Return to Transcripts main page

Laura Coates Live

Trump's Trials Continue; Major Ruling Looms After Closing Arguments In Trump 14th Amendment Trial In CO; Lawyer Admits To Releasing Plea Bargain Deal Videos; CNN Obtains Exclusive Bodycam Video Of A Hamas Militant. Aired 11p-12a ET

Aired November 15, 2023 - 23:00   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:00:50]

LAURA COATES, CNN HOST: Four criminal cases, 91 felony charges, but it's the case you may not have heard about that could really spell trouble for Donald Trump, tonight on "Laura Coates Live."

The legal developments, they're coming fast and they're coming furious in the many different cases that Donald Trump is facing. In Georgia, you got prosecutors asking a judge to now jail one of Trump's co- defendants, his name, Harrison Floyd, over his alleged effort to intimidate co-defendants and apparently witnesses, including Georgia election worker Ruby Freeman, and the judge says that he's going to bar the public release of sensitive evidence like the Jenna Ellis proffer video that we saw. It was leaked earlier this week.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JENNA ELLIS, FORMER TRUMP ATTORNEY: He said, well, the boss, meaning President Trump, and everyone understood the boss, that's what we all called him, he said, the boss is not going to leave under any circumstances, we are just going to stay in power.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: And by the way, you know, we now know who leaked that video and why. More on that a little bit later. Then, of course, there's the quarter of a billion-dollar civil fraud case in New York against Trump and his family business. Former president wants a mistrial in that case and, maybe no surprise, he is alleging the judge is biased against him, a claim that he has shouted from the rooftops or at the very least to reporters outside the courtroom.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: This judge is a very partisan judge with a person who's very partisan sitting alongside him, perhaps even more partisan than he is.

(END VIDEO CLIP) COATES: But wait, there's more, because in the federal election subversion case right here in Washington, D.C., prosecutors are calling on the appeals court to uphold the gag order on Donald Trump, who some might argue made the case for them by calling Jack Smith -- what was that word? Deranged. Also claiming that -- quote -- "his wife and family despise me much more than he does" -- unquote.

But none of those cases nor any of the many others Donald Trump faces would actually or has actually derailed his candidacy. A federal conviction, a criminal case conviction, serving time behind bars, the Constitution says no problem to all of those, and legal experts say the Constitution does not bar anyone convicted or even serving jail time from running or maybe even winning the presidency. That is, of course, if he is actually on the ballot.

But what if he couldn't be on the ballot or wasn't allowed to be on the ballot? Well, that's the issue that three states had been wrestling with. Michigan, my hometown of Minnesota, and Colorado. But how could he be removed from their ballots? Well, I'll admit, it's pretty novel, but it's all about the 14th Amendment. which basically says anyone who -- quote -- "engaged in insurrection or rebellion" -- unquote -- after taking an oath of office to defend the Constitution, is forbidden from holding public office.

Now, notice in that print, it doesn't define insurrection, doesn't actually spell out how to enforce that ban, but the language is there. It's the reason that parties in those three states at least have tried to erase Donald Trump's name on their ballot.

Now, in Minnesota and also in Michigan, the courts have already decided that election officials don't have the authority to take his name off the ballot. They didn't have full trials in this realm. They didn't decide on the evidence in these cases, at least for now.

But in Colorado, the judge, while they did have a trial, and they've yet to decide what to do, she has until Friday to actually rule. So, what will she decide? And that's really the big question for all of us. Who should get to decide who is on the ballot. Is it the courts or is it you, the voters?

I want to bring in now Congressman Jamie Raskin, a Democrat from Maryland. Congressman Raskin, I want to get to the 14th Amendment trial in just a moment. It's very important. But I first have been seeing a lot about the violent protests this evening, calling for a ceasefire in Gaza outside the DNC headquarters.

[23:05:02]

And we're told that three of the top House Democrats were there with several members of Congress. They had to be escorted out by police. Have you heard from any of them and are they safe, congressman?

REP. JAMIE RASKIN (D-MD): Well, I understand everybody is okay. So, you know, we can be grateful for that.

COATES: We certainly can be watching the video footage. It looks like it could have gone very, very badly. I do want to get to the 14th Amendment in particular. You are a consummate constitutional professor and scholar. And just yesterday, you know that a Michigan judge rejected another 14th Amendment challenge. That means there's now a handful of states where the argument has fallen flat. So, do you think we're going to see a different result in Colorado?

