Return to Transcripts main page

Laura Coates Live

Federal Judge Tossed Indictments Against Comey And James; Pentagon Investigates Kelly; Trump "Hopeful" On Ukraine. Aired 11p-12a ET

Aired November 24, 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]

ABBY PHILLIP, CNN ANCHOR AND SENIOR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: Stay that way? All right. Okay. I don't know. The '80s, not really my -- even though I was born in the 80s. I'm -- not really my decade. I will bring --

UNKNOWN: Tomorrow is your birthday.

PHILLIP: I'll bring the 90s.

UNKNOWN: Happy birthday!

UNKNOWN: Hey, don't spoil it --

UNKNOWN: Happy birthday!

PHILLIP: Hold yet, everyone. OK --

(LAUGHTER)

-- all right, everybody, thank you very much.

UNKNOWN: In another hour.

PHILLIP: Thanks for watching "NewsNight. You can catch me any time on your favorite social media X, Instagram, and TikTok. "Laura Coates Live" starts right now.

LAURA COATES, CNN HOST AND SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Tonight, a major black eye for Trump's DOJ. A judge tosses the cases against James Comey and Letitia James over an embarrassing mistake and delivers quite the setback to the president's retribution campaign. Plus, the Pentagon singles out Democratic Senator Mark Kelly over a video he made with five other members of Congress and even threatens a potential court martial. So, how will the military's lawyers see it? Well, a former Air Force secretary is going to weigh in. And deal or no deal. Trump holds out for an agreement to end this war in Ukraine as new strikes hit Kyiv. All tonight on "Laura Coates Live."

So, today, I'm going to call it a reminder of a very important thing when it comes to law. That process, the process, due process, matters. It matters because the law can't be bent to get the outcome you want. It matters because when you rush or you try to cut corners or maybe manipulate something, maybe legal safeguards will kick in, even if the system is under intense political pressure or, say, a president, the head of the executive branch, wants to get retribution against a known political enemy.

Well, if you don't dot your I or cross your T, if you get sloppy, then we expect the law or the process to either slow you down, prevent you or at least catch up to you. And today, that's exactly what seemed to happen to the DOJ. President Trump's revenge tour is facing some serious embarrassment after a federal judge ruled that his administration did not follow the proper process when it came to indicting the former FBI director, James Comey, and New York's A.G., Letitia James.

Judge Cameron McGowan Currie dismissed the Justice Department's cases against both of them. Why? Because she says President Trump's hand- picked prosecutor who brought the indictments, Lindsey Halligan, was never lawfully appointed. A prosecutor with no experience as a prosecutor? Hmm. But she also once served as Trump's personal lawyer.

And the thing about this important notion is that she was elevated to the top job in the EDVA after the president demanded the A.G., Pam Bondi, to prosecute people like Comey, like James. We all saw what he said should have been a private, I guess, D.M. that wasn't.

But the argument, it boils down to this: The reason they're saying she was not the appropriate U.S. attorney is not really because she was not a prosecutor in her earlier legal life. It's because they say that the team, the Trump team, had already used the 120-day window that an interim U.S. attorney, one that has not been confirmed by the Senate, is allowed to serve. They use that, they say, that window with Eric Siebert. That was the interim prosecutor who was in place before Trump removed him to clear the way for Halligan. And he's set aside.

And, of course, Judge Currie says a president can't just appoint a second interim prosecutor, start that clock all over again and say, OK, new person, he left, he wanted to leave, he resigned, whatever happened there, then I'm going to have this person, now I get a fresh 120 days. No, the judge says if you do that, then a president could effectively always evade a Senate confirmation process, maybe forever or for the duration of a term.

But even though this happened today, it actually may not be the final word on either of these cases. In this instance, dismissal may not be forever. The White House is dismissing it as a technical ruling, not one founded in the merits of the case. And Bondi is promising to appeal.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PAM BONDI, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL: We'll be taking all available legal action, including an immediate appeal to hold Letitia James and James Comey accountable for their unlawful conduct. I'm going to keep going on this. I'm not -- you know, I'm not -- I'm not worried about someone who has been charged with a very serious crime. His alleged actions were a betrayal of public trust. So --

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Well, she says she's going to keep going. Well, how can they keep going if it was dismissed? Well, it was dismissed, according to this judge, without prejudice. That means a DOJ could try to refile them.

