's office in March 2023. He told me that at the time, he was too scared to ultimately come forward, but that's significant because it shows that before this whole domino effect happened with Diddy, that Jonathan was trying to come forward. He says that he eventually came forward after he saw all of this happening in the media. He said, it's finally my time to speak up.

COATES: We will be watching. Elizabeth Wagmeister, thank you for your reporting, as always. Look, we are in a new world, technologically. But would you clone your deceased loved ones in an A.I. app? That's what one company is betting on, that you will. We'll talk about it after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:55:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: It's almost midnight right here on the East Coast. Time to talk with our friend, Elex Michaelson, out in Los Angeles. How you doing?

ELEX MICHAELSON, CNN ANCHOR AND CORRESPONDENT: Doing well, Laura. How are you?

COATES: I'm doing good. Hey, I heard you interviewed a former Disney actor behind that new app that I've been seeing that uses A.I. to bring back loved ones that have passed. Here's the ad for the app.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNKNOWN: Oh, congratulations.

UNKNOWN: She says that he has been kicking a lot, though, like a little too much.

UNKNOWN: Tell her to put her hand on her tummy and hum to him. You've loved that.

UNKNOWN: You would love this moment.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Are people ready for this? First of all, everyone got to watch that full commercial to get a real sense of it. But are people ready for the idea of being able to have this app?

MICHAELSON: So, just to be clear, they're not taking people that are already dead, and then making them alive. You record something while you're alive to be used after you're dead, which is a little bit of a difference. But this ad got 41 million views. And I actually think it's a good thing. I would like to do this. I think it'd be great to do. What about you?

COATES: I have enough voices in my head that I feel like if I had a face to them, I would be going crazy. But no, all honesty, I think if people feel that it would make them happy and make them feel connected to people that they have loved so deeply, hey, who am I to judge? More power to you for now.

MICHAELSON: Well, there's a lot of power in storytelling, like a lot of --

COATES: Yes.

MICHAELSON: -- the Holocaust museums have been doing technology like this for years.

[00:00:03]

The idea of being able to have a human face and so to be able to hear from generations, I actually think it's really exciting and interesting. And so, the guy behind it, who you saw in that ad, he has not done a T.V. interview since this thing went viral. He's giving his first interview to us here on "The Story Is."

COATES: Oh, now, I can't wait to watch, and I'll be able to really dig in. Have a great show.

MICHAELSON: Thanks, Laura.