Return to Transcripts main page
Laura Coates Live
ICE Escalates Crackdown; Attorney for Renee Good Speaks Out; Former Uvalde School Officer Cleared by Jury; Trump Drops Tariff and Military Threats, Announces Greenland Deal "Framework"; Supreme Court Appears Poised to Reject Trump's Bid to Fire Fed Gov; Defense in Au Pair Murder Trial Tries to Undercut "Catfish" Theory. Aired 11p-12a ET
Aired January 21, 2026 - 23:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[23:00:00]
BAKARI SELLERS, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: -- love TVs and mirror screens in the bathroom.
ABBY PHILLIP, CNN ANCHOR AND SENIOR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: Those are the worst TVs, though. They just don't know.
SELLERS: There are seven.
PHILLIP: All right.
(LAUGHTER)
PHILLIP: Go ahead, Batya.
BATYA UNGAR-SARGON, AUTHOR: I think this is going to be a unifier, a view of the ocean.
UNKNOWN: Oh, yes.
PHILLIP: Yes, the ultimate luxury.
UNGAR-SARGON: Ultimate luxury.
UNKNOWN: In a porch (ph) sitting out front.
PHILLIP: Yes, that's right.
UNKNOWN: You can tell the coastal elites.
PHILLIP: Some combination between the two of your wish list items. 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, the ICE crackdown intensifies. You got a new state now targeted as a questionable new memo tries to give federal agents significant powers to enter homes. Plus, breaking news, a jury acquits the former Uvalde police officer accused of failing to act. Why the verdict is going to have consequences far beyond Texas. And you know Trump calls it deal making. His critics call it caving. Is the president's Greenland gambit finally over or is taking a pause? Tonight on "Laura Coates Live."
We have new evidence tonight that the ICE crackdown in America is quickly expanding with some questionable tactics, questionable investigations, and as you're about to find out, questionable legal justifications. And while Minneapolis, yes, has been the epicenter, the administration tonight is surging ICE agents into a new target, Maine. The administration is calling it "Operation Catch of the Day." Yes, just like catch and release, these dehumanizing fishing analogies continue. One city councilor in Portland, Maine is calling it something else.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
WES PELLETIER, COUNCILOR, PORTLAND, MAINE CITY: I want to be really clear. This is a war of terror that's being waged on our city by the federal government. We've seen people of all ages getting thrown on the ground and getting thrown into trucks.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Maine's governor says the federal government is only sowing intimidation and fear. And if that sounds familiar, well, it should, because what's happening in Minneapolis could be a preview of what happens in Maine. We've already seen the video showing aggressive ICE tactics.
And tonight, we're learning about a new one. ICE officers are using sweeping new power to enter homes without a warrant from a judge. The Associated Press has obtained an internal ICE memo that says that agents can enter a residence with only an administrative warrant if they're trying to arrest someone with a final order of removal.
I can tell you right now that headed straight to a legal collision with the Fourth Amendment because that treats the home as a protected space. Literally, the word "houses" is in the text. It says the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrant shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation.
Now, one of the few exceptions could be hot pursuit. Think textbook that's -- a person committed a crime, they're seen running into their house for cover, the cops are chasing them, and they run into the house to get them, requiring some sort of what they call exigency. Not normally used in a civil context like an administrative warrant.
But here's the thing. That's the textbook classroom discussion. In the real world, it's already happening, apparently. Look at this video from Minneapolis earlier this month. You can see federal agents ramming through someone's door, the rifles are drawn, and the AP says the home belonged to a Liberian man, and agents forced their way in with only an administrative warrant. So, if this memo is accurate, it's likely to further spike tensions between federal agents and anti- ICE protesters, especially when they have suggested that being near the target could sweep you into their dragnet as well. Would that now mean everyone in the house would not have the same Fourth Amendment protection? This is from Minneapolis Today. A witness says officers deployed some kind of green chemical agent. You can see them dragging someone across the snow. Here's another video from that same altercation, showing Border Patrol Chief Greg Bovino throwing a canister into the crowd.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNKNOWN: Get back!
UNKNOWN (voice-over): (INAUDIBLE).
COATES: The administration did notch a temporary legal win today. A federal appeals court froze a judge's order that limited how federal officers could act around peaceful protesters.
[23:05:03]
All of it is going to make for a very tense backdrop tomorrow when Vice President J.D. Vance shows up to Minneapolis. We're told he plans to defend how ICE agents are carrying out their operations.
But one person Vance has not been defending, Renee Good. It has been two weeks since she was shot and killed by ICE. Two weeks since Vance stood in the White House briefing room and blamed Good for -- what was his phrase? A tragedy of her own making. By tragedy, did he mean her own death?
