Return to Transcripts main page
Laura Coates Live
Americans Face Skyrocketing Health Premiums with No Deal in Sight; U.S. Seizes Oil Tanker; U.S. Eyes Plan to Ask Tourists for Five Years of Social Media History; Will Brian Walshe Testify? Aired 11p- 12a ET
Aired December 10, 2025 - 23:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[23:00:00]
ABBY PHILLIP, CNN ANCHOR AND SENIOR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: -- 44- year-old quarterback Philip Rivers's reaction to coming out of retirement to rejoin the Colts. And so, for tonight's news nightcap, what is your favorite old school phrase that you want to bring back? Noah?
NOAH ROTHMAN, SENIOR WRITER, NATIONAL REVIEW: Got the morbs. It is a Victorian expression. It means a little sad.
PHILLIP: Deja?
DEJA FOXX, FORMER CONGRESSIONAL CANDIDATE, ARIZONA: Stay woke. I feel millennials and MAGA have taken this over. Please, don't meme me here.
PHILLIP: That's how you know we're old. Go ahead, Ana.
ANA NAVARRO, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Poppycock, whatever the hell it means.
PHILLIP: Joe?
JOE BORELLI, FORMER REPUBLICAN LEADER, NEW YORK CITY COUNCIL: Merry Christmas. Trump is president now.
PHILLIP: All right. Everybody, thank you very much. Thanks for watching "NewsNight." "Laura Coates Live" starts right now.
LAURA COATES, CNN HOST AND SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Tonight, T minus three weeks. Millions of Americans face skyrocketing healthcare premiums come January 1st. Now, Republicans on Capitol Hill are scrambling for a plan, any plan. Plus, U.S. forces repel from helicopters and seize an oil tanker off the coast of Venezuela. Can they do that? And will Venezuela do anything about it? And the prosecution has rested now in the murder trial of Brian Walshe. Now, the big question for the defense, is he going to testify in his own defense? Tonight on "Laura Coates Live."
I'm sure you're exhausted of Congress barreling toward deadline after deadline, right? There's a lot of huge stakes on the line. The kinds of self-inflicted crises this town loves to create in Washington, DC is like a never-ending game of chicken with people's livelihoods at stake, unfortunately. We're talking about government shutdowns and funding cliffs. I know. I'm tired of it.
But here we are again, 21 days until enhanced subsidies for the Affordable Care Act are set to expire. And the implications? Huge. Twenty-four million people. Huge. That's how many Americans rely on Obamacare. If you need a reminder, the cost of premiums set to double come January 1st. And that's just the average, mind you. It may actually be more than that.
It doesn't really matter where you're from, red state, blue state, Republican, Democrat. If you use the enhanced ACA subsidies, your wallet will take the hit.
So, now, Republicans are locked in a fight over what to do after they left those subsidies out of the shutdown deal, you recall. Many GOP lawmakers and swing districts are telling their party they got to act fast. And that includes Congressman Kevin Kiley, who will join me in just a moment. He is warning it's going to be a huge problem if they lapse. But House Speaker Mike Johnson, he says it ain't happening.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MIKE JOHNSON, SPEAKER OF THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: We have spent many, many hours trying to find a way out of the conundrum that we're in with regard to those extensions. We just can't get Republican votes on that for lots of reasons, not enough of them.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: But not so fast because Speaker Johnson is now facing a revolt in his own ranks, it seems. Remember that thing called a discharge petition? The same process that forced the House vote on releasing the Epstein files? Well, s Republican moderate just opened the same playbook, filing one on the ACA subsidies. And it would extend them for two years, along with a handful of other provisions.
But it's not clear if it will succeed. Most House Democrats would need to get on board. And they're pushing, as you know, for a three-year extension straight up.
As for President Trump, he seems to realize how explosive this issue could really become. He's talking about the ACA more and more, using one of his favorite words to describe it.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: It was a scam. Obamacare was a scam.
I believe Obamacare was set up to take care of insurance companies, not to take care of the American public. I love the idea of money going directly to the people, not to the insurance companies. Going directly to the people. It can be in the health savings account. It can be a number of different ways. And the people go out and buy their own insurance.
(END VIDEO CLIP) COATES: Now, that idea of putting money into Americans' health savings accounts, it's a GOP plan being voted on in the Senate tomorrow along with the proposal from Senate Democrats for that three- year extension, and both are expected to fail.
But it does raise this question: After a decade of promising something better than Obamacare, is this what Trump meant?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: We're also going to fight to give much better health care than what you have right now. This is a newer subject. But Obamacare is a disaster.
I have concepts of a plan. I'm not president right now. But if we come up with something -- I would only change it if we come up with something that's better and less expensive.
[23:05:01]
Obamacare stinks. It's lousy. There are better answers. If we come up with a better answer, I would present that answer to Democrats and to everybody else, and I'd do something about it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Let's begin with a Republican congressman from California, Kevin Kiley. He has joined a bipartisan effort to extend the Affordable Care Act subsidies for two years.