[23:05:01]

Had it been with prejudice, it would have meant you're done, it's over. As my dad would say, put a fork in it. And that could be tricky now for the case against James Comey, that they could re-bring it because they've got this statute of limitations period on his charges, because they say that he lied to Congress back in 2020. There's a five-year window. That window has now expired. But Comey says even if the charges do come back, he's not worried.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JAMES COMEY, FORMER DIRECTOR, FBI: The president of the United States cannot use the Department of Justice to target his political enemies. I don't care what your politics are. You have to see that as fundamentally un-American and a threat to the rule of law that keeps all of us free. I know that Donald Trump will probably come after me again, and my attitude is going to be the same. I'm innocent, I am not afraid, and I believe in an independent federal judiciary.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Interestingly enough, that's what Karoline Leavitt seems to question in terms of this judge's motivation as to why, but more on that. But that's for Comey. What about Letitia James? Well, she's showing no concerns about the mortgage fraud charges that were just dismissed against her, even if DOJ prosecutors do try to bring them back. She says she remains fearless in the face of these baseless charges. And remember, her limitations period has not yet run.

I want to begin with two people who have spent a lot of time in federal courtrooms, former assistant U.S. attorney for the Washington, D.C., District of Columbia, Greg Rosen, and senior legal affairs reporter for Politico, Josh Gerstein. Glad to have both of you here.

All right, this is a big deal in terms of it's being dismissed. It was thought that it would be based on this very basis. But this is based without prejudice. They could re-bring this. Break it down for me. For Comey, he has that five-year window that has now come and gone. But did that indictment sort of toll that and it could make it possible to bring it again against him?

GREG ROSEN, FORMER ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: So, I mean, that's going to be the next battle, right?

COATES: Yes.

ROSEN: So, the statute in question dealt with interim appointments of United States attorneys, which was typically a statute that or a process that was largely guided by judges for sort of time at memorial. That changed in 1986. We're now here. And there's this entire statutory interpretation basis if you read -- excuse me -- read Judge Currie's opinion as to how we got to this place.

The without prejudice doesn't surprise me. What's going to happen next is sort of going to determine whether or not there is even hope for this case. So, in the statute of limitations that you just described, the statute is running right now. At least for James Comey, with five days left to go on that statute of limitations, the department has an opportunity to appeal it which, apparently, they said they're going to.

COATES: Yes, they will.

ROSEN: And if they appeal it, they're going to try to stay the dismissal so that they can sort of toll that time even further. There is also an additional statute that's being discussed as to whether or not the grand jury time is going to be told. And you can see Judge Currie actually recognized this, though didn't decide it.

There's a footnote buried in there, footnote 21, that deals with this very statute and asks the question of what is a valid indictment and whether or not this indictment was properly obtained. If it was not properly obtained, there is an argument and, frankly, the Comey and James team are going to argue this. They're going to say, particularly in James Comey's case, that this indictment was sort of rendered what they call void ab initio --

COATES: Yes.

ROSEN: -- which from the get go was not really an indictment to begin with. So, the statute of limitations has completely run. The government is going to point to the statute itself and say it was defective, but not rendered illegal as a matter of law.

COATES: So, Lindsey Halligan is the center of all this conversation. And again, I point out, look, lawyers are presumed generalists. We know this. To be a prosecutor and head of that office, people question whether she was qualified to do so or to go in front of a grand jury. You got to be an attorney for the government, which is why people are questioning the idea of the interim appointment and where this judge also goes with this on this notion.

Multiple judges have called her out and the DOJ for profound investigative missteps. Part of what Greg is alluding to. Could today's ruling do anything to further undermine the ability of the grand jury or to try to rectify those investigative missteps or is this in some ways the fear that it's dead in the water for DOJ?

JOSH GERSTEIN, SENIOR LEGAL AFFAIRS REPORTER, POLITICO: Well, I mean, I think you can look at this ruling as saving Lindsey Halligan in a sense in that the big mistake that the judge seized on here is not her mistake, the big mistake was appointing her as the interim U.S. attorney if this clock had indeed run as the judge found.

[23:09:51] You know, there are three other judges across the country who've come to similar conclusions about other temporary installations or appointments that Trump has attempted or that Attorney General Bondi has attempted in New Jersey, in Nevada, and in California of Trump allies. Interestingly, in New Jersey, we're talking about another former personal attorney for Trump who was named Alina Habba as the U.S. attorney up there.

So, judges have pretty much uniformly rejected this so far, although this is the first case where the judge has actually thrown out pending criminal charges after finding that the U.S. attorney was disqualified.

And what that draws me back to is if any other assistant U.S. attorney had gone in there with her, could have easily been appointed as Bondi is saying now she did retroactively. But the judge rejected, call that person a special attorney. This particular problem, at least for the Comey case, would have gone away. And it wasn't done here.

COATES: Yes.

GERSTEIN: I don't know if you can blame Halligan for that. Certainly, there are other people at the Justice Department that should have and could have been aware of that option.

