Return to Transcripts main page

Don Lemon Tonight

White House Now Weighs in About Mar-a-Lago Search; January 6 Committee with Open Doors to Former V.P. Mike Pence; Students Going to Schools Without Teachers; Anti-Semitism Poisons Kids Online; Anti- abortion Campaign a Way to Stop Fatherless Children. Aired 10-11p ET

Aired August 19, 2022 - 22:00   ET




ALISYN CAMEROTA, CNN HOST: Thanks so much for watching, everyone. I've had a wonderful time with you this whole week on CNN Tonight. I hope you enjoyed it as much as I did. With that, don lemon tonight with Laura Coates sitting in front on starts right now. All yours, Laura.

LAURA COATES, CNN HOST: Hey, Alisyn. Nice to see you. Have a great weekend, my friend. Great to see you on this week as well.

CAMEROTA: Thanks so much.

COATES: And this is Don Lemon Tonight. I'm Laura Coates in for Don Lemon.

Transparency, now that's a word you're hearing a lot from the former president and his allies in the wake of the FBI search of Mar-a-Lago. He's calling for the unredacted affidavit used to justify the search to be released. Quote, "in the interest of transparency." Unquote.

But team Trump's interest in transparency, it doesn't seem to extend to, well, testifying. Lindsey Graham is trying to dodge a subpoena to appear before the Fulton County special grand jury investigating Republican efforts to overturn the election results in Georgia. A federal judge today refusing to put on hold her own ruling that the senator must appear.

But he's also filed an emergency request for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th circuit, asking it to put the subpoena on hold, running up the chain. And talk about transparency, a federal appeals court ruling just today. But the DOJ has got to make public that internal legal memo that was commissioned by then A.G. William Barr back in 2019.

Remember the one that he had to analyze whether he should charge then President Trump with obstruction of justice related to the Russia investigation? Well, the court finding Barr never seriously considered charging Trump with affecting the Mueller investigation saying in the ruling that the memo Barr ordered was, quote, "an academic exercise." And a thought experiment. Now back to the Mar-a-Lago search here, the Biden White House has kept

near total silence on the entire thing, at least in public. White House cief of staff Ron Klain telling Don this.


RON KLAIN, WHITE HOUSE CHIEF OF STAFF: One reason why Joe Biden got elected president as he promised that he would stay out of meddling like his predecessor did in investigations being conducted by Justice Department. That he would not politically interfere in the Justice Department enforcing our laws.


COATES: But CNN is learning that privately, White House officials are deeply concerned about exactly what Trump took to Mar-a-Lago, and whether it could potentially put the sources and methods of our intelligence community at risk. There's also a lot of worry about the potential that some of what's in those 11 different sets of documents, classified documents, might actually cause tensions with our allies.

Remember, the FBI turned up material about the French President Emmanuel Macron. Remember that? What's in it? We don't yet know.

I want to bring in CNN senior investigative correspondent -- excuse me, Evan Perez, former Nixon White House counsel John Dean, and former U.S. attorney Harry Litman.

Wow, what a Friday night panel to have you all here.

Evan, let me begin with you. Because look, there's a lot of concern about these highly classified documents. They weren't found at the National Archives. They were found at Mar-a-Lago. But privately, the White House saying that they're worried about sources and methods being put at risk. And I'm wondering, from their perspective, is it now becoming clearer why the FBI had to execute this search warrant?

EVAN PEREZ, CNN SENIOR JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: It does appear that that is their big concern. And usually, with this type of -- types of documents, it is the sources and methods. A lot of this information, you know, if you have a memo prepared for the president ahead of a meeting with foreign leaders, you know, they get all of this information that is collected by the U.S. intelligence agencies, and that information does get out of date.

What doesn't get out of date are the sources and methods that they used to collect this information. And this is why the stuff stays classified for up to about 50 years in many cases. And that's one of the concerns you hear from administration officials. This was a great reporting from Kaitlan Collins, Kevin Liptak, and Natasha Bertrand.

And what, you know, they're hearing behind the scenes is that even though, you know, the White House is trying to walk a fine line, they're trying to make sure they don't do anything that seems to be interfering with the Justice Department is doing. They're also trying to figure out how to -- how to deal with the drawback and any repercussions that might come -- might come from the former president mishandling this very, very sensitive intelligence information.


