Return to Transcripts main page

Laura Coates Live

Susie Wiles Speaks Out; Manhunt For Brown University Suspect Intensifies; Son Charged With Murder; Trump Orders Blockade Of Sanctioned Oil Tankers In Venezuela; NYT Investigation Reveals How Jeffrey Epstein Got Rich. Aired 11p-12a ET

Aired December 16, 2025 - 23:00   ET

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

JOHN FUGELSANG, HOST, SIRIUSXM: And we treat therapy like plutonium while allowing people to just spiral out until they wind up in the criminal justice system. I think that the marijuana argument has taught us that treating -- or the drug war has taught us that treating sick people as criminals didn't work in the drug war and it doesn't work now.

SARA SIDNER, CNN ANCHOR AND SENIOR NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Scott?

SCOTT JENNINGS, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, FORMER SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH, SALEM RADIO HOST: Nothing. Literally nothing. This all sounds like shenanigan to me.

SIDNER: Shenanigan?

JENNINGS: I think we have reduced restrictions too much on everything. I'm for more restrictions. I'm zero shenanigan policy. This sounds like shenanigan. Nothing. No, I don't want to reduce the restrictions on anything.

SIDNER: All right. We're out of time. Thank you so much, everyone. And thank you for watching "NewsNight." "Laura Coates Live" starts now.

LAURA COATES, CNN HOST AND SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Tonight, the tell-all interview from the Trump official who's famously tight-lipped. So, why did the ice maiden burn so many of her colleagues? Plus, was it a targeted attack? The new revealing information about the Brown University gunman as the manhunt enters night number four. And new photos showing the moment that Rob Reiner's son was arrested as prosecutors now consider the death penalty. Tonight on "Laura Coates Live."

So, that political earthquake that struck before what? 7 a.m. this morning? Well, the aftershocks from what White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles told Vanity Fair, they are still rumbling tonight. And now, it's a big question of just how much damage this does, if any, and whether what she put on the record will have any consequences.

But you know what makes this all the more, well, head-scratching? Wiles keeps an incredibly low profile. I mean, an incredibly low profile. President Trump himself says that she likes to stay in the background. So, it was perhaps truly jaw-dropping to see her give not one, but 11 interviews over 11 months, all of it laid out in a two- part Vanity Fair profile, complete with sleek pose photographs with other top Trump officials, some of the very people she openly spoke about.

Now, according to Chris Whipple, who conducted the interviews, Wiles said Trump has an alcoholic's personality. Not sure what that means. J.D. Vance has been a -- quote -- "conspiracy theorist for a decade." Elon Musk, an odd, odd duck and an avowed ketamine user. And budget chief Russell Vought is a right-wing absolute zealot. Yes, it's a lot. Whipple says, it was like watching lightning strike.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CHRIS WHIPPLE, WRITER, VANITY FAIR: It was astonishing to me, the extent to which she was unguarded and freewheeling on the record all the time. All I can tell you is what she told me. She felt the Trump 1.0 had been unfairly covered. That Trump was vilified.

UNKNOWN (voice-over): During the first administration?

WHIPPLE: During the first administration. She wanted a fair hearing, and I think she thought she would get one.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Now, here's where the real-world consequences come into play, because in one interview, Whipple asked Wiles about the prosecution of New York A.G. Letitia James, and Wiles told him, "In some cases, it may look like retribution. And there may be an element of that from time to time. Who would blame him? Not me."

Whipple asked her, "So all of this talk about accusing Letitia James of mortgage fraud," Wiles responded, "Well, that might be the one retribution."

Whipple later asked her about the prosecution of another Trump enemy, former FBI Director James Comey. Wiles said, "I mean, people could think it does look vindictive. I can't tell you why you shouldn't think that." Saying of Trump, "I don't think he wakes up thinking of about retribution. But when there's an opportunity, he will go for it."

Now, the indictments of James and Comey, they have been dismissed. But if they ever came back, you can bet their defense attorneys will point to what Wiles said as a sign of, you guessed it, vindictive prosecution. And that goes for any other defendant who thinks they're the victim of his retribution campaign.

Now, she is pushing back on the entire article, calling it a "disingenuously framed hit piece on me and the finest president, White House staff, and Cabinet in history" -- unquote.

And the administration is circling the wagons. It's a who's who of Trump officials coming to her defense and calling out the article.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) KAROLINE LEAVITT, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: I think the most egregious part of this article was the bias of omission that was clearly present. And we see a lot of this when dealing with the media every day.

