Return to Transcripts main page

Laura Coates Live

VP Harris To Interview Possible Running Mate; Defense Secretary Austin Scraps Plea Deal With 9/11 Mastermind; Jobs Report Puts Spotlight On VP Harris' Posture On Economy; Fact-Checking Dispute Stalls Trump's Interview With Black Journalists; Controversy In Women's Boxing In The Olympics. Aired 11p-12a ET

Aired August 02, 2024 - 23:00   ET

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

[23:00:00]

UNKNOWN: And last night I gave a shout out to my daughter tonight. My son is also starting -- started football camp this yesterday, or two days ago or three days ago, in college. So, you know, thank you for that. But I do want to talk about Texas and Oklahoma entering the SEC. And it is a travesty, much like the NIL, that we have Texas and Oklahoma thinking that they are part of the southern football.

KATE BOULDAN, CNN HOST: It's an Arkansas Razorback, I understand.

UNKNOWN: Thank you.

BOULDAN: Yes. Thank you. Thank you for all being here on a Friday night in the summer. We appreciate it. Thank you for watching "NewsNight: State of the Race." "Laura Coates Live" starts right now.

LAURA COATES, CNN HOST: Well, the sprint for Harris' running mate nears the finish line. We'll take you inside what is shaping up to be the most dramatic Veep stakes ceremony ever.

And the major news out of the Pentagon. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin withdrawing a controversial plea deal for three alleged 9-11 terrorists. The abrupt reversal tonight on "Laura Codes Live."

All right, so Kamala Harris is about to have one of the most interesting weekends in political history. And, by the way, a long line of interesting weekends in political history recently. Hear me out on this. She became the official Democratic nominee for president today, as you know. You know the DNC convention is two weeks away. But she's got to pick her running mate, and she's got to do it pretty quickly. I mean, as in, like, this weekend.

It is arguably the most important decision any candidate, let alone she, can make, and has to make, and soon. And no one really wants to rush it, right? I mean, you think about Trump taking, what, 20 months to actually announce who his running mate would be? But, hey, it's the year 2024, and nothing is normal.

So instead of taking weeks to think about that decision, Harris instead has to go and do it the equivalent of a kind of political speed dating, doesn't she, to find the perfect match. Now, we're hearing from sources that she has six face-to-face interviews that she has got to get done between now and the big unveiling on Tuesday in Philadelphia.

Now, you've got the party's rising star, the battleground governor of Pennsylvania, Josh Shapiro, the swing state astronaut, Senator Mark Kelly of Arizona, the Midwest-Minnesota-Neistat (ph) Governor Tim Walz, and her one-time political ex-rival-turned-Biden cabinet member, Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg.

Now, the Democratic governor of a deep state, he's also a red state, he's also there, Kentucky's Andy Beshear, who seems to really want it. And then you've got the billionaire, Governor J.B. Pritzker of Illinois. Now, look, no one knows who'll get the kind of political rose, but her choice will be critical. So what are you going to look for? Well, there is the electoral map to consider, of course.

Maybe a swing state governor can help her win one of those swing states. There's also the vibe. She has to be able to trust that person and feel they can be her partner in all of this and could one day, possibly, as the line of succession is there, could serve as president. And of course, the first rule of picking a vice presidential nominee, do no harm -- J.D. Vance.

Now, the buzz around Josh Shapiro, it's unavoidable. And it's why the press today was really trying to get anything out of him. I mean, anything out of him.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNKNOWN: Do you expect Kamala Harris to ask you to run with her considering all your success here, sir?

JOSH SHAPIRO, GOVERNOR OF PENNSYLVANIA: I think that's a question for the vice president.

UNKNOWN: Governor Shapiro, are you planning on meeting with Vice President Harris this weekend?

SHAPIRO: I think any process questions like that should go directly to the Harris campaign.

UNKNOWN: Governor, is that the last time you spoke to Vice President Harris was last Sunday?

SHAPIRO: Yes.

UNKNOWN: Is that still true?

SHAPIRO: It is.

UNKNOWN: If you're not going to the Hamptons this weekend, what are you doing instead?

(LAUGHTER)

SHAPIRO: You all think I'm going to tell you what I'm doing? (END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: And go see Deadpool, obviously, like everyone else goes to see Deadpool over the weekend. I'm just saying, right? I want to bring a national politics reporter for Axios, Sophia Cai, Democratic strategist Jonathan Kott, and Republican strategist John Feehery. I'm glad that everyone is here with me right now. It is kind of a speed dating political weekend of all weekends. Tell me, I mean, you've got names like Senator Kelly. You've got Governor Walz. You've got Governor Shapiro. Who do you think Republicans are going to fear the most about a potential running mate for Harris?