COATES: I mean, it's not odd that they're biting their nails a little bit, right, Evan.


COATES: I mean, a lot of this coordinated in our intelligence in the U.S. -- we have allies and intelligence spheres as well with other nations. So, our own information could compromise potentially somebody else's information.

PEREZ: Right.

COATES: Whilst there is cause for concern, they're probably contemplating.

But John, let me turn to you here. Because you hear the former president, Donald Trump calling for the full affidavit to be released. He's talking about it from the interest of transparency. Now I'm wondering, from your perspective, do you think he's doing that because he knows it's likely not going to happen?

JOHN DEAN, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: I think I'm sure that's the case. He has to be aware from talk, just common knowledge that they're not, first of all they're not going to release the highly classified information which was laid out in the affidavit. They're not going to release the witnesses, because he will go after them. Or his base will.

He knows very well that they're really not going to spell out the investigation. I don't think he's thought about what might come out. I think it can be very harmful to him, because there's nothing in that affidavit that's in his favor. Those documents are not written that way. They're trying to establish probable cause to exercise the warrant.

And what it may well show is the back and forth between the Department of Justice and the National Archives trying to get material from Trump, that he had no right to hold. That he had no -- he had no business, actually, taking out of the White House and out of the security system. And that back-and-forth could be very ugly, and I think that's with the most likely material that will surface out of this affidavit and its redacted form.

COATES: Yes. Well, speaking of those redactions, Harry, I mean, based on what John has already articulated, I mean, it's likely that he is well aware that redactions are going to have a stream of black lines threw out it. You know how this works. You also know, of course, that those lines can become the talking point.

The idea of, hey, it's redacted. Why don't they want you to see? The idea of the wizard behind the curtain, and that could be used as well, and DOJ, they've got until Thursday to even propose redactions and they think it might be so extensive that it would make it essentially devoid of anything coherent or devoid of meaningful content. So, if we're talking about an ongoing investigation here, protecting

witnesses, classified information, Harry, what do you think the public is actually going to see?

HARRY LITMAN, FORMER U.S. ATTORNEY: For sure -- and although Trump is saying I want the whole thing, John is dead on, he knows it won't be so he'll be able to say he's aggrieved. They're plainly doing a two- track strategy. His public pronouncements, and then of course in court where they took no position at all.

What's the public going to see at the very best? I think DOJ has got its black magic marker out and it's going to try to play ball, but there will be pages and pages and pages that are just blacked out. And as you say, complete fodder for conspiracy theorists to say, let's under here. He knows that has to be the case.

And of course, we know from, as you said with the White House, that's the reason they first did this search. That's what they're trying mostly to protect. And we'll probably never see the classified stuff. We will see everything else, by the way, if and when he is charged. That is the normal course of things, but you are totally right. It's just set up for rhetorical position, not a legal receipt position to say, see, the Jack looted thugs are hiding everything from you, public.

COATES: Let me ask on that point, though, Harry, does that suggest --


COATES: -- that Merrick Garland, the attorney general sort of maybe overplayed his hand in a sense of, yes, OK, calling the bluff. You want us to show this search warrant? Fine. We'll have it unsealed, but then the next step would have obviously been, logically speaking, the affidavit.

Do they think that the DOJ did not -- I mean, I can't imagine they didn't anticipate this request being made and that sort of talking point. Is it a matter of them just saying look, either way, we cannot reveal what we had as part of an ongoing investigation. You being U.S. attorney, would that be your thought?

LITMAN: For sure. And it's not overplaying your hand. It's the hand they were dealt and the hand they must play, and to the extent they are responding, they're responding to the courts, somewhat surprising pronouncement, hey, I think there may be some things that we can actually preserve. Even the court is contemplating that it will be largely redacted.

So, they had to get the documents, it's an important thing to remember. We are now on two tracks, but the spearhead was getting them back for all the reasons that Evan and John said.


LITMAN: So, I think there was a forced move on their part. COATES: Let me bring you back in, Evan. Because this next question, I

mean, I remember when this happened. We all do. Both old enough and young enough to remember the Mueller years, right? And today, the ghost of --



PEREZ: Boy, we are.

