Return to Transcripts main page

Laura Coates Live

Trump's Pardon Spree Escalates at Alarming Rate; Watchdog Finds Hegseth Group Chat Risked Endangering Troops; Minneapolis Police Chief Speaks Out Amid ICE Operations; CNN Provides an Update on Brian Walshe's Trial. Aired 11p-12a ET

Aired December 03, 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 AND SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Tonight, a stunning new pardoning spree by President Trump. Indicted defendants cleared before trial. Victims deprived of millions. Does he realize he's undermining his own DOJ?

Plus, yes, the boat was struck, but the drug mission wasn't over. Wait until you hear the new explanation for the deadly order to strike survivors.

And do you remember Signalgate? Well, it's making a comeback as a long-awaited investigation reveals how Secretary Pete Hegseth's actions could have risked U.S. troops.

All tonight on "Laura Coates Live."

So, I'm guessing you've probably lost count of President Trump's pardons. And you're not alone in that. Just today, we have learned of three more. They're adding to a growing roster of highly-controversial clemency cases. And it raises a simple but extremely consequential question. Is the president abusing the pardon power he obviously has?

Before you can answer that, look at the sheer scale of what he's doing. I mean, it's a lot. You know who's keeping track? The DOJ. Just go to their website. They've got a whole list, a very long list. If you follow that list, you can get as close as anyone can to an exact count.

And this is where you land. More than 1,600 total pardons during this second term alone. Twenty-eight total commutations which, of course, reduces a sentence but keeps that conviction. Now, the vast majority of that high number is for January 6th defendants. And more than 1,500 were granted clemency on day one of his second term. If you take out the January 6th pardons or commutations, you got 151 left and 14 commutations. And just who got the prize? The category of criminals? Well, that runs the gamut. Convicted fraudsters, disgraced business executives, indicted politicians.

We'll take the first we learned about just today. Texas Democratic Congressman Henry Cuellar pardoned before his upcoming April trial. Recall that he and his wife were charged last year for allegedly accepting nearly $600,000 in bribes from a foreign bank and an oil company. Now, Trump claims that Joe Biden went after him as payback for criticizing the situation at the border.

He even got a president from another country getting pardoned. The ex- leader of Honduras was convicted of drug trafficking. Now, he's free. Trump's reasoning? Second verse, same as the first.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: He was the president of the country. And they basically said he was a drug dealer because he was the president of the country. And they said it was a Biden administration setup. And I looked at the facts, and I agreed with them.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Then there's the big players in the finance world getting a pass, like the former CEO of the cryptocurrency exchange Binance. He pleaded guilty to a money laundering charge. And can you guess why Trump pardoned him?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNKNOWN: Why did you pardon him?

TRUMP: OK, are you ready? I don't know who he is. I know he got a four-month sentence or something like that. And I heard it was a Biden witch hunt.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Might be a good idea to know who you're pardoning in case the birdie that's telling you that is inaccurate. But the white-collar clemency, it does not stop there because just tonight, we are learning about a brand-new pardon, a former entertainment exec, Tim Leiweke. He was indicted over a big bid rigging scheme. And here's the real kicker. He was charged not by a Biden-run executive branch DOJ. No, it was Trump's own DOJ. And it happened this year, as in July of this year, which kind of undermines the whole Biden witch hunt thing.

So does the commutation of disgraced private executive -- equity exec David Gentile. He was sentenced to seven years in prison for defrauding thousands of people, sentenced by -- wait for it -- Trump's DOJ.

And speaking of ripping off the little guy, you can't forget the former GOP congressman, George Santos. Trump commuted his sentence for identity theft and wire fraud. He is no longer required to pay any fines or restitution.

[23:05:00]

Now, look, I need to point out that this problem is not limited to the current president. I mean, the pardoning power, it's one of the only powers the president really can't be checked on. And people will drive. And boy, have presidents flexed that power. I mean, Biden granted pardons or commutations to more than 4,200 people, more acts of clemency than any other president ever. Many of them also extremely controversial, like his own son, Hunter Biden.

That makes what's happening, though, contextually even more of an alarming trend because if you look at who's getting pardoned now, it's people who have claimed the justice system itself is weaponized or people who have a lot of money or elbows that are bumping other big elbows and have immense political sway. You can imagine what that might mean. If you can get into a president's ear, they may be willing to listen if you say the right triggering buzzwords, not the pardon office who assesses everything.