JOHN FEEHERY, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: Well, probably your ex-boss, Joe Manchin, would be the one I fear the most. He'd be great, but Josh --

COATES: Wait, is he on the list at all?

FEEHERY: He is not, no.

COATES: Oh, okay. I was going to say, breaking news, people. Okay, wow. Go ahead.

FEEHERY: I mean, I do think that Josh Shapiro is interesting because he's from the swing state, and he's a very effective governor, and he's got pretty high popularity ratings there. And I think he's pretty good on his feet.

[23:05:01]

The problem for the Harris campaign is all of these selections are pretty untested on the national stage. So I really couldn't tell you which one's the best or which one's the worst. And we're going to find out, because we found on J.D. Vance, you know, all these people have to go through the ringer, and none of them had the chance to go through a ringer. And this is pretty quick, compact timeline. And we didn't even know Kamala Harris was going to be the presidential candidate until a couple weeks ago.

So this is, as you said at the beginning, all very fast, all very hard to figure out. And so I don't love to give advice to Democrats, but I do think that Josh Shapiro, because he represents Pennsylvania and it's a swing state, would be probably the one we would fear the most out of this group.

COATES: Jonathan, when you look at it and thinking about it, I mean, that phrase, rising star, can be a really great thing for somebody trying to enter the political stage. But then you know that some people really enjoy a falling star as much as they do a rising one. And the small window to vet, to figure out how they could be an asset, is going to be a problem in this instance in some respects. What do you see as the most additive partner for Harris?

JONATHAN KOTT, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: I think the three I would think add the most value to her are Governor Beshear, Governor Shapiro, and Governor Walz.

COATES: I hear a theme. Governors.

KOTT: Yes, because what you have is three moderate governors who have managed to get things done in a bipartisan way, have talked to Republicans, have won over independents. That's what they're going to help her with. So I think it's definitely going to be one of those three. And I think what you're going to see is a quick rollout. You're going to get a bump from it because they're going to be very popular. All three of them have been sort of out there auditioning for it and all doing very well.

I think Governor Walz has come out of nowhere because he's so well in articulating the Democratic message in a way that everybody can respond to. People in northern Minnesota who are pretty conservative are responding just as well as the people in Minneapolis who are pretty liberal. So I think he's coming out of nowhere to sort of be maybe the front of the pack. But she's going to get the bump from that. She's going to get a bump from the convention.

And then you're going to go into Labor Day, and it's going to be a tough race. But I expect it to be pretty even. I think the one thing we'll know is there is no chance it's going to be as bad of a rollout as J.D. Vance. So, we're one up there.

COATES: Oh, man. Everyone is now -- every person in the campaign is crossing their fingers and their toes at that very statement as we speak. Sophia, you know, we've seen and heard a lot more from Vice President Kamala Harris in recent weeks than we really have over the course of the administration. But she's not giving interviews per se. What do you make of that decision? And does she need to incorporate that into her campaigning at this point?

SOPHIA CAI, NATIONAL POLITICS REPORTER, AXIOS: I think absolutely. I mean, the reason is, like, they're taking this sort of thing out of the box, and they don't want to break it. And they've done it quite well for two weeks. And a part of that is preserving the risk factor and minimizing that. When you put her in front of, you know, an entire gaggle of reporters, that in some ways can be more of a risk than they want.

You know, another test for her is if she goes on foreign trips. You know, we know previously that there have been moments where, you know, she may have made a mistake and they're trying to minimize that. And I think she's done quite well. Her campaign has told me that her speech in Georgia on Tuesday was one of the best speeches she's given that they've seen in her political career. And that's the type of momentum that they want to keep next week, the week after that, the Democratic Convention.

You know, and soon after that will be the first mail-in ballots will be mailed out to voters. So, you know, there's really no time to waste. And they most certainly can't, you know, to John's point, afford a bad VP rollout.

COATES: And yet who is going to be that person who's going to be with her on Tuesday, who will be on that official ticket, and what will it mean? I mean, stand by, because someone joining me right now knows at least one of the governors very well, Governor Shapiro. I'm talking about the former Philadelphia mayor, Michael Nutter. Mayor, thank you for joining me tonight.

I'm sure you can imagine everyone is talking about this shortlist, this Veep stake. They were trying to get any information out of the governor, Shapiro, as they could, unsuccessfully. You think that Shapiro would be the best running mate choice for Harris. Why?

MICHAEL NUTTER, FORMER PHILADELPHIA MAYOR: Well, first and foremost, this is clearly Vice President Harris's decision. I tend not to give elected officials advice on public TV, but certainly --

COATES: How about cable TV? How about that one? Give it on cable TV, Mayor, because that's where it really hits home.

