Return to Transcripts main page

Laura Coates Live

Republican Fends Off Democrat In Surprisingly Close TN House Race; Hegseth Defends Follow-Up Boat Strike, Calls it "Fog of War"; Trump Vows to Remove Minnesota's Somali Population, Calls Them "Garbage." Aired 11p-12a ET

Aired December 02, 2025 - 23:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

[23:00:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

LAURA COATES, CNN HOST: Breaking tonight, the Democrats do fall just short in a deep red Tennessee House race, but with the margin so close that it could spell some trouble for the GOP next year. The head of the DNC, Ken Martin, is standing by to react.

Plus, Secretary Pete Hegseth facing accusations of lying and now incompetence as he reveals what he did and didn't see or notice during that deadly strike on an alleged drug boat.

And Trump is vowing to remove Minnesota's Somali population. He actually called them "garbage," and now threatens to send in federal agents. We have the mayor of Saint Paul, Melvin Carter, to join me to respond. All tonight on "Laura Coates Live."

All right, so, look, there are close calls, and then there are warning signs. And the lights may be flashing red at the GOP headquarters tonight. They're holding on to a critical congressional seat in ruby red Tennessee.

But the results, hardly what they want heading into 2026, even for a special election, one that saw the Republican candidate, Mike Van Epps, win for the seventh congressional district. He was only leading Democrat Aftyn Behn by seven points. Yes, that is single digits. And this was not supposed to be a battleground district.

The retiring congressman, Mark Green, won it by nearly 20 points last year. And, by the way, President Trump won it by 22 points. So, we can practically hear the giddiness from Democrats as the results rolled in tonight, even though the Democrat lost.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. HAKEEM JEFFRIES (D-NY): So, the fact that this is even a close race, potentially a single-digit race, whatever the outcome, in and of itself is extraordinary and reinforces the point that Republicans are on the run because they've been complete and total failures, and the American people know it.

(END VIDEO CLIP) COATES: Well, Republicans are saying a win is a win. And Trump is congratulating the winner, Van Epps, on his victory, writing on Truth Social -- quote -- "Another great night for the Republican Party."

Now, the victory, it preserves that oh, so slim margin the GOP is holding in the House. But this race raises the stakes for the midterms that from tonight are just 11 months away.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

AFTYN BEHN, FORMER CONGRESSIONAL CANDIDATE: This was a district that Trump won handedly, and he and his billionaire friends had to spend millions of dollars to bolster their candidate of choice. And so, I think it looks -- it portends what will happen next year when you have Republicans that are in more competitive seats, you know, struggling with candidates that look a lot like me.

MATT VAN EPPS, TENNESSEE REPRESENTATIVE-ELECT: Politicians who run from the president or abandon the commonsense policies that the American people gave us a resounding mandate on do so at their own peril. No matter what the D.C. insiders or liberal media say, this is President Trump's party. I'm proud to be a part of it and can't wait to get to work.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: I want to bring in the chairman of the Democratic National Committee, Ken Martin. You certainly know the work that goes into running a campaign, even in a special election. And Behn, she did not pull off the win that Democrats had hoped, but she did lose by a couple points in a district I described win overwhelmingly for Trump and, of course, the Republican candidate just last year. So, what message do you think this slim margin of victory for the Republican sends to Democrats and voters overall?

KEN MARTIN, CHAIRMAN, DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE: Well, the Republicans said it themselves just today. They said if this is a single-digit race, this is trouble for the Republican Party. There's no doubt that it is. This is sending shockwaves throughout the political ecosystem, throughout the country because this is a plus 22% district that Trump and the Republicans should have won easily. They spent $5 million to win a race that they should have walked away with handedly, right?

We've seen this, by the way, since Donald Trump was inaugurated. There has been an overperformance throughout the country for Democrats this year in 2025. On average, about 16 percentage points. And in this district, we overperformed by 14 points. You know how many Republicans hold congressional seats where they won by 14 points or less?

COATES: How many?

MARTIN: Fifty seats. There are 50 Republicans who are now vulnerable based on the overperformance that we just saw today in Tennessee's seventh congressional district.

COATES: So, can you replicate this?

MARTIN: I mean --

COATES: Obviously, sometimes, that slimmer margin might mean the victory.

[23:05:02]

In other states, it might just mean a drop in the bucket. But how are you going to look at this race and try to duplicate the results, but maybe favorably for a Democrat?