COATES: Well, if I'm a defense counsel and I'm hearing about this, obviously, we're talking about James Comey, Letitia James, these are big cases, but there are many other cases that likely have a signature of a Lindsey Halligan as a U.S. attorney or anything else. So, what does that do for those cases, for those particular indictments? Does this call into question for the defense perspective, all of those as well?

ROSEN: So, I think it calls it into question. But what we're seeing -- because there's a lot of these parallel arguments that are being had. And we saw it. In fact, this has sort of paved the way forward by the judge's ruling in the Alina Habba case. And so, short answer is probably not. It's really going to depend on what role that interim U.S. attorney had in the presentment of that indictment.

And as Josh pointed out, you know, we had a situation where she was not only intimately involved, she was the person to present it in both of those cases. So, it had a direct and sort of approximate impact in the rendering of the indictment.

COATES: As opposed to, say, her name just being there and somebody else is asking her to just sign off because it's like a rubber stamp at that point in some ways.

ROSEN: Exactly. And they tried to argue that from a technical perspective.

COATES: My colleague, Michael Smerconish, also a lawyer, sees a potential upshot for Comey, which I thought was pretty interesting. I want to play for you, guys, if he should ever face trial. Listen to this. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MICHAEL SMERCONISH, CNN HOST: Maybe in the end, James Comey would choose to have his day in court so that he'd get a clean bill of health from a jury and not from the potential of a dismissal for a prosecution that was brought for political motives.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: You think he would benefit from a trial? I mean, obviously, legation is costly. Prosecution, very costly to the person who has her name on the other side of United States versus. But the idea that it's focusing on a technicality might not be the vindication he is seeking.

GERSTEIN: Right. And, as you noted, the White House spokesperson, Karoline Leavitt, already said she considers this a technical --

COATES: Yes.

GERSTEIN: -- ruling and going to dismiss it on those grounds. I mean, I do think it's interesting that the very first reaction Jim Comey offered to this case was that he looked forward to having a trial and he was confident he'd be acquitted. Then once his lawyers started getting involved, they said, well, you know, we need to file a lot of motions. And I do think lawyers generally think, especially with the Comey case, that there are a lot of problems with the case, even if you get to the actual charges and the actual evidence as opposed to issues of the grand jury or the prosecutors and so forth.

COATES: Yes.

GERSTEIN: So, there are many different ways that that case could go south at various stages. We've just seen sort of the first off ramp here. I think there are probably five or six more down the road, even if it somehow gets reinstated.

COATES: Wow. And lawyers do bill every six minutes. Really quickly on this point, Greg. What about the case of vindictive or such a prosecution? Does that just go away now for both those claims?

ROSEN: I mean, arguably, yes. By the court ruling, the way she did, it divests jurisdiction of the other two judges, judges Nachmanoff and Walker, from deciding some of these issues. We'll see what happens on appeal.

COATES: Somehow, I think they've got their opinions in a draft form on those matters. We'll see if that comes back. Greg, Josh, thank you both so much. Still ahead, the Pentagon's threat against Senator Mark Kelly. Are they actually serious about a court martial? A former Air Force secretary is standing by with his answer to that very question. You'll want to hear it next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:15:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: Tonight, the Pentagon, not the Department of Justice, is launching an investigation into Senator Mark Kelly, one of the six Democratic lawmakers involved in a controversial video urging troops to defy illegal orders.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. MARK KELLY (D-AR): We want to speak directly to members of the military --

REP. ELISSA SLOTKIN (D-MI): -- and the Intelligence Community --

REP. JASON CROW (D-CO): -- who take risks each day --

REP. CHRIS DELUZIO (D-PA): -- to keep Americans safe.

SLOTKIN: We know you are under enormous stress and pressure right now.

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

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Controversial because, of course, the president of United States accused these lawmakers of seditious behavior.

But why is Senator Kelly seemingly being singled out? Secretary Pete Hegseth says he is the only lawmaker who falls under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. And as a result, he is the only one under their investigation. The Pentagon is going so far as to say it might recall Kelly to active duty so he could face a potential court martial. Well, Senator Kelly is responding tonight.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KELLY: So, I'm not going to be silenced. I'm not going to be intimidated. We wanted to just remind folks that they need to comply with the law and be reminded, and also explain to members of the military that we have their backs.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

[23:20:07]

COATES: Well, the White House, they see it very differently.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KAROLINE LEAVITT, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: I think what Senator Mark Kelly was actually trying to do was intimidate the 1.3 million active-duty service members.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: My next guest was responsible for training and equipping active-duty troops. Former secretary of the Air Force under President Biden, Frank Kendall, joins me now. Secretary, thank you for being here.

