Return to Transcripts main page

Laura Coates Live

Judge Orders Trump To Pay $355 Million In Civil Fraud Case; Should Fani Willis Takes The Stand As She Fights To Stay On Trump Criminal Case; Judge Called Out Trump And Trump Org Execs For Their Lack Of Remorse In A Civil Fraud Case Over Company's Business Dealings; CNN Presents "Overtime With Bill Maher"; Caitlin Clark Breaks NCAA Women's Scoring Record. Aired 11p-12a ET

Aired February 16, 2024 - 23:00   ET




LAURA COATES, CNN HOST AND SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Another whirlwind week in Donald Trump's trials, and we're covering it as no one else can. TGIF, everybody. Tonight on LAURA COATES LIVE.

Well, a judge in New York City today hitting Donald Trump where he lives. I mean, in the wallet. Now, even for a man who claims to be a billionaire, whether or not the math is mathing, this has got to hurt.

Former president and his companies are ordered to pay nearly $355 million. Just process that amount, if you will. It was a crushing defeat in a civil fraud trial.

But let's actually do the math for a second, okay? Get out your pens and papers. No calculators right now on your iPhones. Three hundred and fifty-five million dollars in that case, plus 83 million, 83 million to E. Jean Carroll -- okay, fine, I had a calculator, but it equals $438 million dollars. Four hundred and thirty-eight million dollars was an order to pay just in 2024. It's only February.

Attorney General Letitia James had this to say tonight.


LETITIA JAMES, NEW YORK ATTORNEY GENERAL: Donald Trump may have authored the art of the deal, but he perfected the art of the steal.


COATES: Well, he didn't like that. He is vowing to appeal.


DONALD TRUMP, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: There was no fraud. The banks all got their money. Hundred percent. They love Trump.

(END VIDEO CLIP) COATES: And then there's the continuing drama in the ATL where Trump and his co-defendants are trying to remove the D.A., Fani Willis, from the Georgia election subversion case. Sources telling CNN that some inside the D.A.'s office fear that if Willis were to be disqualified, it could derail the entire case.


FANI WILLIS, FULTON COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY: I object to you getting records. You've been intrusive into people's personal lives. You're confused. You think I'm on trial. These people are on trial for trying to steal an election in 2020. I'm not on trial, no matter how hard you try to put me on trial.


COATES: And that's where we begin tonight. We're taking you inside our own virtual courtroom right here where our court of public opinion is going to hear legal arguments on the big question tonight: Should Fani Willis be disqualified from the Georgia election subversion case?

You're going to hear what the American public really thinks as two top lawyers do some role playing. They're going to lay out the arguments on both sides of that very question. We have federal criminal defense attorney Rebecca LeGrand, who will argue that she should not be disqualified, and former federal prosecutor Renato Mariotti, who will make the argument that the D.A., in fact, should be disqualified.

Then my favorite part, our jurors will weigh in. This is a diverse group of everyday Americans meeting tonight for the very first time to share their opinions with each other and you. They're going to tell us what they think of the arguments that they have heard tonight.

So, I want to begin right now with Renato. Renato, make the case for why Fani Willis should be disqualified. It's your motion.

RENATO MARIOTTI, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: Ladies and gentlemen, this motion isn't about the personal life of the district attorney. It's about corruption, pure and simple. This is the most high-profile criminal case we've ever had in the state of Georgia.

And who did Fani Willis choose for this case? She could have hired anybody in the state. She chose a man whose previous criminal law experience was misdemeanors and parking tickets. Why? Because it was her boyfriend, of course. That's why she chose Nathan Wade out of all the people in Georgia to handle this case, a small-time lawyer who never handled a case of this size before. And she paid him a lot of money. Over $650,000. Your money.


Taxpayer money. And that money didn't stay in his pocket. Where did it end up? A lavish lifestyle funded by your tax dollars for District Attorney Fani Willis. Look at these trips. A trip to Aruba, a cruise to the Bahamas, a trip to Belize, to Napa Valley. But Fani Willis didn't disclose this benefit to anyone as she was required to do. She conveniently left it out of her disclosure form.

