Return to Transcripts main page
Laura Coates Live
FBI Arrests Man Who Allegedly Planted Pipe Bombs Outside DNC, RNC; Grand Jury Declines to Re-Indict New York A.G. Letitia James; An Admiral Says There Was No "Kill Them All" Order in Boat Attack; Layoffs Hit a Million as Trump Touts the Economy. Aired 11p-12a ET
Aired December 04, 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]
DAN KOH, FORMER WHITE HOUSE SENIOR AIDE TO PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN: noise --
ISABEL BROWN, AUTHOR, PODCAST HOST: Oh, yes.
(LAUGHTER)
KOH: I find that sometimes, he goes to bed before the nine hours is over.
ABBY PHILLIP, CNN ANCHOR AND SENIOR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: That's mine as well. It would not because I have a four-year-old, but because it's for me.
(LAUGHTER)
White noise is the jam. Everyone, thank you very much. Thanks for watching "Newsnight." You can catch me any time on your favorite social media, on Instagram, TikTok, and on X. "Laura Coates Live" starts right now.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNKNOWN (voice-over): An arrest has been made in the D.C. pipe bomb investigation.
ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST (voice-over): They planted bombs outside democratic and republican headquarters in Washington the night before the January 6 attack.
KASH PATEL, DIRECTOR, FBI: A new team of investigators and experts reexamined every piece of evidence, sifted through all the data.
UNKNOWN (voice-over): If they did go off, they could have caused some serious harm or death.
JEANINE PIRRO, U.S. ATTORNEY FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: This case is big. Four years, 10 months, and 28 days, for that amount of time, that individual evaded accountability.
UNKNOWN (voice-over): Attorney General Pam Bondi publicly identifying him as Brian Cole, Jr.
UNKNOWN (voice-over): They often saw him out in the neighborhood walking his chihuahua. Very reclusive figure. Never really interacted with people.
PAM BONDI, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL: Let me be clear. There was no new tip. There was no new witness.
UNKNOWN (voice-over): A single person acting singly, without coordination, and very suspect.
UNKNOWN (voice-over): When you let good cops be cops, this is what happens.
UNKNOWN (voice-over): It was like finding a needle in a haystack.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
LAURA COATES, CNN HOST AND SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Good evening. I'm Laura Coates. And for five years, he was a shadowy mystery, outsmarting the FBI, instilling fear, instilling one of the most bizarre conspiracy theories in American history. But tonight, the FBI says they've got their man. It was January 5th, 2021 when surveillance cameras captured all we knew of the so-called D.C. pipe bomber. The grainy images showing him the night he placed pipe bombs near the RNC and DNC headquarters. This is all the night before January 6th.
That case as cold as the day he committed the alleged crime. That is until this morning. The FBI names him as 30-year-old Brian Cole, Jr. He's currently under arrest, suspected of being the D.C. pipe bomber.
So, just who was this man who allegedly evaded America's top law enforcement agency for nearly five years? We know he lived in this home, in a well-to-do suburb in Virginia. Police were there today searching the house and vehicles for additional clues and evidence. CNN's Brian Todd was also there to hear firsthand from his neighbors.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BRIAN TODD, CNN CORRESPONDENT: They said they often saw him out in the neighborhood walking his chihuahua, but he was a very reclusive figure, never really interacted with people, almost was antisocial in the words of one neighbor. Even in the deadest of winter, in the coldest days, he'd be out in his shorts with red Crocs walking his dog.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Now, you might be wondering, how does an antisocial recluse evade the FBI for so long? Well, that's a good question. And at their news conference today, the top Trump officials said they got no new tips, but they did hint at a single breakthrough. They didn't say what that was.
But the charging documents, they offer some clues. They say agents traced the suspect's bank account and credit card purchases. And they allege that he bought pieces of the bombs from stores like Home Depot. We're talking about piping and 9-volt batteries and electrical wires. The documents also reveal just how the FBI tracked his location. How? By lining up his cellphone data with the surveillance video.
Trump's team did not get deep into the detective work during their announcement. They also didn't go into a motive. But there was plenty of praise and more than a little blame.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BONDI: This cold case languished for four years until Director Patel and Deputy Director Bongino came to the FBI.
PATEL: I'm eternally grateful to the team behind me, to the leadership at the FBI.
DAN BONGINO, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, FBI: I want to also thank, he's not here, but Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche.
UNKNOWN: Director Patel, Deputy Director Bongino, thank you for your support.
BONDI: We could not do this without our U.S. attorney, Jeanine Pirro.
PIRRO: You have been listening to a lot of thank you and a lot of gratitude.