NUTTER: Governor Shapiro would be an excellent choice. Vice President Harris will figure this out. You know, it's a bit of a political marriage, if you will, when you have a presidential candidate and a vice presidential candidate, the chemistry, the symmetry, how they work together, how they get along. But certainly Governor Shapiro has been on our scene for a good while.

[23:10:00]

A state representative, the county commissioner chair, attorney general, and now governor. And so he's an executive. He is experienced. They seem, every time I've seen them together, they actually seem to like each other. They enjoy each other's company. But he's a serious guy, and he will do the job. He would serve well. And as some of your guests have mentioned, certainly the opportunity, the ability, to be not only well liked and respected in Pennsylvania, a critical state of the many battleground states, I'm sure, is a serious consideration, in addition to doing the job.

Remember, President Biden picked Kamala Harris to be his vice president, because if you need somebody to do the job, you have to be prepared for that. That's a responsible thing to do as president. And so Vice President Harris now has to make that same critical decision in terms of someone who's a running mate, not just to win an election, but to govern the United States of America and take us forward.

COATES: And, of course, to be one's partner while governing decisions are made. I mean, we infamously heard from the former Vice President Biden about wanting to be the last person in the room when critical decisions had to be made. You described the popularity, perhaps, in Pennsylvania, but there are progressives, there are pro-Palestinian groups who are sounding the alarm on Shapiro's stance on the Israel- Hamas war.

But his take isn't really qualitatively all that different from other possible VP contenders. Why do you think he in particular is being singled out?

NUTTER: Well, at least from what I've read, I mean, you know, unfortunately, there appears to be some focus on his faith. And, you know, I thought in the '60s with President John Kennedy, we had gotten a little past the religion test to be in elected office, whether local, state, and certainly federal. Let's stay focused on the job.

I don't think anyone's been more outspoken in opposition to the activities of the government of Israel as it relates to the war in Israel and Gaza. So, you know, I don't know all the details of why people are opposed. You know, I've been in office -- has been in office for a while. None of us are going to get 100 percent. But there are many, many things going on in this country and in this world.

And the beauty of America, of course, is that people can express themselves. But I think when you look at the totality of the job, the ability to get things done, to be a partner with Vice President Harris, certainly Governor Josh Shapiro has to be right at the top of that list. She will make that decision. That is her right and responsibility. We need to stay focused as Democrats, moderate liberal Republicans and independents.

We need to stay focused on the one thing that will bring all of us together, which is keeping Donald Trump out of the White House and nowhere near 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

COATES: Well, we'll see if that is a shared opinion among the electorate and the states that will ultimately decide it. But, you know, I have to ask you, the announcement is coming on Tuesday, and it's going to happen in Philadelphia now.

NUTTER: Yeah.

COATES: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania governor. Does this mean Shapiro? I mean, I can't imagine having the grace if you're the governor of Pennsylvania and somebody else comes to your major city and it's not you next to him. What do you think?

NUTTER: Well, first and foremost, no matter what Vice President Harris decides, I know Josh Shapiro well enough to know he is a good, strong, loyal Democrat. He wants to win for this country, first and foremost. Should he be the person selected? I'm sure he'll be thrilled out of his mind about that.

But, you know, when you start lining up the logistics here, an announcement on Tuesday, it's in Philly, Pennsylvania, critical state, and then on to a number of other locales. You know, a lot of us have our fingers crossed and we're hopeful.

COATES: Well, we will see what ultimately prevails. We've seen a lot of the Olympics, a lot of people on lower podiums who are smiling in spite of it all. Michael Nutter, thank you so much, Mayor. Back with the panel now at this point in time. I do wonder about this, this truncated schedule, the fact that normally people are leaning in all the more by Labor Day, but they already have the ticket already set.

You've got a Trump advance ticket that is trying to figure out how to pivot towards this new top of ticket. When you're looking at this, how much is the Trump campaign, you think, going to be focused and strategizing according to the VP pick as opposed to the top of ticket?

FEEHERY: Almost none. I mean, I think that if it is Shapiro, he's good on a couple of issues that Republicans like. He's good on education with the school choice. Republicans love that. He's been good on Israel. Republicans love that. So they're not going to focus on him. They're going to focus on the top of the ticket.

And I think Trump said last week, and he's absolutely right, in most presidential elections, I think almost all of them, the voters vote on who's at the top of the ticket, not who's the vice president.

[23:15:03]

And vice presidential -- I remember when Dan Quayle was the choice and everyone thought, what an idiot he is. And it had made no difference. He still won. H.W. Bush won in 1988. That's a long time ago. So I'm not sure if they're going to. And I also don't think almost inevitably who they pick is going to be more moderate than Harris. And so they're going to focus on Harris because that's what they want to do.

