Return to Transcripts main page

Laura Coates Live

Trump Tries To Take Back Momentum From Surging Harris; Walz's Former Military Superior Speaks Out; Fani Willis Argues To Continue Prosecuting Trump; Harris Navigates Gaza Conflict On The Campaign Trail; Noah Lyles Sprints With COVID. Aired 11p-12a ET

Aired August 08, 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]

S.E. CUPP, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: He's leaving the United States if Kamala Harris wins. You know, usually it's the liberals saying that if so and so Republican --

UNKNOWN: (INAUDIBLE).

CUPP: -- they're going to leave. They never do. They never do. But she's already having an impact.

BAKARI SELLERS, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: I will buy -- I will buy Lil Pump ticket.

(LAUGHTER)

AUDIE CORNISH, CNN HOST AND CORRESPONDENT: I also like that you're into SoundCloud rappers.

SELLERS: Spirit.

CORNISH: That's a twist.

(LAUGHTER)

SELLERS: Yes.

CORNISH: I didn't expect that.

SELLERS: I'm putting them on spirit. I'm putting Lil Pump on spirit.

CORNISH: It's getting 2018, but I'm here for it.

CUPP: Did I say it right? Little Pump?

SELLERS: Lil Pump. Name a Lil Pump song. Anybody can take it.

CORNISH: And this is where we become a meme.

CUPP: It's Lil. It is Lil.

SELLERS: Bag of Nation? CORNISH: Yeah. Okay, everyone, thank you so much for being here. Thank you for watching "NewsNight." "Laura Coates Live" starts right now.

LAURA COATES, CNN HOST AND SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Well, Donald Trump tries to reclaim the spotlight, but his comparisons and his insults may have just shined a light on his own political flaws. Will any of it be enough to slow the rise of Kamala Harris?

Plus, the military mudslinging worsens as Governor Tim Walz's National Guard record is facing new scrutiny. My exclusive interview with the veteran who oversaw Walz when he retired.

And the new pitch from D.A. Fani Willis. Fulton County, Georgia's D.A. pushes to keep her case against Donald Trump alive, and she says she's the one who should prosecute him.

So before 2:00 this afternoon, you might have been asking yourself, is Trump M.I.A. from his own campaign? I mean, just one rally scheduled this week and Senator J.D. Vance on the trail more than the top of the ticket, all in time when Kamala Harris is blitzing critical swing states along with her running mate, Tim Walz.

Well, today, some kind of alarm must have gone off inside of his head, and there he was. So, he tried to do what he often tries to do, and hijack the spotlight. He gathered reporters at Mar-a-Lago for a news conference, and naturally, they obliged. They're likely waiting to hear from a political candidate, talk about, well, politics. But instead of drilling in on policy and what he would do if he were to get back in the Oval Office, he went after Harris, personally and repeatedly.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: She's not doing any news conference. You know why she's not doing it? Because she can't do a news conference. She doesn't know how to do a news conference. She's not smart enough to do a news conference.

She hasn't done an interview. She can't do an interview. She's barely competent.

Kamala, who, by the way, is worse than Biden, and she's actually not as smart. I'm not a big fan of his brain, but I think that she's actually not as smart as he is.

I'm very happy to run against her. I'm not complaining from that standpoint.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Well, for someone not complaining, that got ugly really quick. And when you piece it all together, reporting across the spectrum suggests that Harris's rise seems to have really unsettled Trump and the campaign. And he's increasingly, it seems, upset with her surging poll numbers. And hey, it's a legitimate concern for Trump, considering a new poll shows Harris four points ahead of him now. His campaign, though, is trying to project a sense of optimism, claiming that Harris's rise is really just her getting back Biden voters who had soured on the president.

Now, I'm not exactly sure why her getting more votes would be soothing to a campaign, but okay. But still, it seems to be getting under Trump's skin. Maybe the dead giveaway, the rambling about his grievances, including a familiar phrase about crowd sizes, specifically the crowd size from his January 6th speech.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: The biggest crowd I've ever spoken. I've spoken to the biggest crowds. Nobody has spoken to crowds bigger than me. If you look at Martin Luther King, when he did his speech, his great speech, and you look at ours, same real estate, same everything, same number of people. If not, we had more.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: I know. I know. Just to keep that claim in dreamland. And to be clear, there are just some things that you never quite think you'll ever have to fact check. But MLK's "I Have a Dream" speech drew an estimated quarter of a million people. January 6th Committee put Trump's crowd size at about 53,000.

Now, if you're wondering how Harris is responding to all of this, her campaign is throwing, well, some shade with a statement crossing out the words press conference and writing public meltdown instead.