BONDI: And one more thing, this is the best birthday present, I think, Deputy Director Bongino could ask for today.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: So, all that and a birthday present for Dan Bongino? Well, they didn't bring the cake to the news conference, even though we did get the victory lap. But before all that, before the birthday boy became a deputy director of the FBI, well, there were accusations and conspiracy theories from him about who he thought was behind that attempted bombing and who he believed knew about it.
[23:05:00]
Now, compare Bongino then to Bongino now.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BONGINO: There is a massive cover-up because the person who planted those pipe bombs, they don't want you to know who it was because it's either a connected anti-Trump insider or this was an inside job.
We were going to track this person to the end of the earth. There was no way he was getting away. Well, we didn't have to track him to the end of the earth. It wound up in Woodbridge, Virginia. I want to thank the team. They were amazing. They never let this go.
(END VIDEO CLIP) COATES: From an inside job to a team effort. Got it. But what changed to bring him on board? Surely not just the title change. What changed his mind? Maybe the charging documents might provide some clues. But then there's still a glaring problem for the bureau. Because even today's arrest may not put all the conspiracies to bed. And whatever might have changed Bongino's mind left Republican Congressman Thomas Massie unfazed.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. THOMAS MASSIE (R-KY): If it's like a single person acting singly without coordination among other people, I am very suspect.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Welcome the conspiracies to the arrest. My team of law enforcement experts and reporters are with me tonight to unpack every single angle of this story and there are plenty. Let me begin with CNN chief law enforcement and intelligence analyst John Miller.
All right, piqued my curiosity here. After five years, a cold case, really. But then they heard -- they said there were no new tips, according to law enforcement officials. So, how exactly did officials piece this together? Do we know?
JOHN MILLER, CNN CHIEF LAW ENFORCEMENT AND INTELLIGENCE ANALYST: Yes. So, every piece of information that went into this or every process to get to each piece of that information was available to them immediately after the bombing.
But we've seen this before. In the Anthrax investigation after 9-11, there was a lot of focus on one suspect. It became somewhat of a tunnel vision on the part of the FBI. And then they said, let's take out this team, we'll put in a new team, new leadership, and we'll take a fresh look with fresh eyes. And they got on to Dr. Bruce Ivins and ultimately identified the actual suspect.
In this case, they did the same thing. They switched out the leadership in the field office. They brought in some new people, some outside experts. I believe that they ended up using some more powerful computer power because what they ended up sorting --
COATES: What do you mean?
MILLER: I think what they ended up doing was instead of looking at the individual suspects that came from tips and say, let's go deep into this person, and then put that on the side, go deep into that person, who bought the components for the bomb? So, they said, how do we figure out in the national capital region, assuming that the bomber is local, who bought 18-inch -- rather 8-inch, you know, galvanized pipe --
COATES: Right.
MILLER: -- who bought, you know, end caps that were threaded, who bought 9-mm connector wires? And when you look at the numbers involved, that's 22,000 pipes that were sold by Home Depot alone of that configuration, half a million of those end caps, thousands of those battery connectors.
But the real question was, could you get all that data together by subpoenaing the records of those stores and sales and then say, but what one person bought all of the components in whatever multiples? And then that got down to a smaller group. And when they began to focus on this person, there was let's get the credit card bills --
COATES: Right.
MILLER: -- and see what else he bought, the rest of the bomb components. Let's look at the cellphone records. He hit the towers in the area at the time the bombs were planted. Let's go into the license plate readers. You're seeing a lot of technology here. He ticks the south capital exit of 395 East at the time that the bomber arrives to start placing these devices. So, it's entirely circumstantial. There's no eyewitness who says --
COATES: Right.
MILLER: -- he told me or I saw him. But they put a lot of work into it and came out with this result.
COATES: I mean, fresh eyes is one thing. And, obviously, hindsight being 20/20. Everything you described makes such sense to be able to begin an investigation. I'm surprised, five years later, even fresh eyes would not be duplicative of what was already done. And yet this person, Brian Cole, Jr. was not on the radar before. What do we know about him?
MILLER: We know and, you know, a lot of this is from Brian Todd's reporting and the team that was in the field today, is he was a loner. He kept to himself. When he walked his pet, chihuahua, on the street, it was with the headphones on. He might look at you and nod, but he wasn't a conversator with the neighbors.
And that, you know, even on his mother's social media Facebook page, you know, there's a family picture, they're at the aquarium, and one of the comments back is, where's little Brian?
[23:10:00]
And she said, little Brian doesn't like to come out, so we left him home. And, you know, little Brian was, you know, 20-something years old at that time. He's 30 now. But he's Brian Cole, Jr.