Now, she does have an excuse. She says she supposedly paid him back. But she didn't write him a check, didn't send him a wire transfer or a money order. Zelle, PayPal, nope. She says she gave him thousands of dollars in cash. Use your common sense. She has no record of those payments and neither does he. Check this out.



UNKNOWN (voice-over): You don't have a single solitary deposit slip to corroborate or support any of your allegations that you were paid by Mrs. Willis in cash, do you?

WADE: No, sir.

UNKNOWN (voice-over): Not a single solitary one?

WADE: Not a one.


MARIOTTI: Ladies and gentlemen, we need to hold our public servants to a higher standard. I ask you to grant this motion for recusal and allow another prosecutor to take over this case.

COATES: Rebecca, you have heard why he feels that she should be disqualified based on a financial benefit that he believes was derived from that relationship. Why do you think that she should not be disqualified? Make your case.

REBECCA LEGRAND, WHITE COLLAR FEDERAL CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: D.A. Willis selected Mr. Wade to be a special prosecutor on this case because he is an experienced attorney and she trusted his judgment. And I will stop for a minute, and let's -- let's apply a little common sense here. If the defense thought that Mr. Wade was an incompetent attorney, as was just suggested, wouldn't they want him to stay on the case? My opponent here also mentioned that Ms. Willis could have hired anyone. Well, that's not true. You heard testimony today in court from the former governor of Georgia who was asked first. A number of people were asked before Ms. Willis went to Mr. Wade, would they take this role? Would they be a special prosecutor? And they said no. And you can understand why someone would hesitate. The amount of public pressure and hatred and threats that anyone is going to get if they say yes to this assignment, this isn't a favor, it's an imposition. And, you know, we heard today also from Fani Willis's father, who spoke specifically to that, and I think we can listen to a little of what -- what he said today.


UNKNOWN (voice-over): Did you fear for her safety?

JOHN FLOYD, FATHER OF FANI WILLIS: Absolutely. I mean, not only did I do that. I mean, the South Fulton Police, they had -- they brought somebody, a man with a dog, because there have been so many death threats. And they said they were going to blow up the house, they were going to kill her, they were going to kill me, they were going to kill me, they were going to kill my grandchildren. I mean, on and on and on.


LEGRAND: So, you can see why a lot of people said no to this job. Mr. Wade said yes. Mr. Wade said yes because he's a man of courage and integrity. And for Ms. Willis to be removed from this case, there has to be a showing that there is a conflict of interest here that impacts how the defendants are being treated. There is no such showing here. This is not a get rich quick scheme. This is an effort to see justice done.

COATES: Well, you've heard from both of the different arguments represented in courtrooms today and yesterday, and over the course of it. The big question that they're asking this judge to answer, I will turn to you, do you think that Fani Willis should be disqualified from this case based on what has been presented, a conflict of interest based on a relationship that they say that she derived a financial benefit from? What do you say, jurors?

DON WEINBACH, JUROR, LAURA'S COURT OF PUBLIC OPINION: I think she ought to recuse herself. At a minimum, it's bad optics. And it probably is a conflict of interest. I'm not a lawyer, but you can argue the legal facts of what a conflict of interest is in terms of the financial arrangement. But I don't care if it began in 2019, 2022 or yesterday. She should not have had a relationship with that individual.

EMILY MINCEY, JUROR, LAURA'S COURT OF PUBLIC OPINION: Yeah, I agree. I think that if I was her, I just wouldn't want this even idea of impropriety hanging over my head.

And I do understand that, yes, there are a lot of prosecutors who wouldn't want to take this case because of the backlash that you could receive and how it could be viewed -- how you could be viewed by the public, I completely understand that, but I would not want this hanging over my head if I was her.

JASON GOODFRIEND, JUROR, LAURA'S COURT OF PUBLIC OPINION: I think we're missing the elephant in the room here, even though I hate that expression, because the real issue is, should she be -- first of all, she clearly acted improperly and unethically. The question is, should she be removed from her job? Why?


The question I have is -- they're asking her if she should only be recused from this one particular case. This one particular case happens to be about Donald Trump. If she acted improperly, then she could be fired or removed from her position. But why just recuse from this one case? If she acted improperly, then remove her from all cases that she's doing. This has nothing to do with Donald Trump or the merits of Donald Trump's case. So why are we just isolating the Donald Trump case that she should be recused from? What about her other cases?

