Return to Transcripts main page
Laura Coates Live
Trump Touts Economy on the Road, Calls Affordability a "Hoax"; Trump Sells A.I. Chips to China; Bipartisan Calls Grow for Release of Full Boat Strike Video; Brian Walshe Murder Trial Resumes for Second Week. Aired 11p-12a ET
Aired December 09, 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]
KEVIN O'LEARY, CHAIRMAN OF O'LEARY VENTURES: To practice at least an hour every day. I'm getting way better than I used to.
UNKNOWN: He has --
ABBY PHILLIP, CNN ANCHOR AND SENIOR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: And you picked up acting as well.
LAURIE A. WATKINS, FORMER DEPUTY POLITICAL AND POLICY DIRECTOR, OBAMA CAMPAIGNS: I know. Did you hear this?
PHILLIP: You're in a new movie.
WATKINS: He's in a movie.
O'LEARY: Oh, "Marty Supreme." Yes, go see it.
WATKINS: Plug it.
O'LEARY: L.A. premiere last night. I came from that. Lineups around the block, and on the 16th here in New York City is the big one. This film will exhaust you.
PHILLIP: All right. Everybody, you heard it here first. Thank you so much for watching "NewsNight." You can catch me any time on social media X, Instagram, and TikTok. "Laura Coates Live" is right now.
LAURA COATES, CNN HOST AND SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Well, tonight, President Trump tries to sell his economic message on the road while giving himself an A-plus times five. But Americans are signaling, they ain't buying it. Plus, they call them digital gold. So, why is Trump allowing Nvidia to sell powerful A.I. chips to China? Senator Amy Klobuchar has a lot to say about it. And the social media ban in Australia that has many people asking, could that happen here? Should it? Tonight on "Laura Coates Live."
So, when you're told the president is going to give a speech, say about the economy, you usually expect to hear about the economy, especially when Americans are feeling the pinch and the president's own party is getting very jittery about their chances in the midterms. But President Trump is like a box of chocolates. You never know what you're going to get. So, when he rolled up on stage at a casino resort in Pennsylvania, it wasn't that shocking to hear him spend most of his time talking about something other than the economy. And when he actually did get around to talking about the economy, he described it as a problem he has already fixed.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: We're getting lower prices, bigger paychecks. We're getting inflation. We're crushing it. And you're getting much higher wages. I mean, the only thing that's really going up big is called the stock market and your 401(k)s.
(APPLAUSE)
They say, affordability. And everyone says, oh, that must mean Trump has high prices. No, our prices are coming down tremendously from the highest prices in the history of our country.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: You know, Trump is even giving himself his own grade. And in his telling, well, frankly, he's already the valedictorian.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DASHA BURNS, WHITE HOUSE BUREAU CHIEF, POLITICO: I wonder what grade you would give --
TRUMP: A-plus.
BURNS: A-plus?
TRUMP: Yes, A-plus, plus, plus.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Well, that's not how most Americans might see it because, you know, poll after poll shows that Trump is underwater on the economy. And look, I could show you all of them. But I want to look at a very recent one, and it's from Fox News, no less. It says that more than three quarters of voters have a negative view of the economy. Now, numbers in a poll are one thing. It can also show you what real flesh and blood Americans are saying about Trump's rosy outlook.
CNN's Alayna Treene spoke with Pennsylvania residents at a local grocery store. It wasn't far from where actually Trump spoke tonight. And you know what grade they gave?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNKNOWN: No, no, no. It's not A-plus, plus. I mean, it's not terrible. I mean, I'd give it a C.
UNKNOWN: The economy is really rough right now. Prices are so high. It's paycheck to paycheck. UNKNOWN: It's all bullshit. Nothing has come down. Everything is gone up. Maybe eggs have come down a little but, you know, how many eggs can you eat?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Not just a feeling. The data shows it, because overall prices, grocery prices, home prices, look, they're all up. And according to one analysis, the typical American household is spending $208 more per month than this time last year. That's right before Trump started his second term.
But even though the president is saying the affordability crisis or the terminology is somehow a sham, he's still pointing the finger somewhere else. You know who it is? It's pointing at the guy before him.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: I inherited a mess. I inherited a total mess.
You probably saw some numbers today. And I have to start off by saying that's Biden. That's not Trump because we came in on January. These are quarterly numbers.
This is Biden's economy because we took over on January 20th.
[23:05:01]
And I think you have to get us a little bit of time to get moving. But this is the Biden economy.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: I know. I realized. Logically, it doesn't make any sense in terms of what he's saying and what he's blaming, because if prices are really going down, why would you pass that blame? Wouldn't you want credit to suggest it's your economy (INAUDIBLE)? And why say you need more time?