In just a moment, Good's attorney will join me. But first, I want to bring in the former acting director of ICE during the Obama administration, John Sandweg. He's also an attorney. And John, I want to first level set here if we can. Is this a departure from typical ICE procedures when you're trying to detain someone who may have that final order of removal?
JOHN SANDWEG, FORMER ACTING DIRECTOR, ICE: Yes, Laura, this is a significant departure. I mean, really a true reversal from what longstanding position is at DHS and ICE. Traditionally, the position was that you cannot forcibly enter a home without a judicially authorized warrant.
So, that's your warrant, Laura, as you well know, where you have the officers to fill out an affidavit detailing, you know, every element that led to them having probable cause that the individual, let's say in this case, if it's an immigration case, would be the undocumented immigrant, is there, is present, that their immigration status, you know, that they've been ordered to remove.
The administrative warrant is just a form, Laura. It's really just a form the officer fills out and, you know, maybe another officer signs it, but it's nothing more than a couple of boxes. So, the idea though that ICE has now suddenly reversed and said, we can forcibly enter a home with just those administrative warrants, really is pretty surprising and shocking to me given the longstanding history and the training and everything else that was very, very clear that you do not -- you cannot forcibly enter with just that piece of paper, that form.
COATES: And no Supreme Court case saying that that is different now. I mean, the Fourth Amendment still holds even for people who are maybe non-citizens in this country.
But the Associated Press, John, reports the memo has been -- quote -- "shown only to 'select DHS officials' who then shared it with some employees who were told to read it and return it." Now, what does that signal to you?
(LAUGHTER)
SANDWEG: That signals to me your real concerns about the legal basis of your memo. Laura, I talked to -- I actually talked to a couple of former lawyers who were in the general counsel's office during the beginning of this administration. They had heard rumors that something like this was going on but it was being limited to the political class, right? That only the new Trump appointees were working on this memo. All of that is very weird. And obviously, all of that is very suspicious.
But Laura, let me just highlight something very quickly. The immigration advocacy groups are out there. And it's getting well known in these communities that are being targeted that ICE could not enter the home with just that administrative warrant.
And so, you know, look, I think the administration is looking at this and having an increasing problem. They're not -- it takes a long time to go and get those warrants. As you know, the officers have to submit the affidavit, stand before that federal judge, swear to it, and then they can get the warrant. That doesn't lend itself well to a mass deportation campaign.
But, look, any time you're drafting legal memos in secret and you're sharing them in secret and you're telling people they can't copy them and you're hiding them from Congress and the public, you should be concerned about the underlying legal basis of that memo.
COATES: A very good point. When I was out there, people were actually handing out little rights cards to people, telling them what officers could and could not do in the Constitution because they were trying to maybe get ahead of what was to come.
Meantime, a judge paused a ruling that restricted federal agents from arresting or teargassing peaceful protesters. And then moments later, the Border Patrol chief, Greg Bovino, deployed a gas canister after warnings that you heard him give during clashes with protesters. Now, DHS says the protesters were following Bovino and other agents at gas stations. They were targeting their vehicles, even throwing food at them. What do you make of that scene?
SANDWEG: You know, Laura, if you had any desire to deescalate the situation, for better or worse -- Greg Bovino has become very much a face of these campaigns. We've seen him in Chicago. We've seen him in Los Angeles. He has become pretty well known as a result of this. He knows that. If he had any desire to deescalate the situation and lower the temperature in Minneapolis and -- again, I've said this a million times, during the Obama administration, there was lot of criticism about immigration enforcement, but record numbers of criminal aliens were removed without images like this, without these scenes that we're seeing play out everywhere, without this confrontation with the public at large.
And you could -- so my point is you can say we can do this in a way that lowers the temperature without, you know, siding up, being on the side of criminal aliens, as some in the administration have said, or being in favor of open borders.
But, you know, for Bavino to consistently go out to the scene of these protests, he knows his presence is going to inflame things. He knows that. Why does he keep going? There's no operational reason for him to arrive on the scene there. And it's just unfortunate.
[23:10:00]
It just feels often to me like the administration wants to come and inflame these tensions and create more of these scenes rather than lower the temperature and let ICE do its job and get legitimate bad people off the street, but do it quietly and professionally.
COATES: I'll tell you, he does stand out. He doesn't wear a mask among a lot of masked agents. You wonder what the point of that is. John Sandweg, thank you so much.
SANDWEG: Yes. Thanks, Laura.