MARTIN: Well, look, what I've said all along this year is that when you organize everywhere, you can actually win anywhere. We're, at the DNC, competing in every district, we are contesting every race, and we're not leaving any state behind.

We believe that it's important for us to organize everywhere because right now, what we're seeing is deep resistance to Donald Trump and the policies that he and his administration have put forward.

Many of those people who voted for Donald Trump have swung back to the Democratic Party. We saw that just a few weeks ago in the November elections. Latino voters who overwhelmingly supported Donald Trump have swung back to the Democratic Party. Young voters, who also voted with Donald Trump, including young men, have swung back to the Democratic party. Independent voters are breaking two to one for the Democratic Party.

And we saw that even tonight in Tennessee. Fourteen of their 14 counties in that district all swung to the left, meaning that they're losing parts of their coalition that are traditionally and historically voting with the Republican Party.

COATES: But, Ken, if it swung so far to the left, I don't mean in terms of the stance, but she was called the AOC of Tennessee, which I think people intended to be something pejorative of her. Had she been more centrist, for example, do you think she would have fared better? Is that the model that you're thinking about?

MARTIN: No. Look, you know, we talked about this before. The reality is it takes different types of Democrats to win in different parts of this country.

COATES: Indeed.

MARTIN: The reality is this: I think the through line all of our candidates have been focused on in this election year in 2025 has been on affordability. They've been relentlessly focused on affordability while Donald Trump and the Republicans have shown who they're fighting for. They're fighting for the rich, the powerful, the billionaires in this country.

COATES: The president calls affordability a con job.

MARTIN: Well, he said it's a hoax today, right? They're out there saying it's a hoax as the American people are struggling to put groceries on the table. They're worried about their health care. They're worried about child care costs. They're just --

COATES: Let me play this on that backdrop. Listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: The word 'affordability' is a con job by the Democrat. They just say the word. It doesn't mean anything to anybody. They just say it. Affordability, there's always more to do, but we have it down to a very good level.

J.D. VANCE, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: I think we've made incredible progress. But it would be preposterous to fix every problem caused over the last four years in just 10 months.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: What's your reaction to their conversation, the way they have essentially marketed how they think Democrats approach this important issue that you see is top of mind, race after race, since at least November?

MARTIN: Of course, they're going to try to deflect now. The reality is, sure, inflation has been a challenge for a long time now in this country, but the reality is Donald Trump and this administration made it a lot worse with the tariffs that they put in place that are just decimating industry throughout this country, making it harder for small businesses, making it harder for farmers, making it harder for manufacturers, making it harder for employees to actually get ahead.

The reality is this economy that they created, not Joe Biden, but Donald Trump created, is creating chaos in the lives of families throughout this country. And that's what you're seeing right now. There is deep, deep disapproval and a souring amongst the American public with what Trump has done to their lives. And you're seeing people backlash right now.

COATES: Well, then why wasn't he a bigger part of the campaign? I mean, Trump as the name, of course. Obviously, you're talking about the policies, which many Democrats strategically think as a course correction because they believed, at least in the charges I've spoken to, that a campaign focused on anti-Trump would not result in pro- Democrats.

MARTIN: I think that's right. That's why I think our candidates have been winning. Actually, if you --

COATES: By the policy issues.

MARTIN: If you look at Mikie Sherrill in New Jersey, you look at Abigail Spanberger in Virginia, you look at Zohran Mamdani in New York, you look at other candidates that won just a month ago, the reality is that they didn't just focus on Donald Trump.

Of course, we have to resist Donald Trump and what he's doing. We have to talk about how disastrous his policies have been. But if we just live in those spaces, then what we're not doing is we're not telling the American people what we would do to improve their lives.

And where you're seeing Democrats being successful is when they talk about affordability, and they give the American people a sense of what we would do as Democrats if you put us back in power.

And all of those Democrats, whether it's Aftyn Behn in Tennessee or it's Mikie Sherrill, Abigail Spanberger or other Democrats who ran, there's a through line. They're all running on affordability. They're all running on a positive economic agenda that gives people hope that their better days are ahead of them.

That's why we're winning, not just because we're talking about Donald Trump. People in this country know that that guy is a fraud. The only people he cares about are the rich, the powerful, the billionaires. And he has made it very clear, who he's fighting for. And the Democrats have to -- and we are now making it clear who we're fighting for.