Congressman, thank you for being here. You have signed on to that petition to force a vote on extending those credits. It's a long shot, I understand, though, as you can probably appreciate, you need the majority of Democrats on board. Is this the only way to persuade Republicans to accomplish that and get this extended?
REP. KEVIN KILEY (R-CA): I don't think it's the only way, but it's one of the last remaining ways. I mean, we've gotten to a point where the clock is ticking, we're a few weeks away, and 22 million people are going to suffer, some of them a lot, if Congress doesn't do something here.
So, we're continuing to try to encourage our leadership to do the right thing and actually allow a vote on one or more of these proposals. And also, the discharge petition is another avenue.
COATES: Take me behind the scenes. Is there the appetite even among your ranks to do this or is there a frustration building? What is the vibe?
KILEY: No. I think there is strong majority support in the House for not doing nothing, if you will. And so, I think --
COATES: For doing this?
KILEY: I think the key ingredients that have brought bipartisan support, not everyone in both conferences, but a bipartisan majority, is number one, an extension that's temporary, and number two, have reforms that will actually control costs as well as root out fraud that's all too common in the system.
That's what the bill that Sam Liccardo and I have introduced, which has six Republicans and six Democrats. Co-sponsors does. It's also what Brian Fitzpatrick's bill does and what John King's (ph) bill does. So, I think one or all of those would be a good compromise that would allow us to stave off the worst outcomes.
COATES: I wonder if two will be the sweet spot in the number of years for the extension. But President Trump has a lot of sway over his own party. Obviously, the Republicans. What impact, do you think, he would have on that two-year extension? Will it go forward with his support or otherwise?
KILEY: Well, I think that, ultimately, it's up to the House to actually pass a bill --
COATES: Of course.
KILEY: -- and to initiate the legislative process. And, of course, if the president, you know, weighs in, that'll be influential with some people. But --
COATES: Are you hearing that he is weighing in?
KILEY: I haven't heard much one way or the other on that. But we have, I believe, a coalition that's emerging in the House for doing the right thing here for people who understand what the consequences are. And I do think that if the one of these bills comes to the floor, then it will pass.
And so, that's why I actually told the speaker himself today, why don't you just bring each of the proposals into the floor? Let's vote on it. Let's see which gets the most votes. Majority rules. Isn't that the way the House of Representatives, the people's House, is supposed to work?
COATES: I hope that's rhetorical.
(LAUGHTER)
It's supposed to work in a lot of ways, congressman, in fact. But the three years that Democrats want, the two years Republicans want, I mean, I'm not saying meet in the middle at two and a half, but these seem like, given the impact it would have on Californians --
KILEY: Yes.
COATES: -- all across the country, frankly, in different states, that it seems like a distinction without a difference, two or three years. Is that really the deal breaker at the two-year mark?
KILEY: I think that ultimately, what is a deal breaker, or I should rather say that the components that I think will have to be in any deal in order for it to get enough Democrats and enough Republicans is that it should be temporary. So, I think maybe two years is the right number of years that is kind of a compromise. But it also has to have some reforms to control costs, deal with fraud, and actually pay for some of the extension.
So, if we do that, which is what my bill does and which is what a couple of the other proposals do, then it's not going to give everyone on the Democrat side everything they want, it's not going to give everyone on the Republican side everything they want, but it's going to get enough people in both conferences to come together and say this is the right solution, which is what compromise is about.
COATES: Yes. But I wonder, you heard me in my discussion earlier, the frustration that everything seems to be at the 11th hour.
KILEY: Yes.
COATES: It has been 10 years of promises about something different, and they say better than Obamacare. Why do you think it's coming down to the wire every time, and particularly now, even given the shutdown that occurred? It has clearly been contemplated before. Why just now?
KILEY: Yes. It's a great question, Laura. You used the term self- inflicted crisis in your opening, which I think is a very appropriate term for much of what happens in Congress. I think, ultimately, it's a symptom of institutional failure and the fact that you have excessive partisanship in Washington. It is why Congress has a 15% approval rating among the American people.
And I can tell you, if Congress doesn't do something about these expiring subsidies, then that's going to get even lower because the people we're going to be talking about, who are going to be negatively impacted, these are independent contractors, freelancers, workers, Uber drivers, small business owners and their employees, many of whom simply cannot afford this massive increase in costs.
COATES: And comprise an overwhelmingly, you know, and it's increasing day-by-day, part of the entire economy and the workforce in this country.
KILEY: Right.
COATES: Do you think that voters will punish Republicans in the midterms and elections if you're unable to get this done?
[23:09:58]
KILEY: You know, I think voters will ultimately hold all of us responsible because, you know, yes, Republicans have the majority but, ultimately, for something to pass, it needs to get bipartisan support. And I think there's plenty of blame to go around.
But ultimately, I think one of the problems we've seen, we saw this with the shutdown, we're seeing it now, is that a lot of the energy you see, especially coming from the leadership ranks, is on trying to create a narrative that blames the other side as opposed to actually trying to solve the problem. And so, we're trying to pick up that slack by breaching a bipartisan agreement among members.
COATES: Quickly, do you think the shutdown impacted the willingness of Republicans to negotiate on this?