Now, we did learn something very important. Trump saying that he is committed to three debates with Harris in September. Only one of those confirmed with ABC on September 10th. Now, Harris says that she is open to the others.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KAMALA HARRIS, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, U.S. PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I'm glad that he's finally agreed to a debate on September 10th. I'm looking forward to it and hope he shows up.

[23:05:00]

UNKNOWN (voice-over): Are you open to more debates?

HARRIS: I am happy to have that conversation about an additional debate or after September 10th.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: And as for Trump's claim that she can't give an interview?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) HARRIS: I've talked to my team. I want us to get an interview scheduled before the end of the month.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: With me tonight, Shelby Talcott, politics reporter for Semafor, Jason Osborne, former senior adviser to Trump and Carson 2016 campaign, and Lulu Garcia-Navarro, CNN contributor and "New York Times" journalist and podcast host.

I don't want to lose what she just said at the end, by the end of the month. Okay, this is August and the end of the month is likely, what? Labor Day weekend? You've got some states early voting on September 6th, and you've got less than 90 days from today, an actual election.

Lulu, I mean, this idea of her not having an interview before then strikes me as odd. Does it to you?

LULU GARCIA-NAVARRO, CNN CONTRIBUTOR, JOURNALIST FOR THE NEW YORK TIMES, PODCAST HOST: It does. She should be giving interviews. She should be doing press conferences. I mean, I'm a member of the media, I'm a journalist, so you will never hear come out of my voice, you know, no, you should not do this.

What the campaign, though, thinks is that this is a kind of maybe a bit of a lose for her. She doesn't want to face tough questions. She hasn't been terribly strong in one-on-one tough interviews in the past. And so right now she has momentum. And I think what they're thinking is, is this something that actually is going to benefit us? But what I would say is that if you want to be the leader of the United States, you have to sit down and answer questions. I mean, we represent the people, and people have actual legitimate questions for her that she should answer.

COATES: That's one of the things that the Trump campaign will be touting, right? That we've recently seen him at the NABJ conference. He will say that that was somehow hostile territory for him, and he went anyway. Now, he'll say that I went in front of the press and I took questions. And where is the vice president on these issues? But if that was the goal, to just be present, maybe that's enough, but it's present and substantively answering questions. How do you evaluate his performance today? Did it move the needle to actually accomplish his goal of being there and substantive?

JASON OSBORNE, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: Look, I think any time Trump gives a press conference, does it ever move the needle one way or the other? I mean, the fact of the matter is that Donald Trump is the same person that he has been since 2015.

When -- you know, when I was on Dr. Carson's campaign that he was during the entire presidency, he would get up there and do these type of press conferences. He's not going to get up there and talk policy. I don't think -- there may have been a handful of press conferences where he actually did that during his entire tenure.

What he's doing, I think, is just drawing attention to the fact that, hey, you know, I'm here talking to the press, I recognize that the press plays a valuable role, and I'm going to try and grab the spotlight, like you said earlier, and take it away from Kamala Harris.

The danger, I think, on Kamala Harris isn't so much that, you know, she isn't ready for the interviews, but the longer that she waits, the more important that first interview becomes. And if she doesn't knock it out of the park, if she doesn't exceed expectations, then I think there's some real problems there.

Additionally, I think right now she's riding this huge wave of not only grassroots support and reinvigorating her base, but she has got a lot of the media on her side and kind of helping her along. Not that I'm saying that it's wrong, but at a certain point, the media does turn on you and they're like, wait a minute, why aren't you answering these questions?

I think she's -- honestly, her campaign is afraid because she's going to have to justify switching from within 24 hours in people's minds. Her positions on fracking, her positions on defunding the police, her positions on the border, that is a real problem, and I think the longer she waits, it's going to become worse.

SHELBY TALCOTT, POLITICS REPORTER, SEMAFOR: I also think that on the flip side, the longer she waits is potentially bad for Donald Trump's campaign, and that's why we've seen him make this massive push to sort of force her into talking to the press, because they have a really limited amount of time to define the vice president, and that is made more difficult when she doesn't answer questions and when she doesn't take difficult questions.

Right now, Harris's campaign is able to define her entirely. And so, in Donald Trump's campaign's eyes, if she goes and does a really tough interview and starts taking questions, that sort of potentially helps them define her because they view her as not being as good in those circumstances.

OSBORNE: Yes, but also, I think this campaign is so much different than '16 and so much different than '20.

COATES: Why?

OSBORNE: Their ads and what they're doing on the trail, the campaign itself is so much more disciplined, and their ads are so much more effective than they were in '16 and they were in '20.