[23:10:00]

And we're fighting for the working-class people in this country who deserve an opportunity and a shot to get ahead.

COATES: You're talking about affordability. Health care is under that umbrella most decisively. Do you think that Republicans' inability to come up with an alternative after the shutdown and conversations for really a better part of a decade have been geared around, this is not good, we have a better option, wait, there's no option? Has that inert the benefit of Democrats?

MARTIN: Well, for sure. There's deep frustration right now in this country after the big ugly bill passed this summer, you know, where it kicks off, you know, what is it? Fourteen million Americans that are losing health insurance through Medicaid right off the bat.

The tax subsidies that aren't going to be extended, that are going to expire as a result of what the Republicans passed, are going to make it harder for people to afford their insurance. Twenty million people are going to see their premiums increase. As a result, they're not going to be able to afford health insurance. For the first time in our country's history, we're actually taking health care away from Americans instead of expanding health care access to more Americans. It's shameful, what's happening.

And there's no doubt, at a time when the economy is already sputtering along and people are worried around the kitchen table how they pay their bills, how they get ahead, now they're heaping on top of the fact that people are going to be priced out of their own health care. That's the challenge.

And you know what they've said, and you said it just a moment ago. They said for years, they had a plan. Trust us, we've got a plan. The ACA is bad. Get rid of ACA, we've got a plan. Well, where the hell is the plan? People have been asking that. Where's the plan, Donald Trump? Where's the plan, Republicans? John Thune just said the other day, the senator, Senate leader, said he doesn't know if he has the votes to actually take a vote on extending out the ACA tax --

COATES: Which exactly the Democrats fear when they didn't want to --

MARTIN: That's exactly right.

COATES: -- issue. I do wonder how this informs the midterm elections. I know you're optimistic. We'll see if it's warranted in the days to come. Thank you so much, Ken Martin.

MARTIN: Thank you.

COATES: Up next, could the controversy around the Pentagon's deadly boat strike lead to a pardon? Well, my next guest says that's where the story is headed after Pete Hegseth reveals what he saw, what he knew, and the decision he says was made when he wasn't in the room, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:15:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: You know, I've got to talk about something I heard today from the defense secretary, Pete Hegseth. The phrase he used was the "fog of war." And he used it to explain away questions about that second strike on an alleged drug boat in September, the one that killed two survivors, said to have been hanging onto the wreckage.

But what we're seeing from the Trump administration right now, foggy explanations. And that fog spilled straight into President Trump's cabinet meeting today. Hegseth had a lot to say about anonymous sources and nitpicking, even reporters in air-conditioned offices.

But when it came to the double-tap strike itself, his answers raised even more questions, frankly, starting with his confirmation that he saw the beginning of the attack on a live video feed.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PETE HEGSETH, UNITED STATES SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: I watched that first strike live. As you can imagine, the Department of War, we got a lot of things to do. So, I didn't stick around for the hour and two hours, whatever, where all the sensitive site exploitation digitally occurs. So, I moved on to my next meeting.

A couple of hours later, I learned that that commander had made the -- which he had the complete authority to do. And, by the way, Admiral Bradley made the correct decision to ultimately sink the boat and eliminate the threat.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Now, if you're thinking the bad answer is ripe for follow-ups, oh, it is, and they were asked.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNKNOWN (voice-over): So, you didn't see any survivors, to be clear, after that first strike?

HEGSETH: I did not personally see survivors, but I stand because the thing was on fire. It was exploded in fire and smoke. You can't see anything. You got digital. This is called the fog of war.

UNKNOWN (voice-over): On the second strike, you said it happened more than an hour after the first. Did I hear it correctly?

HEGSETH: (INAUDIBLE) the exact amount of time.

UNKNOWN (voice-over): And then, sir, you had left the room, is what you're saying?

HEGSETH: I already stated my answer quite clearly.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: So, let's piece it together, OK? You've got Hegseth putting that second strike squarely on Admiral Frank Bradley, although he said he was -- made the right decision and had the authority. He, of course, is the commander who led the operation. And at the same time, lawmakers, left, right, and center, they want to know if the United States committed a war crime. They're trying to figure out who knew what, who ordered what, and when they ordered it.