COATES: Boy, we are. Well, I'm not going to call myself old tonight, but I'll give it to you all. That's fine. We'll do. But with those Trump investigations passes back with us, and there was the federal appeals court that ruled that the DOJ has got to make public an internal legal memo from back during that point in time.

It was what Barr was actually going to ask and asked about whether he should charge, whether it would be prudent to charge Trump. Remind us about that point in time and why this is really an impactful thing.

PEREZ: Yes, it is impactful for the appeals court. For the appeals court to decide that, you know, the lower court was right to say that these memos should be released to the public, because it is not deliberative. Right?

This is what the Justice Department has been arguing, that this memo which Bill Barr ordered from his deputies, from people inside the Justice Department, as sort of a reason to not charge the former president with obstruction of justice. This is something if you'll remember, Bob Mueller in the end of his investigation chose not to make a decision on and kicked it up to Bill Barr to make a decision.

Bill Barr, according to the courts, having reviewed everything, the courts have decided well, this is really bogus. This was never really deliberative. The attorney general at the time had already made a decision. You quoted it correctly, saying it was an academic exercise and a thought experiment. Which is really strong language for the appeals court to basically say, --


PEREZ: -- this was a farce. Right? This was never a real deliberation. And so, therefore the Justice Department can't claim that it is deliberative and keep it hidden from the public view. We need to see what this says to sort of give the public a full sense of what was and what really was not done at the end of that investigation.

COATES: John, help us understand. I mean, why is the notion that it was not deliberative so important? For me, I remember thinking about, if you'll remember thinking about maybe an OLC opinion about, hey, can you indict a sitting president? Well, to some, that could have felt like an academic esoteric sort of discussion about thinking about the cost benefit analysis, but the judge is quite precise here. Why is this such an important point that it was not deliberative? DEAN: Because the deliberative privilege is just that. You cannot get

information about the internal workings of the executive branch when they're trying to make a decision. Who's making the decision. How they're making it. What they are weighing. That is a deliberation that they then come to a conclusion.

What the courts said also in the language that was quite striking is they said what Barr did was the equivalent of asking the OLC, the office of legal counsel, if Richard Nixon had broken the law during Watergate, which kind of gave me a chuckle when I read the opinion, but it kind of sticking it to the attorney general on how bogus he is, as they said, hiding the ball really was in this effort to block understanding that there was no deliberation. So, it was a thought experiment and nothing more and should be available for our reading pleasure very soon.

COATES: I mean, I wonder when will actually be able to view it and obviously as well, Harry, what impact it might have. As you know, there's all these investigations surrounding the former president. There is investigation in Georgia, a federal judge said they would not -- she would not put on hold her ruling that Senator Lindsey Graham has got to appear before a special grand jury, which is an investigating as we all know, Republican efforts to overturn the election.

And so, I'm wondering, when you think about all the discussions about transparency, one of the things that he had said has been about not the deliberative process, but about the speech and debate clause (Ph) that says, hey, I'm a legislator, I don't have to answer questions. I'm just doing part of my job. Is that going to stick?

LITMAN: No. So, first, just to Graham, your speech and debate means you're on the floor actually saying stuff. It doesn't mean anything as he is claiming that a legislature might do. But man, back to this opinion. What a rebuke. Basically, they said this was all kabuki theater.

Remember, Barr came out and made it seem as if he was really considering and deliberating when OLC said, and the courts, both the district courts essentially said you're, you know, you were lying here. You just pretended that you were deliberating. It's not even deliberations, because it was pre-cooked. You're already made up your mind.

Man, that is a slap across the face to the previous attorney general. What will matter for everything else? I think it's just, again, more atmospherics about what a dishonest administration they were, but the courts, again and again now, are really coming through on being the sort of crucible of the truth, even as the things in 2019. That is a strong trend that is happening week by week.


COATES: You know, it's telling me that as much as people might think a lot of these questions are resolved or in the forget about its category, people still want to know the information. LITMAN: Yes.

COATES: We still remember, we want to know what's in it. And even recalling this, speaking of memorandum, I'm very curious to see what's in it. Was it sort of a self-fulfilling prophecy, not to do anything about it, or was there some meat on that bone? We'll have to wait and see.