RASKIN: Well, as in a bunch of Donald Trump's cases, there are a lot of issues of first impression by which we mean things that courts are dealing with for the first time. It doesn't mean that they're saying Donald Trump didn't engage in insurrection, but they're parsing different parts of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.

So, in Michigan, the court ruled that this was a political question, non-justiciable, which means that it's not up to the court to decide, it's up to Congress to decide.

For that ruling, they really based it on the final sentence of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which says that Congress can remove the disability of having participated in insurrection by a two-thirds vote. That seemed to imply to that court anyway that it's really within the province of the legislative branch to be making these decisions.

Now, other courts have gone in another direction. In Minnesota, the court seemed to stumble on to a different solution which struck me as kind of strange, which is that it might be an issue that could block a candidate for being a candidate for president of the United States or Congress or Senate in the general election, but not in the primary, which to me is like saying if a 14-year-old tried to run for Congress or for president, they could be on the primary ballot but not on the general election ballot, that that's just up to the party to decide, which I think cuts against nearly a century of Supreme Court rulings that the primary process is part of the electoral machinery that belongs to the state.

That was decided in really the 1930s and 40s, in some cases called the white primary line of authority, Smith versus Allwright, Terry versus Adams. And so, that struck me as a strange way of thinking about the case. But, obviously, the courts are all over the map here because as with so much Trump litigation, it's all new and nobody has dealt with this for more than a century.

COATES: I mean, it is kind of the wild, wild west. And frankly, it should be by design, right? You want to have very few cases involving somebody who is alleged to have committed insurrection to be taught of and thought of in this way.

But let me ask you about that very point because what often comes back to people talking about these cases is whether or not it should be up to the judges or should it be up to the voters to decide whether they want to vote in somebody, knowing all the information.

This has all been done in broad daylight, frankly, and there has not yet been a charge of insurrection in these different jurisdictions, of course, or even a conviction for Donald Trump. So, is this all premature to even have these sorts of discussions? RASKIN: Now, that strikes me as an odd way of looking at it. The authors of the 14th Amendment themselves dealt with that question. They felt that if someone sets themselves at war against the Constitution and engages in the most profound anti-democratic act of trying to overthrow an election by installing themselves in office with an insurrection, then at that point, they're constitutionally- barred.

And so, when people say it's undemocratic, let the voters decide, that's like saying, well, let Vladimir Putin run for president even though he's not a U.S. citizen because it would be undemocratic to deny that choice to the voters.

The Constitution has already made that judgment. It would be like saying, you know, a 12-year-old can run for president or Congress because it's undemocratic not to give the people that choice. Well, if you don't like it, then amend the Constitution to change that rule.

But Abraham Lincoln really settled that question of what is democratic and what's not because he said at the beginning of the Civil War that the act of insurrection is a profound assault on democracy because it's an attempt to strip away from the people their right to choose their own elected officials.

[23:10:00]

And so, at the end of the Civil War, in 1868, a few years later, with the passage of the 14th Amendment, the framers or the re-framers of the Constitution said, we are going to deny people, the worst offenders, the opportunity to serve again in federal or state office, Congress, presidents, civil or military office, even being members of the Electoral College. They said, we don't want them to be part of it.

And if you look at what happened to us on January 6th, you can see the wisdom of what the constitutional founders in the 14th Amendment were talking about. So, I think it's really a question of determining whether he engaged in insurrection. Now, the House --

COATES: Well, that -- congressman, that's exactly what --

RASKIN: -- impeached him for inciting an insurrection.

COATES: Excuse me. That's exactly what is part of the trial in Colorado, for that very reason. You write that. Of course, you know there was an impeachment on that very issue. But in terms of a criminal conviction of such, that has not occurred, and you well know that.

But I want to tell you, I actually posed this question because I was so curious, because I hear this so many times, about people talking about it being undemocratic to have the choice not before the voters as opposed to in front of a judge.

And so, I posed the question to a number of people from both sides of the aisle and invited them into the conversation. I asked what they think about this case. Here's just a few. Listen. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNKNOWN: We need to let the courts decide on his fate because, quite honestly, I don't think that if we leave it up to the people, the right decision will be made.

LINDA LITTLE, QUESTIONED ABOUT THE CASE: The courts should decide that. Our judicial branch of government is in place for that purpose, to uphold our Constitution and the laws of our great land.