There's something else really interesting going on, because Fox has another poll on who voters think is responsible, and they pin the current economic conditions on Trump more than Biden, and by a 30% margin.
Now, here's the thing. Trump may be saying one thing publicly, but privately, his administration is acknowledging the economic reality. Sources say that he sees it as a kind of perception issue. One Trump advisor telling CNN, "Everybody gets it at the White House. We've got a lot of work to go, and it's frustrating for the president, but it's what we've got to deal with."
Frustrating for the president. You know who else might be frustrated? The American people, consumer, living with sticker shock.
I want to begin with Democratic governor of Kentucky, Andy Beshear, who just began his term as chair of the Democratic Governors Association. Governor, thank you so much for being here this evening. I'm eager to hear your take on a number of things. So, let's begin here because the president did admit that prices were too high, but he repeatedly had called affordability a hoax. Which is it? Can he have it both ways?
GOV. ANDY BESHEAR (D-KY): No. I guess he doesn't know what affordability means. Listen, he might not get it, but the American people do. They know right now that groceries cost too much, that that new home seems out of reach, that that family vacation they were able to take with their parents no longer fits in the budget. People right now are worried the American dream is slipping away because they're working hard, but they're not getting ahead.
And this president, he told them he would make it better, but everything he has done has only made it harder. His tariff policies have raised the cost of everything. And that big, ugly bill is going to not only gut rural health care, but gut entire rural economies like in my state.
And finally, what he is now doing with soybean farmers, thank goodness they are going to get help because they need it. But why do they need help? Because his terrible tariff policy dried up their most important market which then went to Argentina and Brazil while he was sending billions of dollars to Argentina.
COATES: And yet, in spite of what you have just described, the president is saying tonight that tariffs are making the country so rich that he's offering aid for farmers more broadly. Listen to what he had to say.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: We gave the farmers a little help, $12 billion, and they are so happy. All they want is a level playing field. And now, it's happening.
(APPLAUSE)
And the tariffs are making them rich. It's going to be -- you're going to see -- you're going to see what happens over the next two years.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Well, a lot of farmers have seen what has happened over the last several months alone, and they do not like that farmer's almanac, so to speak. Is this just a band-aid? And what about other businesses that are being impacted?
BESHEAR: Yes. Soybean farmers' largest market is China. And this president's tariff policy started a tariff war where China said, fine, we won't buy soybeans from the United States, we're going to go to Argentina and Brazil. And it's our farmers, our Kentucky farmers, our American farmers that have suffered because of the decision of one man alone, and that's Donald Trump. And listen, he can -- he can do this -- this one-year assistance. And my farmers need help. But if that Chinese market goes to Brazil and Argentina permanently, there are going to be a lot of soybean farmers who are going to lose their very farm because of Donald Trump.
But look at so many other industries. When his big, ugly bill shuts down 35 rural hospitals in Kentucky, those aren't my numbers, that's the Kentucky Hospital Association, each of those is the largest payroll in their county, so when that shuts down, so does local coffee shops, so does local restaurants, so does the local banks, so does local insurance company. What he is doing to our economy is disastrous.
And I'll tell you, we used to say that a president can't impact the economy that much. Donald Trump has proven us wrong. He is destroying it right in front of our very eyes.
[23:10:00]
COATES: So, not the A plus, plus, plus, plus times five on the economy that the president has said tonight?
BESHEAR: I'm not sure where the president went to school. But, first, that's not possible. And second, it's certainly not humble. And third, it is not accurate whatsoever. In my state, he gets an F because right now, that young couple that wants to buy their first new home, it costs more if it has hardwood because of tariffs. It costs more for the cabinets because of the tariff on it. It costs more for the furniture because of the tariff on a pole street.
You look at different businesses. In Kentucky, our bourbon business, very important. We're losing international markets because of tariffs. And then it's just the president's rhetoric, his insulting of Canada, our closest ally. They banded together and stopped buying U.S. products like bourbon. That's bad for the industry in Kentucky. And listen, I don't want to deprive anyone, even Canadians, of good Kentucky bourbon.
COATES: I understand and appreciate that aspect of it. But if you give President Trump an F, he is going to tell you, then that F is for former, as in the former president, President Biden. He is blaming the economy on that president. Does the former administration deserve at least some of the criticism?
BESHEAR: Well, the former administration was attempting to build the economy of tomorrow, investing in really important industries like EVs and chips in areas for our national security that we've got to catch up with the rest of the world.
COATES: Were they successful at that, governor?