Gentlemen, nice to see you all on Friday nights.

PEREZ: Thanks.

LITMAN: Bye, bye. Thanks a lot, Laura.

COATES: Well, look, I don't want to talk about it, or forget about the January 6 investigation, speaking of investigations. Congresswoman Liz Cheney saying today they still want to hear directly from the former vice president, Mike Pence. I'm wondering and you are, too, probably. What are the chances of him actually coming to testify publicly or privately in front of that committee? We'll talk about it, next.


COATES: Congresswoman Liz Cheney saying the January 6 committee still wants to hear directly from former Vice President Mike Pence. Listen to what she tells ABC's John Karl.


REP. LIZ CHENEY (R-WY): So, we've been in discussions with this counsel.


JOHN KARL, CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, ABC NEWS: So, you think we'll see him air in September in this room --

CHENEY: I would hope that --

KARL: -- before the committee.

CHENEY: Well, I would hope that he will understand how important it is for the American people to know every aspect of the truth about what happened that day.


COATES: Perhaps. A lot to discuss tonight with CNN's chief political correspondent, Dana Bash. Dana, so good to see you tonight.


COATES: Can you just sort of read the tea leaves here? I mean, you got earlier in the week, Vice President Mike Pence saying that he'd give any invitation to testify what he called due consideration. Of course, he was talking maybe about executive privilege. And now you've got Liz Cheney tonight saying this. Read the tea leaves for us. Is Vice President Mike Pence going to testify? Is that even likely?

BASH: Unlikely. Highly unlikely is the answer to that question. And that's mostly coming from the people in and around the former vice president. We did hear him talk about the possibility that they're discussing, discussing it, but then the rest of his answer, when he was in New Hampshire, by the way, earlier this week, was about the constitutionally of it, and the questions around that.

And just sort of speaking, Mike Pence, if you will, the way that I read that and the way, more importantly the way that one of his one top advisers told me to read, it was, it's very unlikely.

COATES: Of course, and you mentioned he was in New Hampshire. Right. That's an important point because he has not yet announced he wanted to run. But you think maybe he's teetering on that particular moment?

BASH: Well, he also went to Iowa, so, New Hampshire first. Then Iowa. He is teetering in a big, big way. He's seriously considering it. And he is trying to sort of stake a claim to very, very interesting spot, which is somebody who is -- has the experience with Donald Trump, but certainly, it has not necessarily left on his own volition, but kicked -- been kicked out of Trump world, because he had the audacity to follow the Constitution and the law on January 6th.

So, he's been trying to sort of accept that fate, and stake out a separate place, and thinking maybe there's a way for him. The biggest example of that this week, Laura, was when he said that it's appropriate to question and ask for transparency from the Justice Department from Merrick Garland, but it's not appropriate to say that you should defund the FBI as some Republicans have said, and to really go after members of law enforcement like his former bosses.

COATES: That is going to be interesting cut -- that might be the next horizon, frankly, on the idea of whether your loyalty to the FBI or to Trump. It's going to be interesting to think about all these things.

What's really interesting is this new documentary that you have premiering on Sunday night, Dana. It's called rising hate. Anti- Semitism in America. And it comes as attacks are nearing a record high in this country. I want to play a clip for the audience here. Listen up.


UNKNOWN: This is the defaced synagogue.

BASH: Anti-Semitism is rampant in the gaming world, says Daniel Kelley, the director of the Center for Technology and Society at the ADL.

DANIEL KELLEY, DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR TECHNOLOGY AND SOCIETY, ADL: And this experience, you have this Swastika and the iron cross here. You also have people who are setting up these kinds of Minecraft servers and creating concentration kind of reenactments. Doing all of hateful things like going around killing the villagers.


COATES: I mean, first of all, how jarring is it to see this in gaming? I mean, children are playing the Minecraft games. They're trying to appeal, it seems, to children. That's just, it's stunning and it's just vial.

BASH: They're trying to normalize these images and the notion of hate in this particular case, anti-Semitism from a really young age. We should say that the individual I just spoke to, the expert I spoke to said that some of the gaming platforms, the companies, are being pretty aggressive. As soon as they are alerted to something like that, they take it off of the platform.