KILEY: I don't know about that. I think that there's a lot of members of our conference who, of course, have longstanding critiques about Obamacare. And I myself, you know, think that the system is not working as it should. Costs continue to spiral out of control. And Congress has failed to act. And that has been a bipartisan failure, to control the growing cost of healthcare in this country. But we shouldn't force 22 million Americans to pay the price for that because Congress fails to act again.
So, what we need to do, I think, is have a temporary extension, include reforms, provide some runway, so then we can really tackle in a serious, meaningful, enduring way the healthcare affordability crisis that we have in America today.
COATES: Congressman, thank you for joining.
KILEY: Of course. Thanks for having me.
COATES: You know, it's not clear Republicans like Congressman Kiley will get buy-in from Democrats, at least not yet. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries is pushing his own plan, one that would extend the subsidies for three years without any reforms.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. HAKEEM JEFFRIES (D-NY): The most meaningful path forward, clearly, is for just a handful of Republicans to join us in the House and for just a handful of Senate Republicans to vote in the next day or so on the bill that will be on the Senate floor that will extend the Affordable Care Act tax credit, so that tens of millions of people, including in dozens of Republican-controlled states, don't have their healthcare snatch away from them because it becomes unaffordable.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Democratic congressman from Pennsylvania, Brendan Boyle, also known as the Democrats' "budget guy." Well, they need one of those, as you can imagine. Congressman, first of all, will you join the bipartisan discharge petition effort to extend Obamacare subsidies for two years?
REP. BRENDAN BOYLE (D-PA): Well, first, we absolutely need to extend these subsidies. Otherwise, tens of millions of Americans are going to see a pretty dramatic premium hike. In my state of Pennsylvania alone, the average increase is projected to be 102%.
COATES: Wow.
BOYLE: Now, tomorrow, there's a key vote in the Senate. It will be a clean extension for three years in the House of Representatives. We already have a discharge petition that was filed by my colleague and Democratic leader, Hakeem Jeffries. It has the support of all 214 Democrats. And right now, it's at the well of the floor. It only needs four Republicans to add their name to it. And it is a clean extension, which would at this point --
COATES: For three years?
BOYLE: For three years.
COATES: There's no appetite --
BOYLE: Which at this point, well, 214 Democrats. If they want to see the extension, it only needs four. But let's see what happens in the Senate vote tomorrow. I think that will be important because, obviously, whatever would pass out of the House needs the Senate ultimately, the vote for it, and would need 60 votes because of their filibuster rules.
COATES: If it does end up being two years, would that, in some ways, mitigate the damage it would cause to your voters or others for that extension?
BOYLE: Yes. I think two years versus three, while important, that's less of an issue then maybe some of the changes and the cuts that some of these discharge petitions on the Republican side are including. But even beyond that, the single most important issue is urgency. It has to be done this week. We have to get this done. Even these discharge petitions.
You know, if we get to 218 and there's a forced vote, you still have to wait the seven legislative days. Well, guess what? We only have seven legislative days left before the end of the year, which is when all of those tax credits would go away and premiums will be hiked. So, we need to have a resolution on this, but the most important thing is it needs to be now.
COATES: You're the budget guy. Let's talk about affordability and the economy because this is top of mind for so many Americans. The Fed chair, Jerome Powell, says that the administration's tariffs are actually at the heart of the affordability crisis. Listen to this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JEROME POWELL, CHAIR, UNITED STATES FEDERAL RESERVE: The story with inflation and, you know, we're well aware that this is a story at this point, is that if you get away from tariffs, inflation is in the low twos, right? So, it's really tariffs that's causing most of the inflation overshoot.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: What's your reaction? The president says they're wonderful.
BOYLE: The Fed chair, Mr. Powell, is exactly right. It is Trump's tariffs that have caused this inflation crisis over the course of this year.
[23:14:59]
And I really can't add anything to what the Federal Reserve chair who, by the way, is a Republican and was appointed by Donald Trump himself. Let's not forget that. He is just calling the balls and strikes as he sees them and as most economists see them, and as Republicans themselves used to believe for multi-generations until Donald Trump became president.
You know, a year ago, Donald Trump visited my state of Pennsylvania more than any other state in the nation, and he ran around, and in every rally, he said he would lower prices on day one. He has completely failed. Prices are higher today than they were a year ago. And they're higher specifically, as Jay Powell said, because of Donald Trump's tariff policies.
COATES: In fact, he chose Pennsylvania for one of his first on-the- ground rallies in a long time, talking about the economy, who deviated from that conversation, as you well know. But he is telling Americans again, congressman, to rethink their spending. Listen to this refrain.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: You can give up pencils --
(LAUGHTER)
-- because under the China policy, you know, every child can get 37 pencils. They only need one or two, you know. They don't need that many. But you always need -- you always need steel. You don't need $37 for your daughter. Two or three is nice.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: There are people with signs that say bigger paychecks. They're not talking about pencils. They're talking about food on the table inside of a house that can be actually afforded.