BESHEAR: But what our families have said -- that the Biden administration was building the economy of tomorrow, focused on EVs, chips and other areas that we have to catch up in for our own national security. But our families were saying we need the economy of right now. Now, wages were catching up to inflation. And this president, President Trump, was going to inherit a good, healthy economy. But the day he walked out there with that big tariff board changed everything. It made life harder for families he promised he'd make it easier for. And now, the price of everything so much higher solely because of this president.
COATES: Well, let's talk about health care because, as you know, many people are one illness away from their whole life changing and really the obliteration of their personal economies. And you know, governor, that Obamacare subsidies will expire in a few weeks. The Senate will vote this week on these competing proposals to tackle that. But both of those are expected to fail. And so far, I haven't heard any other plan.
Is Congress failing the American people? You're focusing obviously on the president, but is Congress failing the American people on at least this?
BESHEAR: Oh, yes. I tell you what, a failure should be defined by this Republican majority that votes yes to extend tax cuts to the wealthy, but looks like they're going to vote no to extend tax credits to hardworking Americans to afford health care.
In my faith, Jesus says a doctor is for the sick. But with the policy of these congressional Republicans, there's a lot of sick people that won't be able to see a doctor. It's going to be unaffordable. And that's going to be a double hit on our health care industry because those Obamacare plans pay our rural hospitals a higher rate than Medicaid, and they're already going to have cuts there.
COATES: Yes.
BESHEAR: So, we're looking at 20,000 health care workers that are going to get fired because of Donald Trump and the Republicans' policies. That's just wrong.
COATES: Well, what's your plan for Kentucky? Can your state fully cover or front some of the costs that are obviously going to be felt?
BESHEAR: Sadly, with all of the actions of this administration, cruel actions like increasing the administrative cost of SNAP and then changing the rules to where people are going to fall off their food benefits, they're going to starve.
On top of that, more than a trillion-dollar cut to Medicaid. On top of that, less help after natural disasters and so many other costs they're trying to shift to states. No state is going to be able to fully cover all of these.
But I tell you what, in my next budget, I'm going to do what I can to help the people of Kentucky. These are my people. And while they're being attacked by this federal administration, I'm going to do everything I can to try to make their life a little bit easier, to make sure that American dream is still within reach, to try to create a better future for our kids and our grandkids here in Kentucky. And I'm going to lend my voice to try to do the same in the United States. COATES: You know, I saw somewhere that you said that a Democratic governor should be the next president of the United States. Do you know one that you're mentioning and why do you believe so?
(LAUGHTER)
BESHEAR: Well, we have a whole list of superstars that are Democratic governors right now. I'm proud to be the new chair of the DGA, Gretchen Whitmer, a superstar, as the vice chair, and we're looking forward to working together.
[23:15:04]
Why I think a Democratic governor needs to be the next president is we understand how to get things done. We understand how to get results. We bring common sense. We try to find common ground, and then we try to better the lives of the people of our states.
You know, we've got the receipts, we've got better economies, we've got expanded health care in Kentucky for dental vision and hearing, which has our workforce now at the largest that it has ever been. And a lot of Democratic governors can talk about these things. But with a federal government that has been decimated, it's going to take an executive to rebuild it, and they're going to need a lot of executive help along the line.
So, I don't just think it's the next president, I think it's a lot of Cabinet secretaries out there that are going to need to be former Democratic governors as well.
COATES: Well, when you added the former, I think you took yourself out of the running, at least temporarily. Governor Andy Beshear, thank you so much.
BESHEAR: Thank you.
COATES: Well, still ahead, it's beginning -- well, it's being called one of the most consequential decisions Trump has made. And I bet you've barely heard about it. The move he made that critics say could have just given China the edge in the A.I. race. Plus, a stunner down under. No more social media allowed for kids under the age of 16 in Australia. Could the U.S. follow suit? Senator Amy Klobuchar is going to join me to discuss. Plus, he denied ever saying it back in his first term, that it was fake news, only to say it and confirm it out loud tonight.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: Why is it we only take people from shithole countries?
(LAUGHTER)
Right?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:20:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: Let me ask you this: How would you feel if the United States started selling F-35 fighter jets to China? Meticulous question, right? Because the government would never provide our best technology to our main military or financial competitor, right?
Wrong, because look on your screen. That tiny little thing right there is Nvidia's H-200 chip. While not its most advanced, it's one of its most powerful pieces of hardware that powers artificial intelligence. The president is now allowing Nvidia, which is a U.S. company, to sell it to China. Sure, Trump says America gets a 25% cut of sales in return, but at what cost?