The Pentagon is citing possible breaches of military law for even participating in this video. As secretary of the Army, JAG attorneys, they reported to you, I understand. So, what is the likelihood that military lawyers would court martial, say, Senator Kelly for this?

FRANK KENDALL, FORMER SECRETARY, U.S. AIR FORCE: First of all, the act of bringing a court martial is done by convening authority in the chain of command.

COATES: OK.

KENDALL: In this case, that would very likely be the president himself. President Trump has said things publicly about this situation, and he would be guilty of influencing anybody below him, unlawfully influencing them, if anybody below him brought charges. But he can personally bring charges as a commander-in-chief.

COATES: And so, what's that process look like? Say he does that and there's no one there essentially to check that behavior, what happens next?

KENDALL: Well, first of all, I think there's a vanishingly small chance that there will be a court martial or that Senator Kelly will be convicted. What those people did is not a violation of a crime law, not a military crime under the code of military justice. There are some charges that are very general that could be attempted to be applied.

COATES: Like?

KENDALL: Comment on becoming an officer. Actions prejudicial to good order and discipline.

COATES: Would any of that qualify here?

KENDALL: In my opinion, no. I'm a lawyer, but I'm not a JAG officer. I was a commander at one time and brought charges against people. And I had to oversee that work by the JAGs, the judge advocates that work for me. I think that -- given the elements of those crimes, I think there is no possibility of a conviction. I think that's extremely unlikely and it would be difficult, given that, to bring charges.

COATES: Who is the jury in this instance for a court martial? What is that?

KENDALL: A panel of officers would be used in this case for another officer. I think generally, it's a jury of peers, essentially. So, it would be a group of officers that were selected. And the Navy would be the service that brought the charges, to be done through the Navy.

COATES: Do you think the original video was appropriate?

KENDALL: Absolutely. All those people did -- and I know them all very well. I know Senator Kelly. I know many of them very well. I know Senator Kelly particularly well, and Senator Slotkin. All those people did was state existing law and policy. What they said is exactly what all officers, including myself when I was an Army officer, are trained to be conscious of and to put into practice. We cannot follow an illegal order. That is something we are forbidden to do. And you have to say no when somebody gives you an order that is clearly and blatantly illegal.

The difficulty we're having right now is because the legal authorities put in place by this administration have been chosen to support the president. One of the very first things that Secretary Hegseth did was to fire all the top lawyers for the military departments. And they, I believe, are bringing in people that would be much more compliant.

Secretary Hegseth set his march in the Oval Office. He talked about having maximum lethality and getting rid of tepid legality. He wants lawyers who will say that anything that he or the president sets to do is legal. And we're seeing that played out in the attacks on the boats from Venezuela right now.

COATES: Karoline Leavitt seemed to imply that, and I'm not quoting her directly, but that by putting this video out, it suggested that there had been an illegal order. Do you see it that way?

KENDALL: I do. A number of legal experts have said the same. The orders to attack these ships and to kill these people is an unprecedented act. We have never done anything like that before.

You're aware, of course, of the admiral who's leaving early. I understand that that's likely because he objects to this. I have heard from other people in the Department of Defense that object to this. But the lawyers that have been brought in handpicked to do this. And I think in this case, for those strikes, legal authority went right to the White House.

One of the first executive orders the president put out said that legal authority for the executive branch ends at the White House and at the Department of Justice. And it goes down from there. This was all done, I think, as a result of what happened in the first term, where lawyers stood up to the president when he tried to do things that would have violated the law.

COATES: Frank Kendall, thank you for your expertise. Important.

KENDALL: Thank you.

COATES: So, what does the investigation into Senator Kelly and the dismissal of the James Comey and Letitia James cases, at least for now, mean for Trump's retribution tour? Well, another critic of the president on his enemies list, so to speak, former Congressman Adam Kinzinger, is going to give me his take.

[23:25:03]

Plus, is it a deal to end the war in Ukraine and is it in sight? Trump says that he is optimistic. But tonight's new Russian strikes tell us where Putin really stands.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:30:00]

COATES: Well, today's developments at the DOJ and the Pentagon are but a reminder of what President Trump has always said his second term would be about. Retribution.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: In 2016, I declared, I am your voice. Today, I add, I am your warrior, I am your justice.

(APPLAUSE)

And for those who have been wronged and betrayed, I am your retribution. I am your retribution.

Well, revenge does take time. I will say that.

UNKNOWN: It does.

TRUMP: And sometimes, revenge can be justified.