What we do know is that none of the reports claim that Hegseth directly ordered the second strike. But as for that live feed, one source told "The Washington Post," if the video were made public, people would be horrified. It begs the question, what did President Trump, the commander-in-chief, know? He claims he's actually (INAUDIBLE) on the full picture.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: I still haven't gotten a lot of information because I rely on Pete. But to me, it was an attack. It wasn't one strike, two strikes, three strikes. Somebody asked me a question about the second strike. I didn't know about the second strike. I didn't know anything about people. I wasn't involved in it. I knew they took out a boat.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Well, we may soon get a better idea of what actually happened because the leaders of the Senate Intelligence Committee, they plan to meet with Admiral Bradley on Thursday. And those talks couldn't come at a more crucial moment.

Hegseth said at today's cabinet meeting that the campaign against alleged drug boats has -- quote -- "only just begun." And that is very significant since these attacks had been on shaky legal ground in terms of due process from the get-go. And that was before people knew about this double tap strike.

[23:19:57]

And now, we could see about a major explanation because President Trump said land strikes in Venezuela, well, "those are happening very soon" -- unquote.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: And we're going to start doing those strikes on land, too. You know, the land is much easier. It's much easier. And we know the routes they take. We know everything about them. We know where they live. We know where the bad ones live. And we're going to start that very soon, too.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: You know, that wasn't the only warning. Trump says any country trafficking drugs into this country is subject to attack. And one specific nation he named as a cocaine producer, Columbia.

I want to dig in with someone who knows Admiral Bradley, retired Vice Admiral Michael Franken. He served under Secretary Donald Rumsfeld during the Bush administration's response to 9-11. And as a Democrat, he ran against longtime Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley a few years ago. Admiral, thank you for being here with your expertise.

You heard Secretary Hegseth. He said he says he did not see a second strike, found out about it hours later, very busy at the Department of War, didn't stick around to hear about it. Was the operation handled properly?

MICHAEL FRANKEN, RETIRED VICE ADMIRAL, U.S. NAVY: Wasn't there, don't know, I have not read the rules of engagement, et cetera. But I must say that this is certainly an oddity from what we've done in the past for our interdiction models. It runs contrary to my experience in the maritime interdiction and the various bilaterals that we have with various countries.

COATES: Well, break those phrases down for my audience for a second. How does it run counters, those interdictions and bilaterals?

FRANKEN: Well, to do a kinetic strike that's fatal, such as this series of these, you A, have to be going after somebody who has imminent threat to your nation. There is no other way to neutralize them. And you've made this calculated. And there's a series of other legal protocols.

I'm not a lawyer, I'm a practitioner of this in my naval service, but you must be logical in your rationale and only as lethal force the last resort, such as in our maritime interdiction for weapons of mass destruction in 2003 timeframe.

I don't believe we ever conducted a kinetic operation. And we're speaking then of weapons of mass destruction, chemical, biological, and nuclear, including the expertise and the components addressing those. We never immediately attacked a vessel.

In doing so, you really restrict the amount of intelligence that you would collect in the operation. And that is the biggest complaint besides the legality of immediately classifying these people as a narco-terrorist. And there's troubling aspects from legality perspective in both those points.

COATES: The intelligence gathering aspect could be from survivors who you could obviously inquire, shall we say, from if you were to rescue them from shipwrecks?

FRANKEN: Well, stepping back, the way you do an interdiction at sea is you understand the point of departure and the point of destination, and you put an umbrella of surveillance around those assets, around those areas, and then you restrict the ship transmissions, either VHF or satellite communications, cell phones, and you jam those, and you do the stoppage at sea. And if you have to do disabling fire, you can do that. We have been doing that for ages. We stop ships at sea by either threatening them or shooting out their engines.

In doing that, you then create this wobbling of information by the point of departure and the point of where they're going to, which you create a whole network of intelligence, and you develop the architecture associated with that, and certainly collect the intelligence from the people on the boat versus pulling corpses out of the water.

COATES: You heard Secretary Hegseth mentioned Admiral Bradley, who you know. Many Americans are hearing that name for the very first time. Pete Hegseth says that he has his back. Do you believe him?

FRANKEN: I don't know. I mean, I know Admiral Mitch Bradley. It goes by Mitch. He's a superlative naval officer, intelligent, has a high degree of empathy, the Mitch Bradley I know, and those traits don't leave a person over time.

So, I do hope that in this charged atmosphere that I wish we wouldn't drag people's names through the press the manner in which we have, and that there can remain a little bit of ambiguity.

[23:25:04]

I harken back to the way Stan McChrystal handled this when we did an inadvertent strike in Afghanistan. He said, any mistakes made are mine alone.

