Return to Transcripts main page

Laura Coates Live

Former Prince Andrew Arrested Following Epstein Files Revelations; Search for Nancy Guthrie Continues; Laura Coates and Guests Answer Viewers' Questions; DOJ Displays Trump's Banner. Aired 11p-12a ET

Aired February 19, 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]

ABBY PHILLIP, CNN ANCHOR AND SENIOR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: That is so funny. Also, so scary. That dog is actually part wolf.

UNKNOWN: I know.

PHILLIP: It's like a dog wolf. Yes. It's not exactly --

UNKNOWN: (INAUDIBLE).

PHILLIP: That's true. It's not exactly one that you take home and leave in your living room. All right, everyone, thank you very much for being here. Thanks for watching "NewsNight." You can catch us any time on social media, on X, Instagram, and on TikTok. "Laura Coates Live" starts right now.

LAURA COATES, CNN HOST AND SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Tonight, former Prince Andrew is arrested in the U.K. as the fallout from the Epstein files sends shockwaves all across the world. Survivors want to know what lead to more accountability here in the U.S. Plus, been on leads and flooded with tips. Investigators looking for Nancy Guthrie try to find a breakthrough. But is the case hitting a brick wall? And if you ever needed proof that Trump's DOJ is, well, Trump's DOJ, well, here it is, personal branding on the building itself. Tonight on "Laura Coates Live."

My opening statement tonight, no one is above the monarchy? I mean, it's hard to believe that a country founded on the rejection of a king is lagging behind a country that threw out a prince. Well, it's undeniable, because even after Congress passed a law compelling the release of the Epstein files, the United Kingdom is taking what's in those files far more seriously than the American government. They have launched investigations.

The prime minister, who never even met Jeffrey Epstein, apologized to victims for what they went through. And now, they've gone as far as to arrest a former member of the royal family. A history-making event that produced a photo that history won't soon forget.

This is the one, former Prince Andrew. The kid brother of King Charles slumped in the back of a car on his 66th birthday after police released him from custody. Now, remember, I keep saying former because he lost his royal titles four months ago because of his ties to Jeffrey Epstein. Well, now, he has been arrested, arrested on suspicion of misconduct in public office. That offense, that carries a maximum sentence of life in prison. It's the first time that a senior British royal has been arrested in nearly 400 years.

Now, keep in mind, we signed Declaration of Independence 250 years ago. We don't know exactly what triggered his arrest. I mean, exactly what triggered it. But police have previously said that they were scrutinizing his time as a U.K. trade envoy and whether he shared sensitive information with Epstein.

Last month, the files released by the DOJ appeared to show Andrew sending confidential material to the convicted sex offender. King Charles put it this way: The law must take its course. Andrew, he has repeatedly denied any wrongdoing related to Epstein although he hasn't publicly commented on these new allegations. And to be clear, he has not been charged and remains under investigation.

And this arrest does not seem to be related to Virginia Giuffre's allegations. Giuffre died by suicide last year and repeatedly maintained that she was forced to have sex with Andrew while she was underage. Now, the former prince, he says it never happened. Giuffre's brother said that even if this is not connected to his beloved sister, it's a step in the right direction.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SKY ROBERTS, BROTHER OF VIRGINIA GIUFFRE: Even though it's maybe not connected directly to the sexual assault charges or arrest or whatnot, it is -- it is still a win and it is still a win for survivors and for my sister because of how hard she fought.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

President Trump, he called Andrew's arrest a shame for the royal family and was eager to distance himself from the broader Epstein fallout.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: I think it's a shame. I think it's very sad. I think it's so bad for the royal family. It's very, very sad. To me, it's a very sad thing. When I see that, it's a very sad thing. To see it -- had to see what's going on with his brother, who's obviously coming to our country very soon. He's a fantastic man, king. So, I think it's a very sad thing.

It's really interesting because nobody used to speak about Epstein when he was alive. But, now, they speak. But I'm the one that can talk about it because I've been totally exonerated. I did nothing.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Trump hasn't been accused of any wrongdoing in this context. But Epstein's victims are accusing his administration of stalling justice and protecting co-conspirators. [23:05:05]

And they're hoping that Andrew's arrest will spark a kind of domino effect in the United States.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ROBERTS: It does stink of a cover-up. It feels like our own government is protecting potential perpetrators. And all we're asking for is to open up an active investigation.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DANIELLE BENSKY, JEFFREY EPSTEIN SURVIVOR: There's a little bit of a glimmer of light now that we're able to shine into the darkest places. I'm definitely hoping and hopeful that we can start to see some change in the U.S. as well.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Well, my first guest represents over 20 Epstein survivors, most of whom have been Jane Doe's for many years. I'm talking about famed victim's rights attorney, Gloria Allred, who is with me now. Gloria, I have got to know your reaction when you saw his arrest because you've been trying to get answers from the former prince about his ties to Epstein for years. What was your reaction?