Because Trump's own DOJ recently busted an alleged effort to smuggle those chips which, by the way, they described like this: Quote -- "These chips are the building blocks of A.I. superiority and are integral to modern military applications. The country that controls these chips will control A.I. technology. The country that controls A.I. technology will control the future."
How do you feel about that 25% cut now? Joining me now, Senator Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, who's one of the leading voices on A.I. in the Senate, sits on the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee. Glad to have you here.
SEN. AMY KLOBUCHAR (D-MN): Thank you, Laura. Great to be back.
COATES: I mean, thinking about this, how concerned are you the United States is now allowing this sale to China?
KLOBUCHAR: Well, this is unbelievable to me because this is an administration who on one hand says, well, you know, we shouldn't have to comply with all these A.I. rules that the states are putting forward because there's no -- and then on the other hand, they're selling these sophisticated chips. These aren't like old-fashioned chips --
COATES: Right.
KLOBUCHAR: -- that you can get anywhere. These are some of the most sophisticated chips that we make. We have an edge right now in technology. We have an edge on A.I. But they are deciding to sell this to China, and then taking a cut for the administration, which puts them right in the middle of what should be a business situation capitalism. But this is kind of stuff that they're doing.
COATES: Well, the administration or the American people, they say.
KLOBUCHAR: Well, OK, but they're -- good point. It's going back to the government, and that's what they're doing. But they're literally cutting business deals with a private company in order to sell their stuff, allow them to sell their stuff to China, something that didn't happen before.
And that is, for us, when you look at some of our edges, the development, the government focus that has gone into this for years and the development of our technology industry, as well as all the incredible minds that went to getting this done, and now we're just selling it off to China. And in their own words. Those weren't my words --
COATES: Right.
KLOBUCHAR: -- that you just had up on the screen. Those were the words of the Trump Justice Department who said this shortly before this deal was announced.
COATES: And yet, I've been hearing those who support it. They would say the U.S. is getting money, that 25% cut. You've articulated why that's insufficient. And that it might be better to keep China hooked, so to speak, on our chips as a way to disincentivize them creating something more advantageous. Do you buy that?
KLOBUCHAR: OK. So, have we ever seen this where China gets copies of our stuff, and then they just create their own stuff? Usually, it involves stealing various blueprints or finding out exactly how we make things, and then they do it themselves. So, I just don't buy that.
COATES: Well, let's talk about this because you've been especially concerned with this new executive order that the president has been contemplating and talking about. And in it, he intends to sign which would effectively replace state laws regulating A.I., which you are a proponent of because on the one hand, states are probably more well- equipped to be able to address the changing technologies, to the least, and they've already had their legislatures talk about this.
[23:25:01]
And you write about it, saying that it should concern every American to regulate with one universal set of rules. Explain to the audience why you think that a universal system is more problematic than a patchwork.
KLOBUCHAR: So, what I'm really concerned about is the president thinking that by executive order, he can just overturn what states have done. And I want to make clear, this is -- we'll see what's in this order --
COATES: Right.
KLOBUCHAR: -- that he has said he's going to put out. But he -- we're talking here about laws that are protecting kids, things that red states have done, not just blue state governors, people like Governor Cox in Utah or what they've done in Florida or what they have done in Alabama. And some states have gotten involved and said you can't do deep fake political ads.
So, I actually would like Congress to act. I'd like to see a set of laws instead of patchwork of laws. I get this, although the states often can get ahead of things, laboratories of democracy, as justice once said.
But my idea here is that the tech companies have been stopping the development of federal laws. The simplest things like labeling A.I.- created videos when they're not the real candidate, you don't know who it is, or taking down the sale of drugs and other things that have been going on the internet, I'm talking about illegal drugs, or the resistance we got even for the bill that Ted Cruz and I ultimately passed --
COATES: Right.
KLOBUCHAR: -- about taking down non-consensual porn and A.I.-created porn. They resist things. Sometimes, they agree to one thing, and then another company resists. And it has just been complete institutional inertia.
So, what I'd like to see is the president say, OK, we're going to work with leaders from both parties, we're going to actually put out some safety measures and rules of the road for A.I., because A.I. can unleash great things, cures for rare diseases and the like, but not if all the bad is what everyone sees, scamming grandmas and creating videos that are fake, taking people's voices, taking their likenesses. Right now, that's what Americans are seeing.
COATES: (INAUDIBLE) communicate in a way.
KLOBUCHAR: Kids that are committing suicide, sadly, because they're coached by chat.
