Return to Transcripts main page

Laura Coates Live

White House Confirms Second Strike On Alleged Drug Boat; Trump Pardons Former Honduras Leader And Private Equity CEO Convicted Of Fraud; Brian Walshe Faces Murder Trial. Aired 11p-12a ET

Aired December 01, 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: Everyone, thank you very much. Thanks for watching "NewsNight." You can catch me any time on social media X, Instagram and on TikTok. "Laura Coates Live" starts right now.

LAURA COATES, CNN HOST AND SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Well, Tonight, Trump administration goes on the defensive over a follow-up boat strike that allegedly killed shipwrecked survivors. So, who's responsible for it? And does it amount to a war crime? Plus, the president gives a pardon to the former leader of Honduras (INAUDIBLE) same crime the White House cites to justify its Caribbean campaign, drug trafficking. And inside day one of the bizarre murder trial of Brian Walshe who claims he got rid of his wife's body but never killed her. Tonight on "Laura Coates Live."

Well, I can't believe I'm asking this question tonight, but it's what everyone is thinking about. Did the U.S. commit a war crime? That question is certainly front and center as President Trump weighs his next steps in his escalating showdown with Venezuela. He met with his national security team in the Oval Office a short time ago.

But tonight, much of the focus is on the operation at the very heart of that showdown. The U.S. strikes on alleged drug boats in the region specifically this strike on September 2nd, targeting what the White House claims were members of a Venezuelan gang. It was the first in a series of missions targeting at least 22 boats that the administration says were linked to drug traffickers, killing more than 80 people without due process.

And according to reporting from CNN and "The Washington Post," this boat was hit twice after the first attack did not kill everyone on board. And that's called a double tap strike, apparently. And the Post says that the commander in charge saw two survivors clinging to the smoldering wreck. And at that point, the Post says he ordered a second strike to comply with the original instructions from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. Now, what were those instructions? Well, the source told the Post, well, the order was to kill everybody.

The White House, they're defending what happened.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) KAROLINE LEAVITT, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: With respect to the strikes in question on September 2nd, Secretary Hegseth authorized Admiral Bradley to conduct these kinetic strikes. Admiral Bradley worked well within his authority and the law, directing the engagement to ensure the boat was destroyed and the threat to the United States of America was eliminated.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: I want you to notice the very careful wording. What Karoline Leavitt did not say is very important. She did not say that Hegseth directly authorized the second strike. Neither did the reporting from CNN or the reporting from Washington Post. And that's very important. Why? Well, because tonight, Hegseth is saying that he stands by Admiral Frank Mitch Bradley and the -- quote -- "combat decisions he made" -- unquote. In other words, he seems to be saying that it was Bradley who ordered that double tap strike, not him.

But it doesn't actually solve the question, did the U.S. break the law? Well, lawmakers on both sides of the aisle, they're saying that it seems that way.

And look, the legal guidance isn't up for debate. We can actually reference the defense department's law of war manual. Some variation of the word "shipwreck" shows up more than 250 times. Two hundred and fifty times. So, it's not as if this is some obscure scenario that no one ever contemplated. It's, frankly, thoroughly addressed in the 1,200-page manual. And I'm going to read to you a key line, and it seems clear as day. "Orders to fire upon the shipwrecked would be clearly illegal" -- unquote.

Now, the White House was pressed directly on whether the double tap strike violated the law.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LEAVITT: The strike was conducted in international waters and in accordance with the law of armed conflict. There have been a number of document reviews for members of Congress to review the classified DOJ, Office of Legal Counsel opinion, and other related documents. Twenty- nine senators and 92 representatives have reviewed those documents, which is about two-thirds of those are Democrat members.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: That opinion from the DOJ's Office of Legal Counsel, I mean, it's absolutely a key here.

[23:05:02]

It's the Trump administration's entire legal shield. It lays out their argument for why they think these strikes are legally justified. Now, we don't know exactly what's in it because, I mean, obviously, it's classified. But multiple reports say that it claims the United States is in -- quote -- "armed conflict with drug cartels because those cartels pose an imminent threat to Americans." Some of those lawmakers who have seen the memo say it's not just the double tap strike raising the red flags. The legal rationale for any of these boat strikes, they think, is deeply flawed.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. MARK KELLY (D-AR): They should release it to the American people. Why is -- why is a document that is explaining why we are moving a battle group halfway around the world at huge expense and putting American service members at risk every single day by operating in the Caribbean against these boats, why is the justification for that classified? It should not be.