GLORIA ALLRED, VICTIMS' RIGHTS ATTORNEY: Yes. Absolutely. Since 2019, I've been calling out publicly for Andrew, formerly known as Prince, to speak to the FBI, to speak to Homeland Security, to speak to law enforcement. And, of course, now, it's seven years, and he has never done so. Even though he offered in 2020 to speak to law enforcement in the United States after the United States attorney, Geoffrey Berman, from New York, publicly urged him to do so, he never did.

Right now, today, what we have is state action. We have state action because it is alleged that he committed misconduct in office. So, we have the state quickly reacting to the fact that there have been in the Epstein files certain emails that were sent by him, meaning Andrew, when he was Prince Andrew and the trade envoy from the U.K.

Let's note, of course, that priority is given to this. And that is a good thing, that he is arrested. Of course, he's not charged yet.

COATES: Yes.

ALLRED: But, also, where's the priority for crimes against women and children? There has been evidence of this. I'm not saying that Andrew is a criminal or should be charged with a crime. What I'm saying, there certainly has been evidence of sex trafficking of children and women, by the way, through landing in the U.K., sent by Jeffrey Epstein. Where -- is there an arrest for that? Perhaps, it matters more when someone is revealing or at least maybe revealing a secret of the state than a raped child or a woman who has been sex-trafficked. This is disturbing to me. I'm happy that he is arrested. There will be an investigation. But let's remember, we still have a long way to go. In the United States, we have almost no accountability. We only have one trial that has gone to a conviction, and that's of a woman of a British citizen, Ms. Maxwell.

COATES: What we choose to prosecute tells you what we really value and what we prioritize, Gloria, as you well know. I mean, Spencer Kuvin, who has represented multiple Epstein survivors, he sees this arrest of Andrew as the perfect opportunity for the FBI to go to the U.K. and interview him. Should the DOJ be trying to interview Andrew?

ALLRED: Well, of course, Andrew could voluntarily come and interview and be interviewed by Congress. He has certainly been invited by Congress to do that. Is he going to do an interview now, Andrew, with the DOJ, even if they went there when he has failed to do so for six years after having been publicly invited? I don't think so.

But what I'm concerned about is the president says it's a shame for the royal family that this has happened. But I'll tell you, Laura, I'll tell you what I think is a shame. It's a shame that the Department of Justice reportedly has not released millions of pages of Epstein files after the Epstein Files Transparency Act was passed and required the release of those files by December 19th.

It's a shame that the victims have had to go through this. And I want to give them so much credit because if it were not for their courage and if not for their speaking out, the Epstein files where there's information and emails from Andrew to Jeffrey Epstein back and forth, he would never even have been arrested today for this. So, that's because of the courage of the survivors.

But I still say women are being given a second-class position here because still, the main crimes against them have not really been fully investigated.

[23:10:01]

We've had names of powerful men in the United States redacted from those files. How can there ever be justice for women and children who are victims if there's going to be the hiding of evidence and the complete names -- the names, the legal names of so many victims having been exposed? They're being punished, these victims in the United States, instead of having justice afforded to them.

COATES: DOJ. That's not a rhetorical question she asked. How can there be justice? Gloria Allred, thank you so much.

ALLRED: Thank you.

COATES: Well, former Prince Andrew's arrest has U.S. lawmakers calling for greater accountability right here at home. Congresswoman Melanie Stansbury, well, she put it this way: Quote -- "If a prince can be held accountable, so can a president."

And Congresswoman Stansbury of New Mexico, she joins me now. She's also a member of the House Oversight Committee that has been investigating Epstein and his associates. She has been quite outspoken in that.

Congresswoman, I mean, you're calling for the Department of Justice to take an action, and they have said that they are not considering bringing additional charges. What precisely do you want them to do, particularly given what's happening abroad?

REP. MELANIE STANSBURY (D-NM): Well, I want them to hold perpetrators and co-conspirators accountable because what is clear in this case is that for over 20 years, the U.S. Department of Justice has had not only credible allegations, but even sought to indict Jeffrey Epstein and his co-conspirators for crimes but never acted.