COATES: Do you think that's what Secretary Hegseth ought to say?

FRANKEN: It's up for him to decide.

COATES: When you think about, of course, knowing him and you think about how he must be possibly receiving the fact that his name is in the press, associated with people who are trying to understand the nature of this interdiction and the process that should and ought to follow, what impact does that have on the ability of, say, other admirals or others who are carrying out orders? Does it impact or influence their decisions on what to follow?

FRANKEN: It certainly would for me. But it's very clear that we have strict boundaries as to lethal action. And to describe a smuggler as an imminent threat to the United States is a stretch. To describe that smuggler as someone that you must kill without warning, that is completely out of the ordinary, and we've never done that before. So --

COATES: Who makes that assessment? Is it the -- would it be the person who is carrying out the order or the person who issues it?

FRANKEN: My expectation is there is only -- I'm only estimating that the ROE is strike vessels as described by point of contact such and such. There isn't a deliberative process. As I understand it, no warnings have been sent to any of these vessels. That is a huge departure from what has been done in the past.

COATES: Now we see why there will be inquiries at the congressional level at the very least.

FRANKEN: I am sure there will be.

COATES: Thank you so much, Admiral Michael Franken. I appreciate it. Still ahead, Trump's seizing on a fraud scandal in my home state of Minnesota to go after the Somali migrant population, calling them "garbage" that he wants to move from the country. And tonight, there are reports he's going to use ICE to do just that. The mayor of Saint Paul, Melvin Carter, standing by to respond next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:30:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: Well, tonight, President Trump unleashing a xenophobic tirade against Minnesota's Somali community.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: I don't want them in our country. I'll be honest with you. Somebody would say, oh, that's not politically correct. I don't care. I don't want them in our country. Their country is no good for a reason. Their country stinks. We're going to go the wrong way if we keep taking in garbage into our country. Well, they come from hell, and they complain and do nothing but bitch. We don't want them in our country.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Those are the words of the president of the United States. This is action. ICE will be heading to Minneapolis and Saint Paul in Minnesota. Why? To target Somali immigrants. Over what exactly?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) TRUMP: Somalians ripped off that state for billions of dollars. Billions. Every year, billions of dollars. And they contribute nothing.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: I think what he means to say is that there were defendants who had due process, some of whom were also Somali, were convicted of crimes. But maybe shorthand was effective for the president. You can take issue with the president's language.

What he's pointing to here are investigations into fraud in Minnesota. There were allegations across the country by a number of people. There was a whole division at DOJ, really, about COVID fraud. Investigations prosecutors amount to -- say amount to $1 billion in stolen taxpayer money. Can you imagine?

Investigations like one into "Feeding Our Future," which is a COVID-19 program that was meant to feed needy children. And prosecutors allege a staggering $300 million did not go to feeding children. Instead, they say it went to luxury vehicles, it went to real estate, it went to international travel. And CNN reports about 70 people were charged, the vast majority of which are members of the state's Somali community.

The mayor of Saint Paul, Minnesota, Melvin Carter, he joins me now. Mayor, you've undoubtedly heard about these fraudulent operations because there were criminal prosecutions. That's how we know about this, through the public record. You undoubtedly know about the expansive Somali community as well in Minnesota. What do you -- how do you respond to the president's comments here about the Somali people who have migrated to Minnesota?

MAYOR MELVIN CARTER, SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA: The president -- thanks for having me on. The president failed so many fourth-grade social studies class lessons tonight. It's just laughable. First of all, it's easy to say he didn't just target our Somali community, he targeted our Somali American community. It's important to note that most of our Somali American community has been here for generations. The overwhelming majority of them are citizens.

So, when he says their country, their country is the United States of America. For the vast majority of them, the only country they have ever known, the only country they've ever been a citizen of is the United States of America.

[23:35:01]

And for the president of the United States to say that Americans don't belong in America, that he doesn't like Americans being in America, is one of the greatest confessions of incompetence that a sitting president could ever make. Our Somali community makes incredible contributions to our country and to our state and to our communities right here.

And, by the way, those fraud allegations were uncovered by local law enforcement, and our state attorney general pressed charges. Our state law enforcement presence is what caught that, is what held those folks accountable. So, it's another example that we actually don't need. Those federal agents are not adding value in our community. They're actually doing quite the opposite by providing a destabilizing force.