COATES: Who else sees that point in the sense of, remember, if she disqualified, it's not just her but the entire team with respect to this. But the issue is that it's very clear that she was unethical and improper. Is that clear to everyone as well?

WEINBACH: Yeah. Again, I think a case of this magnitude, you have to be 150% clean. And she went over the line, and it now is going to impact the entire team.

COATES: Juror number three, do you have a comment?

JANAE JAMES, JUROR, LAURA'S COURT OF PUBLIC OPINION: I do. I find it difficult because I fail to see the lack of sufficient evidence to demonstrate that there was a financial benefit. I mean, the fact that he was unable to show that she was paid or he was paid back, it's not -- it's not concrete enough for me.

I do understand that it's -- it's important to ensure, you know, with the magnitude of this case, that everything is clean, we act on the side of caution, but I just -- I'm a bit unsettled with the lack of concrete evidence.

GOODFRIEND: Then have her -- okay, if she acted improperly, fire her. Again, why are we singling out this one case just because it happens to be Donald? And I'm not -- because you're singling out all the judge can do, is my understanding, he can either say recuse her from this particular case or not.

If that's -- if that's his decision or her decision, I'm not sure who the judge is, I would say no because -- because there's nothing special about this one. If they want to fire her, that's another matter. But if that's all the judge has the ability to rule on, yes or no on this one case because it's Donald Trump, whether regardless of what you think about Donald Trump, that doesn't seem like that's justice.

COATES: Does it matter that she's elected? So, the people of Fulton County are the ones who elect her and put in the position. So, a judge is asking or asked the rule on this issue of disqualification for this one case. What do you think about that?

MINCEY: Yes, it absolutely matters. We don't want our elected officials just being able to take vacations with their boyfriend on our tax dollars. You pay a lot of money every year paying your taxes. I don't want my tax dollars going for local government officials to be going to Belize and Napa Valley because that feels very ridiculous to me.


WEINBACH: (INAUDIBLE). COATES: So, it sounds as though, just to focus on conversation, it sounds as though it's not about whether there has an impact on the defendants in this case, but about the optics for each of you.

WEINBACH: Right. It, unfortunately, has become a sideshow, and it has taken away from the real case. So, it's important to get back to the facts of the case and get over this hurdle. It has become a debacle.

COATES: So, let's turn to that very point, because for many people who are looking at this, the question is, of course, if you were a juror before this current prosecution team and she remained on the case, depending on whether she actually prosecuted or not, it doesn't always happen, would this be such a distraction that you would not be able to focus on the evidence of the underlying allegations?

MINCEY: I don't know that it would be such a distraction that I couldn't focus on the case since that's what you're there to do and that's what you're engaging in every day as a juror. That's what you're actively participating in in the courtroom. But I do think it would be something in the back of my mind every night when I left there. I was like, ah, uh, there's something a little icky about that team.

COATES: Would it make you judge their credibility?


COATES: How about you, juror number two?

WEINBACK: Um, it definitely would have an impact, I think.

COATES: Juror number three?

JAMES: I don't think so. I understand that it would be a consideration, but at the same time, what she does in her personal life, to me, doesn't seem to discount the wrongdoings on the side that she's going against.

COATES: Number four?

GOODFRIEND: If she did something illegal, then she should be removed. If she did not, it's just improper and people don't like it, then you can vote her out. But I would not have the judge rule just for only on this one case, remove her but she's okay for other. That's insulting other people who have her as a, you know, other cases.

What about those cases? That's okay? She can stay on those cases? Why can't she stay on those cases? To what extent does Donald Trump have to do with any of this? That's what we're missing. That's the elephant that I'm talking about.

COATES: Well, let me ask each of you down the line. You are aware that Fani Willis, the current D.A. of Fulton County, did testify. A show of hands or a yes or no down the line, did her decision to testify persuade you in any way about her ability to stay on this case? Juror number one? MINCEY: I think that it showed me that she shouldn't be on this case at all. Why is a person who's in charge of prosecuting this having to testify at all? That shows that there's a larger problem.