And so, we know that there is a plethora of information even in the small amount of materials that has been released under the Epstein Files Transparency Act that shows that the Department of Justice has evidence on multiple perpetrators and co-conspirators that they have never sought to fully investigate, to indict, and to prosecute. And so that is part of what justice for the victims means, is actually holding those individuals accountable.

And Pam Bondi sitting in a hearing last week, telling Congress that she will not investigate and will not even address or acknowledge the victims who were sitting behind her demonstrates that this administration is not serious about seeking justice. They are serious about providing a cover-up and providing cover for their friends who are in the files.

COATES: I know you see that as a complete dereliction of duty, congresswoman. I mean, the Associated Press is reporting that the New Mexico attorney general is reopening a probe into allegations of illegal activity at Epstein's ranch in your home state. Have you been in touch with any state officials about this?

STANSBURY: Absolutely. We are in constant contact. In fact, when I had the opportunity to view the unredacted files, I was particularly focused on what happened at Zorro Ranch and shared those findings with those state lawmakers who passed a new truth commission bill that passed unanimously with bipartisan support here on Monday in our state legislature.

And I also shared directly with the state A.G. what I saw in the files, and what I saw was chilling, what I saw is that the DOJ did not seek to prosecute the crimes that they knew had occurred on this property. And what is particularly strange is that they issued warrants to investigate all of the other properties that Epstein held here in the United States where there was allegations of abuse and crimes and chose not to here in New Mexico and even asked New Mexico to drop its case of these crimes.

So, we are investigating not only the crimes themselves, but what happened that led to the DOJ and our local law enforcement dropping their investigations.

COATES: Congresswoman, are you aware specifically of any prosecutorial memos or anything written to explain their decision not to prosecute?

STANSBURY: I have not viewed any of those specific files. I did see a letter from a former state A.G. to the Department of Justice. But I will be back in D.C. on Monday and my first stop straight from the airport will be the Department of Justice to look back at those files.

COATES: Well, there's a sign on it now with Trump's picture. You'll recognize it when you arrive, congresswoman. Billionaire Epstein benefactor, Les Wexner, told your committee that he was "conned" by Epstein and repeatedly insisted that he knew nothing about his crime. Listen to what he said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LEX WEXNER, BILLIONAIRE EPSTEIN BENEFACTOR, FORMER CEO OF VICTORIA'S SECRET: I never heard rumors about Jeff. I know Jeffrey was accused by an adult woman of abusing her. And that's the only thing -- the only thing that I knew until this (bleep). As far as I was concerned, once we knew how bad he was, he was dead.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: You know, we counted Wexner saying "I don't know" dozens of times in the transcript of his deposition.

[23:15:00]

Do you believe him?

STANSBURY: No. I mean, clearly, he is not a credible witness. Also, if you've seen the video clip of his attorney telling him essentially to stop talking, he was being instructed to not share any more information. The statement --

COATES: Let me play that moment, congresswoman. I want people to know what you're talking about. Let's play that.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

WEXNER: All the things we inventoried that wasn't work for me or Jeffrey, it was just regularly done.

UNKNOWN: I will f-king kill you if you answer another question with more than five words, OK?

(LAUGHTER)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: He will kill him if he answers with more than five words. I had to say, I've done many depositions, and you do want your client to be tight-lipped because it's the trend that they're writing down. So, it's not unheard of. However, it doesn't necessarily make you feel that they are being thoughtful and fulsome in their responses.

STANSBURY: Well, it certainly does not inspire confidence of transparency. But I think the bigger issue is that he was perjuring himself. You know, he said, for example, that he didn't know Jeffrey Epstein very well. We have plenty of pictures, evidence, correspondence. Jeffrey Epstein managed more than a billion dollars in his assets and sat as a key figure in his corporation for decades. It's just a lie. And so, you know, I know that Mr. Wexner has had many decades to practice his answers, but we just know that what he stated is not true.

But I think what's particularly stunning is that he claimed in that deposition that he had never been contacted by the FBI or DOJ as a part of this investigation. And if that is true, what is so strange about that is that he is a named co-conspirator in DOJ's investigation of these crimes. He is also accused himself -- by survivors of sexual assault in the files. And so, that in and of itself is evidence that the DOJ has had a grave miscarriage of justice in this case.

And I also want to note that not a single Republican bothered to show up for the deposition.

COATES: I'll be really curious to see the foundations for what you've said and what comes out from what happens next. Thank you so much, congresswoman.