COATES: Tonight, and actually, I can't believe it, it marks two weeks since an ICE agent shot and killed Renee Good in Minneapolis. The Trump administration is not investigating the officer who shot her. So, Good's family has hired a law firm to conduct its own probe. And new tonight, they have released findings from an independent autopsy of Renee. And it suggests that she suffered a fourth gunshot wound.
The report says Good was shot in her left forearm, right breast, and her head. The autopsy reveals the injuries to her breast and left forearm were not immediately life-threatening. Additionally, the autopsy found a fourth injury that was -- quote -- "a graze wound consistent with a firearm injury, but no penetration into her body."
Family's attorney, Antonio Romanucci, joins me now. Antonio, thank you so much for being here. These autopsy results --
ANTONIO ROMANUCCI, ATTORNEY FOR RENEE GOOD: Thank you, Laura.
COATES: -- suggest so much, including what could have been had aid been rendered perhaps quicker, let alone it avoided altogether. What do the results suggest to you?
ROMANUCCI: Well, what we do know, you just stated two of the gunshot wounds were not immediately life threatening. They were not penetrating injuries. They didn't touch any major organs. But we do know that the one gunshot wound to the head, which was right above the left ear and exited the right side of the head, that was probably the shot that ultimately did the most damage.
Now, because we know that that shot entered immediately above the left ear, it was likely one of the shots that Jonathan Ross took when he was at the side of the vehicle, and that certainly raises concerns right there that that one shot, whether or not he analyzed it before he actually took the shot, was the one that potentially was fatal.
COATES: And, of course, each shot that would be taken by an officer, should an investigation be conducted, would be analyzed for whether they reasonably believed that they were facing life-threatening circumstances. And you've also asked the government to preserve any and all evidence related to Renee Good's death. As you are investigating what happened, have you heard back from the government? Do they plan to honor your request? Have you heard anything?
ROMANUCCI: Well, we would plan on them honoring the request. They have the letter, and I think that's enough for them to honor it because letters of preservation in our industry are honored. They're taken very seriously. And I would expect them to preserve the evidence, store it safely, make sure nothing gets destroyed or altered or modified or that anything gets tested without us knowing about it. So, even though we have not heard back, I would expect that that preservation that we've asked for be honored.
COATES: Do you think your faith in that being honored is misplaced given that there is no existing investigation independent of you?
ROMANUCCI: Well, that's a very -- that's a very good question. I would want to think that it will be honored. I mean, I live in this country, I've been born in this country, and I would want it to be honored. But because we were told that there is no investigation, that's why we are conducting our own and that's why we are being very aggressive.
We want to be the voice of reason, the voice of truth going forward in being transparent and telling the American people what's happening in this case because they deserve to know since we've been told that there will be no investigation.
COATES: It has been two weeks now, unbelievably. I can't imagine how her family is grappling with her loss. And tomorrow, the vice president, J.D. Vance, is actually going to visit Minneapolis after he called her death a tragedy of her own making. Can you tell me, I mean, the law aside, how is her family doing tonight?
ROMANUCCI: Well, I can tell you that they are still, you know, devastated by this. They are grieving that they didn't have a chance to say goodbye. This was somebody who they remember as being a loving mother, a sister, a daughter, a companion, a committed companion, an animal lover. And so, for them now to have gone two weeks and not having had this closure, it's very serious to them and they are grieving, I can tell you that.
[23:15:03] COATES: The president did talk about the shooting yesterday. He said that ICE -- I'm paraphrasing here -- ICE sometimes makes mistakes. But he lamented the loss of Renee Good. And then he actually said this about Renee's father. Listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: When I learned her parents and her father, in particular, is like -- I hope he still is, but I don't know -- was a tremendous Trump fan. He was all for Trump, loved Trump. And, you know, it's terrible. I was told that by a lot of people. They said, oh, he loves you. He was a -- I hope -- I hope he still feels that way. I don't know. Sorry. Hard situation.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Have you -- have you spoken to her father since these comments?
ROMANUCCI: Well, I can tell you this: The video evidence is clear, and we're hoping that everybody who has any hand in this case, that's involved in this case, has looked at that video evidence and can see the extreme and excessive force.
What I can tell you about her father is this: This family is unified. They are together. Whether or not one of them voted for this administration in the past election or not, right now, that's not as relevant as they are together unified in their quest for justice and accountability.
COATES: And, of course, I'm sure their love for Renee. Antonio Romanucci, thank you so much for joining.
ROMANUCCI: Thank you, Laura.
COATES: Breaking tonight, the first officer criminally charged for failing to confront the gunman at Robb Elementary in Uvalde, Texas is acquitted. And my next guest says he's not surprised. Well, he'd know. Mark Eiglarsh is here. He successfully defended the officer in the Parkland case, and his legal perspective on this case and the one that's about to follow it is next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:20:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNKNOWN (voice-over): The State of Texas versus Adrian Gonzales. In each of the 29 counts, we, the jury, find defendant Adrian Gonzales not guilty.