COATES: Juror number two?

WEINBACH: I think her testimony was detrimental to her.


WEINBACH: Oh, I think she looked bad. Um, I think a lot of her answers were a little bit, you know, not fluffy but just not completely sincere, and I got the feeling that she was trying to kind of skate around some of the real issues.

COATES: Juror number three?

JAMES: Ultimately, I think it demonstrated that she was frustrated. She -- you know, she wants to get back to her job and what's going on. But I do think there were some parts of it that I didn't quite agree with.

COATES: Juror number four?

GOODFRIEND: I don't think she handled herself well. She got angry. She should know better as someone who's a prosecutor. But if I -- you know what? If I were Donald Trump, I'd want her on the case. I wouldn't want to remove her if I were Donald Trump because I don't think she does very well a good job. I'm surprised. I think he's probably trying to get her removed so that he can delay having the court case occur until after the election. That's probably why he's doing all of it or his lawyers are

COATES: Hmm. At the end, I'll ask one more question for you, for each of you as a show of hands or a yes or no. Do you think that a disqualification ought to be based on the optics or whether the people bringing the motion prove their case? Juror number one?


COATES: Juror number two?


COATES: Number three?

JAMES: Both.

COATES: Number four?


COATES: Wow. Quite a court of public opinion. Thank you all so much. We've heard from Renato Mariotti and, of course, Rebecca LeGrand for making tonight's arguments based, of course, on what was presented in the courtrooms as well. Thanks to our jurors who were in the court of public opinion today as well.

If you would like to be a part of our jury or a juror in the next court of public opinion, get in touch by filling out the form you can access by scanning the QR code on your screen or you can email

The other big legal story tonight, the judge who ruled on Donald Trump and his companies they must pay nearly $355 million bucks in the New York fraud case, says Trump, his sons, and the other defendants' lack of remorse -- quote -- "borders on pathological."

Next, the investigative reporter who has been digging into Donald Trump's finances since 2016 is going to weigh in.


LETITIA JAMES, NEW YORK ATTORNEY GENERAL: The scale and the scope of Donald Trump's fraud is staggering, and so, too, is his ego.




COATES: Well, the ruling is in. Donald Trump ordered to pay a whopping $355 million. Look at that number on the screen. This after carrying out a years-long scheme of inflating assets on his financial statements, following that staggering, and I do mean staggering, ruling. The former president and New York Attorney General Letitia James making some dueling statements on who is the victim in this case.


TRUMP: There were no victims because the banks made a lot of money. They made a hundred million dollars. It's a ridiculous order. Listen, a fine of $355 million for doing a perfect job, for having paid back a loan with no defaults, with no problems.

JAMES: White collar financial fraud is not a victimless crime. Everyday Americans cannot lie to a bank about how much money they have in order to get a mortgage to buy a home.


COATES: I want to bring an investigative reporter for "The New York Times," Russ Buettner. He has been breaking stories on Donald Trump's finances, his personal finances since 2016. Russ, thank you so much for joining us.

I mean, that number, and every time I see it on the screen or repeat it, $355 million, it could, by the way, go up to $450 million with interest. Does -- does he actually even have this kind of cash? And if he doesn't, what are his options?

RUSS BUETTNER, INVESTIGATIVE REPORTER, THE NEW YORK TIMES: Yeah, from what we saw looking at 20 years of his tax returns, it would seem you would not have access to that kind of cash. In fact, as recently -- what kind of happened to his finances is after 2011, "The Apprentice" rating started dropping off. He was making -- he made $51 million that year from being on "The Apprentice" and from endorsement deals, celebrity cash.

And that money, he used to fill in holes in businesses that he ran that were losing money. As that money diminished, he really started going kind of cash negative. In fact, the attorney general found that in 2017, if he hadn't -- have had this low interest loan that he got through fraud, he would have been cash negative by more than $10 million. He would have had no money at all.

And the last couple of years, he has shrunk some by selling some assets off that has generated some cash. Last year, he said he had about $400 million. We know that's true (ph). But any point in time when Donald Trump says he has money, generally, the next month, it's lower because, again, he has many businesses that require constant infusions of cash to stay afloat. So, whatever it was a year ago, it's not that much now.