BOYLE: Yes. Well, first, my 11-year-old daughter must be very happy that Donald Trump is not picking out her Christmas gifts come this Christmas. Thirty-seven pencils and steel. Who knows what the hell Donald Trump is talking about? I mean, you can tell, by the way, during that rally, he has really lost his fastball if you compare it to rallies that he first had 10 years ago. Every single day, he's just making up something different. He knows this affordability issue is his Achilles heel, which is why he's now calling it a con.
But the American people aren't falling for it. In a Fox News poll, they asked people, are prices higher today or lower? Have they increased or decreased? Ninety percent of people said they increased. So, that's a majority, not just of Democrats, it's also of Republicans.
COATES: Are Democrats making the case that Democrats are the best positioned to actually change affordability issues?
BOYLE: I think so, I hope so, but we have to keep doing it more and more because the reality is we are in a time of media, I don't have to tell you, in which breaking through today is harder than ever. It's a little different from the era of decades ago when it was just the big three T.V. networks. So, every day in every platform, cable T.V, podcasts, in-person events, town halls, social media, we have to continue to take the message to the American people.
Donald Trump said he would lower prices. He has failed. They've only gone up because of his policies. Elect us, and then we can begin to reverse the Trump damage.
COATES: Congressman Brendan Boyle, thank you for joining.
BOYLE: Thank you.
COATES: Up next, the U.S. seizing an oil tanker off the coast of Venezuela in a major escalation. This as the president continues to tease that more military action couldn't be becoming. Plus, new legal questions emerging tonight after we learned that the administration has been making decisions on boat strike survivors on what appears to be a case-by-case basis.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:20:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: President Trump escalating his pressure campaign on Venezuela tonight. Members of the military and Coast Guard swooped down from a helicopter to seize an oil tanker off the country's coast today. Attorney General Pam Bondi says it was used to transport sanctioned oil from Venezuela to Iran. A federal judge issued a warrant to seize the tanker because of those links. No one was hurt. Venezuela says the act is part of a U.S. plan to steal energy resources from the country. And Trump did hint at what's going to happen to that oil.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNKNOWN (voice-over): What happens to the oil on that ship?
TRUMP: Well, we keep it, I guess.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Joining me now, Todd Huntley, former military lawyer and director of the National Security Law Program at Georgetown University Law Center, and Jamil Jaffer, founder and executive director of the National Security Institute. Glad to have both of your expertise here tonight.
I want to begin with you, Todd. The administration is essentially saying that seizing the tanker is legal. For many Americans, they may have never even heard of this before. Is it legal? Is it common?
TODD HUNTLEY, RETIRED NAVY JAG, DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL SECURITY LAW PROGRAM AT GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY LAW CENTER: Very common. I think it has (INAUDIBLE). We have done it in the past, seizing Iranian oil tankers. So, it's not unusual. And, of course, we don't know all the facts. I would like to know what the basis was, that they decided to stop and board this vessel. But the fact that they had a warrant or authorization from a federal court and this vessel, I believe its owner was also on a list of sanctioned individuals and entities (INAUDIBLE) basis.
COATES: Jamil, let me turn to you on this, too, because Venezuela is saying that the U.S. committed a -- quote -- "act of international piracy " -- unquote -- by seizing the tanker. The U.S. says this happened in international waters. But there was a warrant involved, which might be a surprise. I think you can get a warrant for this sort of thing. Given the commonness of this, do you think this is something that the world will support?
[23:25:01]
JAMIL JAFFER, FORMER ASSOCIATE WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL TO GEORGE W. BUSH, FOUNDER AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL SECURITY INSTITUTE AT GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY: Well, look, I mean, we've had sanctions on Iran for a long time for their oil. We've sanctioned Venezuela as well. This ship was actually sanctioned back in 2022 and is under a different name. It's apparently owned or at least operated by a Russian oligarch.
COATES: OK.
JAFFER: And so, this thing has had ties for a long time. Why we're seizing it now and whether it was because of the Venezuelan oil, the Iranian oil, still a lot to be determined, as Todd was saying.
But at the end of the day, there is U.S. legal authority for a federal court, as it turns out, sitting in admiralty, who knew, to issue warrants for ships that violate U.S. law on the high seas, and the Coast Guard effectuates those seizures as they did here. Apparently, they had help from some special operations forces operating off the USS Gerald Ford.
But this has happened before. Usually, what happens is we seize these tankers temporarily, we get the oil off, release the vessel. Sometimes, you keep the vessel. It looks like, at least in this case, we're definitely keeping the oil. No surprise there, I think. And so, off we go.
COATES: Let me ask you because -- listen to what Mark Warner, the senator from Virginia, had to say when he brought up this point about the tanker seizure. Listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. MARK WARNER (D-VA): If we can -- if we can interdict a vessel of this size, why can't we interdict some of these drug boats?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: It does raise a question, Jamil, given the size of, say, those suspected drug boats and this. I mean, they're rappelling, they're landing on it, they're taking the things off the boat. No one was hurt, I would mention. Does that undercut the government's, the administration's argument that they couldn't just interdict those drug boats?