COATES: Right.
MILLER: His father. But he was a guy who liked to stick close to home. Looks like he worked in his father's bail bonds business.
But we're missing this motive piece. We started out in this case thinking two dominant theories. One, it was part of the January 6th storm, the Capitol conspiracy, by planting them at both locations, Democrats, Republicans, getting a massive law enforcement response, splitting it into two places or that it was just an anti-government extremist. We have a character who's much harder to read here because he seems to be either apolitical or he doesn't like any politics.
COATES: Is he talking? Do we know?
MILLER: I don't believe he is.
COATES: Well, a lot more to unpack. Thank you so much, John Miller. So, what is the FBI's next move on this case? They seem to have identified a suspect. Well, former FBI assistant director for the Criminal Investigative Division, Chris Swecker, joins us now. Chris, I mean, this suspect has been charged with transporting an explosive device, malicious destruction by means of explosion. The attorney general says that more charges could be brought. What would you expect to be brought?
CHRIS SWECKER, FORMER FBI ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION DIVISION: Yes, I would say that this initial arrest based on a complaint, not an indictment, but a complaint, is really a placeholder as they follow up and continue to do their investigation.
I couldn't agree with John more. I think that this was an exercise in using some powerful data analytics that may not have been, you know, ready for prime time four years ago, using cellphone data, using license tag tracking and credit card transactions, and it just all came together.
So, you know, I think what we're looking for here is the motive part to see if there may be other charges here, whether specific targets, attempted murder, for example. There's a whole host of charges because we're in the district now and it is sort of -- you're not just stuck with, you know, the traditional federal statutes. I mean, they operate almost like a county courthouse in the way that they can bring charges like first-degree murder and that sort of thing. So, obviously, not in this case, but attempted first-degree murder.
So, I think there's a lot here to work with. You know, they may not have been quite ready to do this, to make this arrest, because usually, when you get a complaint, you're in a hurry. If you can take your time, you will do an indictment first. So, there's something that triggered this that caused them to want to go out and grab him very quickly.
COATES: That's an important point.
SWECKER: But this thing is ongoing. There'll be more charges.
COATES: That's an important point. I mean, an indictment, obviously, for the most serious charges, you'd have probable cause basis to do so. They got this out here as a complaint. This is my old office and the hybrid nature of it does open up the gamut of what you could possibly charge. And we still don't know how many victims. And the idea of attempted murder, as you're talking about, would be contemplated here.
SWECKER: Right. COATES: But, also, you said it may not be ready for prime time a couple years ago. This has been five years. The attorney general said that they already had at their disposal information, that there were no new details, albeit a new trigger, and criticized a lack of progress under President Biden's Department of Justice. Listen to what she said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BONDI: All of our prosecutors have worked tirelessly for months, sifting through evidence that had been sitting at the FBI with the Biden administration for four long years.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: She's suggesting that the FBI was not thorough, which I would assume the FBI would take offense to if it truly was a matter of data analytics not being available for the so-called prime time. Was it a fair criticism?
SWECKER: No, I don't think so. I don't think the FBI was half- stepping through this and trying to avoid a solution. I think they very much, throughout the course of this, have really, really liked to get a solution, a quick one at that.
But we know that, and this is a little bit scary to some people, there were massive cellphone dumps. We call it huge caches of cellphone data that the FBI grabbed and got from the cellphone carriers en masse. And it takes a lot of computing power to go through all that if you're looking for commonalities with credit card transactions.
As John mentioned, they don't go to individual credit card holders and do it one by one. They're going to go to Home Depot and Lowe's, the usual, the biggest outlets, and subpoena their credit card information en masse and, again, make those data matches.
[23:14:57]
If you take the A.G. at her word that there's no new information here, then what has changed is our ability and their power to do the A.I. We used to call it, you know, big data analytics. Now, they're calling it artificial intelligence. But it has made great leaps in the last four years.
COATES: It has made great leaps in the last four months to that notion. Chris Swecker, thank you so much. The pipe bomb case, it is long fixated conspiracy theorist who believe that it was a deep state inside job meant to undermine Trump. And, of course, the correlation and the timing with respect to January 6th only added to that.
That also came from FBI Director Dan Bongino who, as a podcast host, pointed to a cover-up, only to pour cold water on that conspiracy theory earlier today. Here's how Bongino explained his evolution on the case tonight.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) BONGINO: Listen, I was paid in the past, for my opinions. That's clear. And one day, I'll be back in that space. But that's not what I'm paid for now. I'm paid to be your deputy director. And we base investigations on facts.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: My next guest has covered this conspiracy theory for literally years now. I'm talking about senior reporter for "The Bulwark," Will Sommer, and he joins me now. Will, good to see you. I mean, how did this inside job narrative take a life of its own within MAGA? And what do you think of the evolution that Bongino just described?