This is now $355 million, as you said, probably another $90 million in interest, and the E. Jean Carroll case is another $83 million. He does not have that kind of cash.

And to deal with that, he would most likely have to sell assets off, and that's going to be very difficult because of the sort of structure of his businesses. He has a few businesses that do well. It helps support some of the other ones. It would make sense to sell the ones that are doing well. But if he does that, that could really bring down the whole empire.


BUETTNER: So, this is really a decisive moment for him.

COATES: It really is. It sounds like it.


I mean -- and one of the things that was decisive for this judge in making this ruling is he argued the defendants what he called -- quote -- "a complete lack of contrition and remorse borders on pathological. They are accused only of inflating asset values to make more money. The documents prove this over and over again."

I mean, Trump found to be a fraud. Frankly, what does that mean to him in terms of his image, which is as valuable to him as the currency itself?

BUETTNER: That's an excellent question. I think there's kind of two images maybe at play here. One is in the political world. This probably won't play horribly with his base from what we've seen. They generally embrace his sense of being persecuted.

He sold this as like the deep state after him. He almost sounded like he thought Taylor Swift was part of this today, the way he was talking. And they've sort of followed along on that. That's a significant minority of the Republican Party. It would not seem to include many independent voters who might help get elected.

But there's another sort of audience there, and that's in the business world. And I think this is devastating in the business world. He hasn't really been able to get good loans for a long period of time. This is one of the last ones. And as we've seen, it was based on lies. He's going to have a hard time keeping things going with that.

COATES: Russ Buettner, so informative. Thank you so much for joining us tonight.

BUETTNER: Thanks for having me.

COATES: Coming up, CNN's presentation of HBO's "Overtime with Bill Maher."




COATES: Let's now turn it over to our friends at HBO because every Friday after "Real Time with Bill Maher," Bill and his guests answer viewer questions about topics in the national conversation. Here is "Overtime with Bill Maher."



BILL MAHER, HBO POLITICAL TALK SHOW HOST: Okay, here we are on CNN. She is a psychology professor at San Diego State University and author of "Generations." Dr. Jean Twenge. Welcome back.


He is a CNN political commentator and host of the podcast "Uncommon Ground with Van Jones." You all know Van Jones from CNN.


And she's a political commentator and author who now writes her own column "Unsafe" on Substack. Ann Coulter is back with us.


Okay, so here are the questions. What are your thoughts? Oh, this is for you, Van, probably because you were the green czar. Remember when you were the green czar?


MAHER: Okay. What are your thoughts on the tactics of environmental activists who throw soup at the Monalisa and disrupt traffic? They also glue themselves to things.


And is there a better approach to advocacy? No, there isn't.


That -- that is the one that works, and it's solving the problem in record time.

JONES: It's sad because all that crap overshadows the people who are doing the real work. We got a bipartisan bill done under Biden. Young people worked their butts off of that. They did it the right way. They knocked on doors. They did it the right way. They get overshadowed by nonsense.

And I think we need to really lift up. You know, you've got this generation that really does care. They're trying to be constructive. You do have red states that have clean energy, jobs that are growing alongside the jobs that I like a little bit less. It all gets overshadowed. Some idiot blocks traffic, and that's all anybody talks about.

MAHER: Why soup?

JONES: I don't know.


JONES: It's vegan soup.


It's vegan soup.


MAHER: Okay. What are the panel's thoughts on Alexei Navalny's death and President Biden's statement that Putin is responsible? Predictable and obvious would be my two answers to that.

JONES: I think it's horrible. I had a lot of hope. You know, CNN did the Navalny documentary. And so, a lot of people I work with really got a chance to know the guy. And they said he was the real deal, kind of like a Mandela for Russia, kind of waiting in their wings. And you just kind of hope that the guy lived long enough to maybe bring that country back around. And I actually shed real tears this morning.

MAHER: What do you think of Tucker? I mean, you used to be friends with him, right? I mean, going over there and --

JONES: Giving a lap dance to Putin. MAHER: Yeah. Basically --


I mean, parading himself for all these years as some pro-American and then going over there and basically saying, this is the really good country, Russia and this guy, and not bringing up any of his crimes. What is his motivation? Can you get into his head a little?