(END VIDEO CLIP) COATES: That's the very moment that the former police officer, Adrian Gonzales, was acquitted of 29 counts of child endangerment or abandonment for his response to the Uvalde School shooting in 2022, a tragedy that left 19 children and two teachers dead. The families of those children, devastated tonight, breaking down, crying right in court after the verdict was read. Here's the uncle of Jacklyn Cazares who was just nine years old when she was killed at Robb Elementary.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JESSE RIZO, UNCLE OF ONE OF UVALDE SCHOOL SHOOTING VICTIMS: To me, it's just a signal that you entrust the school system, you entrust the school, you entrust the police officer to do what is right, and yet they failed. The system has failed over and over and over. I respect the jury's decision, you know, but it just what messages send out there that if you're an officer, you can simply stand by, stand down, stand idle, and not do anything and wait for everybody to be executed, killed, slaughtered, massacred. Is that the message that you sent today?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: I'm joined now by Mark Eiglarsh. He successfully defended the former officer, Scott Peterson, in 2023 when he was charged over his response to the Parkland High School shooting on Valentine's Day. Mark, we last talked when this trial was getting started. You know, I discussed the defense strategy, the prosecution strategy, and you predicted that this would likely be the verdict. What do you think the jury saw?
MARK EIGLARSH, DEFENDED OFFICER WHO FACED TRIAL FOR PARKLAND SHOOTING: The facts. You know, jurors generally get it right. And they looked at the facts of this case and they said, wait a second, the premise that the prosecutors are trying to sell us isn't accurate. He was on the south side of the school. Shooter went in on the west side. There is definitely a reasonable doubt as to whether he even saw the shooter go in. That's the same thing that happened with my case.
If you're going to bring a case like this, start with a cop who sees someone with an assault rifle, ready to shoot kids and says, you know what? I'm going to leave, I need to go get some donuts, I'm out of here. This fell way short of criminal negligence, which is what these prosecutors are still after. And I believe that they're pandering politically, and they shouldn't be bringing these cases.
COATES: Well, the prosecution called dozens of witnesses compared to the two -- in a two-hour period, seven-hour deliberation for the jury to find this conclusion. But I want you to hear and for the audience to hear as well the closing arguments from the defense followed by the prosecution. Listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNKNOWN: There's nothing that's going to bring these kids back. There's nothing, nothing ever is going to solve that pain. Nothing. Not that. That does not honor those children. By doing an injustice, by doing what they want you to do, by letting him massage the facts, by letting the pretzel go all the way around and miss everybody else, that keeps going right back to him, because that's what they need.
BILL TURNER, SPECIAL PROSECUTOR: Make no mistake, the 12 of you will set the bar for law enforcement in these situations. If it's appropriate to stand outside hearing the hundreds of shots while children are being slaughtered, that is your decision to tell the State of Texas.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: That's quite a lot of pressure on jury, to think about setting the bar, but also to find that the burden of proof had been met in this instance. I mean, the jury did not see it the same way as the prosecution. We weren't in the deliberations room.
[23:24:57]
But now, the families, I wonder, they must be thinking about whether there's any way to hold anyone accountable for what happened. What's your reaction to the prosecution's strategy in that closing?
EIGLARSH: The strategy was the same as in my case. Let's appeal to sympathy. Let's show as many dead kids as possible, which are completely irrelevant when the defense was conceding that these abhorrent deaths occurred. So, they just kept hitting, sympathy, sympathy.
The defense did a phenomenal job. They embraced it like I did. This was the worst tragedy ever. The person responsible, however, in their case, dead, in my case, in prison for life. You don't do justice for the victims by doing an injustice against honorable, decent officers.
And here's one more thing the defense kind of nailed down, and that is a victory for prosecution here would have meant that you're never going to get cops reporting to scenes like this. It's going to happen again. There's going to be another shooting. They'd be out of their minds to actually report to the scene because, invariably, they're going to find themselves prosecuted.
If, God forbid, there's confusion on the scene, and there always is, with auditory exclusion, they're not seeing things exactly, tunnel vision, and they're going to be held responsible by prosecutors who are pandering to victims, it's not right and it's not good for the future.
COATES: And yet there have been, sadly, school shootings since Uvalde, and it hasn't had a chilling effect on officers trying to intervene. Does that undermine your thought?