JAFFER: Well, I don't think so. I mean, look, we've known about drug boats for years. You can certainly interdict them and you can certainly take them out if the president determines that they're operating as essentially as terrorists, which he has declared them terrorists, and believes a lethal force is necessary, right? The president has some leeway to do that, right, under his powers as commander-in-chief.
The question then becomes, is Congress to do anything about it, right? Are they going to authorize it? Are they not going to authorize it? Are they going to stop the president from doing this? They haven't done that, right? Congress has authority in this domain. They can choose to not authorize this activity, or under the War Powers Resolution, tell the president he's got to withdraw those forces from the effort against the drug dealers. They haven't done that.
So, the president, like many presidents before him, is going to go forward and roll out on this as he has. We're talking about 22 strikes now, about 80 people killed. Obviously, the stuff that went on with that first strike and the folks in the water that Secretary Hegseth has been talking about quite a bit. I think that's obviously a challenge.
COATES: Speaking of the strikes, I mean, the U.S. did pick up survivors, we understand, of a later strike. And "The New York Times" reports that part of a new policy to send survivors to other countries might be happening. Listen to this reporting. "Behind that policy was a quieter goal: to ensure survivors did not end up in the United States judicial system, where court cases could force the administration to show evidence justifying President Trump's military campaign in the region." So, why the policy change if we're told they believe that their actions were legal?
JAFFER: Well, a lot going on here, right? First strike that we took, apparently two survivors in the water.
COATES: Yes.
JAFFER: There was a second strike, took them out. Then there was a follow-up. There were later on strikes. Apparently, one survivor in the water. Nobody went and got him or they couldn't find him. So, he probably drowned. And then two more we picked up, sent them back to their home countries of Ecuador and I think Colombia.
So, the policy is shifting, right? And so, the question is, what is the policy? Why do we have a different policy? Was it because they thought that policy was a mistake, unlawful? Who knows? They've defended the lawfulness of taking that second strike. There's an ongoing debate. Congress has now seen the videos. Question is, will they release the videos? The last heard from Secretary Hegseth was at the Reagan National Defense Forum in L.A. just this past weekend. I was there. He said, well, we sort of look at the question on whether we would disclose, you know, sensitive information about the video. Of course, that raises a question. You released the first video, the video of the first strike, what about -- what is about the second strike that's so sensitive, right?
Folks in Congress that have seen it, though, have told me that what's on that video is disturbing and concerning. And, you know, obviously, we'll see if they release it. But it probably isn't the greatest look. You know, there are rules around, you know, folks that are in combat, if they're injured or shipwrecked or have surrendered. If that's what was going on here, that could be a real problem for the administration, for the secretary, and the folks involved.
COATES: We shall see what happens. Jamil, thank you so much. I want to point out as well that Todd Huntley -- we had some audio issues. We'd love to hear your perspective as well. We'll have you back on again.
Up next, welcome to America. But first, give us five years of your social media history. The new tourism screening proposal tonight that is raising all sorts of questions. Plus, for the first time, the president says he can't figure something out. Why Democrats keep winning? The panel is here with me to discuss it all, next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:30:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: It's no surprise that the Trump administration has been cracking down on immigration with all sorts of tactics. But this next idea, it's, well, it's something. ""The New York Times" reports the administration is considering having foreign visitors undergo a review of their social media history. And not a quick scroll through the phone, mind you. They're considering reviewing five years' worth of posts and content from people's social apps.
The proposal would apply to people from about 42 countries. It includes Britain and France and Germany and South Korea, just to name a few.
[23:34:59]
Specifically, this would apply for visitors who can come to the U.S. for 90 days without a visa. A spokesperson for Customs and Border Patrol told the Times that the proposal is actually not final and is -- quote -- "the first step in starting a discussion to have new policy options to keep the American people safe." Here's how the president feels about it.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNKNOWN (voice-over): Are you concerned at all that if that's implemented, there would be a decline in tourism next year? And what sort of material do you think is --
TRUMP: No. We're doing so well. We just want people to come over here and stay safe. We want safety, we want security, we want to make sure we're not letting the wrong people come.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Joining me now, political strategist and commentator Rina Shah and Ben Ferguson, host of "The Ben Ferguson Show" and co-host of "Verdict with Ted Cruz." Glad to have both you guys here. All right, let me start with you, Ben. Is this a good idea? Is this something that conservatives want?
BEN FERGUSON, RADIO HOST, PODCAST CO-HOST: I think it's a great idea. I would love to have people that want to come to America that actually like America, don't hate America, don't make terrorist threats on their social media or talk about the demise of this country. Like, this is exactly the tourist I want in America. I want people that say, I would love to visit this country, I would love to spend money in this country, I want to go see Times Square, I don't want to blow it up. This is, I think, going back to the basics.
If you hate this country and you spend five years on social media or four years or three years talking about the demise of this country and how much you hate it, why would we want to offer you the privilege to come to the United States of America to visit?
Remember, it is not a right to come and visit. It is a privilege. The same way that if I go to another country. I just went overseas. And guess what? It was a privilege. I play by their rules, I respect their laws, I respect their country's traditions. And so, I think this is what it's about. I think it's a great discussion point.