ANN COULTER, WRITER, SUBSTACK'S "UNSAFE": Well, no. But, I'm not -- no, I'm not a huge fan. Um, I don't know. I think a lot of what people do on both sides is motivated by seeking money and fame.


MAHER: But this is the way to do it? This is how -- I mean, couldn't he still be on Fox?

JONES: Look, I mean, he went over there and said, you know, Moscow is this amazing city because the trains run on time.


MAHER: Right.

JONES: Like, isn't that what they said about Hitler?

MAHER: And Mussolini, yeah.

JONES: Yeah, Mussolini.

MAHER: Yeah.

JONES: Lie a fascist. Like --

MAHER: Right.

JONES: Okay, so the trains run on time, but people are being literally, you know, killed in prison because they have an opinion. That's not a great country.

COULTER: I think you can say --


I think you can say that people are motivated by money and fame if they were on Fox News. The Fox News that then had to pay $700 million in defamation. I would say you can read it on my Substack first or wait for Fox to pay a $700 million defamation judgment.

MAHER: All right. Uh, Jean, what explains the gender divide in politics? Why are young women skewing? Oh, yes, I've read this, more liberal, like by 30 points. Then young men are getting more conservative and young women are getting more liberal. What is your generational view on that? DR. JEAN TWENGE, AUTHOR OF "GENERATIONS": Yeah, so, I mean, that's from a big national survey of 18-year-olds. And young men have become considerably more conservative over time. Young women, a little bit more liberal. So, there's just a growing gender gap when it comes to that.


The why question is always a hard one to answer in any of this type of research. Um, it could certainly maybe have something to do with abortion rights. It may also be on the right the existence of Andrew Tate and some of those commentators who tried to make masculinity into this almost game that young men may be responding to, even though that's maybe not the way they should be going.

MAHER: Well, I think it gets back to your thing about technology. Technology changed. So that what used to be brawny stuff that men did, that made them feel like men. That's not what matters in an information society. We're an information society now. The jobs that women do and are better at. They're better at communication. They're better at cooperation. That's why they're doing better in the workplace. That's why they're doing better in college. Right? So, the men feel lost.

JONES: And --

MAHER: And then they turn to idiots like Andrew Tate.

TWENGE: Right. And they're -- you know, military service isn't compulsory anymore.

MAHER: Right. Yeah.

TWENGE: So instead, it's video games.

JONES: I also think that there's something happening on the progressive side that it feels like almost all masculinity is considered toxic.

MAHER: Right.

JONES: And so, I think the young men may not feel welcome.

MAHER: It's true.

JONES: In other words, I don't think it's so much of a pull of an Andrew Tate, though that's playing a role. I think it just may be a push. Like if you show up and you want to be just like a regular, you know, guy's guy, you just may not be eating enough kale and doing enough yoga to fit in on the left.



MAHER: It's true. (APPLAUSE)

Just being a man isn't a little suspect (ph).

JONES: Yeah.

MAHER: And I think this winds up being not good for women either, because I don't think women like that.


MAHER: I mean, the rhetoric may be one thing, but at the end of the day, a lot of -- I know we're all gay and we're all fluid now and we're all trans and we're nobody, but a lot of people are still the old school. You know --

JONES: The old school from 12 years ago.

MAHER: Yeah, I mean, there was a default setting. And a lot of women, I think, still want a man to be a man. Not an abusive man, but just a man.




I remember -- hey --

JONES: You're canceled. How dare you?


MAHER: Yeah. I remember when my mother was a widow the last 15 years of her life. She was always -- you know, unhappy, and she said, I just miss male energy, I need male energy, you know.

COULTER: Uh-hmm.

MAHER: So, plenty we got. Good thing we got plenty of it right here on the panel.



Van, does AOC supporting Biden mean the rest of the squad will help progressives line up behind him? Well, I mean, that's --

JONES: I just really don't know. And I think that this idea that there's a squad is a little dated. Now, the reason I say that is because, you know, when they first got there, they were -- it was like these were the new kids on the block.