And the people most affected by the crime as being wiped away? You guessed it, the victims. They're the ones left holding the bag at times, literally. The former U.S. pardon attorney, Liz Oyer, says that Trump's second term clemency has stripped them of more than $1 billion in restitution.

It's not just the victims, though, who may be wondering, where is the justice? The already alarming exodus from DOJ, combined with the feeling like prosecutions might be an exhausting exercise in futility if the president is rubbed the wrong way, they may end up asking themselves, what's the point? If you're a society who really believes in law and order, you don't want that domino to fall.

Let's dig in. Former assistant U.S. attorney Kim Wehle, also the author of "Pardon Power: How the Pardon System Works -- And Why? And follow her Substack, "The Little Law School with Kim Wehle." I enjoy it very much. Glad you're here.

Look, it's -- you know, with that old phrase, it's good to be the king. It's good to be the president. You can pardon who you damn well please. That's part of it. And yet over 1,600 pardons so far, and at least one he is openly admitting, I don't know who he is. What are the consequences for the public to hear something like that?

KIM WEHLE, FORMER ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY, PROFESSOR AT UNIVERSITY OF BALTIMORE SCHOOL OF LAW: Well, I spoke to a group of high school students in Texas when my book came out, and there was a teacher in the back of the room who raised his hand and said, kids are thinking they can just commit crimes and get a pardon.

I mean, the incentive, especially if it's not understood how this function, as you indicated, you have to have money and power and access and some interest that the White House has in giving you a pardon to bypass the other two branches of government. It bypasses the laws that Congress passed and it bypasses the entire criminal justice system, the courts.

And, as you know, Laura, it's really hard to get out of jail once you're in jail. Even if you're on death row, even if there's evidence that you're innocent and you're going to be executed, it's very hard to get out of jail. So, this is valuable.

COATES: Yes.

WEHLE: This is valuable, what Donald Trump has in his hands. And he knows it.

COATES: I've interviewed so many exonerees who have spent decades of their lives only to be told, actually, we made a mistake, you're free, here's a small check, hope you're able to live your life again. These people who were going through the system, trying to even get someone to listen. And then you've got the ability, money, power, privilege which, of course, undermines people's feelings of justice already in our system.

But talk to me about the pardon power and how traditionally it has functioned because he's not the first president to pardon people that everyone didn't agree with. They've all exercised their prerogative, and some have done it very controversially.

WEHLE: Not to this level. I think he left -- he put it in another level in his first term, and then now we're just seeing all holds barred. I mean, remember, Bill Clinton had that controversial pardon of Marc Rich, a financier who fled to Switzerland and had ties to the Clinton, one of his foundations. There was a congressional investigation of that pardon, and the Southern District of New York investigated that pardon.

And as I wrote in the book, you know, the idea that it's above the law and above any constitutional oversight is kind of almost a mythology. And it's one I think that was underscored by the United States Supreme Court in June of 2024 when they created criminal immunity for presidents and they said, listen, presidents, if they act with their core powers, are above the criminal laws, and they specifically said the pardon is one of those.

COATES: Wait. So, are you saying that there is some way to balance the pardon and power of the president? I mean, the SDNY investigating, others looking into a controversial pardon. To what end? Who's going to -- what army is going to answer to it?

[23:10:00]

WEHLE: Well, that -- I mean, that's a -- what is the remedy is always the question. But if there's an idea in the White House that there's tickets for speeding, there's going to be some scrutiny, there's going to be some oversight, there's going to be some accountability, whether it's impeachment, whether it's a prosecution, which that just got gutted in June of 2024, then you kind of hold back or you hide things.

I mean, we're just seeing a lawless White House, Laura. That's what we're seeing. There aren't any checks and balances anymore. They've been lifted. And I think the pardon power is just maybe the most egregious, obvious example. And to answer your other earlier question, what's it supposed to be for? For mercy.

COATES: Yes.

WEHLE: It developed under the kings, the divine right of kings, where there was no justice department. There were no juries up until the 13th century or something thereabouts, maybe earlier. There were no criminal rights under the Bill of Rights. And so, there needed to be a safety valve when somebody slipped through the cracks. It's about fairness and mercy, and we're seeing it for corruption and insiders with money and power who already, as you know, have a big advantage in the criminal justice system.