COATES: Well, terrorism is its entire own category. But the idea of criticizing or commenting on what you call the demise of the country, how are you evaluating what that would look like? Is it --
FERGUSON: I think --
COATES: -- politics or you mean something far more nefarious and sinister?
FERGUSON: I think -- law enforcement that I've talked to, they've also talked to elected officials about this. They said it's pretty clear, what they're looking at here.
COATES: OK.
FERGUSON: If you're talking about wanting there to be harm and wishful thoughts about America as a country or people or advocating for people to attack this country, those are things that immediately should have you, like, sorry, you're not allowed into this country. Do I think that if you criticize the president of the United States of America, Donald Trump, that means that you are going to not be allowed in this country? I want to be very clear, that is a no, that is not happening.
From what I've been told from people that are talking about this idea that I think have a lot about this, they're saying this is truly about people that say, we hate this country. Why would you let them in in general? If you're criticizing an elected official, that is not something that's going to get you banned from coming into America.
SHAH: I have a lot of problems with this because privacy, gone. This is what we should care about as conservatives, Ben. We should care about free speech. And now, we're seeing it's selective. Anybody who enters these United States should understand what's on the books, our laws, for the people in this country, right? And generally, people --
FERGUSON: But free speech is one thing if you're an American citizen. If you're over in the U.K. --
SHAH: Oh, come on.
FERGUSON: -- and you're saying death to America, should you get a visa to come into America?
SHAH: But this isn't about hate speech. This is about --
FERGUSON: Sure, it is. It's exactly what they're telling me it's about. And terrorism threats to this country. Again, I go back to a lot of people that I talked to today. This is about people. They're saying that they want there to be ill will and pain and suffering to people in America. That is the line that they're talking about.
SHAH: Free speech does not just extend to citizens. It extends to people within these United States. We've seen numerous --
FERGUSON: If you're coming from outside the U.S.
SHAH: Well, yes.
FERGUSON: It's a privilege to come here.
SHAH: But when you're here, you know, and you're working under the laws of this country or operating, rather, I should say, you shouldn't be somebody that's worried about surveillance, the way that we're talking about here.
FERGUSON: I don't think it's surveillance. This is literally saying before you get here, if you are saying that you hate this country and you want there to be harm to this country --
SHAH: OK.
FERGUSON: -- we don't want you to come to this country.
SHAH: Let's say then it's about border security. FERGUSON: I think it's a great way of looking at it.
SHAH: I don't think it's about that. I think this is digital dragnet on global visitors. And it shows that we are willing to take anti- American tactics --
FERGUSON: Hold on. I got to ask you a question, though.
SHAH: -- in order to be more secure.
FERGUSON: I got to ask you a question. Were you this outraged when the Biden administration was sending posts to X and to Facebook of what Americans had said to take down when it dealt with COVID? Like, I would have loved to have seen this type of anger and frustration --
SHAH: Oh, yes --
FERGUSON: -- because you had actual Democrats that were censoring and silencing posts they didn't like.
COATES: Let me hear her response. Go ahead.
SHAH: What we're talking about here, and I have written this down, this is a five-year surveillance audit.
FERGUSON: No, no. They're saying that they can go back, and they want to look to make sure that you don't whitewash what you said over the last 90 days.
SHAH: OK. So, for --
FERGUSON: So, they see a real snapshot of who you are.
SHAH: Our visa waiver allies, we're saying it's OK to go back five years when they maybe want to come here for 90-some days, right?
FERGUSON: If you've got nothing to hide --
SHAH: Five years to go back and just look into their family details. All kinds of things.
[23:40:00]
Iris scans, fingerprints --
FERGUSON: Yes. You come into America. We want to know who you are.
COATES: Well, I have to say -- I will say -- I mean, we both know -- I don't know what the policy ultimately would be. We were told this may be a draft. But given the world of social media, I wonder if authenticity is going to be determined purely by one's social media content. Is there a more effective way of establishing whether somebody is intending harm on the United States as opposed to combing through one's Instagram and tweets? I can see somebody easily manipulating this. But I want to ask about this as well. The president was asked about the Democrats flipping the mayor's seat in Miami and a Georgia State House seat where Trump won by double digits, I should mention. He was asked about whether he was worried on this front. Listen to what he said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: When you win the presidency, you seem to lose the midterms, even if you win the presidency by a lot and you do a great job as president. You know, some presidents have done good, and they've lost. I think it's like two times in the last many, many years it has been won. I don't know why. It doesn't make sense. Usually, I can figure things out. But I don't know why. But that seems to be. But other than that, we should win because we're doing great.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Do you think that he is in line with the Republican voters? Do they see him as doing great if these results are happening?
SHAH: I can't say that I have seen numbers telling me that Republicans are splitting with him right now. But all I know is down in Miami, we saw a 28-year rain end for Republicans with this Democrat flip down there. This is problematic for the Republicans writ large because what we are hearing from the president in real time is questioning almost the validity again of election results. And he does this every time he's worried about Republicans losing.
FERGUSON: Yes.