JAKE TAPPER, CNN CHIEF WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT: Maybe it's not impressive. I mean, that would be my -- the the only thing I can think of.

KELLY: Well, it's not that it's -- it got problems. It got a lot of holes in it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Here's the thing. Even if we can't see the exact wording of that memo, we can see what Pete Hegseth has been saying out loud. And his public statements point to a clear through line. A push for far more aggressive rules of engagement.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PETE HEGSETH, UNITED STATES SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: We also don't fight with stupid rules of engagement. We untie the hands of our war fighters to intimidate, demoralize, hunt, and kill the enemies of our country. No more politically-correct and overbearing rules of engagement. Just common sense, maximum lethality, and authority for war fighters.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: I want to begin with someone who has had to craft legal memos, advising presidents on what they can and what they cannot do during conflicts, John Yoo. He was actually one of the legal architects of the Bush administration's response to 9-11 and served as deputy assistant attorney general in the Office of Legal Counsel at the DOJ.

John, thank you for being here. There is nuance, there's the chronology, there are all sorts of questions about what we can and cannot see. From your perspective, do you believe the United States committed a war crime if they attacked the boat a second time in order to kill survivors of the first strike?

JOHN YOO, FORMER DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, OFFICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL, DOJ: Laura, good evening. We still, as you said, are learning the facts and you don't want to make definitive judgments based on what we're finding out right now.

But if it's true that the U.S. Military struck people who were shipwrecked, who were survivors in an attack, they posed no threat, they were just hanging on to the wreckage, well, then the troops who took part in that and the commanders who ordered it would have violated the U.S. laws of war and the international laws of armed conflict, which say clearly, and this is a principle American troops had followed since the Civil War, if not before, is that we don't shoot the wounded, we don't shoot people who are no longer able to participate in hostilities.

And that seems to be what happened here based on only taking what's in "The Washington Post" report and the CNN reporting.

COATES: There is information that we still obviously all want to access. But what would have been the legal way to address those who may have been shipwrecked or survivors?

YOO: Well, legally, actually, you have an obligation once the armed encounter is over to maybe rescue them. Actually, it would be to our advantage to pick up survivors and hold them in order to get intelligence from them, and then to hold them until any kind of war is over.

Now, if this conflict is really just against drug cartels and not against the Venezuelan government in which drug cartels are just operating in cahoots with Nicolas Maduro and his regime, if this is just drug cartels, I'm not sure that you can use force at all, and that places troops and commanders in even greater legal jeopardy.

The only way they could perhaps make a case for even being governed by the laws of war and being able to use force at all in the way they're doing it without arresting people, without indicting them, is if we are at war with the government of Venezuela and the drug cartels are somehow an arm of the Venezuelan government.

[23:10:00]

But even then, you're still not allowed to shoot the wounded, you're still not allowed to attack survivors of shipwrecks. It's not considered humane or humanitarian. It's not consistent with American law and with international law.

COATES: I want to talk about how the White House and defense secretary -- they say that an admiral seemed to have ordered the second strike. They say he acted -- quote -- "within his authority and the law." Obviously, the chronology seems to be important if the original order from Hegseth was to kill everybody. A first strike was conducted. Doesn't seem to be an interim conversation between that first strike and the resulting survivors. And then a second strike takes place with no conversation about a continuing order. Does that take liability or the ownership of that order away from Hegseth and on to the admiral?

YOO: Laura, I worked on very difficult, I think, 9-11 issues when we're facing a terrorist organization. There are lot of difficult questions to answer when you're involved with the laws of war. But this is not one of them. If you look at the U.S. law of war manual, which is the definitive interpretation of the way we fight the laws of armed conflict for the United States, it says clearly that you are not allowed to give orders that say no survivors. Commanders are not allowed to give or say no quarter. And so, Hegseth can't give that command legally.

Also, again, there are gray areas. But one gray area -- one area that's not gray, that's clear, is you can't fire on the wounded, you can't kill survivors who can no longer fight. So, the admiral should not have obeyed the order that Secretary Hegseth gave. And even the soldiers who carried out the admiral's orders should not have obeyed.