[23:05:00]

J.D. VANCE, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Sometimes, I am a conspiracy theorist. But I only believe in the conspiracy theories that are true.

(APPLAUSE)

And, by the way, Susie and I have joked in private and in public about that for a long time.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Chris Whipple, he is standing by his reporting. And he says this is the giveaway. They haven't able to challenge a single fact on what he said.

Leading us off tonight are two of the smartest political minds around, Mark McKinnon, former adviser to George W. Bush and John McCain, and CNN contributor Lulu Garcia-Navarro, a New York Times journalist and podcast host who has interviewed countless high-profile political figures. I always look forward to hearing your work as well.

Mark, I want to begin with you. This is the question I think a lot of people are asking. Why do you think she agreed to even do these interviews?

MARK MCKINNON, FORMER ADVISER TO GEORGE W. BUSH AND JOHN MCCAIN: Well, I think Chris Whipple put his finger on it. I think she felt that the first Trump administration had been unfairly characterized. And I think that she thought that, you know, history is going to record how this administration was run. And if she thought about, well, if I want history to write it, who would I want to write it?

Well, Chris Whipple is the guy who wrote the book on chiefs of staff. There was a very famous book that he wrote where he talked to, you know, all former chiefs of staff. So, he understands the White House, understands how it runs. He particularly understands the office of the chief of staff.

So, I think as she looked at it, she thought, well, if I'm going to talk to anybody, it probably be Whipple. I mean, it is surprising that she gave such unvarnished and unfettered access to Chris. But if you know Chris, you understand why. He's very good, he's very unassuming, he's very professional, and he's got a lot of credibility. I don't think she would have talked to him if she thought that he wasn't a credible journalist.

And so, I do think it's testament to the reporting that literally not a single person out in the Trump administration is disputing anything. The best they can come up with is, oh, he omitted a bunch of things. Well, there's 11 hours of interviews, according to Whipple. So, of course, something is left out. He deleted something.

COATES: Well, Lulu, I mean, this is not her first rodeo. Obviously, she has been known to be very savvy and strategic. She couldn't possibly think that every time she sat down for an interview, the final outcome would be every detail that she wanted to come out.

But are you surprised that she let her guard down, that she was so forthcoming about her opinions about so many key figures to whom trust -- I mean, Trump has entrusted with very important work?

LULU GARCIA-NAVARRO, CNN CONTRIBUTOR, JOURNALIST FOR THE NEW YORK TIMES, PODCAST HOST: I mean, it is a stunning interview to be given by the chief of staff of Donald Trump. Let's just run through some of the things that she said.

She talked about DOGE being sort of a catastrophe, that USAID and the dissolution and how that was carried out might have, you know, led to millions of people potentially dying. She accused Elon Musk of being on drugs. She talked about Venezuela and what's happening there as regime change, sort of contradicting what the administration has been trying to put out. I mean, in issue after issue, she was really giving an unvarnished view.

And I, as a journalist, of course, am thrilled to be able to get that insider's perspective. It is, I think, bewildering. And you've seen that here in Washington, D.C. People are texting each other frantically, basically saying, what was she thinking? And, you know, there is a frantic sort of spinning going on now. As you see, everyone is indeed circling the wagon. She is very highly thought of.

But I think there's going to be some fallout from this because, as you mentioned yourself, some of the things that she said are now going to be used against this administration.

COATES: Some things, though, people seem to be taking in stride. You heard from Vice President J.D. Vance, for example, on that. I mean, Mark, Wiles said, to add to Lulu's list, that the attorney general, Pam Bondi, completely whiffed on understanding how much the Epstein files release really mattered to Trump supporters, although I'm not sure how one could underestimate that, given how extensively he campaigned on his willingness to produce these documents.

But Wiles seems to fear it will cost the party, in her words, the Joe Rogan listeners. Is she pointing out some of the fears and saying those quiet parts out loud? Do you think she's right?

MCKINNON: Yes. Well, she was -- remember, she is not only the chief staff, she was the campaign manager. So, she has a good (INAUDIBLE) also of MAGA voters, for sure. Yes, I think there's a lot, there's so much that's interesting about this reporting in the story.

COATES: Yes.