WILL SOMMER, SENIOR REPORTER, THE BULWARK: Sure, I mean, the key thing to understand about the pipe bomb case for Trump supporters is they think January 6 was like a -- it was a setup, that they were duped into it. And so, they focus on the pipe bomb because they think that this was planted. Always a lot of them that do to either really ratchet up tensions between the protesters and Capitol police or to somehow distract Capitol police and in a way that would make the riot happen.
And so, that's why they really keyed in on this idea. As we saw, even Dan Bongino, the future FBI deputy director, claimed it was an inside job. And so, that's why there has been so much focus on somehow proving and, again, the many years -- as was discussed earlier, the many years that it took to find this suspect only fed into that narrative.
COATES: And not to mention -- I mean, now that he is in the FBI, I'm sure he has access to more information than certainly he did when he was a podcast host. And so, perhaps, whatever he has access to would have been much more persuasive than theories he once had. But I'm waiting to see what the big evolution was in terms of what the evidence shows purely.
Right-wing outlet "The Blaze" is under scrutiny for trying to link a former Capitol police officer to the crime. And Congressman Massie said today that he is skeptical of DOJ's explanation, and he's not alone. So, are people ever going to be satisfied even with a suspect pre-trial, of course, but a suspect identified?
SOMMER: You know, right before we came on tonight, "The Blaze" officially retracted its story. They're kind of -- they have their tail between their legs. They're embarrassed and potentially facing a massive future defamation suit.
COATES: Whew!
SOMMER: But I think these conspiracy theories are going to continue rolling. I mean, you know, as we saw with the Charlie Kirk assassination, as we've seen with the Epstein case, these conspiracy theories are really a live issue on the right. And they typically are not satisfied even when Trump supporters, conspiracy theorists like Dan Bongino and Kash Patel, are in charge themselves. COATES: Will Sommer, thank you so much. Up next, another major swing and a miss for Trump's DOJ, a grand jury refusing to indict New York Attorney General Letitia James. But might DOJ be about to try again? What happens if they do? And later, the question people have been asking all week. Was it a war crime? The stunning new details about that deadly double tap strike that has lawmakers both rattled and divided.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNKNOWN: It's going to be really important for the American people to know what is being done in their name.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:20:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: You know, there are few things more embarrassing to federal prosecutors than having a grand jury reject the case you think ought to be indicted. That's exactly what happened today because a grand jury in Norfolk, Virginia told the DOJ, nope, we don't buy that you have a mortgage fraud case against New York Attorney General Letitia James.
This was actually DOJ's second time trying to prosecute her. Remember the first indictment they got? Well, that was tossed, not on the merits, but because a judge ruled that Lindsey Halligan was illegally appointed. She's Trump's hand-picked U.S. attorney who brought the first case after the original U.S. attorney refused to do so.
James in a statement tonight saying what she has been saying frankly for a while, that this is all a vindictive pursuit, saying -- quote -- "The charges against me are baseless. It is time for this unchecked weaponization of our justice system to stop."
But it likely won't because one source familiar tells us it's very possible that DOJ will try to indict her for a third time which, of course, they can because double jeopardy hasn't attached to an indictment.
With me now, CNN legal analyst Joey Jackson, criminal defense attorney and opinion contributor for U.S. News and World Report, Stacy Schneider. Glad to have both of you here.
Look, the grand jury rejected it. They have every right to do so. Oftentimes, prosecutors might say, can you tell me more as to why you rejected it, and they might try to supplement in a way that makes it make sense to them. But this is a very public case. The fact that it has been rejected already at this point in time, does that suggest to you that the jurors thought fatal flaw or political?
JOEY JACKSON, CNN LEGAL ANALYST, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: So, Laura, it suggests to me that there is no case and should be no indictment, OK? How many times have you been in the grand jury? The grand jury, just for perspective, is a wing of the prosecution. The prosecution controls the grand jury.
COATES: Yes.
[23:25:00]
JACKSON: The prosecution presents the evidence to the grand jury. The defense attorney is not in there. There's no oral argument at all. And, of course, the prosecution charges the grand jury with respect to what they should consider the facts and the charges. And so, putting this in perspective, we all know, right, the grand jury can indict a ham sandwich. We heard that a million times over. So, where's the ham and where's the sandwich here? It says a lot.