COATES: The latest pardon is that entertainment exec indicted by Trump's own DOJ in July. I mean, the idea that the triggering notion is that Trump is offended by what he believes is the weaponization, the DOJ, he feels it very deeply and personally. We've heard a lot about that.

But I spoke with another former prosecutor today who said that pardons like this, when it's your own justice department particularly, or even a recent indictment, might cause prosecutors to pull their punches and essentially say, you know what, not can I prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, not do I have the evidence, but is this the kind of thing that might offend the president and should I even go forward?

WEHLE: Yes. I mean, what is the law? The law is set by the Constitution, statutes. Under a monarchy, the king is the law. And I think what we're seeing is the White House acting like Donald Trump is the Congress, the judge, the jury is the law. And that's just not how our constitutional system was set up. And we need people to wake up and come together and say, this isn't what we want. And until that happens, I don't think it will change.

COATES: A Democratic congressman, Henry Cuellar, obviously, was indicted last year. A trial was supposed to happen in September. It got moved to this coming April. It's not going to happen at all now. Trump says the indictment stemmed from a Biden weaponized DOJ. And Democrat Leader Hakeem Jeffries commented this way. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. HAKEEM JEFFRIES (D-NY): The reality is this indictment was very thin to begin with. In my view, the charges were eventually going to be dismissed. I don't know why the president decided to do this. I think the outcome was exactly the right outcome.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Well, interestingly enough, you know, the end justifies the means if his reason for doing so was his impression about a weaponized DOJ.

WEHLE: Well, you know, you're a prosecutor. Let it go to the judge. Let it go to the jury. We saw the Comey indictment dismissed. We saw Letitia James's indictment and Smith dismissed. Vindictive prosecutions --

COATES: Well, not for the merits, right? Those were for the --

WEHLE: True. The appointment power, but someone say they were rushed, the Comey, to get within the statute of limitations. There were mistakes made. There was a lot of bungling done. And you're right, that didn't get to the merits. But in theory, that's how our criminal justice system works. And these folks have money for really good lawyers.

So, I'm not sure where Hakeem Jeffries is in -- if his ideas and inside scoop on what the evidence the Justice Department has against one of his colleagues. But that is how our system is supposed to work. Pardons are supposed to be for people who have, under the Justice Department rules, five years after they've served their sentence.

That is not binding on the president. But the idea is they've done their -- they paid their dues, they're sorry. There are other criteria. It's not you have money and power and access and there's a perception politically that you were targeted.

COATES: Money does make the world go round. It's one of the biggest criticisms of the justice system in this country.

WEHLE: For sure.

COATES: Thank you so much, Kim Wehle. Up next, why did the U.S. strike survivors on an alleged drug boat? Well, tonight, we are learning what the admiral who ordered the strike is going to tell senators tomorrow to answer that very question.

Plus, the long-awaited Signalgate report set to reveal that Secretary Pete Hegseth could have put U.S. troops at risk. So, why is he declaring himself in the clear? Congressman Eugene Vindman is going to join me in all of it, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:15:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: We're hours away from the full release of a Pentagon I.G. report on Secretary Pete Hegseth's Signalgate scandal. CNN exclusively reporting tonight, the Pentagon's watchdog found Hegseth risked endangering American troops by sharing highly-sensitive war plans on a messaging app. Here is how the secretary described the group chat back in April.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PETE HEGSETH, UNITED STATES SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: What was shared over Signal then and now, however you characterize it, was informal, unclassified coordination for media coordination and other things. That's what I've said from the beginning.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Well, tonight, Hegseth is saying nothing to see here. Quote -- "No classified information. Total exoneration. Case closed. Houthis bombed into submission. Thank you for your attention to this IG report." My next guest read that report today. Democratic Congressman from Virginia, Eugene Vindman, joins me now. He's also a retired Army colonel who served as a judge advocate general, JAG. Congressman, thank you so much for being here. I am really curious about your opinion, in particular, because I want to know, is the I.G. report a -- what was the phrase?

[23:20:01]

Total exoneration, as Secretary Hegseth says?