[23:10:00]

MCKINNON: But I'll tell you, one thing that's fascinating is the -- I mean, A, how much she said, how candid she was, but also how the wagon circled immediately. I mean, I think you put up -- you know, every Cabinet member out there is defending her. So, normally, when these sorts of things happen, the long knives would come out. There's no long knife for Susie Wiles at all.

And so, you know, the question -- and everything that she said about all those Cabinet members, nobody is really disputing, and most of them even admit it themselves. I mean, Vance said the same thing, yes, well, I am a conspiracy theorist. And it's pretty clear that, you know, the rest of them, that nobody is really disputing anything.

I think, ultimately, the big questions are in terms of -- so what is the liability of the article, ultimately? I mean, there's lots of interesting things in there. There's lots of fascinating things, a lot of things that reinforce what we know about Trump. But there's not all that much that's surprising, really, at all. I mean, who is surprised by anything? It's just confirmation of what we've all thought of for so long.

The two liabilities, and Lulu pointed out one of them, which is Venezuela, where she talked about regime change, and then also the legal liability prosecution cases. So, those are the only two areas that come to my mind that are really -- that are potentially problematic, where DOJ or somebody might come to her and say, I don't know, this may cause us some liability down the line.

COATES: Yes.

MCKINNON: But otherwise, I mean, just look at how the wagon circled.

COATES: I mean, even with the liability, there's still going to be a disconnect between what Susie Wiles believes and what you're able to prove in court if you were Letitia James and James Comey. You still got to make that final bridge about a vindictive prosecution separate from the discretion of a prosecutor. But yet it does not help them to say, no, no, no, this was not part of our plan at all, retribution.

But what about that label? I mean, you heard Vice President J.D. Vance trying to diffuse and saying, like, yes, I'm a conspiracy theorist, but only the conspiracy that ended up being true. He obviously knows that tongue in cheek might be preferable to being called a conspiracy theorist in its core sense. Will that label hurt him ultimately? I mean, I hear his name being referenced in future tickets.

GARCIA-NAVARRO: I mean, I don't think it's going to hurt him.

MCKINNON: That's what they want to hear. They believe that -- they're all about conspiracies.

GARCIA-NAVARRO: Yes, I don't think it's going to -- I don't think that's what's going to hurt him. I think what's going to hurt him actually is what she also said, which is that his conversion to MAGA was political expediency. Everyone is focusing on the conspiracy theorists.

But that's not the thing that I thought was the shiv. It was that, you know, she essentially in that fight, if there is indeed a fight between Marco Rubio and J.D. Vance in terms of who is going to be the heir apparent of Donald Trump, she clearly favors Marco Rubio, saying in that interview that, you know, his conversion was a real conversion, he grappled with many things, and then he finally sort of came out and in a principled way supported Trump.

She talked about J.D. Vance and said there was some politics involved in that, clearly sort of casting aspersion on his loyalty to Donald Trump.

COATES: Now, that's interesting, Mark, especially given the fractures we're seeing among MAGA. I mean, Marjorie Taylor Greene is one example of that and the idea of America first principles and beyond becoming sources of real issues for President Trump among his base.

But then there's this notion that Wiles said that she thinks the president should focus more on the economy, less about Saudi Arabia, and that's going along with that idea of domestic policy. He is going to deliver a speech from the White House tomorrow night. I almost feel odd asking this question, Mark, but do you think that the president will follow anyone's advice, let alone hers, on what he should talk about tomorrow?

MCKINNON: Well, the state of unions, I mean, that's one -- the one time when Trump generally does stay on script. I mean, he's reading off the teleprompter. He's not in front of audience or an arena where he can go off script. So, generally, he's going to stick to whatever everybody has agreed upon will be the message for tomorrow night.

Listen, if you're an aide to Trump and Trump knows himself, that to some degree, although he resists it, that he's got to get right, he's got to have a compelling message about the economy for next year, and he's got to understand that he understands it.

So, listen, I think that tomorrow night, it will be pretty much on script and shouldn't be too many surprises, and I think this will be the one time, perhaps, over the course of the next year where he'll be channeling what his aides are thinking and wanting him to be saying.

I will say I'm really struck by the whole thing because I had a similar experience when I was working for George W. Bush and I was his media guy.

[23:15:03]

And I coordinated for Vanity Fair a photo shoot called the War Cabinet. The cover was George W. Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleezza Rice. And I just know what a Herculine task that was. My hats are off to the new folks at Vanity Fair that have taken over recently and Chris Whipple. It's really a remarkable thing they've done that. I mean, 11 interviews, 11 hours, and then to pull off that photo shoot is nothing short of amazing.