The question is, when and how they get alerted to this. And Laura, you're a parent. I'm a parent. You think about these areas as potentially a safe space because they are geared towards younger children, and they're not, and it just shows how insidious the notion of anti-Semitism is. And again, the broader notion of prejudice and hate that it especially is just absolutely flooding the internet.

COATES: I mean --

BASH: Gaming platforms, social media platforms. All of it.


COATES: It's so true as a parent. I mean, how we have to try to keep up with the things that are going to be the perils for our children. I mean, it is -- it's a full-time job obviously as a parent, but to look and figure out where the danger might be. And children experience a very uniquely. The idea of prejudice and bias in this world.

And you wrote an essay for, and it's called what my 10-year- old son innately understood about a simple way to combat anti- Semitism. He wanted to wear a Jewish star necklace for Hanukkah, and it was his reason why it took you by surprise. Tell me about that, Dana.

BASH: Yes, the reason was because he said this is my identity. And I see my friends who are Christian wearing a cross. And they're proud of it. And they don't see any reason to not be. And I don't have any reason not to be proud of my Judaism. It's who I am.

And I'm writing this piece that I certainly didn't say this to him, but I was quietly sort of ashamed of myself because I was worried about saying yes. For the very reason that we did this documentary.

I understand that there is anti-Semitism in the world that's actually on the rise right now. What I understand now, Laura, that I have sort of gone on this journey for months and talking to experts, is that he was -- didn't realize that he was sort of on the right path to wearing your identity loud and proud, because that is, and I now know, one of the antidotes to anti-Semitism, which is to normalize that. And to be very clear that it is, you are part of the mainstream.

You are part of the society that is what people are familiar with, and not the conspiracies that have invaded and really been a horrible part of societies for thousands and thousands of years. He understood that innately. And now I understand that also.

COATES: As they say, out of the mouth of babes. We have to read this article by Dana.

BASH: So true.

COATES: And also, you've got to watch the new CNN special report, it's called Rising Hate, anti-Semitism in America. And it begins Sunday at 9 p.m. Thank you so much, Dana.

BASH: Thanks, Laura.

COATES: Many school districts are struggling to hire enough teachers as kids, speaking of children, as we're heading back to the classroom, for many of them this coming Monday. So, the question really, I have and so many parents are wondering is, what has caused the teacher shortage? Is it the culture wars? We'll talk about it next.



COATES: OK. So, for parents across the country you might be saying Hallelujah, it's time to return to the classrooms for many students. But then you might discover a lot of their teachers are not returning with them. The country is facing a dire and a nationwide teacher shortage, because many are blaming low pay and of course, the pandemic. But it also comes after a culture war chaos broke out in school board meetings all across the country last year.



UNKNOWN: I'm going to come for everybody, if they come up my kid with a stupid ridiculous mandate.

UNKNOWN: You treat the parents of these children as domestic terrorists, using our men in blue against us. Your power-hungry dictatorship has gotten out of control. This is no longer about our safety. It is about control.

UNKNOWN: Critical race theory in fact pits black people against white people and has an endgame goal of restructuring -- restructuring America to an authoritarian regime.

UNKNOWN: You are teaching children to hate others because of their skin color. And you are forcing them to lie about other kids' gender. I am disgusted by your bigotry.


COATES: And that was in Virginia. You remember that was a very big part of the gubernatorial race there that led to the success of that particular platform.

I want to bring in CNN political commentators Scott Jennings and Hilary Rosen.

And you know, you have to wonder, I'll start with you, Scott. When you think about all of this that's happening, I mean, you heard part of that. The chaos. There were hundreds, if not thousands of other examples. I mean, schools have become really the ground zero for everything that from critical race theory discussions, mask mandates, you had book bans. I'm wondering if you think that the culture wars have played a role in this shortage that we are now seeing?

SCOTT JENNINGS, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: I'm sure for some people it has. I mean, I think the old stressors are still there. You know, workload, classroom responsibilities. Pay. Feeling like they don't get enough support from leadership. I think those things have been present for a long time. But these are obviously new stressors for this profession.

And you know, also, just for all professions nationwide, we have a reduction right now in the United States and the overall labor participation rates. So, I'm sure the teaching profession is not immune from that.