COATES: But today, I mean, there is a lot. Obviously, he's in the press today. People are talking about him. But it's not for like crazy reasons.

GARCIA-NAVARRO: But he's worse. This is what I'm saying. I mean, the thing is, you're saying he does what he has always done, which is true, but it is not 2016 anymore and it is not 2020, and he is visibly deteriorating.

[23:10:00] I mean, he seems less coherent, he seems more enraged. He told a story about being in a helicopter and there was a crash. You know, there is all these --

COATES: Talking about the Willie Brown conversation.

GARCIA-NAVARRO: The Willie Brown conversation that ended up being completely false. And the problem with this is that, you know, what I'm hearing from people is that they're tired of this. The show, in parlance that he might understand, the show has gotten old. And so, people are, I think, other than his real supporters, are tired.

And when you look at Kamala Harris and the difference, you remember with Biden, Biden used to say, don't compare me to the almighty, compare me to the alternative. Well, Trump is kind of facing that now, don't compare me to the almighty, compare me to the alternative. And people are looking at the alternative and they see someone who is vibrant, who is going out and giving a message and who is new.

COATES: Except -- I want to hear your point, except he's also comparing himself and talking a lot about Biden still. I mean, there was a moment he talked for a long time during the speech or the conversation with the press today. You know, we are nearly a month away from when Biden announced that he was not running for reelection. Harris has been the top of the ticket, I think, what? For 24 days, presumptively, at this point in time. But he was almost suggesting that and going back to him, you know, being a sympathetic character all of a sudden to Trump, that he wasn't -- didn't want to leave.

Why do you think he is focusing on Biden? Is it because there is not the opportunity to now define Harris without the interview?

TALCOTT: Well, I think it's twofold. I think one of the reasons is the campaign has been trying to tie Harris directly to Biden and Biden's policies and saying, listen, I know you have a new candidate to vote for, but she is essentially the same as Joe Biden, she is responsible for all that.

I also think, though, of course, he had an easier time with Joe Biden at the end of the day. And so, there is sort of this nostalgia of how the polls were a month ago. And now, the Donald Trump's campaign maintains that this is the Harris honeymoon and that once voters get a sense of who she is, it will sort of revert back to that Joe Biden era of polls. But certainly, it's frustrating for Donald Trump to be in this position when a month ago he was on more solid ground.

GARCIA-NAVARRO: Everything -- everything was there, you know, for them. They understood who they were running against. They understood his record. People were unhappy. The debate --

(CROSSTALK)

COATES: -- exponentially increased that.

GARCIA-NAVARRO: Exponentially increased that. And it seemed like Donald Trump was on, you know, the path to victory. And now, this has completely thrown a curveball and they are clearly stumped with what to do.

COATES: Then why do you think he's asking for the -- I want to hear your point on this. He's the one calling for a debate. Now, maybe it's reverse political psychology, right? You know, I want to do it, I want to debate you, I want to debate you, and here's dates I'm available, meet me there behind --

(CROSSTALK)

-- different points at 3:00. But I do wonder about that whole plan, this debate schedule. I mean, there are possibly three debates in the month of September. Again, early voting is sprinkled in between that. She's committed to one. She has talked about having an interview at the end of this month. Who do you think would benefit most from this debate?

OSBORNE: Well, first off, let me address the previous point. I think there are two things at play here with the Trump continuing to bring up Biden. First off, which is he wanted to defeat the guy that beat him and show that he won, right? Secondly, I think him bringing up and tying the Harris to Biden, the policies there, that's a good approach.

And also, it's speaking to the people that were upset that Biden dropped out. There's still that small group of voters on the Democratic Party that are like, wait a minute, we like Joe Biden because he was more moderate than Kamala. And so, he's speaking to them and then on air and what they're doing on the -- out in the states is actually addressing some of those issues of what -- what was bad about Biden policies. And then the next wave, I anticipate, is going to be -- it's going to be even worse under Kamala.

To your point on the debates, I think -- I think Trump -- we all know how Trump -- Trump style is going to be on the debates. I worry -- if I'm a Democrat, I worry about you've got Kamala Harris who is now -- was not prepared to run for president. I'm not saying that she's not prepared to be president. I'm just saying not prepared to run for president.

This is a snap election. The amount of intelligence that's going to have to -- not intelligence -- policy briefings that are going to have to go into preparing her for a debate is going to be pretty insane because she hasn't been part of that discussion for the most part.

So, a debate for Trump in his mind and his advisers are probably thinking we can beat her on this because she's going to slip up, she's going to revert back to what she did during the primary in 2020, and talk about things that, wait a minute, that's not where the Democrat Party is today.