STANSBURY: Thank you.

COATES: You know what? It is basically tomorrow in the U.K. So, we've got tomorrow's front pages in from the U.K. on this very scandal. I'll show them to you because the coverage there all raises a very critical question. Forget a prince. Is the actual institution of the monarchy in trouble? A royal expert joins me next.

And later tonight, what started as a joke about aliens from President Obama, well, it just got serious as President Trump now orders the Pentagon to release the UFO files.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:20:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNKNOWN (voice-over): Good afternoon, Your Majesty. Do you have any reaction to the arrest of your brother, sir?

UNKNOWN (voice-over): Your Majesty, how are you feeling after your brother's arrest?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: King Charles dodging questions from reporters following the arrest of his brother, the former Prince Andrew, questions that aren't going away any time soon. Just look at some of the headlines hitting newsstands in the U.K. The Sun, now he's sweating. The Daily Mail, downfall, the Crown in crisis. The Times, the arrest of Andrew. Just to read a few. And as for the people of the U.K.?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNKNOWN: He gets what he deserves, which is, you know, if it's life in jail, then it's life in jail. If it's exile, then it's exile.

UNKNOWN: I think that it has been a long time coming. I think that it's good that something is finally happening. And, hopefully, we can shed some light on what has happened to the victims.

UNKNOWN: I think he's finished. I think the royal family are going to have to answer questions. Someone must have known.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Joining me now from London, broadcaster and royal watcher Bidisha Mamata. So glad that you were here. Bidisha, I mean, earlier today, I heard someone call this the biggest challenge the royal family has had on their hands since the death of Diana. Is that a fair assessment of just how serious this is?

BIDISHA MAMATA, BROADCASTER, ROYAL WATCHER: Yes, I think it is. It has been an absolutely staggering day. For a very long time, people have been commenting that the deference in the U.K. is so extreme that although there might be a huge amount of opprobrium amongst the public, a lot of scandal and a lot of gossip, it would never be the case that Thames Valley police officers, a local police force, would show up to Andrew's house on his birthday in unmarked police cars, plain clothes police officers, and pull him out for 12 hours of questioning. This is indeed, as everyone has been saying, exactly how they treat any other suspect.

And for someone of Andrew's reputation for aggressiveness, entitlement, arrogance, lack of duty and care, this is a message in itself. It's telling him, you can't hide anymore, we're going to treat you like a common suspected criminal, a common alleged wrongdoer, and you're going to sit in that holding room in the police station with the cup of coffee for as long as we need you to answer these questions.

He has been released so far, but the investigation is still pending. And you heard the members of the British public there saying so clearly that they are really done with him in terms of deference and respect. That phase is over.

COATES: King Charles also pledging his full and wholehearted support and cooperation to authorities. That in and of itself is a statement about how this is going to transpire.

[23:24:59]

I mean, there was, you know, no offerings of grace or pulling some strings from behind the scenes, as you described. What is your takeaway from the king's statement?

MAMATA: That statement really was astonishing, very strong, very cold, very pragmatic. And this is something that the royal family are actually famous for. You see the king releasing a very short paragraph in which he refers to his own brother by his formal name, Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, as if he's just anyone, as if he's nothing to the royal family anymore.

And people are saying, well, you know, King Charles, where do you put your faith, your love, your hope? And King Charles is repeating quite clearly, he puts all of that faith into the law, the police, the process. And he very pointedly says that while this investigation is going on, my family and I will be pursuing our duties. And he's making it very clear that that phrase, my family, does not include Andrew.

COATES: Does -- is there a concern in the U.K. that this is not enough, that there has not been enough done up until now? You heard one of the people who was interviewed saying someone must have known. Is this jeopardizing the faith in the monarchy itself?

MAMATA: I definitely do think that the royal family took quite a long time to get out ahead of this, and they didn't really get out ahead of it. Andrew has been a thorn in the side of the royal family for many decades, many decades. He was actually known for being hedonistic, for being careless, for having a dereliction of duty. Of course, we didn't know until today just how far that alleged dereliction went.

And, in fact, lots of these posts that he got, an envoy, diplomatic roles, soft culture roles where the royal family attempting to get him to do some actual work, of course, he evidently, allegedly, couldn't even do that. The British public was saying to themselves and indeed, as you heard, heckling and yelling out to members of the royal family, you know, what do you think, what are you going to do, what's going to happen.