REP. EUGENE VINDMAN (D-VA): That's an outright lie. This report was a damning report on the secretary's conduct. It confirmed the fact that the information that he was disclosing was highly-classified information. In fact, the type of information that would be severely damaging to U.S. national security if it were released. And, in fact, it was information that put the mission and service members at risk. It was only but for the grace of God that we did not lose anybody.

COATES: Congressman, CNN's Natasha Bertrand is reporting that while the I.G. found troop safety could have been jeopardized, there were actually no penalties involved. Are you concerned that this is still happening and troops' lives may be at risk if there's no penalty?

VINDMAN: Well, I'm certainly concerned about the fact that there's no accountability for this point. I mean, this happened back in March. And now, we're in December.

And I remember very distinctly, in my district, I was in Fredericksburg, Virginia, and I ran into a mother of one of the F-18 pilots that was in the skies over Yemen for that very mission. And she was outraged by the fact that the secretary leaked this highly- classified information or at least sent it out on the Signal chat, on unsecure system. And I asked during a hearing whether he would apologize to this mother, and he said no.

And so, there has been no accountability to this point and there needs to be accountability because this report is damning.

COATES: You know, on the boat strike, "The Wall Street Journal" has some new reporting tonight. And Admiral Frank Bradley plans to tell the leaders of your committee tomorrow that the two survivors of that September 2nd strike were -- quote -- "attempting to continue their drug run, making them and the already-damaged vessel legitimate targets for another attack" -- unquote. Would that have made that double tap strike justified?

VINDMAN: Look, the reporting that I've seen so far -- and there are many questions that need to be answered. So, we're going to need to see documents, we're going to need to hear what the admiral has to say, and the leaders of the committees will hear it. But the bottom line is, we've heard reporting that the secretary of defense said, kill them all, or words to that effect. And that is the very definition of an illegal order of a war crime.

COATES: If you believe that that's an illegal order on its face from the secretary, what is your assessment of the decision to follow it?

VINDMAN: I would say that the admiral, and he has been thrown very much under the bus at this point, he's going to need to answer some hard questions. And besides that, he's going to -- the department and the secretary need to provide the full video. The president has claimed he was going to release the video. So, the full video, all of the surrounding operational plans, legal opinions. I guarantee that this is the first operation of this type. It is very well --

COATES: Wait. Release this to you or the public? Congressman, excuse me. I don't want to talk over you, but I suspect they would see some issues in releasing it fully publicly for the concerns raised about strategy or other things. Do you intend this to be released publicly for the general public to assess?

VINDMAN: Yes, I think the American public, frankly, deserves to hear. Certainly, we in Congress need to see these documents. But there needs to be transparency to the American people.

Right now, we're conducting operations in the Caribbean, in the Pacific, targeting these boats and assume for the sake of argument that they are carrying drugs. Being a drug smuggler has never carried the death penalty to this point. And so, we're sort of pushing the law into a new direction. That case needs to be made to the American people.

And so, I think the American people do deserve to see what exactly the government is doing, what these operations entail, who the people that are being targeted on these boats are, and whether or not there's full compliance with the law, law of war, American law, international law.

COATES: Congressman Eugene Vindman, thank you for joining.

VINDMAN: Thank you for having me.

COATES: Up next, ICE is on the ground in Minneapolis to go after undocumented Somali immigrants. But the city's police chief says his officers won't be helping at all. Chief Brian O'Hara standing by to join me. Plus, Republicans frustrated, divided, and increasingly challenging the speaker of the House, Mike Johnson.

[23:25:00]

Inside the revolt that appears to be brewing, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: The Somalians should be out of here. They've destroyed our country. And all they do is complain, complain, complain. Look at their nation. Look how bad their nation is. It's not even a nation. It is just people walking around, killing each other. We're going to go the wrong way if we keep taking in garbage into our country.

(END VIDEO CLIP) COATES: The president ramping up his rhetoric toward the Somali and Somali American community as his immigration crackdown targets the area with the largest Somali population in this country, my hometown of the Twin Cities, Minneapolis, and Saint Paul.

[23:30:05]

Tonight, immigration agents are on the ground there, and CNN witnessed agents questioned the citizenship of a man panhandling outside of a mall in Minneapolis that caters to Somalis. That man says he is a citizen from Buffalo. He showed agents his ID, and he was let go. But it's a scene that is played out across the country for months.