So, I think it's probably part of it. I don't think it's all of it. I think one major issue here is still overhanging from the pandemic. I mean, remember, the schools were closed, and in most places for very long time, and I do think a, that was a mistake. It's been proven to have been a mistake. And b, it put teachers under a lot of pressure to try to teach kids via screens at home.

And you know, I have kids that did it. I mean, it just didn't work. And we have massive learning loss and it put a lot of pressure on these teachers to do something that they weren't initially trained to do. It was probably never destined to work. I think that's partly part of it, too, candidly.


COATES: I mean, Hilary, you know, I talked to both of you for my daughter, I remember during the pandemic, left at the end of kindergarten. Came back to second grade. That's a huge gap. And I was pulling up my hair half the time when my kid through distance learning.

But I would have thought that it would have led to greater appreciation for teachers when kids returned to school, realizing just how difficult it really is to be a teacher. And these culture wars came in of course. And they became, for many, a breaking point what was already a very stressful two and a half years for teachers.

I'm wondering, do you think this is sort of a culmination of a variety of things happening, or do you think that look, all of this has happened. All of the blame, all of that venom you saw, are they just saying look, you don't pay me enough for this. Then why should I bother with this now if you don't even appreciate us now? HILARY ROSEN, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Yes, I think it's all of the

above, too. I agree with both of you that the stress on teachers is huge, and the stress over the last couple of years has been huge. I actually agree with Scott. I think the school closures were a mistake to be closed as long as they did after we had data that showed it didn't have much impact, other than a negative one on kids.

I do think, though, that if you are a teacher and you listen to those parents in that opening, at these PTA meetings across the country are horrified. Because you go into teaching to help people, not to be screamed at and not to be subject to that kind of abuse and bigotry.

And I do think that we are forcing into the schools, if you look at a place like Florida or Texas, or you know, places in California where they're actually trying to legislate this. I think we are trying to force into the schools' conversations that should be had, you know, around kitchen tables and in families and among adults.

And I am sympathetic with parents who want to have control over the information that their kids get, but I think we have to trust teachers more that they're going to give them the information in an age- appropriate way. And we are not trusting teachers and they feel it.

COATES: Well, we trust the talking points. That's probably the problem, right, Hilary. The idea of, and for people to believe that elementary school kids are getting critical race theory. I mean, that talking point goes a very long way, but it's actually not accurate to have that suggestion there.

I'm just wondering, all of us have school aged children. We all know this very pointily. And you mentioned Texas. I want to go to you, Scott, because there's a new state law in Texas that requires public schools to display donated posters with the national motto, in God we trust.

We've seen Florida's governor talk about critical race theory. I'm just wondering, to Hilary's point, do you think that educators are in the best position to decide how schools are run and what ought to be taught? Or to the politicians, be able to weigh in and sort of infused a curriculum based on what their constituents are asking for?

JENNINGS: Well, I think that's a complicated question. I think we need a conversation among all the stakeholders. I do think politicians are just responding to their constituents who happen to be the parents that have the kids in their schools.

I mean, the one thing about the pandemic, when we close the schools and we did the distance learning, it put more parents in closer touch with their kids' classrooms than they had ever been. They learned more about curriculum. They learned more about how learning is done. They learned more about school interactions than they probably had ever known, and it gave them a sense of empowerment, frankly, and I think as sense of, you know, hey, I could be more impactful than I have been.

So now you have all this extra parental involvement. I don't think that's a bad thing. I do think we need collaboration between parents and teachers. I do think one of the things that is going on in classrooms, potentially, is that teachers don't feel supported by parents as much as they should.

I think collaboration is a good thing. So, you know, I don't think it has to be one or the other, candidly. I think teachers have expertise. They have education. They have knowledge. They ought to be able to do that. I think parents -- I mean, this is the reason I'm on this earth. To make my kids give them a chance to have a better life than I did. And that's via education. So, yes, I'm going to be involved in my kids' school.

I think for everybody involved, talking collaboratively, respecting each other, we all have roles to play here is the right attitude for all the parties involved.

COATES: Well, that last notion is the fact --


ROSEN: Well, but that --

COATES: Go ahead, Hilary, excuse me. Go ahead, Hilary.