And I also think that the release of all of these Epstein files is triggering everyone, victims, witnesses, and survivors, so that even though these arrests do not pertain to sexualized crimes, it's all seen as part and parcel of the karma, the natural justice, the downfall that must happen.

In a very odd way, it's strangely regal to have this kind of downfall, to have the crimes be huge, and for the shame and the downfall to be equally huge and equally damaging. There is a natural justice about that that I think people have been waiting for many years, for decades now.

COATES: Bidisha Mamata, so glad to have you. Thank you so much.

MAMATA: Thank you.

COATES: Coming up, the image from the DOJ had people asking, is this for real? Former prosecutor in me has a lot to say about this tonight. Plus, the search for Nancy Guthrie and her abductor. You know, we're nearing day 20 with no leading theory and very little even ruled out. So, what happened today and is the investigation stalling? I have an update from Arizona, next. And later, we're going to answer your questions about the case with my FBI experts. Send them to us at cnn.com/asklaura. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:30:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: We have to start reporting on other subjects also to see what happens. It's a very sad situation.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: President Trump today addressing the search for Nancy Guthrie. It is nearing 20 days since she was taken from her home and a case that, frankly, has baffled and stumped investigators.

But Guthrie's family is not giving up hope and neither is the public. Today, a non-profit group dedicated to finding missing people in Mexico will be joining the search for Guthrie outside of her home in Tucson. But investigators only have a handful of clues to work with, at least ones that they've made public. At site, we've learned that law enforcement is still trying to determine if the ransom letters sent to TMZ are even real.

I want to bring in Briana Whitney, a reporter with Arizona's 3TV and CBS 5 and host of "True Crime Arizona Live." Briana, I mean, so few clues, few updates from Pima County Sheriff Chris Nanos today. How much pressure is he under and how is he handling the criticism that he has been getting?

BRIANA WHITNEY, REPORTER, ARIZONA'S FAMILY: I mean, he is under immense pressure at this point. I think, given the fact that that surveillance video was released over a week ago, people thought by now there would be some sort of movement in the case, either charges, potentially an arrest, answers. That video is crystal clear. And so, to have nothing over a week and no extra video as well, I think that's one issue.

Sheriff Nanos knows about the criticism. He has addressed the criticism and basically saying that he and the FBI are working together flawlessly, that they are working together seamlessly, and that his detectives and deputies are working around the clock. So, he seems to take kind of more of a positive approach. But, no doubt, a lot of criticism about how this case has been handled. And now, day 19, and it seems we're no closer to finding Nancy.

COATES: I mean, it has been more than a week, Briana, since the video of the suspect came out. Are the tips starting to dry out or does law enforcement feel they're still engaging the public?

WHITNEY: So, we know from PCSD today that they put out basically their calls.

[23:35:02] There are numerous and, you know, volume of calls that they have received. And it's high. It's in the thousands and thousands. They weren't able to dissect what exactly was Nancy Guthrie calls versus just their overall calls. But you can assume thousands of those are because of this case. People are calling in. They also confirmed that the FBI has received 20,000 tips in this case. Those are numbers that we don't typically see.

So, do I think the calls and the tips are coming in? Yes. But do I think that we're at a stall of the investigation right now? It certainly feels like it. I mean, we learned virtually no new information today. I think people thought DNA results were going to come back by now at midweek, if not the end of the week.

So, it's one of two things. Either they have nothing and they're going backwards or there's a lot going on behind the scenes with the DNA testing and other evidence, and they are waiting and strategically not saying anything right now to hopefully have something here in the near future.

COATES: Briana Whitney, thank you so much. I want to bring in two people who have been following this case with me from the very start, retired FBI special agent Pete Lapp and former FBI executive director Jacqueline MaGuire. Glad to have both of you, guys, here.

As you heard, I mean, the pace of information coming in, at least publicly, slowing, if not stalling. The FBI, Jackie, is asking people to check their security cameras and look for people exhibiting suspicious behavior. I just want to ask you. Should they be asking the public to think about people in their lives instead or is this the way to do it?

JACQUELINE MAGUIRE, FORMER FBI EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR: I think they should be asking the public every question they can. They should be asking to check and double check and triple check those security cameras. I know there was some reporting today about asking about people who are not visible for the past couple of weeks.

COATES: Right.

MAGUIRE: So, I think it's important just to keep the story in the public's eye, whatever questions those generate, you know, and could sort of spur the public to think about what's normal, what's abnormal --

COATES: Yes.

MAGUIRE: -- and should I report this information is key.