And, of course, I know there's been some focus on Vance, but if the Democrats want to be successful, they're going to have to get their just focus completely on Trump.

COATES: But that point speaks to the idea that it could be a balancing and it could actually -- if there is common ground that Republicans could see with, say, her second in command, that could actually go to the benefit of the Harris ticket.

KOTT: Yeah. The ticket is going to be balanced and centrist in the middle because that's where you win national elections. You already seeing her changing her positions on a few issues that she had in the 2020 primary. She knows that her base is actually the 50 percent in the middle of the country that got Joe Biden to win the primary and win the election. So that's why I do think you're going to have a centrist candidate and that will help balance her out.

And it will also make it harder for the Republicans to attack her as a San Francisco liberal, because if you are standing next to Andy Beshear with a gun and a Diet Mountain Dew in his hand, it's hard to paint him as some, like, radical liberal who is out of touch with America.

COATES: That's a hell of a visual just now. Are you hearing the same things, Sophia, real quick?

CAI: Yeah, but I think that's also why I think this VP decision is so key for her, because I think there's added pressures on her because of who she is. And, you know, I think for the same reason, day one after Biden announced he was not going to run again, I heard from Republicans, including Trump Republicans, that they were concerned about Shapiro, because, you know, his -- the Republican running in the Senate in that state was very much putting him together with Shapiro. I mean, that tells you everything you need to know.

COATES: Well, we have a couple of days and the decision will be made. We'll see what happens. Thank you all.

Ahead, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin now revoking a plea deal with the alleged mastermind of 9-11. Why he made that sending reversal and what happens next in just a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:21:15]

COATES: Breaking tonight, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin has revoked a plea deal made with the alleged 9-11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, commonly known as KSM, and two other co-conspirators. That agreement would have taken the death penalty off the table for KSM and sentenced him to prison in exchange for pleading guilty to all charges against him.

But in a quiet Friday night release, Secretary Austin declaring this in a memo directly to the senior defense official in charge of that agreement, quote, "Responsibility for such a decision should rest with me." Joining me now, former Associate Counsel to President George W. Bush on national security, Jamil Jaffer.

First of all, why was this plea deal made in the first instance? This is all pre-trial. There has been no trial. The death penalty off the table. What would have gone into making that decision in the first instance?

JAMIL JAFFER, FORMER ASSOCIATE WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL TO GEORGE W. BUSH: Well, you know, this conversation about whether you might do a plea deal with the 9-11 defendants has been going on for a while. For a number of years, a number of the prosecutors involved in the case have said it's going to be hard to get the death penalty, it's going to be hard to convict them at all.

We've been tied up in pre-trial hearings for years, months and months and months. And there's this issue of evidence coming in, right? We know that enhanced interrogation techniques were used with some of the detainees, including KSM, who was subject to the water board. There's a question about how much of that evidence can come in at trial given the military commission procedures and rules.

COATES: Because coercion would be thought of, obviously.

JAFFER: That's the theory, yeah, exactly.

COATES: Well, the idea that there would be a plea deal offered, secured, and then Austin would be able to revoke it, why would he have the authority, unlike a judge, a prosecutor, in the normal course of business?

JAFFER: Well, these are military commissions, and so under the Military Commissions Act, the person who convenes the commissions is the Secretary of Defense. Now, he typically delegates that authority to, in this case, a one-star brigadier general, retired, Susan Escalier, right? She had the authority to bring the charges, convene the commissions, and make plea agreements.

She made a plea agreement two days ago. The Defense Department announced it. And then two days later, the Secretary of Defense says, I'm taking away your authority to make plea agreements, and I'm withdrawing from these three deals.

COATES: How is it possible that he would have two days afterwards revoked it as opposed to beforehand said no?

JAFFER: That is, I think, the million-dollar question. Did he not know that this was going on? I mean, they put out a press release, right? He's the Secretary of Defense. Did they find out about it after the fact? It's not clear.

It appears, you know, that the prosecutors were telling the judge in the military commissions, hey, we're looking to make a deal. This is going on. This conversation's been happening for a while, back in 2022. There was a potential deal on the table. Decision was made not to do that, right? So it's really unclear why this is happening now.

COATES: In a normal prosecution, you would have to alert the victims or the family of the victims about a plea deal you're making. It wouldn't necessarily change the course of that plea, but at least inform them. And they definitely have opinions on this. We were saying that the families, in some respect, and survivors as well, and families of those who were killed in those attacks, some called it a gut punch of sorts. Could that contribute to the pressure to not have this plea deal on the table?