Now, the president is launching this crackdown after a $300 million fraud scandal. Dozens of Somalis, namely Somali Americans, naturalized or born, are accused of stealing money from a government program created to feed children during the COVID pandemic. It's important to note that these people have been arrested, facing state charges, convictions pending or accomplished. But the case is putting Minneapolis in the bullseye of Trump's immigration crackdown.

Here with me now, the police chief of Minneapolis, Brian O'Hara. Police chief, thank you for being here. I know you are very busy with all the work that you are doing and faced with. And you -- specifically, you also work with the Somali community. Tell me how these threats, this rhetoric, is impacting them today.

CHIEF BRIAN O'HARA, MINNEAPOLIS POLICE DEPARTMENT: I mean, it's difficult to be a human being and be face to face with the people in our community and not be affected by what people are going through. I've been around American citizens. You know, mothers crying. People showing me that they're carrying their passport. People worried about their children who were born here being picked up.

I mean, one mother was telling me -- you know, her teenage son is autistic. She's a single mom. She can't keep him at home. So, she is afraid of her son, who's disabled and born in the United States, might be picked up and what would happen to him. I mean, it's just -- it's not possible to be human and be around people here and just not be affected by what is happening.

COATES: The tension, the anxiety, frankly, the call for profiling, very concerning in what's being talked about, what's being described. And you rightly point out Somali Americans impacted by this, living in this country, born or naturalized Americans.

And your department, you have said that your department is not going to help ICE carry out any raids. Now, critics, they argue that the raids will target dangerous criminals and that police protection could really save lives. But why do you stand firm in not assisting?

O'HARA: Well, for one, it's against the law here in this city. But two, on a more basic level, it's my mission to deal with crime and violence. You know, immigration authorities do not respond to domestic violence. They do not respond to shootings and robberies. And I do not have enough cops to deal with the actual crime that's happening in our community. So, it's not our job. They're not going to do our job for us.

And just, you know, frankly, I mean, I think the effect on the community, the way this stuff is being carried out, is making people terrified. It's -- I'm concerned that people who may need help are going to be afraid to call 911.

COATES: You've been very vocal about the shortage of officers. Frankly, since 2020, there was an exodus in some fashion following the Derek Chauvin trial and the murder of George Floyd. There has not been a rebound that happened. I understand and appreciate the shortages that you are confronted with and trying to grapple with.

And you've also heard reports that people were being kidnapped by masked men who might not be law enforcement. You urged people to call 911 if they saw that happen and said that your officers, of course, have a duty to intervene.

I am concerned when I see and hear reports of people being taken off the street without any indicia that this is a legitimate law enforcement person, or even if it is, they're not following the Constitution in doing so.

Are you encouraging -- just to be clear, are you encouraging citizens to call the police on ICE or are you saying something different?

O'HARA: Well, I mean, I feel as like what I said was intentionally twisted by some folks.

[23:35:01]

The reality is, in Minnesota, we have had very recently elected officials targeted and killed by someone who is impersonating law enforcement. So, obviously, if people have someone at the door that's claiming to be police or law enforcement, they don't see a marked police car, they don't see a uniform, they're not sure if someone is actually the police, they should call 911.

Even tonight, we had a report in South Minneapolis of armed people, not in uniform, trying to break into a building, and people weren't sure if it was law enforcement or not.

We have had reports in the past of, again, of somebody potentially being kidnapped, and we responded. This is in the past, prior to all this, at least a month ago. We responded. It turned out it was federal law enforcement. We verified it, and we left. There was no further incident.

So, I was trying to communicate what is literally actually happening. But, unfortunately, people like to make one political twist to it or another to suit their own agenda.

COATES: I'm glad you were able to clarify and discuss the tension, the sensitivities happening in the Twin Cities and Minneapolis and specifically tonight. Thank you, Chief Brian O'Hara.

O'HARA: Thank you for having me, Laura. COATES: I want to bring in Pete Seat, former White House spokesperson under President George W. Bush, and Dan Koh, former deputy and special assistant to President Biden and candidate for Congress in Massachusetts. Welcome, gentlemen.

I mean, I want to point to, first, Pete, there's an op-ed. It's in the National Review, and it's urging conservatives to call out the president's rhetoric about Somalia and Somali Americans and say -- quote -- "It is despicable to call human beings garbage."