COATES: And yet CNN has learned that ICE is set to start operations in Minnesota, targeting specifically undocumented Somali immigrants. Border Czar Tom Homan actually said this tonight, mayor. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TOM HOMAN, BORDER CZAR: I can't tell you how many people are on the ground now, how many people are going to be on the ground. I'll leave that to the secretary of homeland security. But focuses on those twin cities more because of the criminal activities that have been uncovered by DOJ and DHS.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: You're the mayor of a major city. Were you given any advance notice? Do you have any further details about what might be coming?

CARTER: Of course not. I mean, we started hearing rumors about this this morning. And we have to track -- I mean, this is where we are in America. We have to try to track on Twitter, we have to try to track our neighborhood chat board, we have to try to track through the media what the federal government is trying to do in our local communities.

They show up and create, like I said, a destabilizing presence. They don't seem to really know what they're doing when they create big crowds and things like that. They intentionally seem to be trying to create confusion and create chaos in communities so they can use that to escalate against crowds.

We had them show up in our community a couple of weeks ago and created a big crowd. And, you know, they ran over people's toes and (INAUDIBLE) the crowd to get out, and told us at the end, they arrested 14 people, of whom one of them, they said, had a past charge for something. You know and they know the difference between a charge and a conviction, as you talked about sort of the language that we use. So, they did all of that in the name of arrested 14 people who were just trying to go to work that day, who didn't have any conviction, if you believe them.

And so, you know, all of this public safety language, all this accepting, all this 'we're going to keep you safe' language, counts on me and you to believe that somebody is a danger to our communities just by virtue of looking different than we are and maybe speaking a different language. And, you know, Saint Paul Minnesotans, we don't go for that.

COATES: And yet I know that you believe in law and order. You're the son of a police officer. You're a mayor of Saint Paul. And so, you recognize, of course, the charges, the allegations, and how serious they were to have certain individuals, not an entire community to which we profile, because if we did that, then surely, there'd be many populations of people who would no longer be quote, unquote -- "welcome" in their own country.

CARTER: That's right.

COATES: Profiling is problematic. But beyond the president's rhetoric, the administration has been seizing on those recent fraud scandals in Minnesota. The prosecutors say that more than a billion dollars in taxpayer money has been stolen amid these three investigations, including those children's nutrition programs that I mentioned.

Do you think Minnesota officials should be taken to task for allowing or not realizing, is probably the better phrase, that it was happening?

CARTER: Like I said, and it's important that you said what you said, that's right, those are really serious allegations. And that's terrible. The folks who did that, that's terrible. They have to be held account -- they have to be held to account.

I'm really afraid to find out what the president is going to do when he finds out how much fraud European Americans are responsible for in this country. Hopefully, he won't try to take that out on all European Americans, including, by the way, the supposed mastermind of that 'Feeding Our Future' scandal who was actually the centerpiece of that, who was not Somali American.

And so, yes, those are serious things. Yes, like I said, our state law enforcement infrastructure is what caught those things, is what prosecuted those crimes, and what held those folks to account.

This notion that we're going to take a whole nation and declare a whole nation of people guilty for crimes that a couple of individuals did, that's astounding un-American. It's a fallacy of logic and a fallacy of justice. And like I said, you know, we get a chance to go to work every day.

[23:39:54]

We, you know, have, you know, Somali members -- Somali American members of our community who are doctors and who are dentists and who are teachers and who are health care providers and who are business owners and do a whole bunch of things.

I sure would love to see the president get to know who our Somali American community is a little bit better, starting with understanding that they are Somali Americans, they are American citizens. And his job is to help ensure their quality of life, their access to life, liberty, and happiness just along the rest of us.

COATES: Mayor Melvin Carter, thank you for joining.

Still ahead tonight, the stunning Google searches at the heart of the Brian Walshe murder trial. But police say he searched for before and also after his wife's death. And why they could be key in making the prosecution's case. And later, never before seen footage of Sean "Diddy" Combs in the lead up to his arrest as two jurors now break their silence. All the revelations from that new documentary, next. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:45:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: Now, I want you to imagine how it would feel to be a fly on the wall during some of the pivotal moments that led to Diddy's 50- month prison sentence. What would your most pressing questions be? Maybe, why did the jury move to acquit Diddy of the most serious charges? Or, what was going through his head when it became clear the prosecution walls were closing in?