BELLA CORMAN, QUESTIONED ABOUT THE CASE: My take on former President Donald Trump's ballot eligibility is that that decision should lie in the hands of the people. As a proud U.S. citizen, I believe in our democratic process.

NARESH VISSA, QUESTIONED ABOUT THE CASE: Keep Trump on the ballot and let the voters decide whether to vote for him or not. That is democracy in action.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: So, are they getting it wrong? And that's what some of the people have had to say. And you hear this refrain oftentimes. And I point this specifically, congressman, because there seems to be some indication that people have different views, whether it's at the primary level or the general election level. Do you have a say in that?

RASKIN: Well, I like what your second respondent said, which is we've got to start with what the Constitution and the laws of the country provide. The Constitution is very clear on this question. And so, you know, it would be like saying, well, you know, should we have school desegregation or not? Should it be based on equal production within the Constitution or should we just allow the voters to decide?

And there are some things that we commit to the Constitution, and then we follow the Constitution. It seems to me really strange to say, when someone tries to overthrow the democratic process, as Donald Trump did, that the Constitution shouldn't apply to him. He agrees with that. He has said repeatedly, we don't need the Constitution.

So, I think what we need is a judicial determination of whether or not an impeachment by the House and a 57 to 43 vote in the Senate is enough to establish as a civil proposition that he has engaged in insurrection or whether you need additional adjudicative fact-finding by the court, but nowhere does it say you need to have a criminal conviction in order to make Section 3 of the 14th Amendment apply.

COATES: And that's exactly where Colorado comes in. Congressman Jamie Raskin, thank you so much. Really important to hear your insight.

RASKIN: Thanks for having me.

COATES: I want to bring in -- I want to bring in CNN's Marshall Cohen, who has been following this trial for us, also constitutional lawyer and defense attorney Rebecca LaGrand, and former January 6th Committee investigative counsel Marcus Childress. Glad that you're all here.

Let's begin with where that leaves off, really, right, because there's not a requirement in the Constitution that it has to be a criminal conviction. That is true. But so many voters are saying to themselves, hold on, how do you get to decide, your honor, whether or not there has actually been an insurrection? Is that the criteria here or should it be up to us to vote for this person or not? Eyes wide open.

Marshall, there has been a trial in this case, unlike the other cases we've been talking about, where they're trying to, as Congressman Raskin identified, create and establish whether an insurrection took place. Tell me about what was gleaned in the closing arguments at the very least.

MARSHALL COHEN, CNN REPORTER: Yeah, just a few hours ago in Denver, both sides in this case presenting their final arguments to the judge who has two days to issue her ruling. So, this is going to happen quick.

COATES: By the way, why is that? Just two days?

COHEN: Well, this is an election case. It was filed under an expedited procedure because, of course, at some point, they have to make decision, print the ballots, and then let people vote.

COATES: And that's early January. They got to know that by.

COHEN: That's right.

COATES: Okay.

COHEN: In Colorado, the primary Super Tuesday is in March.

[23:15:00]

Closing arguments, the challengers were basically saying a lot of the things that Congressman Raskin just said. This is in the Constitution, whether it's convenient or not. This is the supreme law of the land. Donald Trump is ineligible, and states have no business putting an ineligible candidate on their ballots.

Trump, obviously, his team made a very different argument. They said that this is kind of a charade, a ridiculous, absurd presentation of the Constitution. They also argued that January 6th does not fit the definition of insurrection, which they argued is more of something to the level of a civil war. And so, those are some of the issues that the judge got to hash out. She's got two days to do it.

COATES: And, of course, if they were to decide that, though, Marshall, if the judge were to decide that very notion, what comes next? What's the timeline next? What happens? Is he off the ballot? What?

COHEN: Well, everyone is expecting an appeal --

COATES: Of course. COHEN: -- of this decision no matter what. And the judge made pretty clear in the beginning of the case that she knows where this is headed. So, the next step would be the Colorado Supreme Court. It's actually all Democratic appointees on that court, by the way. Then the step after that would be the U.S. Supreme Court, very different story there with the conservative supermajority. So, one way or another, this is going to reach the Supreme Court probably before the end of this year.

COATES: We can all see the tumbleweed going down the road because it's all novel in the wild, wild west of the law right now, which is, again, a good reason not to have these cases be a dime a dozen. But when you hear this in different arguments, how do you see it?

REBECCA LEGRAND, CONSTITUTIONAL LAWYER AND DEFENSE ATTORNEY: I agree with a lot of what Marshall said, which is fundamentally this will go to the Supreme Court. And the reason state courts are struggling is they're being asked to do something very difficult.