SHAH: He calls into question free, fair, and just elections just because Democrats won? Let's say this, Ben. He won free, fair, and square this past November, and that's not something we should debate at this point in his presidency. But the thing is --
FERGUSON: I will welcome that.
SHAH: -- he does that every time Democrats do that. Can't we just admit that Democrats are doing better on candidate quality these days? I'm not a Democrat, but I've got to give it to them. In some parts of this country, they have wised up and realized what they did wrong, what Biden and Kamala Harris did wrong, and they are putting forth better candidates. When Trump does not see Republicans win, he always has to say, well, I don't know what's going on, calling --
FERGUSON: No, I think you went back to --
SHAH: -- fraudulent --
FERGUSON: We went --
SHAH: -- aren't evidence-based.
FERGUSON: We went back to history. And we've always -- we've this, right, as the president described it. In midterms, you usually see the party that's not in power --
SHAH: Right.
FERGUSON: -- get back into power. It's checks and balances. What I do love about this country is we have free and fair elections. You look at Miami and there. That doesn't concern me at all because we're seeing this in a lot of even conservative places.
I'm fluent from Texas. Houston proper is very liberal. The suburbs have grown massively, and they're extremely conservative. You look at Dallas, the same thing. Austin, the same thing. Look at Tennessee. How conservative is this state? But it's liberal in Nashville, very liberal in Memphis. New Orleans is another example of that. Miami, if you look at Miami-Dade --
COATES: But that was true, Ben, even when Trump had a more expansive lead. Part of the concern that people are raising in Republican circles, I understand, has been the chipping away at those double- digit leads. That doesn't give you any pause as to how to reorient the conversation?
FERGUSON: Well, no. I think what you also see the president doing and when he just had his rally, you're going to see him go out and go on the campaign trail. He's clearly going to do that for the midterms because he understands he doesn't want to be a lame duck for two years. He understands his agenda has to have a majority to win. He doesn't want to waste two years. He's going to go out there because the reality is Donald Trump on the ballot helps Republicans --
SHAH: Oh, I just -- I couldn't disagree more.
FERGUSON: -- all over the country. Well, I'll go back nine, 10 months ago.
SHAH: He can't keep his campaign promises.
FERGUSON: Hold on. I'll go back nine, 10 months ago.
SHAH: Nine or 10 months ago was a world of --
FERGUSON: And guess what? He won. He's going out there.
SHAH: He's breaking promises, just like with the free speech --
FERGUSON: I don't know Republicans that don't want to be on stage with Donald Trump right now.
SHAH: Because --
FERGUSON: Every -- every person I talked to who is running for office is begging for two things right now. They're begging for a Trump endorsement and they're begging for Trump to come to their district.
SHAH: Because they want to stay in line. But if you --
FERGUSON: No. Because they want to win. They want to win with Donald Trump. That's why he's going on the campaign trail.
SHAH: Ben, look at the latest number from Pew Research Center. It says that 60% of Republican voters are frustrated with the infighting of the Republican Party.
FERGUSON. Yes. And 87% also say --
SHAH: Do you think we can endure this for another year?
FERGUSON: -- that they support Donald Trump.
SHAH: Absolutely not.
FERGUSON: Eight-seven percent --
SHAH: He breaks promises. Ben, it's going to be really hard to --
FERGUSON: -- of Republicans support Trump.
COATES: You know what? Here is my promise to our advertisers, we're going to a break. Rina, Ben, we're going right now. Thank you both. You can talk amongst yourselves. I'll give you a topic.
Up next, will Brian Walshe take the stand? The prosecution resting their case in his murder trial after hearing from the last person who saw his wife, Ana, alive. Does testimony help or hurt the case? Joey Jackson is with me to discuss it all, next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:45:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: Tomorrow, the defense begins its case in the murder trial of Brian Walshe. Prosecutors rested today after eight days of testimony from 50 witnesses. Walshe is accused of killing his wife, Ana, and dismembering her body. He says he didn't kill her, he only moved her body after she died suddenly, and he panicked.
One of the last people to testify was a friend of the couple who was one of the last people to see her alive. They spent New Year's Eve of 2022 together. And while the friend says the couple had their issues, those issues were not on display that night.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNKNOWN (voice-over): You said the night was joyful?
GEM MUTLU, FRIEND OF BRIAN AND ANA WALSHE: That's correct.
UNKNOWN (voice-over): They were happy?
MUTLU: That's correct.
UNKNOWN (voice-over): And from everything you saw and what you've told us, they were in love?
MUTLU: Well, they were happy is a loaded statement, I think. They seemed happy that night. But people are complex.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[23:49:58]
COATES: I want to bring in CNN legal analyst Joey Jackson, who has been watching the trial with me all day for CNN Access and All Access and analyzing that. I mean, Joey, on the one hand, the friend says Brian and Ana were seeking counseling, and they may have had marital issues. But the same friend also says that Brian and Ana were happy and joyful when he last saw her a few hours, we should point out, before those Google searches about dismemberment and decomposing bodies were connected by Brian Walshe. This was a prosecution witness. Which side did he really help?