You know, there's this controversy going on in Washington, of course, right now about can people say don't follow illegal orders. And again, that's a tough call when it comes to something like is this crime or is this war. There are legitimate arguments on both sides. There are no legitimate arguments at all to fire upon the wounded and to fire on those who are mere survivors and are out of the action and can no longer fight. That is a clear rule that's drilled into everyone from a private all the way to our highest commanders.

COATES: John Yoo, thank you so much for joining. I have more questions. I'm going to bring in our next guest for this because he served at the National Security Council as director for transnational threats. Retired Rear Admiral Mark Montgomery joins me now. He also served as the policy director for the Senate Armed Services Committee under late Senator John McCain, I would note, a prisoner of war himself who would have been undoubtedly opinionated on what is happening right now.

Let me -- let me ask you where we left off for a second there because that might be revelatory to some people, that there's never a time at the military under their attack rules is able to go in and essentially obliterate the enemy in some way. There is never an appropriate way to give an order to kill all, even if they think that their lives are in danger or otherwise. Can you describe to me a little bit about your perception of the information as you have it and the legality of that?

MARK MONTGOMERY, RETIRED REAR ADMIRAL, U.S. NAVY: Thank you for having me. And, you know, first, I'd say we need some more facts. I'm really hoping that the Senate Armed Services Committee and the House Armed Services Committee do their proper oversight, investigate this, have a hearing, and get the actual facts --

COATES: Yes.

MONTGOMERY: -- because in the absence of that, it's hard. But what I will tell you is, you know, you had a great quote from the DOD, Department of Defense's Law of War manual. In fact, I'll tell you, it's under the heading of -- quote -- "clearly illegal orders." And it was done as an example for lawyers to understand what's an illegal order, and then it talks about don't attack shipwrecked sailors.

So, that is going to end up -- I think that is you do not attack shipwreck sailors. We historically don't give orders to give no quarter, which is what John Yoo was referring to earlier. So, in both cases, I think we're going to have a real challenge, you know, for the personnel involved in this. Now, I think it does start with the secretary of defense and how he gave that order and what he gave. And you showed some great quotes there from his speech to all the admirals and generals where he was fairly dismissive of what has been a long tradition of rules of engagement in our military that stretches all the way back, you know, to George C. Marshall in World War II and all the way back to George Washington during the Revolutionary War.

COATES: Let me ask you. I mean, you mentioned Congress and the oversight. Senate Armed Services Chairman Roger Wicker says he does not know if there were any survivors who were killed in the second attack on December 2nd.

[23:15:03]

It's now December. That's three months later. Is that information gap usual?

MONTGOMERY: No. And this -- I would say this is a highly uncooperative administration --

COATES: OK.

MONTGOMERY: -- on these sorts of issues.

COATES: Should they be?

MONTGOMERY: No. You know, we're a democracy. We're a transparent democracy. Our military is anchored in civil-military relations. The Armed Services Committee has a clear oversight responsibility. He has investigators. He and Senator Reed, the ranking member, should direct them to conduct investigation of this and eventually have a hearing on it. And that hearing should feature Secretary Hegseth. And then if the answers drive you to it, then you talk to Admiral Bradley.

But the truth is this starts with the secretary of defense. Does he clearly give the first orders? And that's acknowledged. What happens after that is the confusion.

COATES: You know, John, here's what Secretary Hegseth actually told Fox News the day after the September 2nd boat strike that's presently under scrutiny. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HEGSETH: I can tell you that was definitely not artificial intelligence. I watched it live. We knew exactly who was in that boat, we knew exactly what they were doing, and we knew exactly who they represented.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: CNN reports it's actually not clear whether Hegseth knew there were survivors before the second strike. But then during an operation like these strikes at all, I mean, would a secretary of defense, would they typically interject in the middle of a live operation or is it left to the commanding officer at that point to carry out whatever mission was begun?

MONTGOMERY: So, even in the most sensitive attacks like the take down of Osama bin Laden, in the end, power and authority was given to the JSOC commander, the operational commander --

COATES: Right.

MONTGOMERY: -- and he executed it. Now, it was observed closely, but he executed it. So, this would strike me as unusual if day-to-day operations were being supervised by the secretary of defense. And if they were, that would be a further complication for an operational commander to have that kind of, you know, immediate input while you're still trying to determine all the facts and make decision of what to do next.

COATES: Including the amount of time that lapsed between first strike and second strike. How important would that be?