COATES: All that and a photo shoot. Quickly, Lulu, I have to ask you this question. Do you think this will add credibility to the idea that this administration is transparent given how many interviews she gave and how candid she was?

GARCIA-NAVARRO: Yes, I think they're going to spin it that way, for sure. I mean, I think what we see is that, yes, this administration has a lot of media availabilities, but they tend to talk to people who they favor, right? They tend to talk to people who are within the bubble. And so, you know, I'm glad she did this. I think it's great.

And not only that. You know, she has -- she said publicly what many of us have been saying publicly all along. And so, I think also she was sending a message to maybe Donald Trump, that Donald Trump wouldn't have his numbers be doing so badly if maybe he listened a little more to Susie Wiles.

COATES: Mark, Lulu, thank you both so much. Up next, a critical piece of information emerging about the suspected Brown University shooter as we now enter night number four of this manhunt. What police are now saying the suspect was doing before that horrible attack. Plus, Billy Crystal, Larry David, and more releasing their first response to the murders of Rob and Michele Reiner as their son is officially charged for their deaths.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNKNOWN: Prosecuting these cases involving family members are some of the most challenging and most heart-wrenching cases that this office faces because of the intimate and often brutal nature of the crimes involved.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:20:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: All right, tonight, we are following the ongoing manhunt for the Brown University shooting suspect three days after the deadly shooting. Despite receiving hundreds of tips, the killer and the motive still remain a mystery.

Authorities releasing new digitally-enhanced video of the suspect showing him crossing a street, walking on a sidewalk, looking around. Police pleading for the public's help.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OSCAR L. PEREZ, JR., CHIEF, PROVIDENCE POLICE DEPARTMENT: We're asking the public to ensure that they can see them, they can see here, that you want to focus on the body movements, the way the person move their arms, the body posture, the way they carry their weight. I think those are important movement patterns that may help you identify this individual, which is extremely important.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: But more alarming, officials say that he was casing the area just hours before the attack.

I want to turn to former FBI special agent Daniel Brunner. Daniel, here we are nearly four days into a manhunt. And the fact that the suspect was apparently casing the area hours before, does that further the working theory that this was a targeted attack?

DANIEL BRUNNER, RETIRED FBI SUPERVISORY SPECIAL AGENT: I think it was. I think this was an individual who either was wronged by the university, was wronged at this location. Maybe there was somebody in that classroom that he had a beef with.

For some reason, he was targeting this building. He was targeting. In my opinion, I think that he was correcting something that he was slighted. I look back and I compare it to going back to Timothy McVeigh at the Oklahoma City bombing. He was targeting that building, and then he got out. He was able to drive away and escape the area. Luigi Mangione, he was targeting that, and then he routed out.

If this was a school shooting, if this is what we had seen, the individual would have typically gone down the hallway to continue killing, and then would -- his life would have been taken by law enforcement or taken his own life. He went in, finished his mission, and then got out.

Now, the more difficult work here is now, they're going to take -- gather the evidence, looking at these videos, comparing it to cellular analysis, and then see whether it can identify him using the coat or his physical gait, his walk, see if someone can provide information.

COATES: Well, we know the length of time it took to even track down a suspect in the RNC, DNC-related January 5th attacks that happened in Washington, D.C. several years ago, you know, more than almost five years. And yet right now, we're day four. We don't yet know, according to officials, who they're looking for, they have said. They hope these enhanced videos are going to help to crack the case open.

But the idea of not having this days ago or asking the public, how do you evaluate the need to have the public's input in the strength of the investigation or what leads they may have already?

BRUNNER: Well, I think the public's information, that the information they can provide, whether it be video from their cell phones, their cameras outside their homes, these are all really key pieces of information. You know, technology has changed just in the last four or five years with artificial intelligence and A.I. utilizing that to be used in part of an investigation.

[23:25:01]

Now, we're seeing video before the shooting. I'd like to see if there's video that captures this individual after the shooting while they were escaping. Were they running? Do they have a vehicle? So, these are a lot of questions that we make.

The investigation team may have it. We are just not privy to them. They may not be providing it to us. They're providing this to find additional leads, to create additional information, to track him, see if his cellular telephone moved from one location to the next. Do they have a matching number on different cellphone towers?