TALCOTT: Well, advisors historically do not view Harris as a good debater.

COATES: He said that today.

TALCOTT: Yeah. COATES: Well, that's true or not, I mean, we'll have to wait and see. Everyone, stand by because I think there is unfolding a bit of a double standard that's going to come up.

[23:15:00]

I mean, she'll be expected to talk about policy, and he will not talk about it. She'll be held to the account for not doing so and beyond.

A lot of interesting conversations ahead. President Biden, though, praising Democratic VP pick Tim Walz tonight, saying that he is the real deal. But the Minnesota governor is facing new questions over his military service record. A veteran who was Walz's superior in the National Guard joins me to tell his story next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNKNOWN (voice-over): Some of his criticism has been about your vice- presidential pick and his leaving the National Guard after 24 years. Vance said that he deserted his own troops or his own colleagues. What's your take on that?

HARRIS: Listen, I praise anyone who has presented themselves to serve our country. And I think that we all should.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Well, presumptive Democratic nominee Vice President Kamala Harris responding to growing criticism over her running mate Governor Tim Walz's decision to retire ahead of his unit's deployment to Iraq. A new CNN KFile report shows that similar accusations were made against him in 2006 during his first run for Congress.

[23:20:02]

Now, here is actually what we know: Walz filed paperwork for his congressional bid in February of 2005. The following month, the National Guard announced a possible deployment within two years. He retired in May of 2005, although it's unclear when he submitted his retirement papers. Now, two months later, his unit received deployment orders to Iraq.

Joining me now for an exclusive interview, retired command sergeant major of the Minnesota National Guard, Doug Julin. Sergeant Major Julin says that Walz knew about the scheduled deployment to Iraq and went above him to get approval for that retirement.

Sergeant Major, thank you for joining me this evening. Everyone is really focused on the nuance of this specific issue. So, I want to pick your brain on this, because you gave an interview to "The Washington Post" where you said, and I'm going to quote, "Nobody wants to go to war. I didn't want to go, but I went. The big frustration was that he let his troops down." Now, he was entitled to retire after 20 years of service. I think he served 24. Why do you suggest that he let his troops down by exercising that choice to retire?

DOUG JULIN, FORMER COMMAND SERGEANT MAJOR, MINNESOTA NATIONAL GUARD: Well, there's a number of things out there and, hopefully, I've got time to present this whole sequence of events to you tonight, Laura. The reason being is that there's so much stuff going on out there that people don't really understand the chronological events as they occur.

And I'm going to kind of start back in the fall of 2004, is what we received, my commander and myself, of the 1st Brigade 34th Infantry Division Brigade Combat Team, what's called a notification of sourcing, which is a NOS. We were informed that we would be alerted to go to Iraq within the next upcoming year or time period out there, start preparing your team, getting your team together, and let's get the process in play.

From that going forward, we met with one of the 125 Field Artillery, introduced ourselves, talked to them, and gave them a heads up, this is what's happening, we don't know the full particulars, but we will get to it.

In approximately February of 2005, my boss, my commander, colonel, and the command team, we scheduled a meeting at Camp Ripley, Minnesota for a meeting, getting everybody together so all the battalion sergeant majors, the battalion commanders, and the staff would get to see each other and kind of start the team building event in that concept there.

At that meeting was Governor Tim Walz or Sergeant Major Tim Walz at the time. When we had the meeting and it was over with, he asked to speak with me, and we sat down and spoke one-on-one, and that's where he informed me, he says, just to let you know, I have put a bid in for Congress. I have not been selected yet, I have not been nominated yet, but I just want to let you know. He gave me a warning order, which we call a warning order out there.

COATES: Uh-hmm.

JULIN: The following month, and it was March of 2005 or it could have been April, give or take a month right in there, we had another meeting at Camp Ripley. At that time, Tim Walz was there. We had our meeting. Everybody was talking about what, when, and where, what we were going to be doing, what our mission was coming up to be, how we were going to handle it, and how we needed to build the team. Again, this whole time period, we're doing what's called building a team to go forward to Iraq.

After the meeting, Tim Walz came in and sat down with me because I had talked to him before and said -- I need to know what his answer is at that time. He came in, we sat and talked, he told me, he says, I have not been nominated, I am going forward with the battalion. I said, good, let's go. We got the team built, and we're starting to build the team out there.

A month lapsed or a little bit more lapsed, and in June, we went to Camp Ripley for our meeting again. I walked into the team, the meeting hall, and Tom Behrens (ph) was there --

COATES: Uh-hmm.