COATES: There are a lot of questions coming on. We will get to them in just one moment. But I want to ask you, Pete, because there has been some clarification from Mexican authorities. They acknowledge the FBI briefed them about the case, but added they don't have any leads to suggest that she is in Mexico. Why is the FBI so certain she's not there? PETE LAPP, RETIRED FBI SPECIAL AGENT: Well, it's yet to be determined. I think it's a viable lead. You know, the border is right there. Mexico is pretty close. I mean, Pima County is a border county for the United States. It's a viable investigative option. It's -- the reality, though, is the challenge of getting a kidnapper taking someone over to a foreign country like Mexico would be rather difficult.

It seems logical that they would talk to Mexican authorities. My sense is they've been talking to them for quite a while, not just recently based on the news reporting. You know, they're running down every lead. And, obviously, Mexico being there, it makes sense. But I don't know the practicality of how strong that lead would actually be.

COATES: I want to get to the questions that you all have asked us as well. A reminder, if you have a question about the case, you can send it to us by going to cnn.com/asklaura.

Let's go to the first one. Teri from Cleveland, Ohio asks, was the foliage the suspect used to try to block the camera left behind? Actually, it was. He appeared to drop it at some point.

Let's go to Griffin from Sacramento, California who asks, what about the jacket the guy was wearing in the video? It looks unique. Well, the sheriff says, so far, they only know the backpack is from Walmart. There has been a suggestion that maybe the jacket, too, but there's no confirmation.

Cindy asked this question: If they did go into Mexico, how would they have gotten across the border if they're so secure right now? Any thoughts?

MAGUIRE: I think that's a good question. And I'm sure, as Pete said, that coordination with Mexican authorities with federal counterparts on the border has likely been going on to look at all possible avenues of investigation where there are cameras, you know. And we have representatives over in Mexico from the FBI, legal attaches, they coordinate with the Mexican authorities on a daily basis. So, making sure that they're tracking every single possible tip, possible lead, possible piece of information.

COATES: But it has to come in first, the tips, I know. How about this one? We've got Carol from Twin Falls, Idaho, who asked this question: Why hasn't there been any ground searches by volunteers or the police to try to find Nancy Guthrie? Pete?

LAPP: Well, good question. I mean, law enforcement has done a lot of searching around that area. There are searches that we've seen because of the media coverage and there are searches that we have not. It's a vast area down there, a lot of open terrain. They're doing a lot of searching with drones and helicopters and all sorts of different things that maybe are visible and not visible, getting volunteers involved. I'm not sure that's the best scenario, frankly.

COATES: Because why? LAPP: Well, I think they're not trained in what to look for. They may find stuff that is trash and not significant, boggles down the investigation.

[23:40:00]

I'm not saying that they couldn't get lucky and find another glove somewhere that's significant. But finding and searching for things takes a lot of training and skill, the expertise that law enforcement has, and it's important to use that expertise.

COATES: And it's not a recovery mission yet --

LAPP: Correct.

COATES: -- which might be an impact of this. Johnny asked this question: If the military can use satellites to track terrorists all through the city, why can't they use satellite images to track the vehicle that was used in the disappearance of Nancy Guthrie? Jackie?

MAGUIRE: I think we have to remember, we don't know everything about this case, right? We only know the information that law enforcement has released to the public. So, do they have vehicle information? Have they gotten any tips about those vehicles? There's license plate reader, cameras. There are different cameras in retail establishments. They, I'm sure, if they have leads, if they have information about the video, are tracking that information down.

COATES: You know, big question we keep getting is, why don't we know more? But, obviously, there are potential reasons to keep things close to the vest. Pete and Jackie, thank you both so much.

LAPP: Thank you.

MAGUIRE: Thank you, Laura.

COATES: Up next -- quote -- "straight up North Korea vibes." Critics unloading on the president for putting a banner of his face on the Justice Department, the actual building. The heartbeat of the DOJ, I'll share why my heart sank even seeing it. Plus, a judge citing George Orwell's 1984 just landed a victory for history in the City of Brotherly Love.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:45:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: You know, it has been a while since I have walked through the doors of what we known as Main Justice, the Robert F. Kennedy Building in Washington, D.C., the very place where I was hired as a federal prosecutor. So, you can imagine my surprise, maybe all of our surprise today, when we saw a banner, a banner of a photo of President Trump and his campaign slogan underneath, Make America Safe Again. Now, I worked under two presidents, two different parties, and I certainly remember standing in the hallway as they swapped out the official portraits of the president and the attorney general. But I don't ever recall walking under a picture of Bush or Obama outside of the building, let alone a political slogan knowing that you're not supposed to engage in political activities as a member of the Department of Justice.