MONTGOMERY: It's critical that you have opportunity to do a proper battle damage assessment, determine the actual status of those personnel that allegedly were in the water, and make determination of what you're supposed to do next. John Yoo had it right. Our actual requirement is to rescue shipwreck officers. And I'll tell you, after World War II, we identified, tracked down, arrested, tried, and executed Japanese and German ship captains who fired on shipwrecked American sailors. So, there is a long history that this is wrong. There's a reason it's the easy example in the clearly illegal order section of the law of war. So, it is disconcerting.

COATES: Secretary Hegseth says he's an American hero has 100% of the support. So, we'll see what questions might be answered. Admiral Mark Montgomery, thank you.

MONTGOMERY: Thank you for having me.

COATES: So, in Trump's view, drug cartels are obviously bad, worthy of being blown up in the sea. But the former president of Honduras, who was convicted of trafficking drugs to the United States, gets a pardon? Can you square that? And why did a convicted fraudster who spent less than two weeks in prison, why did he also get (INAUDIBLE)? Inside Trump's latest pardon spree, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:20:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: All right, imagine you have just reported to prison to start your seven-year sentence, only to get a call that you're free after only a few days. That's what happened to private equity exec David Gentile. His firm was accused of defrauding thousands of investors. He was convicted in the billion-dollar scheme. Yes, I said billion. And this May, he was sentenced to seven years in prison by Trump's DOJ. But suddenly, Trump commuted his sentence. And the administration now believes he's the victim. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LEAVITT: At trial, the government was unable to tie any supposedly fraudulent representations to Mr. Gentile. In short, again, this is another example that has been brought to the president's attention of a weaponization of justice from the previous administration and, therefore, he signed this commutation.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Well, tell that to the thousands of people defrauded by his firm called GPB Capital. Many of the victims wrote impact statements when he was sentenced. One victim says they lost -- quote -- "over half of our family's net worth and a large portion of our income. At 74, I have been unable to retire now." Another sharing -- quote -- "This experience has shaken my trust in others and made me question my own judgment." Someone else writing -- quote -- "At 71 years old, I do not have time or physical capabilities to rebuild the quarter of million dollars that you swindled from me."

I want to bring in Mimi Rocah, former federal prosecutor and former district attorney for Westchester County in New York. Mimi, I understand you had a friend whose parents were defrauded. Can you talk to me about how the victims of his crime are taking the news that after a few days and after a seven-year sentence imposed, it has been commuted?

[23:24:57]

MIMI ROCAH, FORMER WESTCHESTER COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY, FORMER ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY FOR SDNY: Yes, I think the victims, Laura, are reacting exactly the way that you would expect them to in the sense that, you know, that convictions like these bring justice to victims in two ways. One, it makes them feel that the system is working for them to help them, even if it's after the fact. I mean, you know this very well. And two, it often results in some kind of restitution order.

Sometimes, that can be paid. Sometimes, it can't. Here, it would seem it's something that probably could be paid given the wealth, apparently, of this defendant.

Now, the victims have neither of those things. They are now being sort of slapped in the face again, right? First by being defrauded, then to have this justice come to them only to be snatched away as the defendant is essentially, you know, starting to serve a sentence.

And now, there's a real question about whether they will get restitution. I think it is unclear because this is a commutation and not a pardon. Does it impact it? I mean, we will have to see. There will probably be quite a bit of litigation over that. But what they thought was somewhat resolved and maybe had some closure for, they don't have anymore.

And this is a guy who defrauded not even other business-type people, people, but regular people who were, you know, on retirements and pensions. It's really just an awful use of the pardon or commutation power.

COATES: And yet it's his prerogative as the president to use it how he'd like. But it is worth noting that it was the Trump DOJ where a conviction was secured this year, which for many is baffling.

I want to bring in a second pardon because he is pardoning the president of Honduras, who was convicted under the Biden administration of trafficking more than 400 tons of cocaine from Honduras to this country. And in exchange, he got millions, millions in bribes from drug cartels. But President Trump says that actually, he wasn't treated fairly.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: If somebody sells drugs in that country, that doesn't mean you arrest the president and put him in jail for the rest of his life. They said it was a Biden setup. It was Biden administration setup.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: So, President Trump says that he is defending the U.S., of course, against drug traffickers. He's pardoning a convicted drug trafficker. Does that add up to you?

ROCAH: There is no way to reconcile those two things. You cannot say that you are aggressively going after drug traffickers and you pardon one of the biggest drug traffickers in this country's history. I mean, someone who was part of an enormous operation.