EIGLARSH: No. You know, good for them. That's great. We want officers to react. We want them to go in. But the problem is if there is a lot of pressure, we've seen it, put by victims' families, who have gone through the worst thing ever, I feel for them, right, but if there is a demand for prosecution to a politician who's a prosecutor, they're politicians, it's hard for them. It's like political suicide to say, no, we won't go for it. They're going to go for it. Even if the facts, like in this case, don't equal criminal negligence, well, why let that get in the way of a prosecution? We're going to still go for it. It's unfair, Laura.
COATES: Well, they are going to still go for a police chief, Pete Arradondo, who still has his trial scheduled. It hasn't actually been scheduled yet. He has been charged in the crime. I wonder what the defense team will try to do, knowing that this verdict has resulted, and it seems the jury may have thought about scapegoating. Mark Eiglarsh, we'll see what happens. Thank you so much.
EIGLARSH: We'll talk about it then. Yes, another case.
COATES: Indeed. Up next, President Trump calls it deal making. His critics call it taco. The president drops his threats of military force and tariffs for Greenland and says he got a deal. But did he? Let's talk about it next.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: They called me daddy, right? Last time. Very smart man said, he's our daddy.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:30:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOE KERNEN, CNBC HOST: Can you go into what you just talked about with the NATO meeting?
TRUMP: Well, we have a concept of a deal. I think it's going to be a very good deal for the United States, also for them.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Forget art of the deal. President Trump is touting his concept of a deal over Greenland. The president says taking Greenland by force is off the table for now. Instead, he says NATO agreed to a -- quote -- "framework of a deal." What does that mean? Well, Trump didn't say. But sources say it includes renegotiating the 1951 agreement with Denmark that allowed the United States military on the island. The U.S. had more than a dozen bases in Greenland at one point. Now, just one remains.
And NATO officials tell CNN they have discussed granting the U.S. sovereignty over some parcels of land in Greenland to build military bases. And in exchange, Trump says he will not implement new tariffs on several European allies. Now, nothing is set in stone.
But there's one voice that seems to be missing in the room, and that's Greenland. Tonight, one Greenland politician posting on Facebook -- quote -- "What we are witnessing these days and statements from Trump is completely absurd. NATO has absolutely no mandate to negotiate anything whatsoever without us in Greenland."
Back with me, Josh Rogin, lead global security analyst for Washington Post Intelligence. Also with me, Matthew Dallek, a political historian at George Washington University. Glad to have both of your minds here tonight. Let me get with you, Josh, because Trump is calling it a framework, a framework for a deal, but the U.S., they could have expanded military bases under the current agreement with Denmark, right? I mean, what does this new framework even mean?
JOSH ROGIN, LEAD GLOBAL SECURITY ANALYST, WASHINGTON POST INTELLIGENCE: Right. Well, it doesn't exist. It's an excuse. It's an alibi for Trump abandoning what was always a crazy idea, which is that the United States would take control of our country and occupy it against the will of the people.
That quote that you put up says everything. For 200 some odd years, the United States has stood for the principle that the people of a country get to determine who rules them. That's kind of our thing back to Thomas Jefferson. And Trump completely abandoned that and said, we're going to rule Greenland whether they like it or not. And it was always crazy.
COATES: By the way, NATO secretary general says that Greenland sovereignty never even came up with a Trump one-on-one. That's odd.
ROGIN: Because he must have realized when he actually went to Europe that it was impossible and it was never going to happen, which begs the question, why didn't anyone in administration tell him that it was never going to happen?
[23:35:03]
It was a crazy idea, very stupid idea all along. He finally goes to Europe and figures it out, and then he's like, OK, I guess we'll just cut some sort of side deal.
But the principle remains. The United States is not in the business of occupying foreign countries and ruling them against their will. It's not a good idea. It goes against everything that we've ever believed in. And it was never going to happen in Greenland.
And now, Trump finally realized that, and the damage that he has done getting to that inevitable conclusion will last a generation with our European allies and with the Greenlanders, who now hate us, by the way, and they have a pretty good reason to.
COATES: Matthew, I mean, people keep talking about this is not the first president to want Greenland or think about almost buttressing the claims that he is making. But now, as we pointed out, he is backing down. What's your --
MATTHEW DALLEK, POLITICAL HISTORIAN, GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY: Well, Greenland has absolutely been a historically really important, especially during World War II, an important strategic asset. That's why in 1951, they signed an agreement, which is still on the books. The United States has a base there right now. It could -- if it wanted to before any of this (INAUDIBLE), right, it could have set up many more bases under this agreement.
Listen, one of our -- NATO is, you know, the strongest ally of the United States historically. So, none of this need to happen. And, you know, this idea of concepts of an agreement, it reminds me actually concepts of a plan about health care, right? I mean, it has that kind of like a vagueness getting at the word that the politician used, right? Absurd.