But I guess I'm unc (ph) to young kids these days because this is now Trump's DOJ, and that firewall of independence between the White House and Main Justice seems to be crumbling before our very eyes.

"The New York Times" reports people applying for jobs to U.S. attorneys' offices are often required to weigh in on Trump's policies. That is not normal. I was never asked about my views about a president's agenda when I worked there with an eye towards if you only got the right answer, then you're hired. In fact, when I was asked about my views on policies, I may have even been hired in spite of them.

And, as you know, Trump has ordered the attorney general, Pam Bondi, and his DOJ to investigate and even indict his political opponents. An odd directive given that we're supposed to indict those with no fear or favor of politics. Unc (ph).

Let's discuss more with CNN political commentators Karen Finney and Shermichael Singleton, who are both with me right now. I mean, I have to ask you, Karen. Karen, what is the message that this sends to the world, let alone the idea of, we know the executive branch, obviously, the umbrella in the org chart includes the Department of Justice, but why send this message? What does it send?

KAREN FINNEY, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, FORMER SENIOR ADVISER FOR HILLARY CLINTON'S 2016 PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN: Well, look, I think he started sending this message on day one, that this was not going to be a presidency that cared about norms, laws, customs, the separation of powers, right? Everything he does, he is willing to -- it has been all about consolidating power in the executive branch. He treats -- it's like a company. He treats every cabinet agency as if it were a department underneath his, you know, a corporate entity.

And this is not the only building he has done that. You know, he did it -- there's a sign up over the Department of Labor.

COATES: Right.

FINNEY: There's one over Department of Agriculture. And so, it sends a signal, I think, that, you know, he perceives -- it's part of the same sort of bullying and tactics that we've seen where he's going after all kinds of institutions, both inside and outside of government, to say I'm going to make you follow my rules because I can, and go ahead and try to stop me. And he's trying to send the signal basically that says they -- I control them, which is like, as you point out, that's not how it's supposed to be, but that is how it has operationalized itself under Trump. COATES: I mean, Shermichael, normally, seals on government buildings, half the time, they're in Latin. That's how subtle they're supposed to be. This ain't Latin. What's the point?

SHERMICHAEL SINGLETON, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: It's not. And I think there has always been this unique tension between the proverbial independence of the DOJ and presidential power. And in preparing for this, I was just going through previous administrations, Republicans and Democrats, presidents wanting to usurp their power, particularly over justice, whether it was George W. Bush and the firings of federal attorneys at the time, or whether it was individuals calling critiques to the Obama administration for using DOJ to go after journalists or the Biden administration.

People say, look, the DOJ did not really look into your son because they were currying favor for the president. Why was the president putting his thumb on the scale there? This is, in my opinion, the evolution of us not really checking presidents in the past as it pertains to the DOJ putting their thumb on the scale.

FINNEY: No, but this is unprecedented.

[23:50:00]

The way he has utilized the Department of Justice and going against, you know, his so-called enemies and the way he has -- I mean, Pam Bondi's, you know, appearance on Capitol Hill last week, I think, sort of an example of -- you know, she acts like a sycophant, not like the attorney general of the United States.

And the other thing I would just quickly say on all of this, right, he also -- it's like he's trying to write his own narrative about his presidency. Almost like the lower he goes in the polls, the more things he tries to put his name on to sort of be this dear leader beloved.

COATES: Is that effective?

SINGLETON: I definitely take Karen's point, but I don't think power exists in a vacuum, I would argue. And when you don't check limitations of the executive in previous administrations, to me, if you don't limit and constrict that power, you shouldn't be surprised when some person at some point takes it to the next level. Well, you've never said what isn't or shouldn't be permitted. We just presumed what shouldn't be permitted.

COATES: Well, I have to say, I mean, one would think the oath of office would assume you wouldn't disrupt the separation of powers. But let me just take it this way because the judicial branch has checked in some respects lately, right? The slavery exhibit, we recall, at the Independence National Historical Park in Philadelphia, you know, that actually went back up today, guys. And the administration removed it to comply with his order ending what he called corrosive ideology. A judge said the exhibit should be reinstalled and compared its removal to the Ministry of Truth in George Orwell's novel 1984. Is this administration going too far or realizing that this needs to be -- this is a judge who said no. But are they course correcting on their own at all, you think, in recognition of this?