JAFFER: Well, certainly there's been a lot of pressure to force these guys to go to trial, allow all the testimony to come out at trial, allow the witnesses to speak at trial. Now, this plea deal, the theory was that there would be a long sentencing hearing where there would be victim statements. They'd have to sort of hear all the victims testify.

That being said, there are those victims and families who say, we want a trial. We want the death penalty on the table. There are other victims' families, to be fair, that have said, We want this thing over. We want it done with. We want whatever the deal is. Let's get it done, and let's just move on with our life. Being able to say what we want to say about our family members.

COATES: It's been 23 years. Why hasn't there been a trial to this point?

JAFFER: Well, you know, we've had a number of cases go all the way up to the Supreme Court.

[23:25:00]

Supreme Court's forced Congress to go back and redo the Military Commission's legislation a couple of times. And then, ultimately, there's been these issues in these pretrial hearings. We've had prosecutors leave. We've had multiple convening authorities leave. So there's been a lot of turnovers, a lot of back and forth. And at the end of the day, when these charges were finally brought, we're just tied up in pretrial proceedings.

Can you bring in this testimony, right? Can we listen in when their lawyers are talking to the defendants, right? Because, of course, you don't want these defendants getting information out of Gitmo, right? At the same time, do they have a right to talk to their lawyers in private? So all these issues, every single issue that can be litigated is being litigated. And so it's slowing everything down to a crawl.

Prosecutors saying, let's get a deal, let's get it off the table. Some 9-11 families, a lot of elected officials are saying, we want to see a trial.

COATES: Well, Lloyd Austin does not want this plea, and that's where it stands today. How much it will set back the proceedings, we'll have to wait and see. Jamil Jaffer, thank you so much.

JAFFER: Thanks, Laura.

COATES: Well, not everything is coming up roses for Vice President Kamala Harris. We'll tell you about the one bump in the road appearing today for her next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:30:18]

COATES: Well, the Harris campaign's momentum has been nothing short of meteoric. She's raking in the money in the polls while they're trending in her favor. But today, something happened that could provide some unsteady grounds in the months to come. After weeks of hearing the Biden administration speak about the strength of the economy, a crack emerged in the form of the July jobs report. The unemployment rate ticked up to 4.3 percent.

My panel is back with me now on this point. First of all, Jami (ph), look at this. I mean, there is this wave of excitement. The Kamala momentum, people are calling it. You've got $300-plus million that's been fundraised. But the Bidenomics issue has not gone away and voters having a disconnect between how he wants them to feel and how they do feel about it. What does the Harris campaign have to do to course- correct that?

KOTT: So I think she has to run on the record because she was part of it. But let's also point out prices are coming down; wages are going up. This was one bad month in a series of, like, 11 great months that shocked even most economists. So she has to run on that. But she has to give a vision for what the next four years of her administration will look like, and you're seeing it.

Look, she's the first candidate who's talked about, like, rent prices, something that affects millions of people around the country. And she's talking about how she's actually going to lower prices for everyday Americans, what she's going to do on prescription drugs, stuff like that. And you'll contrast that with Donald Trump's policies, which seem to be just another round of massive tax cuts for very rich people that does little to help anybody else, on top of the massive tax cuts that he passed in 2017 that only ballooned the deficit.

So I think she's going to have to lay out her vision and separate a little bit from Joe Biden. But it'll be a contrast of what the Trump years versus what the Biden-Harris years looked like.

COATES: How does Trump -- excuse me, but how does Trump seize on that moment?

FEEHERY: Well, he talks about how good his economy was and how bad the Biden economy is. And I think that the fact is that economists might say it's all great, but the American people haven't felt that. They felt a crunch. They felt the inflation. They felt the interest rates going up. They can't buy houses. They can't buy food. They're struggling, and they've been struggling for quite a while.

And when the president, the current president wants to talk about Bidenomics, she has to make a choice. Does she run on Bidenomics, as you pointed out, or does she come up with something new?

COATES: Kamalanomics?

FEEHERY: And it's so hard because she hasn't run a real campaign, any campaign. So she's got to define that campaign right now. And Trump has to say is, hey, I got my record. People still feel nostalgia for the Trump years. The Trump economy is very -- has a very positive impact. People have a positive view of the Trump economy, and they don't have a positive view of the Biden economy, and that's going to hurt Kamala Harris.

COATES: Well, this most recent campaign she's developing obviously has been, like, what, a little less than two weeks now that she's even been named the presumptive nominee at this point in time. But speaking of Donald Trump, at the NABJ, in a moment that was overshadowed, I think, a lot by all the things that took place during that long interview session, he talked about the economy, the grocery bag economics, talking about bacon and the price of ham sandwiches and gas prices and beyond.

You had some reporting, though, about what took place before he actually got onstage. What happened?