Look, when this election is over, based on what they've done, I would have every right to go after them.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: And his administration is making it very clear. They plan to continue prosecutions like those against James Comey and Letitia James that they find are justified.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LEAVITT: This judge took an unprecedented action to throw these cases out to shield James Comey and Letitia James from accountability based on a technical ruling, and the administration disagrees with that technical ruling. And I know the Department of Justice will be appealing this in very short order. So maybe James Comey should pump the brakes on his victory lap.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Of course, he says that he thinks they're going come after him again, and we will see. With me now, CNN senior political commentator, former Republican Congressman Adam Kinzinger. Congressman, good to see you. I mean, the White House all but threatened to go after him again. Call this a technicality. He also expects as much to happen. But do you think it would be better for Comey to go to trial and go through the completion of that so he can clear his name if the jury finds him not guilty?

ADAM KINZINGER, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, FORMER ILLINOIS REPRESENTATIVE: I mean, I think either -- right now, I mean, the DOJ just looks really stupid, to be honest with you. And I don't think there's anybody -- you know, over on a different news network, they're trying to justify it by saying, oh, it's just a technicality, this isn't, but it was just complete ineptitude that they got to this point. And then there's no real serious lawyers or law folks that think that actually -- that they would even have a shot in court on this.

So, they can take him again if they want. If -- I mean, you know, they have to obviously appeal that. But he's going to crush him if he's there. And if he's not, I think it's just as good for them if they don't go to trial again because they look -- they look pretty bad.

I mean, here's the thing: You get re-elected as president of the United States against all odds. Like, congratulations. You know, you beat the odds. And now, you're sitting around in your last three years self-absorbed with retribution. It's pathetic. And, thankfully, it looks like the justice system will -- will -- will be the bulwark.

COATES: We will see what happens. But it calls to mind what's happening right now with Senator Mark Kelly because the administration is going after several Democratic lawmakers who called on service members to defy orders if they thought the order was unlawful which, by the way, they already know that they are entitled to do.

But the Pentagon is threatening to court-martial the Arizona senator, Mark Kelly who, as you know, is a retired U.S. Navy captain, talking about maybe even calling him back to active duty. And then potentially a court-martial? I mean, I think it's a little -- will this actually happen? And should Pete Hegseth, defense Secretary, even be championing this?

KINZINGER: No. I mean, look, Hegseth, obviously, when there's another president, you know, he could be recalled to active duty if somebody makes up a spurious charge against him, too. This is politicizing the military. This is the thing they've been doing the whole time. It's disgusting. I don't think Mark Kelly has anything to worry about.

There -- there are so many factors at play here. First off, what he said was like the first thing they told me in officer training. Like, literally in my first day of officer training, they said, look, your job is to kill people and break stuff. If you're not OK with that, walk out. But we also want you to know that if you are given an illegal order, you do not execute that order. Is that understood? Yes, sir. And then, we went on having to do push-ups and stuff like that. This is something everybody knows.

And so, the idea that you're going to recall in for, first off, the First Amendment, which he exercises. Secondly, there is a separation of powers here between executive and legislative. It's ludicrous. But the department of fake war, the Department of Defense, did what they wanted to do, which is to get headlines and have everybody talk about it. We should be talking about it because it's ludicrous.

COATES: We'll see if the court martial -- I mean, there are so many steps. We just talked to somebody who was from the overseeing JAG (ph). Just thinking about the steps that we need to be taken and all for his statement about what you've just said, which describes what you knew the very first day of your officer training.

Well, I want to turn to what's going on in Georgia, Republican Congressman Marjorie Taylor Greene, who you know is resigning from Congress effective January 5th. Here's what she had to say about that decision. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. MARJORIE TAYLOR GREENE (R-GA): I refuse to be a battered wife, hoping it all goes away and gets better.

[23:34:54]

If I am cast aside by the president and the MAGA political machine and replaced by Neocons, big pharma, big tech, military industrial war complex, foreign leaders, and the elite donor class that can never ever relate to real Americans, then many common Americans have been cast aside and replaced as well.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Let me ask you. She's had quite the -- maybe epiphany, transformation, evolution. You can choose your word. Maybe she's just who she is. But why do you think she chose to resign now?

KINZINGER: Well, first up, look, she hasn't really had any epiphany because everything she just said is everything she has always been saying. You know, the whole military industrial complex, the Uniparty, that kind of stuff. She does now is changing her tone.

Why and why did she decide to resign now? I mean, look, I don't want to discount the fact that there are human elements involved. I mean, she's a human being. You know, a lot of the times, when you're on T.V. or you're in politics, people see you as a two-dimensional person --

COATES: Yes.

KINZINGER: -- if they don't understand your emotion. She's obviously come under attack but -- so that could be part of it. Maybe she has other plans. But the reality is she has a lot of like kind of -- I don't know -- asking a forgiveness or something to do because there's a lot of people that had death threats and stuff against them because of what she was saying.