COATES: Uh-hmm.

LEGRAND: And for a state trial court to weigh in on the role of the 14th Amendment in this essentially novel since the Civil War situation, that's a big ask for a state court judge. They're doing their best, but everybody knows where this is going. This is going to the Supreme Court and going there relatively quickly.

And I think, to echo what Representative Raskin said, these are hard questions. The Constitution by design puts some issues beyond the ability of voters. That's the purpose of the Constitution. If we want to maintain our republic, if we want to keep this system going, there are questions that, by design, are out of voters' hands, and this may be one of them.

COATES: You know, a lot of this is relying on the January 6 testimony and what was presented. You obviously were a big part of that, Marcus. The fact that was used, there were questions, frankly, in the public eye about whether there had been a sufficient enough case made to figure out if Donald Trump himself had engaged in an insurrection or had directed someone to do so. Did they make their case? Would that be enough, you think, from what you've presented in January 6th Committee?

MARCUS CHILDRESS, FORMER JANUARY 6 COMMITTEE INVESTIGATIVE COUNSEL: The big thing that stood out to me is no one is really challenging the facts from our report. They might be challenging the lack of minority staff or that were former prosecutors that were on the team, but no one is really challenging our findings per se.

COATES: Well, Trump's team is. They don't like your findings.

CHILDRESS: They don't like our findings, but they're also not actually supporting it by -- or supporting their arguments by showing facts to the contrary. And the through line, as trial attorneys, we know this, you want your through line from opening to go through closing. And this call to action has been the through line that has been consistent during our January 6th Committee investigation, and we saw it again during this Colorado hearing.

And look, I think the perfect illustration is Graydon Young, right, who actually said in trial during the Oath Keeper trial that he was influenced by the big lie and that he viewed the attack on the Capitol as like the French Revolution, like his attack on the Bastille. That is an illustration of an insurrection, and I thought that the Colorado team did a great job of continuing that narrative and that argument to show that it was an insurrection.

COATES: Well, one way to get to the Supreme Court, as we know, if it was just agreement between different circuits, obviously, and other entities. And if, say, Colorado were to rule to say to remove him from the ballot, and you've got Minnesota and Michigan, albeit for different procedural reasons, saying no, he gets to stay on the ballot, the Supreme Court might take this up. They likely will look at this. What's the outcome, though?

LEGRAND: That's an interesting question. I think the Supreme Court has shown that it cares about institutions here. So, I don't think this is obvious. Even though the Supreme Court, obviously, is dominated by Republican appointees, I do think there are numerous Republican appointees who are worried about the stability of our institutions right now. So, I don't know, but they will decide. They will be the ones, I think, ultimately who will decide this question.

COATES: You've been following this so closely. What is your prediction? I know it's a hard one. Well, how about this?

COHEN: Laura --

COATES: I know reporters. I know. I get it. How about this? How do you think it's leading?

COHEN: I think that if it's going to win anywhere, if the challengers who want Trump off the ballot are going to win anywhere, it wasn't going to be Minnesota, it wasn't going to be Michigan, it could be Colorado. And the fact that it even got this far to a trial with witnesses and evidence and all the findings from Marcus's report presented one by one, I think that's a signal of at least where this may be going for now.

COATES: Oh, see, he added the for now. That's a reporter. I love it so much. Marshall Cohen, thank you so much. Rebecca and Marcus also, stick around, please.

We also have some breaking news from Capitol Hill. The Senate voting to pass the stopgap bill to avert a shutdown at the end of the week. It next needs to go to the president, President Joe Biden, to be signed.

[23:20:04]

The two-step plan extends funding until January 19th for priorities including military construction, veterans' affairs, transportation, housing, and the Energy Department. The rest of the government, anything not covered by what I just said, will be funded until February 2nd. Now, note the proposal does not include additional aid for Israel or for Ukraine.

Well, now we know who leaked those proffer videos in the Georgia election subversion case, but next, I'll tell you the why and what the judge in the case is going to do about it.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: Prosecutors in the Georgia election interference case, they're cracking down now on a series of, well, there's a very public issue that happened even this week. The D.A., Fani Willis, is asking a judge to revoke the bond of the man you see here, Harrison Floyd. He's with the defendants and she wants to put him in jail. Now, the why is interesting.