JULIN: -- and I asked Tom (ph) what he was doing there. And that's when he informed me that he had quit. The issue that came out of this was, first of all, how did Tim Walz quit without discussing with me, because I was his next level of leadership --

COATES: Excuse me, you're using the word quit.

JULIN: -- or responsibility or supervisor.

COATES: I don't want to cut you off, sir, but -- excuse me, Sergeant Major, I just want to be precise in the language. You're using the word quit. You mean that he had opted to retire still, is that right? He had not somehow gone AWOL or been dishonestly discharged in some way. He opted to retire. Okay.

JULIN: Yeah, the terminology that came to me was he quit and went from there. Yes, he opted to retire. I'm going to back up two seconds. He opted to retire, which I found out at a later date in June --

COATES: Uh-hmm.

JULIN: -- is where it went to.

[23:24:56]

When I found this out at that meeting, my focus is to build the team, let's go forward, we've got to do this.

COATES: Sure.

JULIN: The other issue was that the individual that approved this was two levels higher than myself in the enlisted corps and should have had Tim Walz come back to me and talk to me about this and discuss this as to why he was going forward now or not going forward now after he had already told me he was going forward.

COATES: I understand, Sergeant Major. Now, thinking about that timeline, I think it's important, the way you've laid it out, because it sounds as though, yes, he was entitled to retire. There was a protocol where he was supposed to go to you, you say, for that approval, but there was somebody he went to instead of you, which has caused some level of consternation.

But in the way that he has handled how he decided to retire, I do wonder what you make of the way his retirement is being characterized now by political figures and others who are saying that, somehow, he has stolen valor, number one, or that his retirement was an abandonment of his duties. How do you feel about the experience that you are describing to us right now being described as political talking points?

JULIN: The real thing is that the level that he held at that time, which could have been either a First Sergeant, but he was conditionally promoted to Command Sergeant Major, he knew the rules or the policies or the procedures and the manner of how to address issues going forward.

If this would have been an early entry, low-level ranking individual, different story. We would have understood that, okay, he didn't understand the processes and the procedures. Tim Walz knew the processes and the procedures. He went around me and above and beyond me and went -- and basically went to get somebody to back him, to get him out of there without -- it was just a backdoor process that he handled against me or against the battalion out there. The real focus was --

COATES: Is your concern that it's -- oh, go ahead. I do want to ask this question quickly, Sergeant Major, and I appreciate your time, but is your --

JULIN: Go ahead.

COATES: -- concern about the manner in which he did not speak to you or his decision to retire, which he, as we've talked about, he would have been entitled to do, which causes the most concern? Because that is the focus that so many people are wondering about, whether he has done something wrong in service or done something personally to offend you.

JULIN: No, he did something wrong in service, as I stated before. He knew the policies and procedures and how we go to leadership and address issues or discuss issues and concerns out there. Again, backing up, he had told me, no, I'm going forward, we're going to go with the battalion, and go from there. So, I'm under the believing, he told me he was going forward. I'm underneath that believing that he's going forward. He went around me, which he should have addressed it with me so he could help me with some things out there.

COATES: Sergeant Major, this was really -- excuse me, I don't want to cut you off, sir. Finish your point, please, Sergeant Major.

JULIN: He went around me. And the fact is that there's a possibility he probably would have realized. I would have probably said, no, it's too late, you're going forward, because we'd already received our notification of sourcing. And there's one other little point out there that people say, well, he hadn't been notified yet. Yes, he had been notified.

Now, there's another step out there. It is what's called stop loss. Ninety days prior to the actual deployment, we received our orders. And at that time is what's called stop loss, where if you're in a position, you're going forward irregardless, unless there's some really major or process --

COATES: Hmm, okay.

JULIN: -- that gets you out from not going on the deployment itself. So, there's that window of opportunity there. People say, well, he never knew he was going forward. Yeah, he knew he was going forward. Had he gotten his orders yet? No. At that time, he had not. COATES: Hmm.

JULIN: As far as being a command sergeant major, as soon as he retired -- I'm going to go with the term retired, which he did, and he was eligible after 20 years to get a full retirement, he was taken out of the academy at that time. Here's another thing about --

COATES: Well, Sergeant Major, I do want to hear -- I do want to hear what you have to say, Sergeant Major. I know -- I want to be sensitive of your time and your audio is beginning to break up just a little bit, but I do want to thank you because I think you've clarified a lot for people and given more information. The question now is how the voters will evaluate it. Sergeant Major Doug Julin, thank you so much.

JULIN: Yes, thank you.

COATES: I should note our show has reached out to the Harris-Walz campaign for comment and have not heard back. I'm going to continue my conversation with the panel whose here right now. We heard a lot from the sergeant major. This is a topic that people have been talking a great deal about.