CAI: So Trump onstage mentioned the audio issues.

COATES: Yeah.

CAI: And we at Axios spoke to the NABJ president, and he told us that, yes, there were some audio issues. Those were resolved. But in fact, the issue that prevented Trump from going onstage on time was in fact the fact-checking issue. And, you know, we were told that this issue was so prolonged that the NABJ president was in the process of drafting a statement to tell the 2,000 people who had assembled to listen to Trump speak why Trump could not go onstage. And in that moment, 75 minutes after when he was supposed to go onstage, Trump just walked on.

COATES: What was the fact-checking issue you're referencing?

CAI: You know, so Trump did not want to be fact-checked live. And essentially his aides told the NABJ president that, oh, no, we don't want this fact-checking situation, and, you know, otherwise he's not going to go onstage. And so that is the reality of what happened backstage.

And I think it shows us just how tricky it may be for Trump to sort of engage with black journalists and also potentially with the larger black community and black voters.

COATES: Very fascinating to think about how that was described versus what the behind-the-scenes may have brought as well. Thank you all so much. I'm glad you were here with me.

[23:35:00]

Next, an Olympic boxing match that lasted just 46 seconds and fueled the culture war over gender in women's sports, not to mention online abuse against the winner. But it's not what her detractors are making it seem to be at all. We'll explain what's going on next.

(COMMERCIAL SPORTS)

COATES: A controversy over gender in women's sports is now unfolding in the Olympic spotlight. It was sparked by this moment. In just 46 seconds, Algerian women's boxer Imane Khelif beat her Italian opponent Angela Carini in an Olympic boxing match. Now, Carini says she stopped because of the intense pain in her nose after the opening punches. She burst into tears after the fight and did not shake Khelif's hand.

[23:40:00]

That led to a flood of online abuse against Khelif, including from Elon Musk, J.K. Rowling, Jake Paul, and former President Trump, who posted this to Truth Social, "I will keep men out of women's sports." But as it turns out, the reality is more complicated. The International Olympic Committee says Khelif was born female, has lived her entire life as a female, boxed as a female, and has a female passport.

In Algeria, being gay or transgender is illegal. So, what's going on? Many of the detractors are pointing to a 2023 decision to disqualify her from the Boxing World Championship. Now, the host, the International Boxing Association, IBA, said both Khelif and boxer Lin Yu-ting, who represents Taiwan, failed to meet the criteria to participate in the women's competition.

The IBA cited undisclosed tests that said the two women had competitive advantages over the other female competitors. Now, that organization that said that has since been suspended and discredited by the IOC for corruption and financial-related issues. The IOC spokesperson says Lin and Khelif's participation is, quote, "not a transgender issue."

And the Italian boxer, Angela Carini, she has since apologized for her treatment of Khalif after their match. I want to bring in Jemele Hill. She's a contributing writer for "The Atlantic" and the host of "Jemele Hill's Unbothered" podcast.

Jemele, so good to see you. I have been seeing this headline and following it for days now, thinking about all that's been taking place and all the speculation. People jump the gun on this before knowing the full story. Why were they so quick to come out against her?

JEMELE HILL, CONTRIBUTING WRITER, THE ATLANTIC: It's really simple. The reality is that people in this country, certain people, certain groups of people, the conservative right being at the top of the list, are weaponizing trans women and the trans community and using that as part of their ongoing culture wars. And this young lady, unfortunately, was the victim of what is a gross American mentality.

It's not adopted by all mentality, but we're talking about that there is certainly a huge issue with transphobia in our country. And if people understood for two minutes what the dynamics of this was, it never should have got out of hand in this regard. And I feel so sorry for this young woman who has been subjected to these attacks when all it boiled down to was that the woman that she competed against realized after getting hit she couldn't compete.

And rather than accept that gracefully as a competitor, she chose to weaponize this further by crying and by saying it was unjust. There was nothing unjust about it. I mean, to be frank, you just got your butt beat and that's the end of what happened. And seeing how all this ugliness and hatred and bigotry ballooned as a result, I think there's a lot of people that really need to take a hard look at themselves about what is it that would drive so many people to denigrate and try to destroy this woman.

I mean, you mentioned the layers to this, and I'm glad you laid this out for the people that are watching. The other part of this, too, this same young lady competed in the 2020 Olympics --

COATES: Yes.

HILL: -- okay, in Tokyo. And she was not a gold medalist. And if you look at her record, she has been beaten by other women before. In fact, I think it's something like only 10 percent of the fights that she's fought in she's actually knocked someone out. So if she had this competitive advantage that people initially claimed, she'd be a lot more successful, and she wouldn't get beat at the rate that she did.