See if this individual is using that coat. I'm sure they've identified the style, the make and the model of the coat. And I'm sure those investigative teams are out there canvassing the stores, interviewing people, see if there's anybody that matches that description, physical nature.

So, there's lots of different aspects of this investigation all coming out of FBI Boston.

COATES: You're right. We may not be privy to the folks end of what they already know and they want the public's help in spite of that. I hope so. This is a very scary thing for that community. Daniel Brunner, thank you so much.

BRUNNER: My pleasure.

COATES: And here in Los Angeles, the murders of Rob Reiner and his wife, Michele, continue to grip and, frankly, haunt Hollywood. Today, prosecutors formally charged their son, Nick Reiner, with two counts of first-degree murder.

Prosecutors revealed little about the investigation, but they did say that Nick Reiner allegedly used a knife in the murders. And new pictures show the moment that Nick Reiner was arrested. LAPD and U.S. Marshal take him to custody about 14 miles from his parents' home. But Nick Reiner did not appear in court today. His lawyer says that he is still in the hospital and not medically cleared yet.

I want to bring in CNN legal analyst Elliot Williams and executive director of Deadline Hollywood, Dominic Patten. Elliot, let me begin with you here because this is still so stunning. I mean, the murder carries a maximum sentence of life in prison or the death penalty. And the D.A. did not take the ladder off of the table. So, what does that tell you about the evidence they must have so far or the nature of the crime?

ELLIOT WILLIAMS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: Well, certainly, the nature of the crime is quite serious, Laura. There's even at least one aggravating circumstance, a special circumstance under California law for allegedly having used a knife. That's the kind of thing that can enhance the penalties for an individual.

But, you know, stepping back, if in fact they think they might have a capital case here, of course, it's very serious. Of course, they recognize, I'm sure, the public interest in the matter and are taking the case very, very seriously.

COATES: And the family as well, Dominic. I mean, the D.A. says that he will consider the family's wishes on whether to pursue the death penalty if, of course, there's a conviction. What an unimaginable position for a family to be in. Are they even thinking that far? What can you tell us? DOMINIC PATTEN, EXECUTIVE EDITOR, DEADLINE HOLLYWOOD: Well, I mean, from what we know about the family, clearly, there's a shock here, an overwhelming disbelief in what has happened. We know that there has been some communication with authorities on this.

I think, though, as D.A. Nathan Hochman said today, this is very, very early stages. I mean, when we actually saw the complaint file today, it was barely three pages with a paragraph each on them of the two counts.

So, I think that there's very early stages yet. A lot to be figured out. But this certainly sent a chill. Not only there are these terrible, terrible killings, but now this talk of the death penalty, which we know is very rare in California.

COATES: There has been a moratorium for years and years and years. And yet today, he did not appear in court. The D.A. acknowledged that Nick's mental health and addiction struggles could very well come up in court. But the police did not say if he was under the influence at the time of his arrest. Elliot, he has not been medically cleared. Tell us what that means and how this could factor in.

WILLIAMS: Right. You know, you talk about substance abuse here and mental illness being a factor. These can all come up and potentially sink the whole prosecution if in fact he was so, and this is purely hypothetical or I just want to be clear, but if in fact a defendant is so intoxicated at the time that they commit an offense, that they can't have known the difference between right and wrong.

That could lead to them not being convicted of the offense and perhaps even making the case being thrown out if in fact the person was mentally ill and did not know what they were doing at the time. That could also get in the way of a prosecution.

So, you know, there are many, many factors here before anybody goes to jail. But, you know, to step back, it's really important to know and remember, probably the key witness in this trial was going to be the sister of the defendant and the daughter of the victims. This is a profound human tragedy, even more than being just a simple criminal case.

[23:30:00]

COATES: And his friends and family, I mean, those who have known and loved them, I mean, you have Billy Crystal, Larry David, Martin Short, so many others releasing a statement tonight and saying in part -- quote -- "They were a special force together -- dynamic, unselfish and inspiring. We were their friends, and we will miss them forever."

Now that Nick Reiner has been charged, Dominic, what is the mood in Hollywood tonight?

PATTEN: Well, Laura, I mean, I still think that people are trying to understand how this terrible tragedy happened. I mean, just last week, you know, Rob Reiner was at a Democratic National Committee fundraiser not too far from his house where people were sitting right next to him, chatting with him.