MAHER: Right. JONES: They're not the new kids on the block anymore. AOC is a rising star in our party. She's almost seen by some of the younger people as more of an establishment figure, as hard as that is for people in my age group to imagine. And they're going to go their own ways. They have different -- they represent different districts.

And so, I'm glad that AOC is supporting Biden, but I don't think she's going to be able to snap her fingers and get the rest of progressives to do anything they all want to do.

MAHER: What do you think, panel, of the report that Trump told his advisers that he wants a 16-week abortion ban with an exception for rape? For him.



MAHER: We make little jokes. We make little jokes. But that -- now this -- what I --


-- gentle chiding and good kidding. It's all in good fun. But apparently, this is his way to -- I mean, because this, to me, I thought, maybe not so true, but I think still true, is going to be the Achilles heel for the Republican Party in the next election.

I mean, they caught the car, they finally did what they wanted to do for all those 50 years, they overturned Roe vs. Wade. And people don't like it, women don't like it, men don't like it. Everybody hates kids. I say it all the time.


TWENGE: It's true.

MAHER: Everybody hates kids. Nobody wants kids.

TWENGE: Speak for yourself.


MAHER: No, people don't want kids. They certainly don't want ones they don't plan for.


So, what do you think? Is this a good compromise, 16 weeks? He said, I picked you because it's --


We're -- this is only a second-hand thing. He told his advisor. But he has apparently picked it because it's even. It's four months exactly. Like, that should even come into -- (LAUGHTER)

Thank, God, we all hate him, right?


COULTER: I think we're through --


This abortion is really hurting Republicans. I don't think you can blame all Republicans for this.


I'm glad it was overturned by the Supreme Court. I think I'm a pro- life zealot. I think it was disgusting to call that a constitutional right. But it has been sent back to the states. That's all we ever wanted. And guess what, fellow pro-lifers? We're getting slaughtered. There have been seven direct-to-the-people votes. And the tiniest --

MAHER: Right.

COULTER: -- restriction on abortion loses overwhelmingly, in Montana, in Kentucky, states that Trump won.

MAHER: Kansas.

COULTER: Kansas, 20 points. And it isn't Republicans, per se, I think, pushing this. It is these pro-life zealots who just -- they don't care. I'm going to be pure. And did you see my write-up in the Catholic Insights magazine?


And, you know, you guys, you're like the corporate Republicans who will not give up on their cheap labor. We have to tell them, we can give you some things, but we can't give you everything or we're just going to lose.

MAHER: Well, what a great way to end this segment because --


-- I got five seconds. Perfect timing. Thank you, CNN. Thank you, panel. We'll see you next week.


COATES: You can watch "Real Time with Bill Maher" on Friday nights on HBO at 10 p.m., and then you can watch "Overtime" right here on CNN, Friday nights at 11.30.

Well, up next, the Friday high five. College basketball star Caitlin Clark sinking a very, very long three to break an NCAA record, and that's not the only remarkable three-pointer for women in sports. We'll explain in just a moment.





UNKNOWN (voice-over): Recovered by Gabbie Marshall. Here comes Clark. How will she go for history? There it is!



COATES: History truly in the making. And so far-out, by the way Iowa Hawkeyes superstar Caitlin Clark breaking the NCAA women's basketball all-time scoring record, putting her at 3,569 points after a long, long three-pointer from near the center court logo. But that's not all. She set a single-game record as well, shining a bright spotlight on women's sports.


CATILIN CLARK, BASKETBALL PLAYER: I'm just filled with so much gratitude and love, and the way these fans support women's basketball is so special. Yeah, I mean, you all knew I was going to shoot a logo three for the record. Come on.


COATES: Joining me now, CNN sports analyst Christine Brennan. A logo three. I like the way that sounds. What an awesome moment for women in sports.

CHRISTINE BRENNAN, CNN SPORTS ANALYST: It was magical. I was watching on T.V. as I'm sure many, many people were. And just to watch her pull it off, Laura, it happened in the first two minutes and 12 seconds. Literally, you know, hit a two-point shot, then a three and a three. And they were beauties, just absolutely exquisite. And it really, I think, you know, emphasized just how special of a player she is, the love from the Iowa crowd, the way she reacted, just pure fun.