COATES: Speaking of children, I mean, unlike this country, Australia has been successful in at least banning social media for kids under the age of 16. I'm sure you've heard about this. And you've actually -- you supported a bill that had restrictions, but it was for kids who were under the age of 13. Australia has 16. It did stall on the House, but you've actually proposed.
What do you think of this law in Australia? And do you think, as some critics have said, that this will encourage children to possibly go to the darker sides of the internet, looking for an alternative they can access?
KLOBUCHAR: So, I think it's worth drawing things like this in another country. We have -- our laws are different. It would be harder to do here. But what we should do is put more kids' controls in place. And my colleagues, we have tried so hard. We passed bills through the Senate with nearly unanimous votes, and then they sit over in the House.
But the other thing that is an aggressive move that I think we have to make now is to repeal this 30-year-old law. It's called Section 230. That bans anyone from suing these companies.
So, I personally think when you have the biggest companies the world has ever known, that they're going to be able to figure out with their own money how to get their act together if they are liable for getting kids hooked on fentanyl or the various things that we see going on the internet. So, what I think would work here would be that. But I am --
COATES: Is there support for that? Is there support for that?
KLOBUCHAR: Whether it's Senator Graham and Senator Durbin, I'm on this bill. There has just been growing support for this on both sides of the aisle. I'm curious. I think Senator Graham is going to make a try of it on the 30th anniversary because they just won't work with us on these safety bills. So, I think the best way would be to allow the market to like anything else. If a washing machine blows up in front of you, you can sue.
COATES: Right.
KLOBUCHAR: If a flame comes off a door, comes off a plane, people can sue. That is the way companies make things safer. And these laws were set up for the tech companies when they were just little companies in a garage, and now the biggest companies the world has ever seen. So, that's how I would go on this right now.
But I'm very curious to see in a good way what happens with the Australian law because these kids are just ruining many of their lives. They're getting hooked on it. They're just losing the ability to interact. And then, of course, at its worst, they're getting exposed to content that they should never see.
COATES: A true case study we'll all be watching.
KLOBUCHAR: Yes.
COATES: Senator Klobuchar, thank you for joining us.
KLOBUCHAR: Thanks, Laura.
COATES: Still ahead, remember when the president fought against the Epstein files for months, only to then sign its release? Well, tonight, we ask, is he making the same mistake with the boat strike video?
[23:30:01]
Plus, Democrats snap a 30-year losing streak in Miami. What to make of the mayor's race that won and, of course, a Democrat, the result. The panel is with me to discuss, next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: Tonight, a lot to get to. Of course, Senator Chuck Schumer blasting Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth for refusing to commit to showing Congress video of the deadly second strike on a suspected drug boat.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER (D-NY): His answer, we have to study it. Well, in my view, they've studied it long enough and Congress ought to be able to see it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[23:35:02]
COATES: Well, you know who has seen it? President Trump.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BURNS: Have you watched the video?
TRUMP: I watched everything. Yes, I watched everything. I see a lot of things. It's not pretty.
BURNS: And do you believe that that second strike was necessary?
TRUMP: Well, it looked like they were trying to turn back over the boat. But I don't get involved in that. That's up to them.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Not pretty. His words. But will the American public get to see what was -- quote -- "not pretty" in that second strike? That remains to be seen. Trump reversed course yesterday and said that he supports whatever decision that Hegseth makes. But Hegseth won't say he'll release the video. And here we are back and forth.
Despite Trump saying that he is the most transparent president ever, his transparency on this issue, something that mirrors another one, the Jeffrey Epstein files. In fact, it seems like the same song with a different rhyme. Why? Because Congress is also fighting the will to do something. Lawmakers are warning if Hegseth does not release the video, they'll cut back on his travel budget. Oh, the promises and the pressure seem like shades of the Epstein discharge petition, if you will. You know, even Republican lawmakers seem to see the similarities.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. THOM TILLIS (R-NC): Look we got to get the Epstein files released. We got to get any videos that do not in any way compromise mission integrity down there. Just get the stuff out there.
SEN. JOSH HAWLEY (R-MO): I would just say to him, like, listen, if there's a way to release the video, which I have not seen, but if there's a way to release that, that does not compromise our intelligence gathering, I would urge him to do it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Let's talk about it with my political insiders who are here tonight. Republican strategist Lance Trover and Xochitl Hinojosa, CNN political commentator and former DNC communications director. Glad to have you both.
OK, you've heard this caveat, right? If there's a way not to compromise something. Obviously, he should do it. Is the administration making a mistake by not doing everything that even they're saying?