And actually, it's interesting because Emil Bove who, as you know, you know, was a high- ranking official in Trump's Justice Department until he became a federal judge, he was responsible for prosecuting this defendant's brother. So, it led to this case, which he has now been pardoned for. I'm wondering how Mr. Bove -- Judge Bove feels about that.

But this idea, again, in both of these cases that this is some kind of Biden Justice Department conspiracy that he's undoing, I mean, as you pointed out, the fraudster was convicted and sentenced under this administration. You had his handpicked U.S. attorney asking for this --

COATES: Right.

ROCAH: -- sentence. You still have a co-defendant out there whose conviction they are defending. And now, you have a huge drug trafficker being pardoned. It's just not reconcilable.

COATES: Something tells me there's more to this. Mimi Rocah, thank you so much. Up next, Republicans on edge in a Tennessee district that Trump carried by more than 20 points. It's why he says the world is watching this race. The question though is, can a Tennessee Democrat pull off the upset? Our panel is here to debate it next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) [23:30:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: Congressional race in ruby-red Tennessee rarely captures the political spotlight. But hey, 2025, when anything can happen, apparently. At least that's what the Democrats are hoping. They're trying to flip Tennessee's seventh congressional district from red to blue in tomorrow's special election. Democrat Aftyn Behn faces Republican Matt Van Epps to replace retired Republican Congressman Mark Green. And this should be a shoo-in for the GOP. Remember, a year ago, Trump beat Kamala Harris by 22 points in that very district.

But Behn is making the race competitive by leaning on the word of the year for Democrats, affordability. Van Epps is talking about affordability as well while also highlighting Behn's past comments about defunding the police.

Joining me now, Democratic strategist Ameshia Cross and former senior advisor to the Trump 2024 campaign, Bryan Lanza. Glad to have both of you here.

[23:34:59]

I know the word was not going to be bait rage, whatever -- rage bait, whatever it is. I'll talk about that later. That's the word of the year right now.

BRYAN LANZA, FORMER DEPUTY COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR FOR TRUMP 2016 CAMPAIGN: I heard.

COATES: Just telling you. But it's affordability for Democrats. So, Ameshia, why is Behn, do you think, doing so well right now in the prospects of being able to possibly, if not win, but close that gap, what Trump won by 20 points last year?

AMESHIA CROSS, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST, FORMER OBAMA CAMPAIGN ADVISER: Because not only is she putting affordability front and center, she's also talking about the things that matter to people across the State of Tennessee, particularly those in Nashville, Davidson County as well as the surrounding areas. Funding schools, we know the big voucher debate and, you know, what came out of the big, beautiful bill act matters to individuals in the city.

She is localizing a lot of Trump's policies and showcasing just how dangerous they are. We know that rural hospitals matter, particularly in Tennessee. And when you're talking about people getting laid off, rural hospitals closing, that matters to them. Health care is one of the biggest businesses across the State of Tennessee.

So, I do think that she's leaning in on the issues that matter the most, in addition to the fact that, at the end of the day, Republicans are largely trying to make this a culture war conversation, calling her, you know, Tennessee's AOC. What she's leaning on is the things that matter to people the most, their pocketbook issues, whether or not they can afford to live in and around the city of Nashville. At this point, you know, Nashville is the fastest growing city in America. But you know what is also growing really fast? Their rents, in addition to the cost of living broadly. So, she's speaking to all of those issues and is bringing people into the fold who normally probably wouldn't give it a second look.

COATES: I do wonder, I mean, Trump's approval rating is what? At 36 % right now. So, you have to wonder why, if he's so unpopular, Democrats aren't performing even better, say, in a race like this. But I wonder if it's who's endorsing and who's going to bat for you because Speaker Johnson, he rallied for Van Epps. Trump only did these tele town halls. Why do you think that is? And how -- if the Republican candidate loses, what would be the impact on not only the kingmaker notion of Trump, but also on Republicans more broadly for a special election?

LANZA: I would point out, you say he's at 33%. He's not at 33% in the district. He's about at 50% in the district. He's 33% nationally.

COATES: Nationally.

LANZA: Huge distinction. Listen, it would be an earthquake if the Democrats won that race. It's an earthquake if it's going to get within single digits.