There's also those who criticize the criticism, saying, are you focused on what he is saying and not the underlying claims of fraud that are being prosecuted? What do you think is the defensible stance?

PETE SEAT, FORMER WHITE HOUSE SPOKESMAN FOR FORMER PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: Well, it's one of those nights where I wish I had a string coming out of my back so Dan could just pull it, and I would say, I wish the president wouldn't talk like this. It's another one of those incidents where his rhetoric obscures to your point the real scandal that is taking place, and that is 59 individuals have been convicted of fraud, of defrauding the people of Minnesota to the tune of over $1 billion.

So, here we are having a conversation about what language the president should use rather than the real problem that's taking place in Minnesota right now, and that's the problem with the president and the way he talks sometimes. He gets way over his skis when there's a good story, a story that helps his message on immigration enforcement.

COATES: Well, part of that message, well, two parts. One, we are talking about eight of the -- only eight of, I think, the 80 plus were not Somali ancestry. The overwhelming number of them naturalized or born citizens of United States. So, we're talking about Americans. That's number one. But number two, the idea of what has taken place in Minnesota and the fraud, it has come under the notice because it has been prosecuted. And so, it's not a case where they are revelatory in talking about this right now.

When you see this and hear about the way the president of the United States is talking about the issue, how do you assess his language, but also the law and order stance he seems to want to take as well?

DAN KOH, FORMER WHITE HOUSE SENIOR AIDE TO PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN: Here's what I assess. How serious this is. This is a president who has a pattern of trying to redefine Americans based on where you're born and what you look like. He put out a tweet, I think, on Thanksgiving Day, saying, 53 million foreign born people are on welfare, prisons, mental institutions, drug cartels, gangs. That's his words, that's not mine. Twenty-three million of that 53 million are American citizens. So, he's calling American citizens this, right?

He has called Somalians garbage, which was obviously way beyond the pale. But he's talking about American citizens larger. This is a larger point. Elon Musk basically espousing white replacement theory recently on social media. Matt Walsh saying that New York City is by no definition an American city anymore because 40% of the people there are foreign-born people.

That is the horrifying part of this. Redefining American, not as American citizens, all of us together, the melting pot of immigrants that we should be standing for, but instead based on tears and based on where you were born. That's the most un-American thing I can possibly imagine.

COATES: This story is going nowhere. The rhetoric conversation has been continuous and the frauds are being prosecuted. But there's also a kind of prosecution happening on the political front.

I'm talking about within the Republican Party where Elise Stefanik, who you know is running for governor, she's essentially prosecuting the speaker of the House, Mike Johnson, and there is tension that is brewing there.

[23:40:05]

Stefanik called him ineffective, even though she's on his leadership team. And she told "The Wall Street Journal" -- quote -- "I believe that the majority of Republicans would vote for new leadership. It's that widespread." Now, she has walked back some of that criticism already. But do you think Speaker Johnson is in danger based on what she has said of losing his job?

SEAT: Of course. Elise Stefanik is a member of Congress. She's running for governor in New York. I want to start off by saying I want her to succeed not just because she's a Republican and I think New York would benefit from her leadership, but also because she's a friend. We used to work together in the West Wing of the White House for George W. Bush. We've helped each other on our respective campaigns for office over the years.

But there's a couple things going on here. One, there is a general discontent within the Republican caucus for a couple reasons. One, you have a majority that feels that they are subservient to the executive branch. And you have a majority that at times feels like it's a minority where they're just sitting back, waiting for Democrats to propose ideas so they can pounce and torpedo those ideas rather than putting forward their own plans and agendas.

COATES: Are they wrong on either front?

SEAT: No. I don't think -- those who believe that, I don't think they're wrong. I think they have legitimate grievances. And those were whispered, then they were hushed tones, and now they're being screamed from the pages of "The Wall Street Journal", which is what Elise has done.

I disagree with her though on the fact that Mike Johnson is ineffective. He has been dealt a really difficult hand with razor- thin margins and yet has got a ton done this year alone with the big beautiful bill and other pieces of legislation which, if you just looked at the numbers, you would think, well, this isn't going to happen. You just have four or five Republicans who vote the other way and everything crumbles. That hasn't happened. COATES: You want to be a member of Congress. You're obviously seeing the crazy and saying let me in. And do you have concerns about, if Johnson is viewed truly as a weakened leader, what does that do for Democrats who are hoping to negotiate with him and have him persuade the rest of the majority? Just kind of things like the Obamacare subsidies.