LANCE TROVER, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST, FORMER SPOKESPERSON FOR DOUG BURGUM'S 2024 PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN: Well, I think you've seen what Secretary Hegseth said. They're going to study it. I think they should study it. I think this is something we talked about, transparency. We should be very careful when it comes to this stuff, when it comes to national security, not putting our intelligence sourcing at risk and things like that.
And I also just got to believe, I don't think broad swaths of the American public are out there concerned with the health, safety, and welfare of narco-terrorists moving drugs onto our shores, much more like the Democrats here in Washington are. I don't think they're really that concerned about it.
COATES: Well, the concern is whether they're actually that, and also the idea of the words "war crime" floating around in relation to the United States Military. That's a really concerning notion for people to even have that same sentence, right?
XOCHITL HINOJOSA, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, FORMER DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS AT JUSTICE DEPARTMENTL; FORMER COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR FOR DNC: Well, and it's also not just Democrats, it's Republicans on the Hill who also share that concern, and especially if there were the two survivors that we -- everyone has talked about and whether or not Pete Hegseth and the Pentagon actually wanted to strike those two survivors, even knowing that they're -- even when the mission was over. And so, I think that is what the issue in question.
What is going on here and with this administration is they keep on getting themselves into trouble by promising something that they can't deliver. They oftentimes go out and say, like they did, release the Epstein files, we're going to be the most transparent administration ever, and then they can't end up delivering on that.
To me, it just sounds like it not only -- and I think you're probably right. I think in the last administration, the last administration and administrations before that were very reluctant to release sort of videos, evidence, anything having to do with an operation. The problem --
COATES: For good reason.
HINOJOSA: For good reason. There are reasons, there are national security implications, and all the things that we've discussed here. But at the same time, whenever they promise something and they don't deliver on it, when they want to be the most transparent, then it looks like they're hiding something.
So, now, it does look like Pete Hegseth did something wrong. And the problem with all this is there's no accountability within the administration so far. We saw an I.G. report come out last week on Signalgate. We don't know whether or not this will be investigated by an I.D. and the DOJ to see if war crimes were committed. But those are the questions, I think, that Congress should be raising.
COATES: And, of course, we wouldn't know about these strikes, but for that little snippet being released in the first instance, right? And so, I can't imagine they didn't anticipate there'd be questions surrounding who, what, when, where, and why on this.
And yet I do have concerns about releasing certain portions without the full context and allowing the world to judge military operations. I do have concerns about what that looks like. But I'm sure the Republicans who are lawmakers who've included this, Lance, have an issue, because they put a provision into the Defense Department's budget that ordered it to release the tape or the budget would be cut back. Republicans are in the majority. Do you think that Republican lawmakers are losing trust and patience with Hegseth and Trump?
TROVER: No, I don't think so. And look, I don't know how that got in there and the NDAA hasn't passed yet.
[23:39:59]
And so, whether it makes it into the final piece of legislation now that it's coming to light is anybody's guess because I know there are other conservatives who are very concerned about the military aspects of some of this video being released.
And I think Congress should take note that, you know, there's a reason sometimes this stuff isn't released, and it is to protect our own national security. I think Congress should think long and hard before they keep that inserted into the NDAA.
COATES: Well, let's talk about something that happened tonight. It was actually one of Trump's rallies. We haven't seen that in a long time. Frankly, it has been a long time that he has been doing this. And he was supposed to talk about the economy. He meandered. Let's think about this. He returned to his dark immigration rhetoric, as you can probably imagine, and seem to confirm, calling several African countries -- well, listen for yourself.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: I've also announced a permanent pause on third world migration, including from hellholes like Afghanistan, Haiti, Somalia, and many other countries.
(APPLAUSE)
I didn't say shit. All you did.
(LAUGHTER)
Remember I said that to the senators? They came in. The Democrats, they wanted to be bipartisan. So, they came in, and they said, this is totally off the record, nothing mentioned here. We want to be honest because our country was going to hell. And we had a meeting, and they say, why is it we only take people from shithole countries?
(LAUGHTER)
Right?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: So, we did say it, right? I mean, this is kind of what a kid tells on himself. This is the president of United States. Obviously, he is frustrated that someone disclosed what he said. But he denied saying it. He says he did now.
HINOJOSA: Yes, he absolutely denied it. He said straight out there. There is video of him saying, I never said that, the Democrats are lying. And now, he is admitting that he did say it. This doesn't surprise me. The administration had been looking. And there was reporting on this in "The New York Times," that they were looking to limit migration, stop migration from certain countries.
The incident that occurred before Thanksgiving, the shooting of the two National Guard members, gave them the reason, which was a tragedy, gave them the reasoning. It opened the door so that they could implement their agenda, something that they were thinking about doing for quite some time. They just needed to find the right time and place to do it. It is unfortunate that they use a tragedy like that to try to implement this agenda and to move forward with it.