And so, look, I honestly wish her well. I don't doubt that she's quitting politics for, you know, deeply real reasons. But she hasn't found politics Jesus, and she has a lot of work to do if it's an issue of her concern about tone because she was really the O.G. of this in Congress.

COATES: Adam Kinzinger, thanks for joining.

KINZINGER: You bet.

COATES: Well, after Greene's resignation, there's talk that more congressional Republicans could very well do the same. Punchbowl reporting that congressional Republicans feel like the White House is treating them -- quote -- "like garbage," adding -- quote -- "more explosive early resignations are coming."

I want to bring in my political insiders tonight, former special assistant to President Biden and current candidate for Congress from Massachusetts, Dan Koh. Also here, Republican strategist Lance Trover.

Let me begin here with you, Lance, because the party, the Republicans, the trifecta is being celebrated. You have the House. You have the Senate. Of course, you have the White House. That has not changed. But with these early resignations and the tension that seems to show cracks within MAGA over the approach to Marjorie Taylor Greene and beyond, had the Republican Party -- have they changed their tune? Are they less confident about their ability to hold on to this trifecta because of it?

LANCE TROVER, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: No, I don't think so. And I think they're going to have a lot to talk about in the coming days and weeks ahead. We talked about the big, beautiful bill --

COATES: Like what?

TROVER: The big, beautiful bill. The tax cut package is coming into fruition. And when taxes -- look, the Democrats would be raising taxes next year. I think there's a lot of good things that they want to talk about.

There's always this consternation or push and pull between the executive and the legislative branch. It is particularly pronounced when you have a very powerful executive or somebody who's very strong like Donald Trump. So, I'm not surprised to see some of these things come out. Legislators want to let off some steam, but they've been very united along the way.

I also give a lot of credit to Mike Johnson, who everybody doubted all the time, but has always put the president's agenda forward and gotten a lot of it passed. So, I think Republicans are doing okay.

COATES: Well, there has been tension between the president and a member of Congress. That's the design of a checks and balance-based system. But you don't usually have a president calling a member of Congress a traitor based on their decision to try to follow through on the president's campaign promise here. This is odd.

DAN KOH, CANDIDATE, U.S. CONGRESS FOR MASSACHUSETTS: Look, my mom raised me to be a nice person, so I'm going to say this as nicely as possible. Marjorie Taylor Greene is a racist, sexist, homophobic, insurrectionist. Let's just run the clock back, OK? This is a person who claimed that the California wildfires were caused by space lasers from a rich Jewish family. She said that Pelosi was using Nazi gazpacho police. She called LGBTQ people predators. She called January 6th hostages. Going on and on again.

So, we shouldn't let this recent narrative of turning against Trump fool anyone. Either side of the aisle should not want a member of Congress like this. In my opinion, it's good riddance, and we can't have more people like her.

COATES: But voters voted her in, knowing some statements that you've made and her beliefs. So, what do you say to that response of his character description?

TROVER: I say exactly what I said to you one week ago when we were on here discussing --

COATES: Her apology?

TROVER: Her apology and prior to her announcing that she would resign. I said she can go cast all these persons she wants and attack Donald Trump. But the reminder is the president has a 90% approval rating with the Republican Party. And so, she had to live with those consequences. He unendorsed her. She is going to face a primary competition, and I don't think that's something she wanted to deal with.

COATES: Let's talk about health care, though, in part because, obviously, the shutdown is looming in people's minds as well.

[23:40:00]

You talked about the Republicans doing so well. The shutdowns, they happened. The November elections and issue, affordability. All these issues fall under the umbrella and include the Affordable Care Act and beyond.

Talk to me about the positioning of this when it comes to how Democrats should be either seizing on the opportunity or working with Republicans. How do you see it?

KOH: Look, 40 million people in some way rely on the Affordable Care Act. Four million people, all independent studies say, are going to lose their health care as a result of these premiums going up. Donald Trump, I find it ironic that he's delaying his decision on what his proposal is when he doesn't delay destroying the East Wing or pulling out of the Paris Climate Accords twice.

And so, look, this is about people and having affordable health care. We consistently see Republicans putting up barriers to health care, whether it be this, whether it be Medicaid and putting up more paperwork that shows in Georgia, for example, people who need it, losing it. That's a problem for the Republicans. And it's something that Democrats need to continue to pound, that we are the party that wants to provide affordable health care to everyone.

COATES: Well, I mean, I thought President Trump is going to roll out today a fix. There has been a long, long promised replacement for the Affordable Care Act. It has not come. That has not gone unnoticed by voters. So, what is it that was pulled today? What is it about the inability to find an alternative, and yet Republicans keep trumpeting it as if it's going to happen as a viable replacement? They don't have one.