And I was reading something today, which I thought was very interesting. There was a study that was done in 2016 by the Department of Justice. A 130,000, you heard me, 130,000 indictments, only eight times in 130,000 times did the prosecution not get something indicted. So, that says to me that there is no meat on the bones here and they just need to stop.
And it obviously corroborates with what Ms. James has been saying, that this is a vindictive prosecution that should not have been brought in the first place.
COATES: Let's hear from her attorney. He spoke to my colleague, Kaitlan Collins, Abbe Lowell, talking about the vindictiveness of what he thinks is going on with this prosecution. Listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ABBE LOWELL, ATTORNEY FOR LETITIA JAMES: I've also heard that they're just going to wait and try it next week in a different grand jury, in a different city in Virginia. That is -- again, if they do that, people need to pay attention. It's not like this is normal, but what it does do is show how far they'll go to break the rule of law to do a revenge tour that President Trump has ordered.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Now, obviously, there's that phrase, third time is the charm. But if you are the person who is trying to indict a case, you know, publicly, your grand jurors probably know that you're trying to indict this case. And even if you're successful on that third go-around, you have an uphill battle now with the trial jury who is going to think, hmm, what? Right?
STACY SCHNEIDER, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR AT U.S. NEWS AND WORLD REPORT: Yes, very true. And third time is not the charm when you don't have a case. And they're sitting in a room. They're walking into a grand jury room, these prosecutors. You're supposed to walk in with a case. You're supposed to walk in with sufficient evidence. It's a probable cause type of hearing. It's not even a trial. The level of proof is different in the grand jury. And like we said, and Joey said, there's no judge in there. It's a prosecution presenting their case to the grand jury to see if there's enough evidence to indict.
So, now going back, and again, the credibility of the system is what's really shot here, that they keep going after her over and over again on a mortgage fraud case. And of all the people who fill out mortgages in the United States to buy homes, they happen to target the attorney general of New York who prosecuted Trump in a civil trial. So, it's -- it is what -- it's so visible, what this is about. And the fact that they keep trying, they just look sadder to me than the system has ever --
COATES: This is obviously different than, say, James Comey. That case, of course, having a limitations problem, not just the appointment problem. But talk to me about -- if you're James, do you ultimately want this to go to trial, to bring up those very points, and get that day in court or, obviously, nobody wants to go to trial?
JACKSON: Right.
COATES: But do you want to have that be the resolution as opposed to some technicality people think is existing?
JACKSON: So, you know what, Laura, it's always even if it's a technicality, nice to get your client out of the line of fire, right? And so, if there is a trial, anything could happen. But in talking about this, understand what we're talking about, right? Just resetting very briefly. You've got 23 grand jurors in there. A simple majority are needed to vote out an indictment. So, let's be clear. It's not a trial jury where you have unanimous jurors that are making an indication of guilt or innocence.
COATES: And it's probable cause.
JACKSON: And it's probable cause. If you can't get that, what else can you get? But let me tell you what I'm proud about, right? In many respects, the grand jury exists as the guard against the overzealous government that's coming to get you. The very reason we have grand jurors is that they can be a check on power that can just eat you up. And so, the fact that the grand jury rejected this shows me we have a system that's working.
So, no, I don't want it to go to trial if I'm her attorney, I want the grand jury to do its job, and I want the grand jury to call it as they see it. And apparently, their call is that there is no case.
COATES: And, of course, the grand jury has subpoena power as well, and this is largely going to be a documents case. That's what the mortgage fraud is going to be about. That suggests to me that there is some flaw even in the review of the documentation, that there would be probable cause to believe that this person probably committed fraud.
SCHNEIDER: You're right, Laura, because it's an intent case. Were the statements that she allegedly filled out in the mortgage application fraudulent? Was she telling the truth when she answered the questions to obtain the benefit of a certain loan terms from the bank? An intent case is usually proven from, you know, circumstantial evidence of what was going on there. Does her life match what's in the application? Does it appear to be true?
[23:29:59]
But a lot of times, defendants need to take the stand sometimes to say, I did not have that type of intent. If they can't even find the intent from wrongdoing within the documents, then the case is even weaker than we expected when they first presented it to the grand jury the first time.
This is really a battle. Again, I'm going use the word "sad." I think this is sad, that they keep going after her for this kind of charges. And you're right, it's not like Comey. This is different. This is a paper case.
COATES: There's also a long list of people who are being accused of this, who the administration believes were targeting President Trump or then civilian Trump. So, we'll see if this is instructive or a deterrent in those cases as well. Joey, Stacy, thank you both so much.