KOH: I think this is a classic example of why Americans are so fed up with politics in general. Right? We have costs that continue to go up no matter what Secretary Bessent says. It's nationwide. Right? Premiums are going to spike starting January 1st. And we're still waiting for the Republican alternative to Obamacare.

And among all of that, people are just like, tell us stuff that's going to actually help with our kitchen table issues. People are infighting and dropping exclusives in "The Wall Street Journal." Can we just drop the B.S. and actually get to stuff that's actually going to help people and solve the problems? I think both sides of the aisle are dying to see that.

COATES: Pete, Dan, thank you both. Up next, blood-stained physical evidence introduced in court as Brian Walshe faces trial for the murder of his wife, Ana. What prosecutors presented and why one of their theories today may have been knocked down a notch.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:45:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: It may have been the most intense and chilling day so far in the murder trial of Brian Walshe, who stands accused of murdering his wife, Ana, back in 2023. Today, we finally got to see at least part of what were in the bag that he supposedly filled from the home when a forensic scientist walked the jury through photo after photo of evidence covered in possible blood stains. Now, for context, prosecutors are alleging that Walshe threw his wife's belongings and ultimately, her body as well, and to dumpsters to cover his tracks for killing her.

And we should warn you, what police recovered from those dumpsters is very disturbing. First, the body has never been recovered nor the body parts. But these towels, they appear to be soaked in blood or what the expert described as red-brown stains while he was on the stand. The jury saw these images of Ana Walshe's bedroom slippers, which also appear to be covered in blood, and trace materials in that photo on the right of even hair.

But that's not all. The jury also saw images of a whole host of tools. He's alleged to have purchased from Home Depot. There's a hacksaw there. There's a hatchet, a hammer, shears. All found by investigators in black plastic bags that they allege were dumped by Brian Walshe all around town.

Remember, he has already pled guilty to disposing of her body and misleading investigators. But he says he didn't kill her. No, she died suddenly, unexpectedly instead. And he panicked. And what could one do besides conduct himself the way he did?

With me now, CNN legal analyst and criminal defense attorney Joey Jackson. Also here, Joel Waldman, co-host of the podcast "Surviving the Survivor." Glad to have both of you here.

I mean, Joey, you and I have been covering this on our All Access channel throughout the whole trial. We go through the entirety of the trial. We're watching it along with everyone else. Ana Walshe's body was never found. We know that Brian Walshe already admitted to disposing of it. He pled guilty to those charges. You can't plead guilty to first-degree murder in Massachusetts, surprisingly. So, how does the prosecution connect these dots now of what was in the bag without being able to show how she was killed?

JOEY JACKSON, CNN LEGAL ANALYST, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Yes, Laura, I think they're proceeding in a very compelling way. And I think, to this point, they certainly have introduced evidence that she is dead. That has been pretty convincing. And they've introduced evidence that he's a psychopath, which has also been convincing.

[23:49:58]

And I say that not with regard to just making a blanket characterization. This is a guy who, over the course of multiple police interviews, has claimed things about his wife leaving on a rideshare and are having to go back early, etcetera. Every one of which those things that he said has been really refuted in every respect in terms of the evidence.

And so, now, it comes to the point -- and, I mean, those particular photographs that you just saw, I mean, they're horrific to see. And now, they'll connect the dots because we're not up to the point about the DNA and the actual connection, but they're going to get there.

And so, the critical inquiry which will be left, of course, is the issue of premeditation. And I think they're going to continue through the life insurance issue. They're going to continue -- and when I say the issue that there was this policy and that's what he was after, the money, and to the issue of calling the witness about the affair, to give the indication that this was a guy who wanted her dead. If it wasn't for the money, it was because she was with this other person.

So, I think they're laying out the case, Laura, as the case should be laid out. I think they're doing what they need to do to establish premeditation and the conviction. We're not there yet, but the road to me seems and the path to me seems pretty clear to this point.