ROSEN: Yes, but that -- I agree with Scott, but that's not what's happening. When, you know, we can call it collaboration, but we're getting, you know, political threats. And we are getting legislation that gives parents the right to, you know, sue the school system if they disapprove of something a teacher says to their kid.

You know, that -- that is just, you know, two steps too far if you are a teacher. The risks that you undergo, the, you know, trying to have an educational experience in your classrooms, you know, too high.


And so, I think that it's appropriate for leaders to go out and say, you know what? We don't need to legislate all of this. There are actually other ways to manage this spot instead of creating legal threats on teachers for just doing their jobs.

COATES: Well, both of you makes such great points on --


JENNINGS: I actually think of all the people involved -- I, sorry. I was just going to add --

COATES: I was going to say, go ahead, Scott.

JENNINGS: I think there's a lot of voices -- yes, sure. There's a lot of voices involved in these schools. The people that I actually trust the most are the teachers and the parents, because they're the ones who are the most directly involved with the children. You know, the children go home to their parents and they spend all day with the teachers. The politicians are step removed. The teachers unions are a step

removed. And I think they've been pretty bad, frankly, for schools and the teaching profession lately, as we saw in the pandemic. So, to me, the people I really want to hear from are the teachers and the parents because they have the most interaction with the kids and the other people to me are secondary.

COATES: Well, I'll tell -- I'll tell you what. The conversation we've all been having, I mean, for many of -- for many parents, as you said, sort of just woke up to the idea of what their kids were learning for the first time. They were intimately involved, maybe for the first time in their educational career of their kids however level they are in now.

So many teachers are saying (Inaudible), now, now you have woken up and want to be involved when you get it all wrong and backwards because of the talking points. But you know what we didn't talk about, and we'll continue our conversation? The impact on the children. What do they think about it? It's a new school year ahead of them starting for many next week. We'll see what happens.

Thank you so much to both of you.


JENNINGS: Thank you.

COATES: Look, there's another flash point in the culture wars. And you're not shocked to know, it's abortion. And one anti-abortion rights advocate is trying to argue that outline abortion will end what he calls, quote, "an epidemic of fatherless-ness."


ELLE REEVE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: I just don't understand why I need to give something up so that men can be better people. Like, maybe you could develop policy --


ANDREW BECKWITH, PRESIDENT, MASSACHUSETTS FAMILY INSTITUTE: What do you -- what do you see yourself is giving up?




COATES: In the aftermath of the Supreme Court decision overturning Roe v. Wade, one young anti-abortion activist in Massachusetts says that she's ecstatic at the chance to change abortion laws. She's part of a movement trying to create a more conservative society. And some activists say they think banning abortion will make men more responsible as fathers.

Tonight, CNN's Elle Reeve takes us inside of that movement.


DEBORAH CUMBEE, COMMUNICATIONS AND RESEARCH ASSISTANT, MASSACHUSETTS FAMILY INSTITUTE: When I was 12, I was fundraising for a global pregnancy resource center and during that time, I was watching videos of what abortion actually were. And from that moment on I knew the rest of my life would be dedicated to working in the pro-life movement.

ELLE REEVE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Deborah Cumbee is 21 years old and has spent half her life in anti-abortion politics. She is trained in activism at conservative think tanks.

CUMBEE: So, first thing I texted my best friend was an all-caps Roe v. Wade is overturned. And she texted back and she's like it's about time. We are just absolutely ecstatic that the pro-life movement has been given this chance to modernize our lives.

REEVE: Cumbee is unusual. Seventy-four percent of adults under 30 think abortion should be legal in most cases. But she embodies an effort in the anti-abortion movement to present a more modern woman friendly face. One step rooted in religion but with a pitch that makes claims based on science.

CUMBEE: My faith forms me how I treat people, but science is what tells me that life begins at conception. I'm not supposed to exist. I'm a young woman who's a professional who is advocating for the life of children. We're here to say, if you need a community to come alongside you and give you another option other than to take the life of your child and cave to the abortion industry that really just wants to take your money and kill your child, we're here to tell you don't have to do that.

REEVE: Do you really think abortion providers just want to take your money and kill your child? Do you think that's the motivation?