Up next, the alleged drug boat was reportedly split in half, capsized, and taking on water. And still, Admiral Frank Bradley says he made the decision to strike the survivors that we see struggling on the video. So, why was he so sure that the kill order was legal? We'll run his rationale through the legal architect of President Bush's 9-11 response, John Yoo, who's back with us tonight with his assessment.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:35:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: The controversy over the first deadly boat strike against suspected drug cartels isn't stopping the administration from carrying out more. Another strike taking place today in the Eastern Pacific. Four people were killed. It's the 23rd strike on a suspected drug boat.
And today, Congress intensified its scrutiny of the first strike on September 2nd, the one in the Caribbean where two men survived, only to be hit and killed by another strike.
Admiral Frank Bradley briefed lawmakers all about it today. And tonight, we have exclusive new reporting on what he told them. Sources with direct knowledge of the briefing say that Bradley revealed the men didn't appear to have radio or other communications systems. They didn't make a distress call. And military leaders watched the men struggle to overturn what was left of their boat.
But the admiral told lawmakers he ordered that second strike because it appeared the wreckage still had cocaine. The survivors could have floated to safety and kept trafficking the drugs. One source called that rationale -- quote -- "effing insane."
But how lawmakers see it seemed to depend on what side of the aisle they're on.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. JIM HIMES (D-CT): Admiral Bradley has a storied career, and he has my respect, and he should have the respect of all of us, but what I saw in that room was one of the most troubling things I've seen in my time in public service.
SEN. TOM COTTON (R-AR): I saw two survivors trying to flip a boat loaded with drugs, bound for the United States back over so they could stay in the fight and potentially, give them all --
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: I want to bring back John Yoo. He was one of the legal architects of the Bush administration's response to 9-11, and he served as deputy assistant attorney general in the Office of Legal Counsel at the DOJ.
I'm glad that you're here to help unpack this, because I have been curious about your reaction, because the last time we spoke, you said the military's actions violated the rules of war. Do these new details change your mind on that?
JOHN YOO, LAW PROFESSOR AT UC BERKELEY, FORMER DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL IN BUSH ADMINISTRATION: One thing that's becoming clear, I think, is that no one is out there saying, we're allowed to just shoot survivors, we are allowed to give no quarter. No one that I heard in these hearings so far is making the claim that the laws of war don't apply and they're not going to follow them. So, we should be assured from that. But there's still a lot of unclarity.
So, the most important thing to nail down, I think, is, was there ever an order given saying no quarter, no survivors, kill everyone, as "The Washington Post" story suggested? We apparently heard from the admiral today that he never heard such an order. We'll be able to verify that in an investigation when there's an order written.
Then the second thing is, what facts were there that you can see that a commander would see that would have justified a second strike? And you can already see. We haven't seen the video ourselves, but you can see people on both sides of the aisle already starting to disagree about whether those facts are there.
COATES: I am stunned that even in Washington, D.C., that watching a video would create a kind of ink blot test where different parties seem to be seeing something very different than what was ever before them in the video.
But our sources also say that Admiral Bradley and other military officials actually discussed whether to strike the boat again, not just a quick rapid succession, but for 41 minutes, 41 minutes, as they watch those two men holding on to part of it. What does that length of time tell you about whether they were able to accurately assess whether those men still posed a threat? YOO: That's a good point, Laura, because one thing we want to do in the laws of war is not over-legalize them to the point of saying, we're going to review closely split-second decisions you made under the pressure of battle. We don't want to subject, you know, enlisted men who are on the front lines to that kind of level of scrutiny.
But if you're talking about 41 minutes and they're sitting in a situation room or the Pentagon and they're watching live feeds, they're talking to each other for that amount of time, you might say we would want to see more proof, we'd want to see more of your thought process of how you decided, admiral, to fire that missile when, from the facts, as we learn them, it doesn't sound like these people are in the fight anymore, it doesn't sound like they were communicating with anybody, it doesn't sound like their boat could even float anymore.
[23:40:01]
Why would they be a legitimate target?
COATES: And again, it goes back to the idea instinctively of whether the carrying and trafficking of drugs poses the requisite level of threat to the nation to be able to even carry out an order. That'll be part of the investigation.
But John, some are defending the double-tap strike. I mean, President Obama's former acting director of the Defense Intelligence Agency says -- quote -- "We use double-taps all the time," and added there was -- quote -- "bipartisan support on the Hill for doing it."
So, what is the issue then, the double strikes or whether the boat was a valid target because of the contents?