And so it just -- I felt really awful for members of the trans community who are watching this unfold, who know that there are so many people out there who are willing to just use their worst possible instincts and worst possible degradation against that community. It's shown the light on something that is just a huge problem in our society.

COATES: And to be clear, this is not a transgender woman. This is a woman who is being used --

HILL: No. This is a --

COATES: -- as a poster child to try to convey some other culture war. And the fact that she is being used in that way is something that is just so unbelievable to so many people. And you know what? We've been here before, in a way. I mean, when I heard about this, it brought to mind the South African runner Caster Semenya. And obviously these are distinct scenarios, but the idea of

competitive advantage, if you've just read her guest essay in the "New York Times" from last year, it is unbelievably compelling, and it's reignited a lot of debate about fairness in women's sports. And you have to wonder, why is it such a polarizing issue? Why is it so hard to believe that someone could be an exceptional athlete and a woman?

[23:45:00]

HILL: Well, it's not -- we're going to peel back some layers. Let's peel them all back. Because there are some commonalities here, and it's the commonalities that women of color face who are athletes. Always constantly having their physique, their appearance compared to men. We saw this with Serena Williams throughout her career, because she's strong, she's powerful. Unlike other tennis players that she played against or were part of her era, she had one of the most powerful serves, if not the most, that you had seen in tennis.

And constantly she had to face caricatures and stereotypes that she was a man. So these are very specific attacks that are often directed at women of color, especially Black women. And then beyond all that, I heard a whole lot of people who were ready to be loud and wrong about this, chime in, using women against other women, saying, we need to protect our daughters. We need to protect women's sports.

Meanwhile, the Dutch, they have a volleyball player who was a convicted rapist, convicted of raping a 12-year-old who was playing at the Olympics. I didn't see any of those same people with those protect our daughters, protect women and girls in sports. And often when it comes to issues of equity, when we're talking about financial investment, when we're talking about giving female athletes and women's sports appropriate media coverage, where's that protect women's sports crowd then?

Where's Donald Trump's tweets about protecting women and protecting women's sports when we're talking about how women are under-invested in when it comes to sports? The things that are damaging women's sports and are damaging participation are lack of investment, lack of resources, and lack of media coverage. Those are the things that hurt women's sports. It is not the presence of trans women. And using trans women as a weapon in what is a broader issue about women's sports is frankly disgusting.

COATES: And of course, using her as a boogeyman to convey all of those things. And you know, when you said what you said, if you want to protect women and daughters, she is a woman, she is somebody's daughter, and she is a woman in sports. It conjures up that old statement, ain't I a woman? Jemele Hill, thank you so much.

HILL: Thank you.

COATES: Well, look, you have heard the pundits talk all week about Trump, Harris, and J.D. Vance. But what do the voters actually think? You know what, I'm going to check back in with some folks from my Michigan focus group next. But first, this week's CNN Hero has lived a nightmare that is familiar to many Americans. Her daughter died from a fentanyl overdose at 26. And now she is turning that pain into healing for women who are struggling with addiction in her own hometown of Johnson, Vermont.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DAWN TATRO, MOTHER OF JENNA RAE TATRO: Our Johnson always had a lot of life and community, and I was seeing that just go away. This whole street was one of the hardest-hit places for gangs moving in and drug dealing. I don't think a lot of people realize it's here, it's embedded in your community. But with Jenna being so involved in it, I really learned so much about the places.

We did everything that we were supposed to do as a family, but it doesn't matter who you are because that drug basically owns you. So many of the struggles that Jenna went through, I realized there were gaps. So we started building Jenna's Promise, helping women that are struggling with addiction.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:53:17]

COATES: All eyes on who Harris will pick for her VP with those interviews happening this weekend. But eyes can't be torn from the VP Donald Trump already picked with Senator J.D. Vance, making PR mess after PR mess for Trump. Take a look at the proportion of Americans who are viewing him unfavorably now since the end of the RNC. An eight-point jump. This is unfavourability. That's what the polls say. But what do Trump supporters think about all of this? Well, here's what some told CNN.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNKNOWN: He could be a little hardcore with some of his policy.

UNKNOWN: He's got the fire that Trump has.

UNKNOWN: Maybe two businessmen in the White House would be a good pick.

UNKNOWN: I think he's a hot ass. I'm a military guy. He's another man that's going to have to prove himself.

UNKNOWN: He's nice and young, so we'll have him for a long time.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: I want to hear some more about this. Let's bring in some voters from the battleground state of Michigan, who I spoke with in the immediate aftermath of the defining debate between Biden and Trump. A lot has happened since. Joining me now, Janine Martinez. She says she plans to vote for Trump. Felicia Johnson, who plans to vote for Harris. And Jenna Alamat says she isn't fully decided yet, but is leaning towards voting for Harris.