[23:25:01]

They are saying that what he has done is he has engaged in a bit of behavior to intimidate co-defendants and witnesses. And one example they lay out is a social media post where Floyd calls out the Georgia secretary of state, Brad Raffensperger.

And another post shows Floyd questioning why his legal team was accused of leaking materials and refers to false claims about an election worker. That election worker, Ruby Freeman, who once again is caught in the middle. She and her daughter were targeted by Trump with bogus fraud allegations in the past.

Speaking of those leaks, a Fulton County judge locking down the release of sensitive evidence after key video statements from other defendants got out. And now, the attorney for a separate defendant, I know, it's a mess, is owning up to it.

Jonathan Miller, representing former Coffee County election supervisor Misty Hampton, seen here, says that his client believes the public has a right to see these videos. They showed proffer sessions from Jenna Ellis and Sidney Powell, who reveal info on Trump's attempts to overturn the election.

Back with me now, Rebecca LeGrand and Marcus Childress. So, I mean, first of all, the fact that they didn't already have some sort of protective order is surprising still. I mean, the fact that this was almost inevitable, one would think, obviously, we don't want to have this happen, but -- why not have in the first place?

CHILDRESS: It's pretty common, as you just stated, to have a protective order --

COATES: Yeah.

CHILDRESS: -- especially in criminal trials, and especially kind of when you know what the defendants and types of witnesses are dealing with in this matter. I mean, it was pretty appalling to me that I could send an email to witnesses during the January 6 investigation, and within minutes, my emails were leaked. And this is stuff that's not even as sensitive as the evidence that the Fulton County D.A. is sending out. And so, I'm happy that there's a protective order in place now for sensitive information because we do have to think about protecting these witnesses and ensuring the safety of the actual investigation, its integrity as we move forward.

COATES: So, what's behind the reason? Why do you think Misty Hampton's attorney thinks it's best to have it out there?

LEGRAND: I think this was probably an ill-advised decision. I think he wanted to explain what she was dealing with, what his client was facing. But you can't do this in the media.

And I agree, it's surprising there wasn't a protective order in place, but an attorney should know, right? An attorney should know that this is the kind of thing that could impact the trial in a way that we can't do. We need to try -- if you're representing a client in court, you need to try the case in court.

So, I think this attorney is probably in trouble for publicizing information that he knew could influence a trial and information even without a protective order. He should have known it shouldn't be made public.

COATES: You know what this says to me? It says to me with all the defendants who are here, they're not coordinating, they're not all on one team, right? You have all these different defendants, all each out for themselves, wondering, how can I get an advantage? You already have people who have pleaded guilty.

But that's stunning to me. This tells you it's not -- look at this little yearbook photo, right? These are different cases for all intents and purposes here. But I hate to single out Harrison Floyd because, obviously, some of the behavior Donald Trump has been engaged in, gag orders in different cases as well, hard to sometimes distinguish between the different ones. Why do you think Fani Willis is not asking for him to be revoked in some way?

CHILDRESS: I mean, she's probably trying to keep it consistent across the board, right? And we'll see. I mean, I think he might be the first example of this type of violation of preserving the integrity of the investigation. I think that the Fulton County D.A. has been taking a very cautious, methodical approach for how she's attacking these cases. I think this is just the latest example of that.

COATES: So, what will this do to the other witnesses now, other defendants? Is this going to be an issue, Rebecca, you think that everyone is seeing this as a warning shot to them?

LEGRAND: I hope so, and I think, honestly, the answer to what do we do when Donald Trump makes similar statements, it is more difficult legally because he can say, I've got different First Amendment concerns, I'm running for office. It's also difficult practically. He's got a security detail. You lock him up in the Atlanta jail or in D.C. jail, the logistical challenges are huge.

Now that said, judges do have -- home detention comes to mind. There are ways that you could penalize even someone running for president, but it raises difficult issues, which were not raised by another co- defendant here saying things that in any typical criminal case, you would be in trouble for.

So, I think one thing that sometimes isn't clear here, I've been involved in lots of cases where there's at least a little media attention, and this kind of talk in public about witnesses in your case is not okay. It's never okay. So, we are pushing boundaries here that don't usually get pushed this far. So, the consequences here make sense to me.

COATES: But who would benefit from these leaks? I mean, you're talking about the prosecution or defense. Who do you think stands to gain most from having all this in the public eye?