TROVER: Well, I think the Republicans are working on that right now. I don't know --

COATES: But --

TROVER: The White House didn't announce anything today. So, I don't know what there is to discuss. I thought you guys would be happy that Republicans are talking about working on the subsidy issue. You shut the whole government down for 40 days over the issue. So, I think you would be happy that --

KOH: They've been talking about concepts of a plan for over a year --

TROVER: Here's the problem with shutting down the government for 40 days. They also raise what you guys did, you brought to the table, that Obamacare is not working. The whole reason we have to have the subsidies in the first place is because insurance companies were skyrocketing the health -- the cost of health care. So, as a whole, Obamacare has not been working. I think that's the crux of the issue right now that we're facing.

I think -- I've said from day one, I think Republicans should be talking about the health care issue and should be working on a fix to lower prices because it needs to happen. I'm skeptical that the Democrats are actually going to step forward because once Donald Trump does put out a plan, their immediate response to everything he does is to say no. And so, that's why I'm really skeptical.

You can even hear Dan saying tonight, well, you know, I don't really know. You guys shut down the government for 40 days over this. And now, you're saying, oh, Republicans are putting up roadblocks?

COATES: Dan?

KOH: You're making an argument on a plan that doesn't exist. Where's the plan?

TROVER: I'm sure there will be one coming up.

KOH: Obamacare has been in existence for over a decade. Where's the plan?

TROVER: Yes. And look what it caused us. Skyrocketing health care costs.

KOH: Show me the alternative that we've been waiting for.

TROVER: Subsidies that are going directly to insurance companies and not lowering the cost of health care. That's the crux of this issue. I'm sure Republicans will come forward with a plan. They need to. I think they should.

KOH: Republicans have been saying that for over a decade.

TROVER: But it's going to be on Democrats to step forward and say, OK, we're willing to have a conversation with you, Mr. President, about this, because their answer to everything he does is always no. That's going to be the real question is, will they actually do it? COATES: You want Democrats to negotiate against themselves with a new alternative they haven't thought of?

TROVER: I'm saying when Republicans come forward with plan, I think they will come forward with plan, particularly on these subsidies. I think it's an issue that has to be dealt with. I'm skeptical that when this comes forward, when Republicans do come forward, the Democrats are going to do anything but say no.

KOH: There's no proposal to even react to right now. We've been waiting for over a decade.

COATES: Well, we'll see if Republicans do back it, if the president is behind it and beyond. It's all ahead, I'm sure. Dan, Lance, thank you both so much.

Ahead, explosions in Kyiv tonight as President Trump says he's hopeful about a deal to end Russia's war in Ukraine. Can he really land an agreement by his Thanksgiving deadline? And will it be a deal both Ukraine and Russia can live with?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:45:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: Well, tonight, Kyiv is reeling from yet another Russian attack. Ukraine's Air Force says missiles damaged apartment buildings and forced people to evacuate. The attack comes as the U.S. has been trying to get Ukraine to agree to a peace deal by Thanksgiving. Secretary of State Marco Rubio was in Geneva this weekend and said this about the timeline.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MARCO RUBIO, UNITED STATES SECRETARY OF STATE: I can tell you that the items that remain open are not insurmountable. We just need more time than what we have today. I honestly believe we'll get there.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Still, today, the White House appeared hopeful. And Ukraine President Zelenskyy says that he plans to discuss some of the more sensitive issues of the deal directly with President Trump. Now, Russia, for its part, says this could -- quote -- "form the basis for a final peace plan."

But again, it's important to emphasize the United States' initial proposal that was released just last week. It was heavily favorable to the Russians. We'll go right back after a quick break. We'll bring you more on this important story.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:50:00] (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: We were just talking about President Trump's push for a Ukraine deal and whether it can be reached by his Thanksgiving deadline.

Joining me now to discuss is Michael Weiss. He is the editor of "The Insider" and one of the most plugged-in journalists on this war. Michael, thank you for being with us. I mean, there has been so much back and forth in the proposals. Can you explain what is your understanding of what the Ukrainians are actually considering, what they're actually reviewing?

MICHAEL WEISS, EDITOR, THE INSIDER (via telephone): (INAUDIBLE) and, frankly, angered by this 28-point proposal, which they see, as Marco Rubio reportedly told a bunch of senators in Halifax, as nothing more than a Russian wish list, not a real incredible plan for peace.

What's coming out of Geneva now is that this 28-point plan, which did things like offer territorial concessions to Russia, de facto recognition of occupied territories, including Crimea, for swearing Ukraine's future membership in NATO, in fact, for swearing any additions to NATO, so in other words, rewriting the terms of the alliance, dictating terms of how Ukraine would be reconstructed using aide boat from the European union, a hundred billion dollars-worth, as well as the frozen Russian funds, which are several hundred billion dollars as well, all of these points kind of were a gift to Putin.