CUMBEE: It looks like to a lot of us that they're taking disadvantaged women, so that way they can continue to have the practice and their stream of revenue coming.

REEVE: So, is that a yes?


REEVE: The Dobbs decision brings the fight to the states. At the Massachusetts Family Institute, Andrew Beckwith thinks his state is the front line in the culture war.

BECKWITH: The child can see the Massachusetts they should have the same right to life, and to birth as the child is conceived in Mississippi, or Texas or Alabama.

REEVE: The infant mortality rate in Mississippi which you consider more of a pro-life state is twice as high as it is in Massachusetts. BECKWITH: I mean, that's a tragedy. Here in Massachusetts, we've got

some of the best medical care. It's a shame that we don't leverage that to promote a culture of life.

REEVE: Legal scholar Erika Bachiochi is trying to create a socially conservative feminism that rejects the sexual revolution.

ERIKA BACHIOCHI, DIRECTOR, THE WOLLSTONECRAFT PROJECT: When you sort of enable through abortion, what you think is consequence free sex, you really just putting the consequences on women. We've left women with the burdens of fertility and we've really left men off the hook. And I think what we've seen, I mean, in the last 50 years is this real epidemic of fatherless-ness.

BECKWITH: We believe men should be responsible and be fathers and not use abortion as kind of after the fact contraception or get out of jail free card.

REEVE: So, do you think banning abortions would make men more responsible as fathers?

BECKWITH: I think it should. We're going to have to really help restore the culture to where fatherhood is valued. We want to give them something better than just sort of video games and Netflix.


REEVE: I don't understand why I need to give something up so that men can be better people. Like, maybe you develop policy --


BECKWITH: What do you see -- what do you see yourself is giving up?

REEVE: Why would women need to give up their right to an abortion so that men can eventually become better people? What if you make policy to address the men problem, that address the men problem directly.

BECKWITH: I think you're coming at it from a very different place conceptually even.

REEVE: The conceptual framework Bachiochi is working in imagines a less individualistic society. One that emphasizes the obligations people have to each other. Less abortion, more family leave.

Is the goal to convince progressive women to accept restrictions on abortion or is the goal to convince conservatives to create a more generous social welfare state?

BACHIOCHI: I'd say the goal is probably both, the GOP has been really captured by libertarian forces for a long time and they have not understood the ways in which some economic transitions going all the way back to industrialization have really harmed especially the working classes in the poor.

REEVE: This pitches like, OK, sacrifice your individual rights, like, it's actually in your best interest. You sacrifice your individual rights to an abortion but we're going to get all this other stuff. But the good stuff never comes.

BACHIOCHI: There is just a real shift, I think happening in the GOP that I hope happens more and more toward understanding the responsibilities that the community as a whole has toward families.

CUMBEE: We would love to see more organizations instead of paying for women to get abortions. We'd love to see them offer other alternatives like paid maternity leave and having flexible hours for women who have children.

REEVE: I'm wondering, are you as focused on convincing conservatives of the necessity for, of rather, more generous welfare state?

CUMBEE: I mean, to be honest here, Massachusetts all our time is really taken by putting out the fires of pro-choice and anti-life policies. I want life to prevail within the United States and in Massachusetts.

REEVE: Elle Reeve, CNN, Boston.


COATES: Elle, thank you so much. You know, it's been more than two years since the deadly police raid on Breonna Taylor's home. Well, now the Louisville Metro Police Depart -- Police Department is terminating one of the officers who was involved.



COATES: Tonight, we're learning that one of the Louisville Kentucky police officers involved in the deadly raid on Breonna Taylor's home, more than two years ago, has now been fired. The police chief saying she decided to terminate officer Kyle Meany due for multiple federal charges that he's facing.

Remember that Breonna Taylor was just a 26-year-old emergency room technician who was shot and killed inside of her apartment during a botched raid by the police. Her killing sparked extraordinary outrage and calls for police reform.

Now, Meany and three other officers in the deadly raid have been charged. Two of those officers were fired previously.

We are also learning now that the Biden White House is deeply concerned about the classified documents taken to Mar-a-Lago. Officials fear it could put sources and methods of U.S. intelligence at risk.