CHILDRESS: I mean, this just goes back to the theme of trying this case in the public eye, right? It's showing I'm not the one talking, it's another defendant that was talking. I don't necessarily think it hurts the Fulton County D.A.'s case.

[23:30:00]

In fact, I think it shows how thorough they're being in obtaining these proffers from individuals that have submitted guilty pleas. But, I mean, it's another example of a show trial, which is what the courts in D.C. and in New York and now in Georgia are trying to prevent, is these cases being tried in the public eye and to preserve everyone's safety and the integrity of these cases.

COATES: Interesting enough. Remember, this is the case where you can have cameras in the courtroom. So, this is odd. This would be the one time you have the links of this instance in time. Rebecca LeGrand, Marcus Childress, thank you both so much for being here.

So, is the leak of the proffer videos an attempt to influence public opinion? Yes. We've got the guests to talk about it right now. Brian Stelter and Geraldo Rivera are next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: We've talked about the legal ramifications of leaking witness videos to the press, and there are substantial ones. But what about the effect on the court of public opinion?

I want to bring in Brian Stelter. He's the author of the new book, "Network of Lies: The Epic Saga of Fox News, Donald Trump, and the Battle for American Democracy." Also, journalist and former Fox News host Geraldo Rivera. I'm delighted to have both of you guys here.

[23:35:00]

GERALDO RIVERA, JOURNALIST, FORMER FOX NEWS HOST: Hi, Laura.

COATES: Brian, first of all, welcome back. Hello.

BRIAN STELTER, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Thank you. COATES: Congratulations on your new book. Now we always knew, frankly, gentlemen, right? This is going to be argued in two courts, the court of law, Brian, and the court of public opinion. But I wonder what you make of the fact that we're already seeing videos like Fulton County ones in the media, in the press circulating already.

STELTER: This was astonishing, and I think we should have some sympathy, at least a little sympathy, for the Fulton County District Attorney's Office, that they are facing these sorts of leaks and these sorts of situations where so much is spilling into public view.

But I have to say, as someone sitting on the outside just trying to learn what the heck went wrong in 2020, just wrote a whole book about it, there's still so much to learn. And that's why the admissions from Jenna Ellis, the admissions on these leaked video tapes, were so valuable just for the public at large despite all the headaches it causes legally, right?

COATES: I mean, Geraldo, you look at this issue and think about how the media is already so impactful in any of these cases. You see people in their echo chambers, you see people trying to, you know, go and get the information. Something like this is covered maybe differently. Tell me what the impact on the media you think will be from having these leaks.

RIVERA: Well, I think one of the reasons the judge is so angry here, Laura, is the fact that you have Jenna Ellis testifying under this proffer that Dan Scavino, a key Trump aide, told him that Trump said that he wasn't leaving. So, Jenna Ellis testifies to that.

Now, that's hearsay. That probably would not be admissible in court, except now that they have heard it. Now, it's out there. Now, a potential juror is polluted. The potential juror now has heard testimony from key people that would not be admissible in trial, but it's out there. So, that's one of the reasons this should remain confidential.

Usually, for everything out, everything -- you know, let it all hang out. But in this particular case, it's very sensitive. I think the judge made the right decision in terms of keeping this confidential from here on in.

COATES: And that's the key, isn't it, gentlemen? When you think about the why, why you want to get things into the court of public opinion. Yes, it's the jury pool, but we're also talking about, we're less than a year away now, Brian, from a presidential election.

Donald Trump, he loves a camera. You're well aware of that. He has gone out into the hallway for the New York civil fraud trial time and time again to give his own summation of what's happening. He wants to have cameras in the courtroom, even in the federal court. Georgia, it's allowed. Not there. But when you look at that, does that have the potential for good transparency or media circus?

(LAUGHTER)

STELTER: Isn't the answer all the above? Isn't the answer --

COATES: Yeah.

STELTER: -- all the above that yes, to some people, it looks like transparency. It is transparency. It's the only way to show folks who might be on the fence that Trump is not the victim, that he's actually being treated equally and fairly. On the other hand, we do know the circus would follow, and we live in a media age where little single clips, little moments clipped here and there become bigger than the actual thorough full-scale event.

So, I don't think the federal case in D.C. will be on camera. I think the special counsel will prevail against Trump's attempts to get it on camera because, Laura, there's just no precedent for having it on camera in the federal courts, right?

COATES: Geraldo, do you think -- you're right. I mean, you have, and even the Supreme Court, it's audio, but let me ask you.

RIVERA: Right.