You know, the first lady, former first lady Michelle Obama talked about how her and the former president were supposed to see Rob and Michele Reiner just the other night.

I think, you know, you just talked about -- you talked about that quote from some of his close friends. I'll give you a sense of what I think is really happening here in Hollywood. You take someone like John Cusack, a very progressive-minded individual, great actor, of course. You take someone like James Woods, a very conservative-minded actor, maybe call him mega adjacent, in fact. They both put out tweets and statements saying how much they loved Rob Reiner, what a great American artist he was, what a good friend he was.

That's where it is. This is a man who had a huge scope in terms of the depth of his films, from "Harry Met Sally" to "The American President" to a recent documentary he and Michele did last year called "God & Country" about white supremacy. So, that tells you everything you need to know about the love that this couple had in this community and the loss that people feel.

COATES: Elliot, Dominic, thank you both. Ahead, he worked in the first Trump administration and called himself part of the resistance back then. So, what's Miles Taylor think of Susie Wiles's big interview? Well, you know what? He'll tell us next.

Plus, no boat strike video for you. Secretary Hegseth keeping it under wraps, just as the president orders a blockade around Venezuela. Where is all this going?

And later, scams, schemes, and ruthless cons. "The New York Times" says that's how Jeffrey Epstein made his millions. We've got the reporter who spent months digging up the answer to tell you all about it.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:35:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: So, remember when Bob Woodward came out with his 2018 book, "Fear?" He had a really memorable quote from then Chief of Staff John Kelly, who reportedly said, "It's pointless to try to convince Trump of anything. He's gone off the rails. We're in crazy town."

And that was Trump's first term. Now, in his second one, his current chief of staff, Susie Wiles, told author Chris Whipple, "Trump operates with the view that there's nothing he can't do. Nothing, zero, nothing." She adds, "I'm not an enabler. I'm also not a B-word. I try to be thoughtful about what I even engage in."

One example comes from the way she has handled Trump's so-called revenge. Whipple asked her in March -- quote -- "Do you ever go in to Trump and say, 'Look, this is not supposed to be a retribution tour?' 'Yes, I do,' Wiles replied. 'We have a loose agreement that the score settling will end before the first 90 days are over.'"

Joining me now is Miles Taylor, a former top Department of Homeland Security official during Trump's first term. He worked under John Kelly. He has also been critical of Trump and is now being investigated by this administration.

Miles, you hear that Susie Wiles is acknowledging or admitting that there's an element of revenge to his term, that she tries to be thoughtful in what she chooses to push back on. What does that tell you about the way that she is handling him?

(LAUGHTER)

MILES TAYLOR, AUTHOR, PODCAST HOST, FORMER CHIEF OF STAFF AT DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY: Well, first, Laura, it makes me think she has not even been successful at the things she's thoughtful about trying to engage in. A loose agreement to limit retribution to 90 days. I think, according to Reuters reporting, we've seen an average of more than one revenge action every single day of this administration.

And so, the contrast could not be starker between my former boss, John Kelly, and what Susie Wiles is doing. You can love or hate John Kelly, but the man saw his responsibility as trying to advise the president on what was lawful and trying to help the president not break the law when he very frequently wanted to break the law. That's not hyperbole or a partisan talking point.

This was constant, Laura. I mean, he constantly wanted to break the law. It wasn't always intentional. Often, it's because Donald Trump didn't understand the law. But once informed about it, you got to tell the president, hey, we got to stick with this so you and other people don't end up in prison.

It seems like Susie Wiles's perspective, as she has articulated, is I help Trump do what he wants, and that seems to be even when he wants to break the law because there were some sorts of candid confessions of embracing the administration's criminality in that interview.

COATES: It seems as though she was describing herself as not an enabler, and that she was trying to choose her battles wisely. We can quibble about whether it's wise indeed to your larger point.

[23:39:53]

But this idea of the president's actions in other arenas really piques my curiosity, Miles, because on the boat strikes in the Caribbean, Wiles sort of gave up the game when she said that Trump wants to keep on blowing boats up until Maduro cries uncle. That's a quote, apparently. And then tonight, Trump ordered a blockade of sanctioned oil tankers in and out of Venezuela. So, it's not about just stopping drugs like we've been told, the so-called narcoterrorism?

TAYLOR: Well, first, I would ask, I don't know after reading those interviews what battles Susie Wiles has won. I don't know what the takeaway is. I mean, legitimately, Susie Wiles, what was one thing that was illegal Trump wanted to do that you talked him out of? I didn't get that from the piece. And the boat strikes are a great example of the opposite.