YOO: I think it's a mixture of both. You're right to press on this issue because it goes to this question we talked about last time. Is this really a war or is this crime? And a lot of the standards people are using to question the strike come from the world of criminal justice. We would never allow a strike like this if this was a criminal justice operation.
I think there is something different, though, with the Obama double strikes or double taps and what happened here. In those operations in the Obama years, those were targeted strikes to kill terrorist leaders. The people were the targets. It's just as if you were trying to kill the head of the Japanese Navy in World War II, which we did.
That's different, I think, when you're trying to kill those enemy commanders and then what we saw in a drug boat strike. What we're really trying to do there, I think, is just trying to interdict the commerce and the way that the Venezuelan government raises money and gets revenue.
So, I'm not sure whether you have as broad a discretion to strike civilian targets or even just civilian traffic or non-military traffic in those channels of commerce the way you would if you were targeting a terrorist leader. COATES: A very important and perceptive thought. Thank you so much, John Yoo. I appreciate your time. Up next, a million layoffs this year. A million layoffs. Brutal polling about the cost of living. And now, President Trump gets to set on the road to say that Democrats are conning the public with their assessment of the economy. I've got Kevin O'Leary and former New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio here to debate it all, next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:45:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: Now, here's the number that caught my eye today, 1.1 million. That's the number of jobs lost since the start of the year. That's up more than 54% compared to 2024, and the highest since the pandemic started. Now, not what the president or the administration wants to hear, is it? So, you know what? Trump is going on tour, visiting Northeast Pennsylvania, hoping to tout his economic victories.
So, what does that record look like? Well, inflation today is lower than under President Biden, but high prices are still causing problems for Americans. The unemployment rate, that's dropping as well. But the specter of job cuts from A.I. is only rising. And the fate of Trump's tariff agenda sits in the hands of the nine Supreme Court justices.
I want to talk more about all of this with former mayor of New York City, Bill de Blasio, and Shark Tank judge and chairman of O'Leary Ventures, Kevin O'Leary.
I'll begin with you, Kevin, on this new poll, because it finds that 37% of 2024 Trump voters say that the cost of living is worse than they can remember. So, how does the president intend to sell the economy to the country if his own voters feel that way about it?
KEVIN O'LEARY, CHAIRMAN, O'LEARY VENTURES: Actually, affordability came on the scene and the rhetoric and the focus of America right here in New York City because we elected a socialist mayor, as you well know, sir, on affordability metrics. And it was very interesting. I think he did a masterful job, Mamdani, in talking this through, using social media to talk about affordability, and has defined the new direction of the Democratic Party on this issue. And it's fair to do that. And I think he did a fantastic job.
COATES: So, it's not a con job.
O'LEARY: No, it's not, except now he has to face reality and policy. It doesn't really work to offer free everything for everybody. So, he's coming in in just a few weeks, and then the rubber hits the road.
COATES: President Trump seemed to praise him.
O'LEARY: But Trump is hitting the road ahead of him, saying, look, that was a masterful job in politics, and it really was unprecedented and well done, and I applaud him for it. And I want to come back to New York after (INAUDIBLE). I want to come here for free food, free hotels, free transportation, and I'm looking forward to it. So, if I were the president, because this is the metric of his opposition going into the midterms, you've got to get out there and explain why that isn't going to work, and that's what he's going to do.
The truth is, inflation is still at 3%, the mandate of the Fed is 2. There is work to be done. And this artificial intelligence thing on jobs hasn't really taken effect yet. It's more tariffs on input costs, keeping inflation where it is.
COATES: Let's ask the mayor -- former mayor of New York City. Obviously, you have a successor that he is talking about and you have been supportive of him. You know that the vice president, J.D. Vance, is sort of playing clean-up hitter for Trump.
[23:50:02]
He's not saying that Trump means that affordability is a hoax, but he says that the hoax is that Republicans are to blame for inflation and could instantly fix it. Quoting here, he says, "The hoax is the idea that it's our fault and not the Democrats' fault. And I do think that's a totally B.S. narrative." What's the Democratic response?
BILL DE BLASIO, FORMER NEW YORK CITY MAYOR: You know, it's really strange when people are a year into their administration, have total control in Washington, and then try and say it's not their fault. The American public doesn't buy it.
One of the things we are seeing in the public opinion polling across the board, American people have said this is Trump's economy now and it's we're hurting because of specific policies. The tariffs have been counterproductive. It has created instability. It has made it very hard for businesses to make decisions. That's led to either layoffs or decision not to hire because businesses don't know what direction things are going in.
COATES: What about his point that A.I. seems like a speculative foe?