But it's also the canary in the coal mine, right? It is a warning to Republicans that somebody who has no chance of winning in enormous circumstances, that if she hits the right message and that message is affordability, you're going to cut through all the noise, you're going to cut through all the social issues that have been disrupted in previous election cycles, and you're going to hit a target, and she's hitting that target.

Now, what I've noticed in the ads before is that actually nobody mentions Trump.

COATES: Right.

LANZA: He doesn't mention Trump. The Republicans doesn't mention Trump. They talk about --

COATES: Does that surprise you?

LANZA: No, it doesn't. It surprised me that the Democrats aren't mentioning Trump because Trump is the most rallying figure in the Democratic Party. That does surprise me. So, to me, it says they figured out that that dog doesn't hunt anymore, and they actually need to talk about issues, which is affordability.

COATES: Do you think that that's the reason that they're not mentioning them?

CROSS: Well, I don't think that it's helpful for Democrats. At the end of the day, the Americans --

COATES: That's a change, though. Right, Ameshia? LANZA: They learned their lessons.

CROSS: It is a change. But lessons were learned. I think that what we saw a few Tuesdays ago in that election, we saw a lot of people who also didn't mention Trump. They talked about affordability.

What they know from polling and people on the ground is that they recognize who's in office. They recognize who, you know, is in leadership in Congress. They absolutely know where Republicans are and where their stances are.

What they care about the most is whether or not they can afford to pay their bills. And if Democrats move away from that messaging, they lose.

COATES: Do you think that the president is in touch with voters on this issue of affordability? Democrats, they kind of cornered the market in many respects on being the party that has marketed themselves on the party of the people, the little guy against the wealthy. Trump is many ways the symbol of extreme wealth, down to the gold. Do you think that --

LANZA: (INAUDIBLE)

COATES: Well, sure.

LANZA: Yes.

COATES: But do you think that he has been -- I mean, "The Atlantic" reports that some Republicans and White House allies worry that he isn't hearing enough from the average voter, saying -- quote -- "That Trump is too isolated, and has become out of touch with what the public wants from its president." Do you think so?

LANZA: No. I mean, listen, I wish he put (INAUDIBLE) make more of the touchy. He isn't too much touch, I think, is the problem.

(LAUGHTER)

But that's him. That's who he has always been. He likes to hear from local (ph) voices. But what we have in this election is you have the midway point, you know, of Trump's term, of his first term or of his second term here. You're going to have an opportunity for voters to express their opinion of where it stands.

And the reality is some prices are up and some prices are down. A study came out today that said gas prices have been the lowest since 2021. But you look at egg prices, they've gone up. They have to address the whole spectrum of prices of affordability and not just focus on energy, which is what they've shown that their focus has been, and that's why energy cost is low. They need to focus on anything.

I was just reading today that people are passing up buying new cars. That's a problem. People are passing up building new homes. That's a problem. Affordability is touching everything, not just food prices. The administration says we're going to focus on food prices, which is important, but they need to focus on affordability across the whole spectrum.

[23:40:03]

COATES: Ameshia, quickly, do you agree?

CROSS: Oh, absolutely. I also think that the administration needs to focus on jobs. At the end of the day, A.I. is killing jobs faster than anything else. And we're seeing, you know, hundreds of thousands of private sector industry cutting jobs. We will never see that October jobs report because it doesn't look great.

Unfortunately, Americans are not buying the very things Bryan just talked about because they don't know if they're going to be employed tomorrow. And the other ones have who have been applying for jobs some well over a year now have no means of, you know, even looking at a path to when they will actually get hired again. It is a really scary place out there.

COATES: Just to close this gap, there was a new poll I want to show everyone right now that shows Republicans still overwhelmingly approve of the job that Trump is in fact doing. I think it's about what? Eighty-four percent among Republicans approve of what he's doing compared to 14%. So, we'll see how that translates in Tennessee. Bryan and Ameshia, thank you both so much.

Hey, still ahead, he admitted, yes, I got rid of the body. Yes, I misled police about what I told you about getting rid of the body, whether she was missing. But murder? No, I didn't kill her. So, what could his defense possibly be? And does it have any shot with the jury? Inside the sensational trial, the murder trial of Brian Walshe, next.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LARRY TIPTON, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: You'll hear evidence that now he is panicking, and he doesn't understand what has happened and what is happening.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:45:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: Look, it's not every day that a suspect on trial for murdering his wife admits to disposing of her body while at the same time insisting he had nothing to do with her death. That's exactly the case the defense plans to argue in the murder trial of Brian Walshe, who is facing life behind bars without the possibility of parole for allegedly killing his wife, Ana, and dismembering her body in 2023.