Well, tonight, the long-awaited "Sean Combs: The Reckoning" produced by Diddy's longtime rival, 50 Cent, offers a whole new perspective on the case that we've covered right here on this show for months. From exclusive conversations with jurors to never before seen footage of Diddy talking to his lawyers. Yep, just days before his arrest in New York last year.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEAN "DIDDY" COMBS, RAPPER, RECORD PRODUCER, RECORD EXECUTIVE: I'm tired of going back and forth with you all, with the lawyers.

UNKNOWN (voice-over): That's just not true.

COMBS: OK. So, so, so. No, no, no. Let me tell you something. Let me say this. I'm not a referee. So, I'm going to get off the phone right now. Listen to me. I'm going get off the phone right now, and I am going to let you professionals look at the situation and come back to me with a solution. No matter what nobody said. Let's just hear it there. You all are not working together the right way. We're losing.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Diddy's attorney sent a cease and desist letter to Netflix yesterday, telling CNN in a statement -- quote -- "Netflix's so-called 'documentary' is a shameful hit piece. Netflix relied on stolen footage that was never authorized for release" -- unquote. But the filmmaker denying those accusations, saying -- quote -- "We obtained the footage legally and have the necessary rights."

With me now, someone who has covered the Diddy case extensively, executive editor of Deadline Hollywood, Dominic Patten. Dominic, people have been talking about the prospect of this documentary. It is here. People are watching. And Diddy in that video goes on to say other things like wanting to fight for his life, to wanting to hire an expert in the -- quote -- "dirtiest dirty business of media and propaganda." What stands out to you the most from what you've seen in the footage?

DOMINIC PATTEN, EXECUTIVE EDITOR, DEADLINE HOLLYWOOD: Well, I think, you know, Laura, we have to say, as you said, both you and I covered this thing from, you know, from the root to the fruit, the whole version, and probably we will with the appeals and others, it really revealed the side that sometimes was the darkest parts of the prosecution's case and the parts that they just could not stick the landing for.

This footage, in many ways, proves many of the elements or certainly heavily implies it, of the RICO charges. And, of course, some of the accusations that come out in this documentary play to the sex trafficking ones.

I think more than anything, it shows the confusion that this case brought, the inability perhaps to deal with someone of such star power and resources in terms of wealth and cultural significance, but also all the pieces that needed to come together to make this case work.

The lesser charges that he was ultimately found guilty on, a man who faced life imprisonment, a 55-year-old man who faced life imprisonment, will now essentially be out of jail in 2028 if everything goes fine. That was not what the Southern District of New York, U.S. attorney's office thought they were going in for, and they ended up with that.

This documentary is a glaring spotlight on a culture -- on a man who was abusive literally and figuratively, at least from what we can tell, and sometimes by his own definition, as you and I both heard in the courtroom. He admitted to domestic violence. He admitted to it readily. He admitted to drug use and alcohol abuse and others. That was never what the prosecution went after him for. So, that was never what the jurors could find him for.

COATES: In fact, I want to talk about that because we're hearing from two jurors in this documentary, not jurors in the court of public opinion, actual jurors in this who were faced with this request to find him guilty and a request to acquit him. And they actually gave the reasons behind the mixed verdict where they said no to that top charge of RICO and yes to the others. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNKNOWN: We can say he was a terrible person.

UNKNOWN: I find he is not being charged with domestic violence.

UNKNOWN: But charged with domestic violence.

UNKNOWN: Domestic violence wasn't one of the charges.

UNKNOWN: The very next day, the following day, you see how they are getting back together and exchanging text messages and like nothing ever happened. So, now, we are confused. What's going on here?

UNKNOWN: This meeting, next minute, they are going on dinners and trips. It's like going back and forth, back and forth, back and forth. That's my answer.

[23:49:58]

I mean, if you don't like something, you completely get out. You cannot have both ways. Have the luxury and then complain about it. I don't think so.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: This is exactly what people thought might be the interpretation of some jurors, so much so that the prosecution tried to bring in an expert who would talk about the psychology of abuse, the decisions of why somebody would not leave. Clearly, that did not resonate at least with one juror who would have had a very big say given it had to be a unanimous verdict. Are you surprised by this?

PATTEN: No, not at all. I mean, you know, as I've said to you before, I think one of the big flaws of this case is you charge someone with RICO, which essentially is a mob statute, but you don't charge anyone but Diddy. I mean, the whole point of this is if you and I are members of the mob, they charge us, they charge a whole bunch of guys, they charge my not-so-bright cousin who we pay to open the warehouse every two weeks, and eventually the hope is that they squeeze him and he gives information up on us.