COATES: Do you think that Donald Trump really in the end wants these trials fully televised? Because if that happens, he really can't, Geraldo, do a kind of hallway spin.

RIVERA: Well, I was on Celebrity Apprentice with the former president and he's very good at spinning. He'll spin like a top. And I think that he will -- you know, outside of jurisdictions like New York City and maybe Atlanta, I think he could present a case, for instance, the Florida cases before relatively sympathetic people.

He's an expert. He's a consummate artist, performance artist. And as you've seen in New York, he will spin like a top. I think that he will be, generally speaking, successful, except maybe Jack Smith will nab him on a couple of counts. Maybe, maybe not.

But I think that if you want to beat Donald Trump, I want to say this, Laura, very, very importantly. He's got 91 indictments and all the rest of it. If you want to beat Donald Trump, you've got to beat him at the ballot box. Otherwise, he'll be in an orange jumpsuit, he'll be in jail. He'll still be president. He's not barred by the Constitution, even upon conviction.

So, I think that all of this noise, all of this pre-trial kind of acting that's going on and all these cases, state case, Alvin Bragg about Stormy Daniels and Letitia James, the most ambitious politician in New York going after him for valuation of real estate, a promoter overvaluing his real estate, oh, how shocking, that probably has never happened before.

[23:40:06]

Give me a break.

COATES: Well, the judge agreed with that last point. It's why they had a motion from summary judgment to say, you did, in fact, commit fraud and persistently on that very point. But Brian, let me ask you, in your new book, "Network of Lies," you do a very thorough deep dive into the behind the scenes at Fox News, and Geraldo did mention January 6th in particular and Jack Smith.

STELTER: Yeah.

COATES: I find it surprising that more than two years passed now, January 6th, and we're just still now hearing more and more reporting about what was going on about the coverage and beyond. Why do you think it has taken this amount of time?

STELTER: It matters because January 6th has been redefined. There has been a new narrative, a new reality presented by some folks on the right, on the far right. And Geraldo, to his credit, spoke out against Tucker Carlson for doing that, for promoting false flag conspiracy theories.

But it's those conspiracy theories that have allowed Trump to return to center stage. I realized as I was writing this book, Trump was de- platformed. He was shamed out of the public square three years ago. But he was brought back to the center by these conspiracies about January 6th.

That's why the federal trial, it's one of the many reasons why it's so important to put on under the scene what really happened and why, and to get away from all this nonsense about feds and false flags and government agents. It's important that we speak out against those lies. I got to give Geraldo credit here since we've never been on T.V. together. He did speak out against that.

COATES: Geraldo, do you want to return that embrace?

(LAUGHTER)

RIVERA: I appreciate that.

STELTER: Oh, no, he doesn't.

RIVERA: Yes, I appreciate that, Brian. I always thought that you were pretty good on T.V., too. But here's my one big beef, Laura. I think that this is, you know, very -- people can get their arms wrapped, their arms around this. I called for President Trump's impeachment on the 7th day of January 2021. The day after January 6th, I said he deserved to be impeached. He was impeached by the House of Representatives, but then he was acquitted by the United States Senate. You know, I would have convicted him. The Senate acquitted him.

Doesn't Jack Smith's efforts in a way smack of double jeopardy? I mean, isn't the impeachment process the way we punish errant presidents, people who violate the oath of their office? It just seems to me that a lot of these various lawsuits against Trump as outrageous as his behavior has been, and it really has been, in many cases, low down and dirty.

But still, he went before the United States Senate or he didn't physically show up, but his case was litigated. The Senate acquitted him. You know, you needed two-thirds vote. He didn't get anywhere near two-thirds vote for conviction. You know, that's the Constitution.

And I saw your earlier segment of the lawsuit to keep him off the ballot in Colorado. It's really -- you know, it's not for a state to determine who's on the ballot for the presidential election. I think it's really going ad hominem. They're going after him in ways that generate sympathy for him, you know, exactly what you shouldn't be.

COATES: Well, two points. One, thank you for watching the entire "Laura Coates Live" show, I do agree that it's dynamite, 11:00 p.m. Eastern, weekdays. And number two, I will say it's not double jeopardy, according to the law, because one was a political discussion --

RIVERA: I'm a big fan.

COATES: -- and one was the -- you know what, let's not argue, fellas. I'm glad you both were here. Thank you so much.

(LAUGHTER)

Brian Stelter, Geraldo Rivera --

STELTER: Good to see you, Laura.