Now, just last week, Walshe pled guilty to two out of the three charges that he was facing. He pled guilty to misleading police and also disposing of her body. But his lawyers are insisting that that does not mean that he is admitting to her murder. Quite the contrary.

On day one of the trial, the defense laid out the first ever theory for the cause of Ana's death, according to the defense. Here's what it was. That she died suddenly in her bed without explanation.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TIPTON: That it made no sense to him. But he nudged Ana, his wife. She didn't respond. He nudged her again a little harder. She didn't respond. He nudged her now in a frantic and panic reaction to where she actually rolled off the bed.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Walshe's lawyer then went on to argue that he made up a story because he figured no one would possibly believe that he had nothing to do with his wife's sudden unexpected death.

With me now, CNN legal analyst and criminal defense attorney Joey Jackson, who has been covering this trial with me on our CNN All Access. We do that every single day. Also here, criminal defense attorney and opinion contributor for U.S. News and World Report, Stacy Schneider. Glad to have both of you here.

Look, it has been hours since I heard the defense raised their explanation for how she died. Joey, you were skeptical from the get-go of hearing that very statement. Will the jury be skeptical as well?

JOEY JACKSON, CNN LEGAL ANALYST, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: It appears so. I mean -- Laura, good to be with you and good to be with you, Stacy. It's just, to me, things have to make sense. And when you indicate to the jury that someone just died suddenly, who is a healthy woman by all indications, she's not sickly that we know of, she's got no prior history that we know of any medical ailments or maladies, she seems healthy, safe and well, and then all of a sudden, she dies suddenly and unexplainably, that's a problem.

But it's further -- you know, it's just further elevated by the fact that instead of doing what I think a normal person might do, Laura, and call the police, you know, be hysterical, run out to the neighbors, screaming somebody help me, you don't do any of that.

You're worried that they're going to think you killed her. And so, you chop her up into pieces, throw her away like she's trash in different canisters, you get cleaning supplies, and then you start googling throughout the night about how to dispose bodies and how long to take the smell out and when do I get my inheritance.

And so, to me, I just think in general, the fact that he acted in such a way and then blatantly lies to the police on three different occasions, cool, as calm as can be, that's just troubling to me, it defies common sense, and I just think it's going to be problematic to convince the jury that she just died. COATES: And yet, as we all know here, Stacy, look, it's not his job as the defendant to prove his innocence. It is the prosecution's job to prove his guilt. And today, they didn't offer a theory for how she died. They didn't say the manner in which she was killed. And, of course, they already know that he already pled guilty to those two other things we mentioned.

But they did mention what Joey was talking about, researching divorce, despite his claims of a happy marriage. We know that court documents show that Ana Walshe was having an affair before she went missing. Prosecutors also say that Walshe was the sole beneficiary of his wife's $2.7 million life insurance policy. He was Googling on his son's iPad questions about when a body -- how long it takes a body to decompose, when it might start to smell.

[23:50:01]

Does the prosecution here, though, need to actually show and prove a motive or precisely how she was killed in order to carry their burden?

STACY SCHNEIDER, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR AT U.S. NEWS AND WORLD REPORT: No, they don't need to prove how she was killed. They need to prove that he did the killing. They don't even need to prove the actual cause of death because there is no body. The body was disposed of.

But there is so much circumstantial evidence here that we call in court indicia of guilt or indicia of alleged guilt. The Google searches, which go even beyond what we just mentioned, he even searched allegedly how to clean blood off a wood floor. Can you clean DNA off of a knife? Do I inherit? So, someone inherit, how long does someone have to be missing for before you can inherit from them?

Those things do lead to motive. Motive is important to your question because it shows intent. Lying -- allegedly lying to police officers, which isn't allegedly anymore because he admitted to that and he faces time on that. So, that's all part of the mindset. Did someone actually commit the crime of murder? We know she's deceased, how she's deceased. At whose hands did she die? That's the question here.

And I believe that he has got to take the stand in this case in order to present this type of defense. And that's the last thing a defense lawyer wants to do, is to have their client open the door to everything by getting on that stand because he is allowed to maintain his silence.

COATES: He is.