And when sports, you know, are good, they're great, and something like that, especially for the girls and young women watching, as well as the boys --


BRENNAN: -- who are so inspired by this amazing American athlete.

COATES: A logo three. I mean, this is where she is now. What's next for her?

BRENNAN: She's got Lynette Woodard, who played before the NCAA, 81 points before she passes Lynette, one of the greats of all time, played from 77 to 81, and then Pistol Pete Maravich from LSU, played in the late 60s and up to 1970, and that's 99 points to pass Pistol Pete, and she probably will do that in about three games. So --


BRENNAN: Yes, there will be more marks that she is, and more countdowns for Caitlin Clark over the next couple of weeks.

COATES: A lot more Friday high fives. And there's also going to be a kind of battle of the sexes coming this weekend. Explain a little bit of what was going to happen.

BRENNAN: Absolutely. Steph Curry against Sabrina Ionescu, the boys against the girls, but the respect that is there that wasn't there with Billie Jean King and Bobby Riggs when he was going after her, the male chauvinist back in 1973.

This one is all respect, both of them against each other, three-point shooting contest tomorrow night at the NBA All-Star Game, and Steph Curry said that he fully believes that Ionescu might actually beat him.

He's a girl dad who has brought his daughters to watch her play, and she was growing up, and her hero was Steph Curry in the Bay Area. So, it's a wonderful match, but also just a total respect and friendship in the making.

COATES: That'll probably be better than the slam dunk competition, by the way. I'll be tuning in for that. But, you know, there's also a moment -- you know, Sunday was the Super Bowl. There was the parade that happened on Valentine's Day, and we know the tragedy that ensued there.

And ever since then, you've had many players in the NFL and beyond, different celebrities, and everyday people, who are talking about what transpired, and there has been some pretty inspiring moments since.

BRENNAN: There have, and no surprise, Kansas City, the love affair with the Chiefs, and vice versa. Those players care so much about that community, a true Midwestern love. You and I are both from the Midwest, Great Lake States. You know, that sense about just this is your team and your community.

And so, you've had Patrick Mahomes and his wife visit the hospital, the kids that are there, Travis Kelce donating money to the family, Taylor Swift donating $100,000. A real outpouring with the United Way and the Kansas City Chiefs.

I think we will see this go into next season. They'll have the kids there. There will be a wonderful outpouring, I believe, as well as a moment of silence at some point for, of course, the woman who lost her life.


So, this will be a continuing story and hopefully turn something so tragic and terrible into something a little bit more positive.

COATES: Let's hope they use that platform and the eyeballs that are on it to ensure that there's some change. Thank you so much.

BRENNAN: Thank you, Laura.

COATES: Really important. Christine Brennan, thank you so much. We'll be right back.


COATES: He's the special counsel tasked with investigating former President Donald Trump's efforts to overturn the 2020 election. And Jack Smith has a reputation for being aggressive and unafraid to tackle tough cases.


But this will be an incredibly difficult case to prosecute. Sunday night on "The Whole Story" right here on CNN, I'll speak with Tim Parlatore, a former attorney for Trump, about the uphill battle to a conviction.


COATES: What is going to be one of the toughest hurdles for Jack Smith's team to overcome?

TIMOTHY PARLATORE, FORMER TRUMP ATTORNEY: Everything in this case will turn on what Donald Trump's state of mind is and whether there was corrupt intent. All the facts, they played out on national television. The speeches have been played millions of times.

TRUMP: Here in Georgia, there were tens of thousands of illegal votes cast.

PARLATORE: So, there's not going to be that much in the way of disputed issues of fact, but it's more of an interpretation.

TRUMP: Our election was so corrupt that in the history of this country, we've never seen anything like it.

PARLATORE: Ultimately, the way that this case is going to have to be framed to a jury is the difference between trying to fraudulently overturn the will of the people versus trying to do everything in your power to ensure that the will of the people was accurately counted.


COATES (on camera): Well, don't miss that all-new episode of "The Whole Story: The United States v. Donald J. Trump," Sunday at 8 p.m., only on CNN.

Hey, thank you all for watching. Our coverage continues.