[23:29:55]

Some are very offended that there is a veteran dispute happening and that it might feel as though it's dishonoring those who have served our country honorably to focus on perhaps nuance.

I wonder from your perspective, Lulu, when you look at this issue, is this the vehicle to undermine his candidacy?

GARCIA-NAVARRO: I mean, the country is getting to know Tim Walz. And part of what the Harris campaign has really pushed is his bio, this idea that he served in uniform. It's also meant to be a counterweight to his opposition and J.D. Vance, who was also in uniform, who did serve in the theater of war. And so, I do think there are questions to be answered when you hear that testimony. You know, I do think that it is credible.

I was someone who covered the Iraq war in Iraq for about a decade. I was not in service, I was a journalist, but I lived in Iraq. And so, I do know that it is very meaningful to people, the kind of service that they gave, what they did in these conflicts, how they are perceived. And so, I don't think the use of stolen valor is respectful to someone who has given service to this country, but I do think that there are questions to be answered.

COATES: Jason?

OSBORNE: I think -- look, you're talking -- this issue is going to matter a lot to the folks that are in the military or were in the military. It's -- I don't know if it plays to those that weren't. But that is a huge group of voters there. And those are voters that vote early because for whatever their duties are, they vote early. They vote probably starting September 5th. They're going to look at this and they're going to -- they're going to understand the nuance much better than someone like me who didn't serve in the military.

I had family members that did, but I don't know the language. So, I sit here and I listen to this and I'm compassionate for both sides of it, quite frankly. I really like Tim Walz, but this is an issue that that campaign and Tim specifically will have to address to the military community.

I did notice that they changed the bio on the website so it no longer says Command Sergeant Major, but you have to be incredibly careful in how you define yourself in your bio when it comes to the military and how you express what you did in the military. I mean, we've seen that a lot.

COATES: You've been on the show with Senator J.D. Vance.

TALCOTT: Yes.

COATES: I mean, this has been seized upon.

TALCOTT: We spoke about this on his plane yesterday, and he maintained that this is something in his eyes that's going to stick with veterans and even non-veterans. But they're certainly making it a really big deal and it is a complicated issue.

And the other thing that I'll note is I'm told on Harris's end that this did come up in the vetting process and that Walz himself brought it up because it has been brought up throughout his political career. So, this is not necessarily new. We're just seeing it in such a big light because he's now running as a vice president, right? So, this is something that he has dealt with before. It is not necessarily a new controversy. It is just new to the national stage.

OSBORNE: Well, he dealt with it in Minnesota, which is, you know, that's one state out of 50, right?

TALCOTT: Yes.

OSBORNE: Dealing with the national --

COATES: It's really the state.

OSBORNE: Oh, you betcha! Yeah.

COATES: I mean, but that's fine. It's one state for you, but it's the state for the rest of us. Thank you so much, all of you, for being here. It is interesting, though, there is a big elephant in the room. The last time we heard, really, military service be brought up, it was to insult Donald Trump for the bone spurs. And now, it'll be used by his running mate to talk about another veteran. Fascinating conversation. All of you, thank you so much.

Well, Fulton County's D.A., Fani Willis, she's arguing that she should be allowed to keep prosecuting Donald Trump in Georgia. She says her relationship with the former special prosecutor had absolutely no impact on the case. The question is, will an appeals court buy it? We'll talk about it next. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:35:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: Tonight, two new twists and turns in Donald Trump's legal drama. First, Fulton County D.A., Fani Willis, is arguing to stay on the Georgia election subversion case in a brand-new filing. Now, Trump wants Willis off the case, arguing that her relationship with Special Prosecutor Nathan Wade was a conflict of interest. Willis argues it had zero impact on the case.

And Special Counsel Jack Smith, he wants a delay in Trump's federal election subversion case, saying that he needs more time to parse through the impact of the Supreme Court's immunity decision.

With me now, former D.A. in DeKalb County, Georgia, Gwen Keyes. Gwen, so glad you're here. I'm going to pick your brain on this issue because in Georgia, I want to begin. Back in March, a judge ruled that Fani Willis could stay on the case if Nathan Wade resigned. He did that. But then Trump's team appealed the ruling and the state court of appeals paused the case in June. Now, D.A. Willis is now arguing that the Trump team -- quote -- "They were unable to provide evidence to even demonstrate a coherent theory of the conflict." How strong is D.A. Willis's argument to stay on this case?