COATES: Right.
DALLEK: And so, you know, it's kind of like what are we -- what are we doing here? Why did we have this crisis that, as Josh just said, has likely done profound damage to the NATO alliance, transatlantic alliance, and to Canada?
COATES: Is there an analogy in history from this? Have we seen something like this before that has that damage?
DALLEK: I mean, it's -- you know, with Trump, right, a lot of things are unprecedented. I mean, it does feel like yesterday was watching a 19th century imperialist mindset colliding with 21st century realities. And, you know, in that sense, right, it goes deep. I mean, U.S. as an imperial power has deep roots, right? I mean, Louisiana purchase, Spanish American War. But you have to go back to the 19th century. And, you know, Trump all of a sudden saying, hey, I'm for, you know, great power politics, I want to acquire this territory --
ROGIN: You don't have to go back to the 19th century to find examples of aggressive big powers trying to trample on small countries. Russia is doing that to Ukraine right now. China would love to do that to Taiwan right now.
We're supposed to be against that, we're supposed to be about rule of law, we're supposed to be about people being able to choose their own leaders, and we're supposed to be against coercing countries to give up their land and their minerals at the threat of a military invasion.
We're no longer on that side anymore. As of now, we're on the side of Putin and Xi Jinping, which is we want it, we're going to take it, and if you don't like it, you can lump it.
COATES: Then why did he back down?
ROGIN: He backed down because --
COATES: People you've named, those leaders have not backed down. He has seemed to do so. Why?
ROGIN: He realized that he wasn't actually willing to send U.S. men and women to fight and die to take Greenland because that's a crazy thing to do. So, his threat was a bluff. And the Europeans called him on that bluff. OK? COATES: But it could have been no force. But the rest could have stuck.
DALLEK: Well, I think yesterday, too -- I mean, the one check I think that was really effective in the first term and the first year was the bond market. When the bond market, as he said, got yippy is when he pulled back the tariffs on liberation day. I think the stock market yesterday dropping about 2 percent. You know, kind of rattled them a little bit.
And, again, we won't know exactly. Maybe 10 years from now, we will. But the European leaders, Mark Carney, Canada's leader, coming out and very forcefully saying, you know, essentially, enough is enough. You know, this is obscene, what's happening. There is a rupture in the alliance.
I have not seen in Trump 2.0 leaders push back on him like that. I'm not saying that any one reason kind of caused him to back off, but I think that those things were at play. And I don't know if other than President Trump and Stephen Miller, how much support there was within even the Republican Party.
COATES: Well, a lot remains to be seen. Davos continues. Thank you both so much.
ROGIN: Any time.
DALLEK: Thank you.
COATES: When a Supreme Court justice asked the question, what are we doing here? That's a clue. The clue that it's not going well for you. Next, we'll take you inside the pivotal Supreme Court case that could deal Trump a major blow.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:40:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: Well, here's a headline you haven't seen too much of. The United States Supreme Court may be inclined to rule against the president? I'm talking about the case of Fed Governor Lisa Cook. The justices heard arguments today over the president's attempts to fire her from the independent Fed board. And by all accounts, they were very skeptical about the administration's claim that the president has the power to do so. Remember that Trump tried to remove her after citing allegations that she committed mortgage fraud.
With me now to unpack it all, CNN legal analyst Elliot Williams and senior legal affairs reporter for Politico, Josh Gerstein, who is in the court today for the arguments. I want to go to you then first on this, Josh, because I want the audience to first listen to this one moment from Justice Brett Kavanaugh. And you highlighted this. It's a good one. Kavanaugh is worrying about the precedent that this might set. Listen. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JUSTICE BRETT KAVANAUGH, ASSOCIATE JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES (voice-over): What goes around comes around.
[23:44:58]
All the current president's appointees would likely be removed for cause on January 20th, 2029, if there's a Democratic president, or January 20th, 2033, and then we're really at 'at-will' removal. So, what are we doing here?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Justice is asking that question. Then bode well.
JOSH GERSTEIN, SENIOR LEGAL AFFAIRS REPORTER, POLITICO: Right. And this was brought on by the position that the Trump administration took during the arguments with John Sauer, the solicitor general, basically saying that the courts shouldn't have any role in reviewing a president's decision to fire a member of the Fed, despite the fact that there has been a law in the book for more than 100 years or about 100 years that says that it has to be for cause for some kind of ethical violation or something.
And that was a lot of what the arguments were spent discussing, what would a cause be, why didn't Congress spell it out in any greater detail. And I think that position was -- the administration's position was hard for almost all the justices to swallow.