RIVERA: Okay. Thank you.

COATES: Thank you and be sure to check out Brian's new book, "Network of Lies: The Epic Saga of Fox News, Donald Trump and the Battle for American Democracy." We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:48:09]

COATES: When Hamas militants broke through the border fence and began the terror attack of October 7th, many wore GoPro cameras to actually document the assault. Some of the videos were shared as Hamas propaganda. But not all of them.

CNN has obtained video from one of these cameras from the Israeli military. The IDF says that it shows the reality of what happened, which many have called Israel's 9/11 in one long, continuous video. It shows 100 minutes of horror. And we have to warn you, some of what you are about to see is very graphic. Here's CNN's Oren Liebermann.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

UNKNOWN (voice-over): (INAUDIBLE).

(EXPLOSION)

OREN LIEBERMANN, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): An explosion --

UNKNOWN (voice-over): Allahu Akbar! LIEBERMANN (voice-over): -- before dawn on October 7th. The time is here and the attack is underway.

UNKNOWN (voice-over): Allahu Akbar.

LIEBERMANN (voice-over): Allahu Akbar, God is great, they chant --

UNKNOWN (voice-over): (INAUDIBLE).

LIEBERMANN (voice-over): -- as they cross the breached fence.

UNKNOWN (voice-over): (INAUDIBLE).

LIEBERMANN (voice-over): Go right, go right, go right, they say. Less than two minutes later, they crossed the second security fence. They are in Israel, heading towards a kibbutz (ph). The sun is up, and a day that will reshape the region has begun.

This video comes from the body cam of one of the terrorists who took part in the attack. It was obtained exclusively by CNN from the Israel Defense Forces. For the first time, we also see video inside Hamas tunnels before the attack. It is a look into a network of tunnels with what appear to be supplies stored in the darkness. Writing on the walls in Arabic says what's hidden is far worse. Above ground, the gunman fires his first shots.

UNKNOWN (voice-over): (INAUDIBLE).

[23:50:00]

LIEBERMANN (voice-over): Go on man, go on man, he screams.

(GUNFIRE)

UNKNOWN (voice-over): (INAUDIBLE).

LIEBERMANN (voice-over): They stop on the way. More than a dozen militants gather here to prepare for the next assault. One has several rocket-propelled grenades on his back. Minutes later, a group advances across an open field, moving towards the village of Kisufim (ph). The gunman charges the last bit and spots an Israeli soldier on the ground.

UNKNOWN (voice-over): (INAUDIBLE).

(GUNSHOTS)

(CHEERING)

UNKNOWN: Allahu Akbar!

LIEBERMANN (voice-over): Others join in celebration. Moments later, he is more composed as he turns the camera on himself. He says his name and that he's 24 years old. He's a father. He says he killed two Israeli soldiers. He asks God for victory and well-deserved martyrdom.

On motorbikes now, they keep advancing, moving together along empty Israeli roads, or nearly empty.

(CHEERING)

The man cheers as he sees bodies on the road. His is not the first wave.

(CHEERING)

He rounds a corner. Here, we have seen this place before, among the first videos to come out after the attack. This is dashcam video from a car on the same road moments earlier. The car approaches a group of militants who opened fire. The car coasts (ph), its driver almost certainly dead by now. It is just after 7:40 in the morning.

After a quick reload, the group approaches a military base near the kibbutz of Re'im.

(GUNSHOTS)

For 65 minutes, since crossing the Gaza fence, they have had nearly free reign in Israel. The gunman closes the distance with a weapon he took from an Israeli soldier, opening fire.

(GUNSHOTS)

And fire comes back. This man's part of the attack comes to an end. The terror is just beginning. Oren Liebermann, CNN in Tel Aviv.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

COATES: Oren, thank you. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:56:39]

COATES: Before we leave you tonight, I want to share with you now how Matthew Perry co-stars are remembering their friend. Matt LeBlanc saying, I will always smile when I think of you, and I'll never forget you, never. David Schwimmer writing, I imagine you up there somewhere in the same white suit, hands in your pockets, looking around. Could there be any more clouds?

Lisa Kudrow thanking Matthew for making her laugh so hard that tears poured down her face every day. Courtney Cox saying, I am so grateful for every moment I had with you, Maddie. And Jennifer Aniston saying, being able to really sit in this grief allows you to feel the moments of joy and gratitude for having loved someone that deep, and we loved him deeply.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)