GWEN KEYES, FORMER DEKALB COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY: There's many of us that think it's very strong. The burden in this particular argument was on the defendants to be able to establish some sort of conflict of interest. And the trial judge, after three days of testimony where he could assess the credibility of witnesses, decided that they had not met their burden.

COATES: This is an important point because the fact finder, the person who's receiving the evidence, oftentimes, obviously, the appellate court is not going to second guess their perception of credibility findings. The appeals court can't do those very things.

[23:40:00]

And so, the timeline, of course, extends. And it's not just with respect to Trump and Trump's team. Every other party and defendant on this case is impacted by this decision, right?

KEYES: That is absolutely true. So, the argument -- and again, the D.A. filed her motion today. There most likely will be a reply brief filed. And then there is an argument before the court of appeals in December. I think it's believed that they may come to a decision sometime by March of 2025.

COATES: And remember, she herself is on the ballot. Gwen, let me ask you as well, in turning to another major case, Special Counsel Jack Smith asking to delay Trump's federal election subversion case because of the Supreme Court's immunity ruling. So how does he move forward when the Supreme Court ruled that Trump may have some broader immunity over official acts?

KEYES: So, if you go back and look at some of the oral argument on the case, there was a back-and-forth about different types of activity that would be private activity and therefore outside of the Supreme Court's definition or umbrella of presidential immunity.

So, I'm not at all surprised that Mr. Smith is taking the time to really parse through and find those areas where he and his team believe that they have enough evidence to go forward because they would be considered private acts, contrary to the Supreme Court's ruling.

COATES: So, in terms of a timeline there, I mean, there's going to be a kind of a mini-trial of sorts for the judge to decide what might be official or unofficial. What timeline are we working with if Jack Smith himself says to delay it?

KEYES: Well, again, I think all of us are watching the calendar, watching the clock. I don't think any of us thought that many of these cases would be delayed as long as they have been. But I think the most important thing is the sufficiency of the evidence and ensuring that justice is done, that it's done with the integrity that is required of cases of this import so that all citizens can have confidence in our criminal justice system.

COATES: An important point, the election can't be the calendar. Justice has to be the calendar. Gwen Keyes, thank you so much.

KEYES: Thanks for having me.

COATES: Ahead, Vice President Kamala Harris tries to navigate the Israel-Gaza war on the campaign trail. But will she be able to unite even a divided Democratic Party?

Plus, sprinting with COVID and still grabbing a bronze medal. Yes, that happened. The health-defying Olympic run from Noah Lyles, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:45:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: The Harris campaign playing cleanup today over an issue that has starkly divided the Democratic Party, the Israel-Gaza war, and the push for a potential arms embargo against Israel by critics of Netanyahu's military campaign.

It all stems from a conversation Harris had with the founders of the uncommitted national movement on a photo line in Detroit. Now, to remind you, this is a group that mobilized thousands of people to withhold their votes from Biden in protest of the administration's backing of Israel.

After talking with Harris, the group then released a statement, and it suggested that Harris was open to meeting to discuss an arms embargo. Now, the Harris campaign flatly denying that claim today, writing, "VP has been clear; she will always ensure Israel is able to defend itself against Iran and Iran-backed terrorist groups. She does not support an arms embargo on Israel. She will continue to work to protect civilians in Gaza and to uphold international humanitarian law."

COATES: Let's break this all down with New York Democratic Congressman Gregory Meeks, who's also a ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. Congressman, thank you for joining me tonight. That was a bit of a reminder for everyone that there's no such thing as a small talk or casual moment on a photo line if you're running for president, is there?

REP. GREGORY MEEKS (D-NY): Well, that's correct. Thanks for having me, Laura, first. And that's absolutely correct. But the vice president was absolutely correct in her statements. We will make sure the United States is going to stand by Israel, make sure that it has what it needs to defend itself against Iran and Hezbollah and the Houthis and other of Iran's individuals who aid and abet them.

That is also, though, she has been clear that she needs to -- and Prime Minister Netanyahu, we need to have a ceasefire and to be able to reduce the tensions that are taking place in the Middle East.

So, we're going to make sure. You know, that's part of my job as the ranking member. Also, to make sure that Israel has what it needs to protect itself. But we also want to make sure that the ceasefire and the hostages are returned home.

COATES: Excuse me, I hate to interrupt you. I'm sorry about that, congressman. But I hear what you're saying. And, of course, we've read the statement from the campaign. Do you think that she herself needs to come out to state specifically where she stands on this issue through an interview or otherwise, given that this has now been presented and teed up, frankly, for critics of hers to try to undermine her position?

MEEKS: Well, I think her position hasn't changed. We know her position. She said that she has been very stern and -- on Prime Minister Netanyahu, that she wants a ceasefire.