But, you know, you've worked in law enforcement before. If you are trying to stop the most terrible people in this country, the most violent criminals, terrorists, et cetera, you make decisions based on intelligence. You don't necessarily stop migration from countries just because you don't like those countries.
COATES: Are you smirking? What's your answer?
TROVER: I'm glad the president is back out on the stump as a Republican. I think he is -- there is no better salesperson --
HINOJOSA: Democrats agree with you.
TROVER: Well, if I were a Democrat, I would be careful on what I wish for because there is no better salesperson for his policies than Donald Trump, when he gets out on the stump. And this kind of conversation right here harkens me back to the campaign where he would say something, and everybody in the media and everybody on left would spiral over it.
But he's making a broader point on the immigration issue. And he talked about it here today. He said, look, people aren't talking about the border anymore because I fixed it and I closed it. And he wants to continue to remind people what it is he has done. I think that's why it's smart for him to get out on the stump and remind people and tell voters, hey, I have been working for you the last 12 months.
COATES: Even to confirm that the media was right when he said what he said, when he said it. Lance, Xochitl, thank you both so much. Up next, how can you convict someone for murder without a body? Inside the new DNA testimony from the Brian Walshe murder trial I've been all over, next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:45:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: Well, tonight, the murder trial of Brian Walshe is heading into territory that's growing more chilling and even more curious by the day because for the first time, so far, expert witnesses drew explicit DNA links between Ana Walshe and the blood found on those items that prosecutors say Brian Walshe tossed into dumpsters all across Massachusetts.
Among those items, a hacksaw police recovered that a forensic expert said tested positive for blood while testifying. And to be clear, prosecutors have not said for certain whether this is the same hacksaw that Brian Walshe was seen buying at a Lowe's store along with many cleaning supplies on January 1st.
But the DNA, the day that Ana Walshe, excuse me, was allegedly killed, not just died, according to what Brian Walshe says, listen to what the DNA analyst testified about with regard to that blood on the hacksaw today.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SAMAN SALEEM, DNA ANALYST, MSPCL: This was a sample of stained area C on the blade of a hacksaw.
UNKNOWN (voice-over): And what was the DNA profile result for this item?
SALEEM: For this item, a female DNA profile was obtained originating from a single contributor.
UNKNOWN (voice-over): And were you able to come to conclusion about the comparison to the known profile of Ana Walshe?
SALEEM: The DNA profile from this item is at least 30 nonillion times more likely if it originated from Ana Walshe than if it originated from an unknown, unrelated individual.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: I had to look up the words non-million. So, I'm just going to tell you and you'll pretend that you also knew what it meant, OK? That number is followed by 30 zeros. 30 zeros. But that's not the only item that witnesses say contained her DNA. Others include a blood- stained rug, a hatchet recovered from a dumpster, Ana Walshe's blood- stained slippers and a blood-stained white towel.
[23:49:57]
Joining me now, CNN legal analyst and former federal prosecutor, Elliot Williams. Elliot, we know there's no body that has been recovered in this, only personal effects and a number of items that seem to be things that Brian Walshe purchased in the aftermath of her death.
The DNA evidence is going to be part of the prosecution's strongest evidence to say, this is Ana, she is dead, and I want you to link it to premeditated murder.
ELLIOT WILLIAMS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: Yes.
COATES: How important is this evidence?
WILLIAMS: I think it is. And even if it -- you know, even if the jury is not expert in the particulars of DNA, we live in the age of CSI and NCIS and shows like that and people hear the letters DNA and see the person in the lab coat come up and testify and just sort of that sticks with them and they tend to trust that.
You know, much of this trial is coming down to sort of common sense versus reasonable doubt, right? It's common sense that this man committed -- killed this person, right? Common sense. You got the blood, you got the house, you got the Gucci --
COATES: Necklace.
WILLIAMS: -- necklace. All of that just seems a matter of common sense that -- of his guilt, right? Now, that doesn't mean he's guilty in the eyes of the law. And I just think --
COATES: Because they have to prove, obviously, beyond a reasonable doubt. And they have to link these different things. The DNA is helpful to that.
WILLIAMS: Yes.
COATES: But that's not the only thing they can do.
WILLIAMS: No, no.
COATES: They point to the slippers, too. Talking about that.
WILLIAMS: Well, moreover, like, all of it -- all of these things, slippers, DNA, suggests that her bodily matter is on the rug and in the house. It does not suggest that Brian Walshe was the individual who put it there. What prosecutors have to establish is that number one, this death happened, but that two, he intended to effectuate that death. He carried it out intentionally and willfully and with premeditation. Those are really hard things to prove.