They didn't have any of this. They had witnesses and psychiatrists coming in telling them that this is what this is. These are how these relationships work.

The jurors of his peers, people, New Yorkers, these are very complex things. These are not silly or stupid people. They're very bright and they all did their duty to the best of their ability, and God bless them for it. But you're asking them for a leap of faith when you're not presenting the evidence to them, and you're not presenting it with your own charges.

This documentary executive produced by 50 Cent from Netflix, as you know, Curtis Jackson spoke to my colleague, Rosy Cordero, recently and like, you know, he talked about it. He wanted to speak up for the culture, that hip-hop wanted to not be -- not be silent on this. I think what we're seeing is there's a lot to say. It should have been said in the court.

COATES: The big question will be why. And, of course, the prosecution is not going to answer that question. Remember, the lead prosecutor, not even a prosecutor any longer. Dominic Patten, thank you.

Well, day two of the Brian Walshe murder trial can really be summed up like this. Hey, Google, how do I get away with murder? Sounds ridiculous, doesn't it? Unless you're Brian Walshe, accused of the first-degree murder of his wife, Ana, New Year's Day in 2023. For hours, the jury heard about all of those internet searches the prosecution says that Brian Walshe typed after allegedly killing his wife, Ana.

Now, he says he didn't kill her. Instead, he got in bed to find she was already dead. Suddenly, unexpectedly. And he panicked. What does he do? Call 911? Nope. He calls on Google to help dismember and throw away her body parts across Massachusetts in different garbage bags.

Now, if you had told me about some of these searches in advance, I'm not sure I would have believed you, because here are just a few that investigators uncovered through forensic analysis of the various devices they recovered during the execution of a search warrant.

But first, just days before she's believed to have died, perhaps, are not unusual. A Pornhub search, cheating wife seduces another man to impregnate her. A Google Search, best state to divorce for a man.

But then when we get to the day Ana is believed to have died, the searches take a dramatic turn. Searches like, how long before a body starts to smell? How to saw a body? Hack saw the best tool for dismembering a body? Can you be charged with murder without a body? No corpse? No problem. Notable murder convictions without a body. Disposing of a body in the trash. Cleaning up blood without leaving a trace, five tips. How long for a dismembered body to decompose? Can a body decompose in a plastic bag? Can police get your search history without your computer?

Patrick Kearney. That one about Patrick Kearney? He's known as the so- called garbage bag killer. The fact that he's searching him, we would call that a bad fact in the law.

Now, the timing matters here because the prosecution is charging Brian Walshe with first-degree murder. That, of course, means premeditation, which can happen in an instant. And one way you can try to prove premeditation, you show what the person did right after the killing. State of mind. Enter those grisly Google searches.

And the prosecution, they want to persuade the jury that these are all proof of his state of mind. He wanted to kill her. He had thought about killing her, and now is trying to hide the fact that he did just that.

The defense singing a very different tune. These are post- mediation. Not premeditation, post-meditation.

[23:55:00]

They want the jury to believe that none of those searches has anything to do with murder. They have everything to do with how to get rid of a body. And you already pleaded guilty to doing that last week. Hey Google, who would the jury believe?

We'll pick up the trial coverage tomorrow, live on the CNN app, starting at 9 a.m. Eastern. We'll let you watch every second of the trial live with real-time analysis during the court breaks. Again, this is available to you on the CNN app all day, starting at 9 a.m. Eastern. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: It's almost midnight here in the nation's capital. It's time to chat with our friend in L.A., Elex Michaelson. Hey, you got a great interview tonight. You spoke to Tony Robbins. What are we going to expect to hear from that interview?

[00:00:00]

ELEX MICHAELSON, CNN ANCHOR AND CORRESPONDENT: Yes, well, he's got this new take on where -- we are the world, you know, that brought all the artists together.

COATES: Yes.

MICHAELSON: He's going to be doing this in a few weeks, actually right here across the street from us, and talk to us about that. Plus, get you motivated, give you hope for the holiday season at a time when we all could use a little pick me up. Nobody does it quite like Tony Robbins, so we're excited to talk to him soon.

COATES: I don't know why they didn't ask me to participate. Oh, I can't sing. Have a great show, Elex.

(LAUGHTER)

MICHAELSON: Thanks, Laura.