COATES: And, of course, this is not resolved, whether she indeed can be fired. It resolves whether or not she could remain in the office until it's all resolved. Kind of those interim arguments happening. And yet, the idea he's talking about, due process is really what this all about. I mean, she was fired. He tried to fire her just five days after he publicly said that she should resign. So, how much do you think that issue of real process played into this argument?
ELLIOT WILLIAMS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: Oh, I think quite a bit because the justices got back to it a few times. There was the social media activity, and then I believe she received a letter notifying her of her termination. I think it was five days later.
Now, John Sauer, the solicitor general, made the argument that she was not entitled to notice and hearing and simply could be fired because of the fact the president retains the ability to simply fire people for cause even though, you know, the term cause has been defined.
But the due process issue did come up quite a bit, and that may be yet another angle for the justices who were quite skeptical of the government's position to rule against them.
COATES: You don't normally see people like the Federal Reserve chair in the audience of the Supreme Court. Yet Jerome Powell was there. You saw him there. GERSTEIN: Yes.
COATES: He has a deeply-vested interest, I would suggest, in thinking about the independence of the board that he is a part of.
GERSTEIN: Well, sure. And he has also had a major falling out with President Trump just in the last couple of months. I mean, obviously, the two of them have been at loggerheads pretty much for the entirety of Trump's second term over the past year. There was this minor sort of rapprochement when Trump visited the Federal Reserve building. There's that crazy photo op of the two of them standing in hard hats. But since then, things have turned very sour. And Powell actually came out publicly with a statement when it was revealed that he was under some sort of investigation where he said, you know, this is just an attack on the Fed's independence.
You know, what I also found interesting, Laura, was that the administration actually criticized Powell for going to the arguments. You had Scott Bessent, the treasury secretary, saying Powell shouldn't be going because he's politicizing it.
He didn't sit with Cook. Lisa Cook was there in the audience. They were in sort of separate parts of the gallery. But it is unusual to have those sorts of high-ranking officials on hand when the Supreme Court is arguing.
COATES: And, of course, the Supreme Court. I mean, at one point, Justice Barrett noted, Elliot, that some economists suggested that firing her could trigger a recession.
WILLIAMS: Right.
COATES: The idea of them considering the greater context is not unheard of.
WILLIAMS: It's not unheard of. And that's what I find most fascinating about all of these legal issues around the Fed because, yes, these are important legal questions. How do we define what cause is and what due process is? But looming over it is an economic question and the idea that the Fed ought to be independent because if it's not, markets could tank and global markets could suffer in some way.
The justices, I think, would be lying if they did not have in the back of their minds what the real-world economic consequences would be for getting in the way of the Fed's independence. That is bringing another issue into the law, sort of something outside of the four corners of what the Constitution or even Congress's statutes say.
COATES: Well, it's all about checks and balances which, of course, is one thing that they are always very keen to discuss. Thank you both, Elliot and Josh, so much.
GERSTEIN: Sure.
COATES: Up next, the other legal case that I'm watching right now. A new chapter in the au pair affair murder trial. Why the man accused of plotting with the family au pair to kill his wife was crying in court today? Plus, Taylor Swift's texts to Blake Lively revealed. Thanks to a lively legal battle with Justin Baldoni. Could Taylor Swift be called to testify if this goes to trial? Well, Johnny Depp's lawyer weighs in on all of it after this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:50:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: Well, the defense in the trial of Brendan Banfield just took their first crack at trying to chip away at the prosecution's theory of the case, that Banfield, along with his au pair and mistress, Juliana, made a fake profile on his wife's name on a fetish website in order to lure a male escort who they could then frame for the murder.
And today, they're saying the report from a former detective on the case undercuts this whole catfishing theory. Why? Because the report said that Banfield's wife never lost control of her electronic devices, which Banfield is accused of having used then to make that profile. Here's that detective testified to earlier.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNKNOWN (voice-over): Did you make any conclusions at that time that she had not given up her devices?
JOHN CARROLL, DEFENSE: I had nothing indicating loss of dominion and control at that time.
UNKNOWN (voice-over): OK. And that's what your finding was as per that particular day, correct?
CARROLL: Yes.
UNKNOWN (voice-over): Has that changed?
CARROLL: Yes.
UNKNOWN (voice-over): When did that change?
CARROLL: The codefendant admitted to using the devices.
UNKNOWN (voice-over): OK.
[23:55:00]
Has it digitally -- in terms of digital forensic artifacts, has that changed?
CARROLL: No, the zeros and ones did not change.