DE BLASIO: Oh, I think that is very much on the mind of American voters, particularly younger voters, as we saw from recent polling. They're worried to death that A.I. is going to disrupt their jobs.
But here and now, you've got the tariffs creating instability. You've got a president who seems more interested in trying to win a Nobel Prize than actually addressing the issue that he came here to talk about and work on, which was inflation. And what people are doing is they're talking. They're really expressing their lived experience. Prices are higher than ever, and they feel more daunting than ever.
And this is, Laura, I think the crucial point here. What the Republicans have to show for their year is massive tax breaks to corporations and the wealthy, but there's no anti-inflation program, there's no health care plan, and they're not addressing the kitchen table issues that actually gotten them elected to begin with. That all means the Democrats now have the high ground. COATES: Let's speak to that continuing anxiety around A.I. that you've both been referencing because the CEO of Anthropic has an idea that would help all Americans. Listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DARIO AMODEI, CEO AND CO-FOUNDER, ANTHROPIC: I don't see retraining programs as a panacea, but I think we're going to need to do some form of that. Companies are going to do it. Companies are going to have to work with governments to do it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Retraining. Is that the answer? Is that what would alleviate the anxiety?
O'LEARY: You know, I think the narrative on A.I. very much occurred when television went to color and everybody said it would wipe out radio. It didn't happen. It's a tool. It's a tool for productivity and margin enhancement. It's just starting to get utilized in all 11 sectors of the economy. My companies use it. But it's nowhere near the disruptor that people think. It hasn't really had an effect on the S&P 500 yet.
And, by the way, it actually is focusing on a few issues that we should address. I'm more concerned about Chinese on A.I. because they have unlimited power. They are not restricted to set up coal burning electrical plants. We can't do that. A.I. right now for me is a competition on defense and the military in China.
I know that's a derivative from what you just talked about, but I look at it and say to myself, in war in the next 10 years, 20 years, and you talk about drones, they're driven by A.I. I worry that we're falling behind the Chinese on power on our grid, and we haven't addressed it yet. We do not have policy that lets us build out of the same pace they are.
COATES: But ordinary people -- I mean, obviously, what you describe is an intellectual discussion as well. Most people are thinking, am I going to have a job? Am I going to not be able to afford what I need for my family? Is the American dream no longer attainable to me? And that anxiety increases. And you have combined that with the number of layoffs this year, which I know is not only just A.I., but they're thinking about the real time issues of 1.1 million layoffs, and then A.I. coming.
DE BLASIO: Laura, I think you hit the nail on the head. Right now, there's incredible insecurity. Let's be clear. People used to think they were middle class. There are a lot of Americans that consider themselves middle class. That number of people who securely feel that everything is OK and their next generation is going to do better, that's really gone compared to what we used to know.
So, now, if you say people are feeling instability and fear and they don't know if they're going to make ends meet right now, and then you say, here's a technology even though -- Kevin is right, we don't know enough yet, but we do know, if you're a lawyer, if you're a journalist, if you're a researcher, if you're an academic, you might be out of a job. If you're a truck driver, if you're a cab driver, you might be out of a job. This is going to hit blue collar and white collar just as hard.
And that fear without any policy response from Washington, let's remember that. The people are paying attention. They're not hearing from Trump or Democrats or Republicans an answer to a very valid fear on top of the fears they already legitimately have.
COATES: So, should Trump's tour include trying to alleviate that anxiety or speaking simply about the economy being strong today? Is it really forward thinking to A.I.?
O'LEARY: Well, he gets to have a bit of a victory tour.
[23:55:00]
And the mayor is right on many metrics he has just discussed. But the truth is we're 40 points away from an all-time high in the measure of the American economy. Fifty-two cents of every dollar invested on earth comes to America even now. The trust of the international sovereign wealth is all coming here. We're still the number one economy on earth for a whole bunch of reasons.
And, you know, it's very difficult to say all things are horrific when the real measure of success is the American economy. It is second to none, and it continues to advance and be measured worldwide as number one. Thank goodness.
DE BLASIO: Listen, Kevin got a point, but I want to say, this reminds me of when Joe Biden mistakenly started talking about Bidenomics, and Joe Biden loved to talk about the big economic indicators. But at the kitchen table, everyday Americans, they weren't feeling that. They were feeling insecurity, and they're feeling it even more now. So, this tour talking about the great statistics is going to fail for Trump just like it failed for Biden.
COATES: Well, we will see. It's just beginning. Thank you to both, Bill de Blasio and Kevin O'Leary. And hey, thank all of you so much for watching. "The Story Is with Elex Michaelson" is next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