COATES: Yes. We're going to hear on the witness list, from the person who supposedly had an affair with Ana Walshe as well as early as tomorrow. Joel, you've been following this case very closely. I mean, this forensic scientist walked through each of these images one by one. They even at one point brought in the paper bags containing the evidence that the jury is going to be able to bring back to the jury room for deliberations. Imagine that. But he did keep the descriptions pretty vague. He didn't want to make any explicit connections. His job was talk about what he found, not draw conclusions. So, walk me through how this evidence fits into the timeline of what prosecutors allege happened from the time she was last seen and the time that this was recovered.

JOEL WALDMAN, PODCAST CO-HOST: That's really key here. You know, prosecutors are always very meticulous, juxtaposed to criminal defense attorneys who can be dramatic at times. I know you and Joey know that. But this prosecutor is just laying things out one step at a time.

But Joey used the most important word, I believe, in this trial, which is premeditation. Now, he did plead to those lesser charges. With first-degree murder in Massachusetts, it has to be a premeditated murder. To the best of my understanding, another jury is going to have to decide in that deliberations room whether or not the searches -- and there's no real definitive timeline. But if one juror, just one juror says, well, these came after the timeline -- after the time of her death, that whole notion of premeditation could be a really critical part to this entire case.

Now, one word to describe premeditation in the State of Massachusetts is having to make decision on a yellow light. We've gone through a traffic light. So, it's that quick. It's going to be ultimately up to jurors. But to Joey's point, I mean, this guy is a psychopath, and the evidence that they saw today is simply chilling and haunting.

COATES: The trial continues. We haven't even heard about his state of mind and mental health in any way, but I suspect jurors might be leaning towards having very strong opinions of the man that was able to concoct these stories and his defense counsel admitted it. Joey, Joel, thank you so much, both of you.

Up next, did Spotify call you young or they call you old? The company now using your taste in music to reveal your listening age. Well, great. Can you guess what Elex Michelsen's is? Find out, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:55:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

(MUSIC PLAYING)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: All right, at that time of year, you just heard the most streamed song in the world on Spotify in 2025, "Die with a Smile" by Lady Gaga and Bruno Mars. And the most streamed artist in this year's Spotify Wrapped, coming in at number one is none other than Bad Bunny, followed by Taylor Swift, The Weekend, Drake, and Billie Eilish.

It's almost midnight, everyone. Let's find out what our friend, Elex Michelson, is up to. Elex, this is the first year ever where Spotify assigned users a listening aid. So, I want to know how old are you based on your taste in music?

ELEX MICHAELSON, CNN ANCHOR AND CORRESPONDENT: So, according to Spotify, I am 79 years old.

(LAUGHTER)

Yes, they literally put up a graphic that said, I listen to music from the early 60s. And so, apparently, I'm --

(LAUGHTER)

COATES: Wow.

MICHAELSON: -- like a baby boomer, yes.

COATES: I feel like this is them hazing you, although the 60s music is great. I mean, you know, I'm a Diana Ross fan, so whatever. If that be the case, that be the case. But tell me, how do feel about your list of top artists?

MICHAELSON: I feel like it's OK. Some of it are not really -- I mean, I like the Beach Boys, but when there was Brian Wilson's death, I sort of did a lot of stories on them, so I think that got inflated. And, you know, I like the rest of the artists. What about you? You're not a Spotify person, I hear?

COATES: I don't hear him. Maybe because his listening list -- Oh, wait.

MICHAELSON: Mic check. One, two.

COATES: I'm not a Spotify person. But you know what? I am like if you were to see my playlist, it's corrupted, I tell you, because on my list, sure, are wonderful artists, of course. You got Beyonce, you got Nancy Wilson, jazz artists. Extraordinary. Luther. You've got -- but you also have -- I fudge a little bit because some of them are basic Disney tunes that my kids have put on there.

[00:00:03]

And I don't want people thinking that's my, like, listening age. Thank you very much. Either way.

MICHAELSON: So, you lied about your list?

COATES: Your show is coming up right now. Everyone, "The Story Is with Elex Michaelson." Let me go ahead and start blinking right here. I didn't lie. I gave an alternate truth.

(LAUGHTER)

MICHAELSON: That's a thing. Alternative facts.

COATES: Fly (ph) with a smile. Bye! MICHAELSON: Maybe you'll get elected president.