SCHNEIDER: That's part of his constitutional right. But there's no other way to show what he's trying to show unless he opens his mouth and tells people what happened when he allegedly found his wife dead in the bed.

COATES: I got to tell you, we did hear from him for hours today through his interview with the officers. I wonder if the defense thinks that's going to be a good substitute or not. Stay tuned. We've got a lot more on that coverage. Joey and Stacy, thank you both.

JACKSON: Thanks, Laura.

COATES: And as I mentioned, there's much more coverage of the Brian Walshe murder trial on the CNN app. I'll be analyzing again tomorrow with our team of reporters. We let you watch every second of the trial. There are cameras in the courtroom, and there's real time analysis during the court breaks. Again, it's available to you on the CNN app all day long, starting at 9 a.m. Eastern. Yes, I'm getting up for it. Join me.

Up next tonight, ask yourself this. If your spouse told you she was leaving you for another person, but wanted to stick around until it was more convenient for them to move in with a new boat, what would you do? The college football version of that very story is next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:55:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LANE KIFFIN, INCOMING LSU FOOTBALL HEAD COACH: Leaving Ole Miss was extremely difficult, extremely difficult decision. And in that, we tried every single thing possible to continue to coach the team through the playoffs and continue to coach the players. In the end, that was their decision.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: That was Lane Kiffin, now the incoming head football coach at LSU, suggesting that Ole Miss is really to blame for not letting him stick around to finish the season. The team has a real shot at winning the college football championship. And for those of you who don't follow college sports closely, ESPN's Scott Van Pelt, well, he lays it out quite clearly.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SCOTT VAN PELT, SPORTSCASTER AND SPORTS TALK SHOW HOST, ESPN: This is a divorce. And the analogy I'd make is this: If you're leaving me for one of our neighbors who I hate, but you tell me you want to stay through Christmas for the kids, I'm telling you to take your ass on down the road and we'll figure out Christmas with who's here. I appreciate it's a mature way to view it, and maybe I'm being immature. But damn it, I am. And I hold grudges. And there is no way in God's green earth I would let him coach my team.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: The grinch who stole football. That's a Christmas spirit. Let's shout it out with Elex Michaelson out in L.A. Elex, first of all, I love a good analogy. That was a good one.

(LAUGHTER)

ELEX MICHAELSON, CNN ANCHOR AND CORRESPONDENT: SVP is pretty great. Well, it's a reminder that college sports these days is not really about the love of the game, it's about the love of money. And Lane Kiffin, to follow that analogy, has a history of some pretty bad divorces. It wasn't good when he left Tennessee. It wasn't good when he left USC. It wasn't good when he left the Raiders. There seems to be a trend here.

(LAUGHTER)

And he's involved in all of these pretty bad exits. But he is getting paid big time to go to LSU. And so, I'm sure he's a little disappointed, but ultimately probably feeling pretty good.

COATES: I'm sure. I need that t-shirt. Take your ass down the road. We'll deal with Christmas with who's here.

(LAUGHTER)

That's what the elf on the shelf needs to say in my house from now on. Listen, the Oxford dictionary word of the year, although it's two words, I'm a stickler, is rage bait. It's defined as -- quote -- "online content deliberately designed to elicit anger or outrage by being frustrating, provocative or offensive." I think there's a picture next to it. I think it might have Lane Kiffin next to it.

(LAUGHTER)

MICHAELSON: I thought you were going to say cable news.

COATES: Never.

(LAUGHTER)

Never.

MICHAELSON: Yes. Social media.

COATES: There you go.

MICHAELSON: All of it. Yes. No, look, I mean it -- I guess this is true. I don't understand how the dictionary, which is specialized in words, chooses as the word of the year two words. How does the dictionary not know what one word?

(LAUGHTER)

Doesn't make sense to me.

COATES: Give me at least a hyphen. Make it make sense.

MICHAELSON: Something.

COATES: All right, well, look --

MICHAELSON: What do you think is the word of the year?

[00:00:00]

What would you say is the word of the year?

COATES: Six-seven. See? Following that same thing. I don't know. That's kind of hyphen.

MICHAELSON: Yes.

COATES: Oh wait, but that's the same thing. In my house, it's rage- baiting. Thank you very much. I know three words I like, "The Story Is." It's coming up next. Have a great one.

MICHAELSON: Have a great night, Laura. "Story" starts right now.