(END VIDEO CLIP) COATES: Now, this is important because you'll recall the au pair testified that the two of them created the profile on his wife's laptop and only used her devices to do so while she was either sleeping or she was somewhere else in the house. But the prosecution says there's no way to know who was really operating those devices.
I'm joined now by Attorney Benjamin Chew, who successfully represented Johnny Depp in his defamation suit against his ex-wife, Amber Heard. Ben, let's unpack this case. It really has a lot of people talking. I mean, the defense has been working hard to raise some reasonable doubt, particularly with the au pair's credibility. She already has a plea offer, kind of a sweet one. Time serve would be at the end of it if she agrees to do what she has done. And they honed down the fact that Banfield's DNA was not on the knife found in the scene. And now, they're trying to undercut that catfish theory. Seed of reasonable doubt planted?
BENJAMIN CHEW, CO-LEAD COUNSEL FOR JOHNNY DEPP IN HIS DEFAMATION TRIAL: Perhaps. I think the evidence is very strong. And I think Mr. Banfield is very fortunate that Virginia has abolished the death penalty. As you recall, Virginia used to be one of the top three states in terms of putting people to death. You had Texas and Florida and Virginia. So, I think he dodged the bullet here on that because I think the evidence is very strong against him.
COATES: And yet, they hope that it's not. And they hope the au pair, who has been the state's star witness, who turned state's evidence when they offered her a plea deal, I mean, until then, his own mother had been financing her defense, being a conduit, talked to her mother in Brazil as well. How much of this case really hinges on her credibility more than anything else?
CHEW: I think a good deal. But remember, Chief Judge Azcarate, who was the judge in the Depp-Heard trial, former Marine, just an outstanding judge, smart as a whip, tough as nails, Remember, she denied the defense motion to strike because they went at her at the close of the prosecution's case and she denied it.
So, I think the prosecution's case is still going strong. It's not atypical, as you know, to rely on prosecutions on witnesses who have issues. And, obviously, having pled guilty to manslaughter, the au pair has a lot of issues.
COATES: Certainly. And the jury has to evaluate all of that in the context. At one point, Banfield appeared to cry while he was listening to the body cam footage of him learning, they say, for the first time that his wife was dead. It's the second time, I think, in these, what, five or six days of testimony alone that he has shown some real emotion. Otherwise, he has been quite stoic. Describe to me how a jury might perceive emotion.
CHEW: Well, I think emotion can be quite powerful. So, I think, you know, we always tell our witnesses, if they are inclined to show the emotion and cry, go ahead and do it. But I think there are circumstances in this case where that may not have the desired effect. There's a lot of evidence against him. COATES: Well, some submissions (ph) remain. We'll see what happens there. Now, let's go to the court of public opinion when it comes to the Blake Lively-Justin Baldoni case, which is obviously not the same fact pattern as we've seen in the Banfield case, but people are fascinated.
And, as you talked about, the latest development is that there have been text messages that have been newly unsealed as part of court documents. And one of them is from Taylor Swift, who texted Lively before a story came out, latest view that the timing actually triggered why she did that. Quote -- "I think this bitch knows something is coming because he's gotten out his tiny violin."
Now, the Baldoni team suggests that this text message was sent and advanced that to New York Times, what he considered a hit piece against him. Blake Lively's team says, yes, those are her words, not the timing of it. Tell me how this might come into play.
CHEW: Well, this will come into play if she does, in fact, testify at trial. They tried to get her to testify at deposition.
COATES: What happened there?
CHEW: Well, the judge quashed that. The judge found that that was an abusive process. So, there is a question as to whether she will appear at trial. But if she does, it will be quite a scene and you'll have both sides trying to spin the same texts and emails in the opposite direction. It will be quite entertaining.
COATES: She'd be one of several witnesses, I would suspect. There have been other people who have had text messages revealed. Obviously, she's one of most high-profile women in the world. That's why there's a focus on her. But the idea of how it would be useful for the Baldoni team would be to suggest that there was this whole machine to defame him in some way. Is that right?
CHEW: Yes. And I think it can undercut the notion of sexual harassment. You know, sexual harassment usually connotes an asymmetry of power to the extent she can show -- he can show that there are a lot of powerful people on her side.
[00:00:02]
Maybe that undercuts the narrative of sexual harassment, but it all will be great fodder for the tabloids and for the lawyers.
COATES: That combination, it's a good one. Thank you so much, Ben Chew. I appreciate it. And hey, everyone, thank you so much for watching. I'll be back here on CNN at 10 a.m. Eastern for Jack Smith's testimony on the Hill. Yes, that's tomorrow. So, for now, have a good night and stick around for "The Story Is" with my friend, Elex Michaelson, next.