[23:55:16]

You know, as it has been well, I think, reported by now, you know, this thing was (INAUDIBLE) together by Jared Kushner, Steve Witkoff, and a guy called Kirill Dmitriev, who is the head of the sovereign wealth fund, a Putin ally. Kirill is married to Putin -- to a woman who is best friends with Vladimir Putin's daughter.

But the Russian response to this proposal initially was a little bit cautious and, frankly, circumspect. They've said, we hadn't seen it, we're not completely on board with it. And Putin said, well, this could sort of be a starting point for negotiations.

What happened now in Geneva, and this is very important to sort of emphasize, this has not been a negotiation between Ukraine and Russia. In fact, the official Russian government has not been consulted yet. This has been a negotiation between and amongst Ukraine, the United States, and Europeans.

And by all accounts, what happened is Marco rubio that has swooped in to try and water this thing down. I should say, (INAUDIBLE). I mean, it has gone from 28 points to 19 points. So, it has been almost cut in half.

Some of the most contentious items in this proposal or provisions have been eliminated, including apparently any discussion of NATO membership, the E.U. reconstruction thing is gone, territorial concessions are removed. So, that's something that's going to have to be litigated between Zelenskyy and Trump and Putin. So, it has become more of a document that the Ukrainians can get on board with. The deputy foreign minister of Ukraine said, you know, all of the stuff basically from the original draft is gone.

So, what we've seen is essentially an attempt to ram through something that is in essence a Russian document. And to do it by this weirdly short arbitrary Thanksgiving deadline, in fact -- no, I shouldn't say arbitrary. The reason this is being done so quickly, I think, and I have good reporting to back this up, J.D. Vance is kind of leading this effort to kind of dictate the terms of Ukraine capitulation to Russia and do it so quickly while all of Congress is away on holiday for Thanksgiving that nobody would bother to scrutinize the details.

The problem is it got leaked prematurely by Axios. Now, everybody is scrutinizing the details. The Europeans have swooped in. As I said, Marco Rubio swooped in. The Ukrainians have thrown a fit. And essentially, the original agreement is no more.

Something more palatable is being presented. We don't have the final details yet. But from what I'm hearing, the polls tell me there was absolute terror and anxiety in Warsaw. That seems to have subsided.

The mood is much better now in Poland. You know, Poland -- by the way, original agreement was being told that it was going to have to park Ukrainian jets on its tarmac. So, you know, Donald Tusk, the Polish prime minister, tweeted, nothing about Poland without Poland, and also very provocatively tweeted, we'd quite like to know who offered this agreement because there seems to be some question as to the providence of it.

So, this whole thing has been a complete farce, I have to say. People at the State Department didn't know about this 28-point plan. Marco Rubio didn't know until it was leaked. The National Security Council didn't know. Ratcliffe, the director of CIA, didn't know.

COATES: My goodness.

WEISS (via telephone): He was completely caught off guard. There was no interagency process of this whatsoever. It was basically Witkoff, Kushner, Kirill Dmitriev, and Donald Trump giving his blessing to go and make a deal with the Russians. It has gone sideways.

The question is, you know, if what has been cobbled together again by a consortium of western actors, the United States, Ukraine, Europeans, if what is cobbled together is presented to Putin and he says, no, I don't like this, I reject this, who's going to be caught holding the bag on it? This will be a complete --

COATES: Well, that is the question.

WEISS (via telephone): Right. And I think --

COATES: And people of Ukraine have to try to answer it with the pain of war. And it's just unbelievable to think about what you've described. Michael, thank you so much.

WEISS (via telephone): You got it.

COATES: My goodness, it is already almost midnight here on the East Coast, so it means it is time to talk with our friend, Elex Michaelson, who is out in Los Angeles. Elex, it's good to see you, my friend, and that smile.

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

COATES: It was a big weekend for the much anticipated "Wicked for Good." I want to play a little bit of the trailer.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNKNOWN: Bring me the broom of the Wicked Witch of the West, so I have proof that she's dead.

UNKNOWN: Stop this. It has gone too far.

[00:00:00]

Elphaba, they're coming for you. Just look at me.

UNKNOWN: Not with your eyes, but theirs.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: That movie, it brought in a massive $150 million opening. But the reviews were not so great. But who cares? People love it, right?

MICHAELSON: I mean, the Rotten Tomato score for the audience was like in the 90s, even though the critics were not. So, ultimately, it's all about the money baby, right?

COATES: It's all about that, and all about you and your show coming up next. Thanks.

MICHAELSON: All right, Laura. Thank you. Have a good night.