So good to see all of you ladies again. Thank you for joining. Let me begin with you, Janine. What do you make of Senator J.D. Vance's comments about people without children?

JANINE MARTINEZ, MICHIGAN VOTER PLANNING TO VOTE FOR TRUMP: Well, I believe sometimes we all take stuff out of context. I'd like them to hear the whole story, not just bits and pieces of it. And I would say we all have, sometimes we say stuff in the past we might regret, and we've all changed and learned from it. So I have a feeling he might have said some stuff out of context, but I'm feeling he's learned from it, and it's 2024, and I think he's ready to do the job and support Trump.

[23:55:06]

COATES: Jenna, let me bring you into this conversation as well. Do you agree with Janine, or do you see things differently?

JENNA ALAMAT, UNDECIDED MICHIGAN VOTER: I see things very differently. When you have somebody who is a leader, I agree with, you know, Janine's sentiment that people should have the right to express their opinions. However, my disagreeance lies in the fact that when you are leading a country, there are implications to what you say.

So when you make statements that essentially put these labels onto people who choose not to have a family might be, you know, targeting people who have a chosen family, regardless of the situation, it's pushing people into a further divide, and for most parts, you don't want a president who's going to further divide us. You want somebody who's going to unify us.

So when you have somebody who seems like he doesn't really respect a majority of, you know, women unless they have kids, it's really hard to stand behind that and hear somebody make women only out to be mothers.

COATES: Felicia, I want to hear from you on this. I wonder what this all tells you about the Trump-Vance ticket, given these statements that have been made.

FELICIA JOHNSON, MICHIGN VOTER PLANNING TO VOTE FOR HARRIS: We're going back to 1950 with the Beaver-Cleaver ideology. They want us to go back where women earned an MRS degree, so had to get married, stay at home, have babies, and that's it. So we are the category that we are not human beings that can think for ourselves, and that's disastrous because J.D. Vance is an attorney. He's a congressperson. He's political. So he knew what he was saying when he said it. So I'm not giving him a free pass on anything.

COATES: Janine, let me bring you back into this point. You know, Democrats, they are preparing, obviously, to nominate a new candidate, Kamala Harris. The last time we spoke, she was not on the top of the ticket. Now she is that presumptive nominee. You plan to vote for Trump, you say. Do you think that Harris poses a bigger challenge to Donald Trump than President Biden?

MARTINEZ: I would say yes.

COATES: In what way? MARTINEZ: I would say I was concerned with Biden's age and being

coherent and being able to lead this country. So I believe with now Harris in that, I mean, obviously, she's more coherent, but what concerns me is I don't think she's ready for the job yet. This is one of the most important jobs in this country is to lead us, so I need somebody who's got a backbone and ability to stand up against other world leaders, and I think Trump has more of that experience than she does.

COATES: I'm curious as to what do you think you would need to hear from her to solidify that opinion or change your mind?

MARTINEZ: I would say just time and experience. I haven't really seen much in the last four years from her, been more on the coat skins of Biden, so I haven't seen her come to be more of a leadership role, and I'm not really interested in a Trump and a president that's more interested in joining TikTok and being hip-hop. That's not something I need as my presidential leader.

That shouldn't be the number one priority. I need you to lead the country and be able to talk to other political leaders when it comes to real debate and concerning issues that are revolving around the United States.

COATES: Let me bring you in, Felicia, as several and many candidates, of course, are on social media, are using it as a vehicle to get out to the people they're trying to reach. To Janine's earlier point, you plan to vote for Harris, you say, and Democrats seem very energized. Did it concern you in any way, either the way in which she has embraced either social media or conversations about enveloping voters who are looking to that source or the way that Democrats have really coalesced around her without having her name on the top of a ticket at the primaries? What do you say to all that?

JOHNSON: So, to my point of view, you have to meet people where they are. The Gen Zs, that's where they are. The millennials, that's where they are. So, I'm a baby boomer. We were a paper, so you have to meet people where they are. So, I have no problem or issue with it. And the main thing is get people to vote. That's the issue at the polls in November.

COATES: Really quick, I want to show each of you, because the last time we were all together, I asked you all to raise your hands about who you would intend to vote for. But now I want to ask you to raise your hands if you are looking forward to a debate between Harris and Trump.

MARTINEZ: Absolutely.

COATES: I see shadows. I think everyone's hands went up right there. And I got to tell you, last time the hands were a little bit slower when I asked you, so there must be some new energy in all of this. Thank you all. Janine, Felicia, Jenna, great to see you all and meet you each where you are. Thank you so much.

Thank you for watching. "Anderson Cooper 360" is next.