I think with those quotes, Laura, she fully undercut the administration's legal argument for ending human lives in the Caribbean, which they say has everything to do with imminent harm, imminent threat to the United States, and these enemy combatants who are smuggling drugs towards our country. Instead, Susie Wiles just admitted, yes, actually, it's an effort to put pressure on the president of Venezuela, Maduro. That fully undercuts their legal argument.

This isn't just rhetorically significant. I think, Laura, this is legally significant and will be as investigations continue for years into these boat strikes.

COATES: And yet people could question whether the chief of staff, who is in the advisory role you speak about, really is not just the mouthpiece of the president, but one in which is totally aligned. There is a disconnect in some respect that Trump could obviously articulate as the president versus the chief of staff. Does her position as chief of staff elevate her to really not only the right- hand woman, but somebody who speaks on behalf of the president in all respects, or is there some distance?

TAYLOR: Yeah. I mean, look, it depends on the person. I mean, there can be some distance. And what I would push back against is the notion that the White House chief of staff needs to change the president's mind on everything. I mean, no, you are an unelected bureaucrat.

You know, Donald Trump is the one who's elected. And there may be a lot of things that we dislike that he's doing or people like me dislike. That's not the issue. The guy is allowed to implement policies people find repulsive or they disagree with.

What he's not allowed to do is break the law. And that's the most fundamental thing a White House chief of staff should be doing and emphasizing in good times and in bad. And that simply wasn't the vibe that I got from reading about what Susie Wiles is prioritizing.

COATES: Let's talk about Hegseth because today, we learned that the public is not going to get the full unedited video of that deadly strike on survivors. It sounds like Hegseth is taking Trump's cue on this particular issue, that it's a -- quote -- "dead issue." Do you think the American public and the greater world, frankly, should see that particular video or are there concerns militarily that give you pause?

TAYLOR: I cannot conceive of what the concerns could possibly be given that this administration has a boat strike video fetish and has released every single one of them so far except for the one that purportedly includes evidence of potential criminal conduct. Again, that, to me, is just so obviously transparent. It speaks for itself.

COATES: You are part of a group that's launching an ad campaign to help U.S. troops know their rights if they get an illegal order. We obviously saw the video by number of members of Congress, including, of course, Senator Mark Kelly. What is your goal with this?

TAYLOR: Well, look, the president wants to scare troops and do not know their rights. And it is true that U.S. service members are supposed to presume orders are lawful. But they also have a right to not break the law, especially if an order manifestly seems to be in violation of the Constitution or U.S. laws.

So, all we want to do in the wake of all of this controversy is just restate the law, help U.S. troops know their rights. And if they think they've been on the receiving end of a manifestly illegal order from this administration, we want to make sure they have the best dang lawyers in the country because they deserve that protection, they have those rights under the Constitution.

And so, we're going to reach out to military bases and communities all around the country and just restate the law. The president of the United States says that's sedition. It's not sedition. We're not going to be afraid of that. We're not going to back down. It is simply restating the law and making sure those service members have the ability to get confidential, independent advice and legal counsel.

COATES: Who thought we'd ever be here? Miles Taylor, thank you so much.

TAYLOR: Thank you, Laura.

COATES: Up next, from Coney Island to private island, how did Jeffrey Epstein get to be so rich? Well, the reporter who spent months tracking down his colleagues and digging through documents says the answer is scams, schemes, and ruthless cons. He explains after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:45:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(CLOCK TICKING)

COATES: You hear that? That's the clock ticking on the DOJ. Just three days left until their deadline to release the Epstein files. Whether they meet that deadline or don't, one of the biggest questions surrounding the Epstein scandal is being answered tonight. How did Jeffrey Epstein get rich? Scams, schemes, and ruthless cons, according to "The New York Times."

[23:50:02]

The paper is tasking a team of reporters to interview dozens of people, dig up documents, and then report back. And their reporting uncovered that Epstein was a -- quote -- "prodigious manipulator and liar," that Epstein abused expense accounts from the rich and the famous, and Epstein -- quote -- "proved willing to operate on the edge of criminality and burn bridges in his pursuit of wealth and power."

In fact, those in Epstein's orbit now regret being drawn in. The man who gave Epstein his break in finance citing the Times -- quote -- "I didn't realize that I was creating one of the monsters of Wall Street."