JOEY JACKSON, CNN LEGAL ANALYST, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: You know, I always believe, Laura, it depends on your perspective. Good to be with you. But listen to what he said. He said relationships are complex. And he gives something to both sides. For the prosecution, what does he give you? He gives you that timeline. Yes, he's there. He gets there about 8 p.m. He is celebrating with them. Everything seems like everything is OK. And then he leaves at 1:30 and still okay.
But remember this, and the audience should know, that Brian Walshe was receiving through his devices the text messages that Ana Walshe was sending. And what message did she send? She sent a message to her lover, Mr. (INAUDIBLE), about her love for him on that evening. Would that be the thing that twists her husband such that it drives him into a rage after the fact? So, he gives the timeline there.
But at the same time, for the defense, yes, they scored the points with regard to everything seem festive, them seeing together, seemingly having a nice relationship, etcetera, but looks can be deceiving. I just think it's a heavy lift, ultimately, for the defense with regard to, you know what? She just died suddenly in her sleep, and there's nothing to see here.
There's just too much other evidence that overwhelms that, Laura, that speaks to the issue of common sense and good judgment. And that tells you that it may not be the reaction of a normal person who just dies in your sleep when your wife, the person you love, and you decide that you're going to cut her up and throw her around town. It justifies logic and common sense. And for that reason, I think the defense has a bit of a problem.
And so, we will see if they try to rectify that problem by putting their client on the stand in their case.
COATES: That would be something to see because, of course, remember, he's on trial for first-degree premeditated murder. They're going to try to undercut from the defense this idea that they couldn't have been happy at 1:30 in the morning, and then suddenly he planned to kill her by those wee small hours of the morning. But we know premeditation can happen in an instant. So, how they've proven their case will be up to the jury.
But the idea of him possibly taking the stand will also be after Ana's friend, Alyssa Kirby, who also testified today. She revealed during cross that Brian knew Ana had a crush on someone else. We've already heard from a man who had an affair with Ana, he was the crush, and saw Brian's internet history, which included searches for phrases like "cheating wife." A porn hub was also done even before she died.
It looks like prosecutors, they are trying to suggest that they may not know how specifically Ana was killed, but they believe there was a motive for her killing, and jealousy is at the center. Is it working?
JACKSON: Yes. I mean, there's no question that that's going to be the issue, right? There are dual motives. The one thing is the jealousy issue. Did he get enraged, that is Brian Walshe, such that he was so enraged that he decided to kill his wife?
But I continue to go back to the issue involving you can have a really nice evening, etcetera, and it's noted that when she's at the table, that is Ana Walshe, and they're having this great time together on New Year's, she is indeed texting her boyfriend, that is Mr. Fastow. Could it have been, and I think we're going to hear the argument on closing, that he got that message, Brian Walshe, she saw that text message, and he just went berserk?
I think the prosecution is setting up the issue that that drove him over the edge. The motivation for jealousy got him, in addition to the motivation involving the finances, the fact that he was -- that he's trying to pay off this debt restitution from the artwork conviction. And as a result of that, he even had the motive of either jealousy or the motive of, I need the money, I need the life insurance, and so I'm going to do her in.
And so, I think that that is indeed going to be what's going to be argued in the closing. And now, it's going to be up to the defense when they get their shot, whether they put him on the stand. He just has so many lies, Laura. I just don't know how he becomes credible, Brian Walshe does, and convinces the jury he loves his wife --
COATES: Sure.
JACKSON: -- he would never do such a thing. The surveillance is crazy. I mean, it's just a --
COATES: Yes.
JACKSON: -- tough case, I think, for the defense. But premeditation is going to be really the core issue.
COATES: Joey Jackson, thank you. We're going to pick up the trial coverage tomorrow live on the CNN app starting at 9:00 a.m. East. We will you watch every second of the trial live with real-time analysis during the court breaks.
Up next, a burger chain takes an action and says they've had it with that 6-7 trend in the club. [23:55:02]
Are they doing the right thing or are they being grinches?
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: It's almost midnight, which means it is time to chat with Elex Michelson. Elex, good to see you. Did you see that People Magazine is reporting the quintessential In-N-Out burger chain? It has dropped the number 67, as in 6-7, from its ticket order system because, of course, this keeps happening. Look.
ELEX MICHAELSON, CNN ANCHOR AND CORRESPONDENT: Yes.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNKNOWN: 6-7!
(APPLAUSE)
(LAUGHTER)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: I mean, how do we feel about this? Taking it off? Really? Is it that big of a deal? It's 67 burgers, right?
MICHAELSON: I mean, that looks fun for everybody involved. I don't know why you would take it off. It makes me want to go to In-N-Out.
[23:59:58]
Can you imagine, like, the older person or somebody who's just going there to enjoy their meal, sitting in the corner, and all these kids show up and are doing this, and they're like, just wanted some fries? But, yes.
COATES: I just wanted it. I don't know. I think it's -- let them have fun. If it's disruptive, OK. But if it's, like, dangerous, different story. But, I mean, 6-7. Have a great show.
MICHAELSON: Yes. Exactly. All right, Laura, thank you so much.