FINNEY: No, because they're already challenging the decision. I mean, the fact that, in 2026, we're having a debate about whether or not slavery is a bad thing and was part of our history is outrageous. But it's part -- again, this narrative that Trump wants to push about what's appropriate history, what's not appropriate history, what do you think is appropriate for different departments within the government to be pursuing?

You know, again, the things, the attacks we've seen on law firms and educational institutions, it's another part of that, this erasing history to fit a narrative that he thinks is less offensive to certain individuals in this country.

COATES: Your thought?

SINGLETON: I think you have to be careful with cultural corrections. You have unintended consequences.

FINNEY: This is facts and history, not just culture.

SINGLETON: But it's a part of culture, is my point.

COATES: What correction do you mean?

SINGLETON: The point that I'm making is I think there are some conservatives who would argue, I don't agree with this framing, but would argue we've gone too far in terms of the perpetual constant recognition of the past. I don't share that belief, but some have argued that. And I think Trump is attempting to correct that based on individuals who share the same belief as the president.

My point here, though, is politically, when you look at how Republicans won in 2024, not just the presidency, the House, the Senate, it was a pretty mixed coalition of people of color, particularly men.

And so, for me, as a strategist, as I'm looking at going too far here, you're absolutely going to turn off those groups not only because of economic failures, which the data suggests is an issue for Republicans, but also those groups are going to yearn for a cultural recognition even from this unique party that they typically wouldn't traditionally vote for, and you're sort of slapping them in the face. And so, I think there are long-term consequences here.

FINNEY: Yes. It's about the truth versus and the facts versus telling some lies to make you feel better. But OK.

COATES: Well, there's a summation.

(LAUGHTER)

Karen and Michael, thank you both so much. Up next, President Trump weighing in on President Obama's viral comments about aliens. Is the information classified? Are they real? And if they are, what should they look like? You know, I've got some ideas for you, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:55:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: It's almost midnight here in Washington, D.C., which means it is time to talk to our friend, Elex Michaelson, over on the West Coast. Good to see you. Listen, the president announced his plans to have the Pentagon and other departments release files about aliens. And it all started with Obama when he said this. And then Trump, he was asked about it.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNKNOWN: Are aliens real?

BARACK OBAMA, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: The real, but I haven't seen them, and they're not being kept in -- what is it?

UNKNOWN: Area 51.

OBAMA: Area 51. There is no underground facility. Unless there's this enormous conspiracy, and they hit it from the president of United States.

TRUMP: Well, he gave classified information. He's not supposed to be doing that. You know --

UNKNOWN (voice-over): So, aliens are real?

TRUMP: Well, I don't know if they're real or not. I can tell you he gave classified information. He's not supposed to be doing that. He made a big mistake.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Now, if it turns out that aliens are, in fact, real, I want you to know, I think they resemble "Coneheads." Remember that?

(LAUGHTER)

That's my personal belief. What do you want them to look like?

MICHAELSON: Well, I picked -- I love, you know, good "Independence Day."

(LAUGHTER)

It would be a good version of that. Although I also like "The Men in Black" concept that just --

(LAUGHTER) -- you know --

COATES: They are just what you --

MICHAELSON: -- that we're all sort of in this world and we're being pulled apart. But, it's a really -- it's a really big and important thing. You know, there's -- we have a guest, Dan Farah, joining us in the next hour, who I know you've talked to --

COATES: Yes.

MICHAELSON: -- from "Age of Disclosure," which is one of the biggest documentaries in the history of Amazon. He made the pitch to President Trump to do this on your show, you made the pitch on our show, and he's here tonight, on this night, when it's finally happening.

COATES: Well, ask him if aliens look like my other two favorites, either "Elf" or the entire cast of "Third Rock from the Sun." I'm just -- I mean, just put it out there.

[00:00:00]

I don't know. I don't know. But I think the --

MICHAELSON: John -- can you imagine --

COATES: -- think so.

MICHAELSON: -- if at this whole build up, it actually is John Lithgow that we've been looking for this entire time.

(LAUGHTER)

COATES: I would have had my money on John Malkovich but, I mean, Lithgow, sure, let's do it.

MICHAELSON: Jane Curtin was a part of "Third Rock from the Sun" and "Coneheads." So, there you go. Maybe it all goes back to her.

COATES: Six degrees of separation. Have a great show, Elex.

MICHAELSON: Thanks, Laura. Have a great night.