One of the reporters who broke this story joins me now, David Enrich, deputy investigations editor for "The New York Times." David, so glad you were here. I mean, you spent months digging into the background of Jeffrey Epstein and how he went from a high school math teacher to financier to the wealthy. How exactly did Epstein get his big break?

DAVID ENRICH, DEPUTY INVESTIGATIONS EDITOR, THE NEW YORK TIMES: Well, the first of his many big breaks occurred when he got noticed by a parent at the school which he taught, who introduced him to a senior executive at the investment bank, Bear Stearns. And Bear Stearns hired him, and that was the start of kind of liftoff for him in his Wall Street career. And he very quickly attached himself to some of the highest-ranking executives there, who really took him under their wings and turned him into their protege.

COATES: Interestingly enough, you revealed the very moment that his boss at Bear Stearns actually found out that he lied on his resume, that he graduated college. When the boss confronted Epstein and asked -- quote -- "Why did you do it?" And you report that Epstein said without an impressive degree -- quote -- "I knew nobody would give me a chance." Tell me about how that incident then set the stage for the rest of his career.

ENRICH: Yes, this really became the -- this is the beginning of a lifelong pattern for Epstein where he would lie, steal, deceive, rip people off, basically with impunity. And at every turn, he had an explanation. And he managed to -- he manages to disarm people who were in positions of authority.

And if anything, you know, there has been all these rumors that Epstein was such a financial whiz and a math genius and things like that. More than that, I think that this was a guy who was masterful at manipulating people, especially people who held positions of power above him, whether it was Wall Street firm like Bear Stearns or else in other kind of realms of the business world and in society at large.

COATES: I mean, it wasn't just lying on his resume. I mean, you cite one example of Epstein lying about his ties to David Rockefeller, claiming that he managed the family's wealth when that was not true. But JPMorgan believed him. What made this person so convincing and able to manipulate so many?

ENRICH: Well, I think, at the end of the day, a lot of the institutions and individuals whom he managed to deceive were fundamentally really greedy and were very eager to accept his lies and buy into this mythology around him because they thought that they could make money off of him one way or the other.

And I think it was different things for different people in different institutions. JPMorgan was eager to work with him because he was throwing off a huge amount of money and fees and was introducing them to all sorts of rich and powerful people. But the motivations varied from place to place and person to person. But, at the end of the day, everyone was kind of looking out for their own self-interest and thought that somehow, Epstein could advance that. And Epstein was just extremely savvy, I think, at identifying where his marks were vulnerable and how he could kind of massage them and manipulate them to suit his own interests.

COATES: Part of that Achilles heel he would identify was that he scared them really into thinking that their finances were a total mess and only he could solve the problem and fix them. But what exactly did he get out of the relationships? Is it simply money or was it another connection leading to another mark?

ENRICH: Well, it was both, really. I mean, there were numerous examples of him convincing very rich, very powerful men like Les Wexner, the retail tycoon, Leon Black, the private equity billionaire, that their finances were a mess and that only one person, Jeffrey Epstein, could kind of dig them out of these holes. And he extracted hundreds of millions of dollars for each of those two men which is, obviously, a tremendous amount of money.

But he also, through those affiliations, he used the credibility that he gained through being connected to those people to build out his network and really, I think, seduce a lot of people that ended up being pretty gullible. And it was worse than being gullible in some ways because I think a lot of people thought that through their connection to Epstein, they could either profit or meet new people or in some cases, be connected to the young women whom Epstein, obviously, surrounded himself with.

[23:55:08]

COATES: You know, your work, very thorough outlining the way in which he has gone from that math teacher to this financier, really describing con artist in so many respects, and yet there are so many conspiracies about how he made his millions. Do think that your reporting and the way that you have laid it out is really going to put those conspiracies to rest?

ENRICH: Probably not. I think there are a lot of people who want to believe that there is something really deep and unexplainable going on here. I don't -- and look, I've got to say, there have -- I'm not convinced that we know the full story yet. My colleagues and I have spent months, as you said, really years, digging into this. But it is entirely possible that there are additional layers that still need to be peeled back here. And I can tell you, we are definitely not done with the story yet.

COATES: A cliffhanger and one that needs to be followed. David Enrich, thank you so much.

ENRICH: Thank you.

COATES: Hey, thank you all so much for watching. "The Story Is with Elex Michaelson" is next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)