And I think we on television, watching on television and knowing what we know, it just seems like as a matter of common sense. Of course, this must have happened, but that's just simply not how criminal trials work.
COATES: And we may not ever know what happened between the time that she was last seen, New Year's Eve, and those early morning Google online searches from Brian Walshe talking about dismemberment and inheritance and decomposing bodies --
WILLIAMS: Yes.
COATES: -- unless he takes a stand and says something very different than what he has said through his defense counsel, which is, I didn't kill her, she died suddenly and unexpectedly, and I panicked, and then began this course of action.
WILLIAMS: Right.
COATES: But we will tomorrow hear from somebody who was also at that New Year's Eve party at their home. One other person, a personal mutual friend. He might be able to suggest and tell us all what was the vibe like in that household. Tense, loving, her last moments?
WILLIAMS: Right. But, again, those things don't -- getting to the vibe or the dynamic between a married couple does not answer the question of whether he killed her at that point. There's still --
COATES: There's still a meditation aspect.
WILLIAMS: Sure, sure, of course. But there is still a big question over, like you said, those three hours, how did she die? She clearly died or probably died that evening based on what seems to be a matter of common sense. But how did it happen? And it's just a challenging question that prosecutors really have to overcome. Now, look, there's plenty of compelling evidence there. But, as we were talking about before, you know, could this end in acquittal? We just don't know.
COATES: So, do you think they have to show motive to prove anything? They don't have to, but the idea of the why or the how is going to be very lingering for these jurors.
WILLIAMS: It would absolutely help, right? Now, as we both know, motive is not necessary for a conviction. It helps maybe a jury understand why something happened. But prosecutors don't have to establish that. Now, if they can say, well, there was marital stress and there was allegations of an affair and money was tight, and he had all these Google searches and so on and inheritance was a potential issue, then maybe he might've had a reason to do it.
But if I'm the defense attorney, I am marching into that court and saying, where's the body and where's the evidence that he was responsible for it? And I think it is a problem that the prosecution has.
COATES: We'll see if they can conclude their case in chief by answering those questions. Elliot Williams, thank you so much. Up next, if I told you this plot was a movie, would you watch it? A 44- year-old ex-NFL quarterback turned grandfather who hasn't played in years gets called up for one more chance to try and save the season. The real-life story is next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:55:00] (COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: Well, it's almost midnight here in the nation's capital, which means it is time to chat with our favorite West Coast anchor, Elex Michelson. Elex, I'm glad to see you. Listen, the AP is reporting that former Chargers and Colts quarterback Philip Rivers is preparing to unretire from the NFL at 44 years young after several quarterbacks from the Colts were out due to injuries. I want to mention this man also just became a grandfather. What are your thoughts?
ELEX MICHAELSON, CNN ANCHOR AND CORRESPONDENT: Well, he has 10 kids, and one of his kids is actually older than the rookie quarterback that he might be replacing --
(LAUGHTER)
-- which is crazy to think about. There are 13 current coaches in the NFL who are younger than Philip Rivers, head coaches in the NFL. So, it would be --
COATES: Oh, my gosh.
MICHAELSON: -- a remarkable thing if he ends up coming back. But Philip Rivers was one of the all-time greats for the San Diego Chargers and it would be really fascinating to see if he's able to pull this off.
COATES: I mean, I think he can do anything. He's had 10 kids.
(LAUGHTER)
That's it. You had me at the 10 kids.
MICHAELSON: Same wife, too. Ten kids.
(LAUGHTER)
That's also impressive.
COATES: Now, I'm impressed. Hold on a second. We can stop right there. Can someone give him a trophy of some type or maybe give her a trophy? Thank you very much.
MICHAELSON: Yes.
COATES: Let's give her the trophy.
MICHAELSON: Exactly.
COATES: What else do you guys have coming up tonight?
MICHAELSON: We've got a lot of inspirational stories, including Susan Powter, who a lot of people may remember from the 90s with the "Stop the Insanity" videos and big fitness things.
[00:00:05] She had a lot of struggles. But she has this amazing documentary that just came out today. It is already number one on Apple. She's here. Her energy is unbelievable.
COATES: Oh, wow.
(LAUGHTER)
MICHAELSON: And so, I think her story is inspiring. We've got a few other things that I think will really be inspiring. A lot of positive news tonight on the show.
COATES: Oh, I love it. This is why I love watching your story and it is coming up. So, have a great show.
MICHAELSON: Have a great night, Laura.