[23:50:00]

She has also said that she is going to make sure that Israel has everything it needs to defend itself against Iran and the Houthis and Hezbollah. So, I see she's clear. She has answered those questions. I mean, you could ask them again, but I think you get the same answer. And you can do both. You can try to make sure. We want the hostages home that are being held in Gaza. But we also want to make sure that those who don't believe Israel has the right to exist. Israel will have what it needs to defend itself against those hostilities.

COATES: Speaking of such hostilities, congressman, there is serious concern that Iran may retaliate against Israel following the assassination of a Hamas leader in Tehran. Now, Israel has never accepted or denied responsibility, but what role would the U.S. military play, if any, in Israel's ability to defend itself? MEEKS: Well, I can tell you that the administration right now have at least three people on the ground, not including the secretary of state, who's also doing so, he would be the fourth, trying to do everything to de-escalate the situation in the Middle East so that we don't have an all-out war because that would be something that would change and be devastating for everyone in the Middle East.

COATES: Well, from the Middle East to Venezuela, we are, as a member of the American electorate, looking at other elections as having a potential impact on what's happening here at home.

And in Venezuela, there are widespread allegations that strongman Nicolas Maduro stole a recent presidential election. And the country's opposition party leader is speculating that if Maduro is able to cling to power, there could be an influx of millions of migrants to the United States.

So, when you look at this issue, obviously immigration top of mind, certainly with association with Vice President Kamala Harris. How do you think a Harris presidency would deal with a surge like that?

MEEKS: Well, first thing that we need to do, and I think that this is what President Biden is doing, quite frankly, Laura, I've been on the phone myself talking to various parties and neighboring countries like Colombia, Mexico and Brazil, that is really important, here's again where President Biden and multilateralism becomes really important so that we can have a peaceful transitional of power. And as Secretary Blinken has indicated in his statement, from all indications, Mr. Gonzalez has the majority of the votes.

COATES: If that's all true and Maduro still clings to power and there's an influx of migrants coming from Venezuela that would obviously exponentially increase the concern at the border, how is the Harris administration, if she were to be elected president, do you have confidence that they could effectively deal with that influx?

MEEKS: Yes. That's why you work with the other countries also. You work with Colombia, you work with Mexico, you work with Brazil, you work with Peru, because all of the countries will be affected by that scenario.

And, you know, in fact, we were able to pass the bill that Congress needs to step up to do because a lot of this responsibility is the responsibility of Congress.

The comprehensive immigration reform that we thought we had a deal on that Donald Trump blocked, that is the way that you can increase your border security. You change the law with regards to giving up yourself for amnesty. All of that is included therein. That is not something that a president can do by him or herself.

Congress has to step up with an agreement and do our job and not play politics with it as Donald Trump and some of the Republicans have been trying to do.

COATES: Congressman, you can imagine immigration top of mind all across this country and the globe in many instances. Congressman Gregory Meeks, we will be continuing to watch what's happening in Venezuela. Thank you for joining us today.

MEEKS: Thank you for having me.

COATES: Next, he tested positive for COVID, and then he ran the 200- meter race in the Olympics, anyway. And Noah Lyles, he came away with a medal. That story in just a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:55:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: It was a blockbuster day on the track in Paris. Noah Lyles lined up for the 200-meter final, hoping to become the first American man to win both the 100 and 200-meter in the Olympics in 40 years. And he fell just short, finishing third.

But immediately after the race, it was clear that something was wrong. Lyles laid down on his back. He was struggling to catch his breath. He called for water and was eventually taken off the track in a wheelchair.

Well, later, we learned why. Lyles tested positive for COVID on Tuesday morning. Now, in these Olympic Games, athletes are not required to test or report COVID cases. And despite his illness, Lyles said he never considered dropping out.

Well, tomorrow, he was set to anchor the 4x100 relay, but he is now saying that he believes his Olympics are over, writing, "I hope everyone enjoyed the show."

Now, we do have a great thing to look forward to tomorrow, though. Tomorrow, the youngest American runner to ever compete in the Olympics makes his big debut. Quincy Wilson will be running the first leg of the 4x400 relay. And in case you need even more of a reason to tune in, just listen to what he told me just last month.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

QUINCY WILSON, OLYMPIC ATHLETE: I'm running for my bigger brothers. Everybody is older than me, so they're my bigger brothers. And I'm running for my why.

[00:00:00]

I want to get around to the track for the Team USA to bring Team USA back the gold.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Well, good luck, Quincy. We'll be cheering you on. Hey, thank you all for watching. "Anderson Cooper 360" is next.